Is there an objective standard by which to distinguish sound doctrine from false?

[Bruce Woodford]

The Westminster Confession Section VI on the Holy Scriptures seems to recognise two kinds of doctrines: (1) Those which are expressly set forth in scripture and (2) Those which by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from the scriptures. Does not the latter actually undermine and totally destroy the authority of scripture as our only and final authority? If one theological camp can deduce doctrines by good and necessary consequence, what is to prevent any other camp from doing the very same thing? If both can claim that their "deduced doctrines" were arrived at by "GNC", have we not then lost any hope of an objective standard by which to distinguish sound doctrines from false ones?

I have contacted dozens of Bible Schools and Seminaries across North America and asked their presidents if their school recognises and teaches their students an objective standard by which to distinguish between sound and false doctrines. NOT ONE has claimed that they recognise any objective standard for doing so!!! If that is the case, then they have no way of knowing whether ANYTHING which they believe is actually sound doctrine!!!

But I would suggest that there is only one kind of sound doctrine and that all such are expressly stated in words of scripture. I have applied 3 tests of scripture to all the doctrines which I have embraced and these three tests compelled me to reject many doctrines I'd embraced before! They are as follows:
(1) Ps.12:6 Can my doctrine be stated in the pure words of the Lord?
(2) Prov.30:5,6 Can my doctrine be stated in pure words of the Lord apart from any additional words? and
(3) I Cor.2:13 Can my doctrine be stated in words which the Holy Spirit teaches apart from any words which man's wisdom teaches?

What are your comments on the above?

 

[Sanoy]

I'm not really familiar with all this but #2 sounds like logical deduction. So different deductions would be distinguished by other forms of logic, like abduction. 'Appeal to the best explanation'. This sort of thing seems especially necessary in law code like Leviticus and Deuteronomy.

 

[Greg J.]

There cannot be such a thing as an objective standard for Truth that humans can access. Jesus is the Truth and he is more complex than any group of humans can understand. The closest thing to an objective standard that we can access is the Bible. Creating an objective standard would require knowing God better than the Bible reveals, because, as is, the Bible is a subjective standard. It is not given to us as the absolute definition of God; it is given to us to lead us to God himself and a relationship with him and God cannot be quantified. We don't even have the ability to quantify a human. If we could, we could program a computer to behave exactly like a human.

If that wasn't bad enough (for your purposes), there isn't even anyone who can tell you which standard available right now is most accurate. You will get different answers from different people without any way to compare the validity of each.

You cannot have what you want, but you can have something better, and that is the Truth that God wants to reveal to you in your lifetime. To receive that become a disciple of Jesus in your thoughts, words, actions, love, and devotion.

But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. (John 16:13, 1984 NIV)

To the Jews who had believed him, Jesus said, “If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” (John 8:31-32, 1984 NIV)

You aren't going to find a college with the one Truth, but you can ask God which college he wants you to go to. If you have been prayerful and obedient, you can count on him helping you. (And he might help you even if you haven't been.)

 

[dreadnought]

The Westminster Confession Section VI on the Holy Scriptures seems to recognise two kinds of doctrines: (1) Those which are expressly set forth in scripture and (2) Those which by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from the scriptures. Does not the latter actually undermine and totally destroy the authority of scripture as our only and final authority? If one theological camp can deduce doctrines by good and necessary consequence, what is to prevent any other camp from doing the very same thing? If both can claim that their "deduced doctrines" were arrived at by "GNC", have we not then lost any hope of an objective standard by which to distinguish sound doctrines from false ones?

I have contacted dozens of Bible Schools and Seminaries across North America and asked their presidents if their school recognises and teaches their students an objective standard by which to distinguish between sound and false doctrines. NOT ONE has claimed that they recognise any objective standard for doing so!!! If that is the case, then they have no way of knowing whether ANYTHING which they believe is actually sound doctrine!!!

But I would suggest that there is only one kind of sound doctrine and that all such are expressly stated in words of scripture. I have applied 3 tests of scripture to all the doctrines which I have embraced and these three tests compelled me to reject many doctrines I'd embraced before! They are as follows:
(1) Ps.12:6 Can my doctrine be stated in the pure words of the Lord?
(2) Prov.30:5,6 Can my doctrine be stated in pure words of the Lord apart from any additional words? and
(3) I Cor.2:13 Can my doctrine be stated in words which the Holy Spirit teaches apart from any words which man's wisdom teaches?

What are your comments on the above?

The Lord's commandments give us some black and white.

 

[Bruce Woodford]

I'm not really familiar with all this but #2 sounds like logical deduction. So different deductions would be distinguished by other forms of logic, like abduction. 'Appeal to the best explanation'. This sort of thing seems especially necessary in law code like Leviticus and Deuteronomy.

So, if one teacher or denomination teaches infant baptism (never stated in words of scripture) and another teaches that believers are to be baptized (as scripture states) which doctrine is sound and which is false? Can both be deduced by GNC and thus be valid and sound???

 

[Bruce Woodford]

There cannot be such a thing as an objective standard for Truth that humans can access. Jesus is the Truth and he is more complex than any group of humans can understand. The closest thing to an objective standard that we can access is the Bible. ....

Greg J, I entirely agree! In fact I would say the Bible is the standard! If the Bible doesn't say it, it simply is not sound doctrine! Would you agree?

 

[Bruce Woodford]

The Lord's commandments give us some black and white.

Dreadnought, does not all the scripture give us the "black and white" we need? If scripture says it, it's sound doctrine but if scripture doesn't say it, it simply isn't! Many doctrines commonly accepted can only be stated in words which man's wisdom have taught, but cannot be stated in words of scripture. Such are always false doctrines!

 

[dreadnought]

Dreadnought, does not all the scripture give us the "black and white" we need? If scripture says it, it's sound doctrine but if scripture doesn't say it, it simply isn't! Many doctrines commonly accepted can only be stated in words which man's wisdom have taught, but cannot be stated in words of scripture. Such are always false doctrines!

It is good to read the entire Bible, because it sheds light on many things. However, when it comes to the core of our beliefs, I believe you will find the commandments most helpful.

 

[Bruce Woodford]

It is good to read the entire Bible, because it sheds light on many things. However, when it comes to the core of our beliefs, I believe you will find the commandments most helpful.

So when scripture commands that believers are to be baptised and never says a word about infants being baptized, would you not agree that the teaching of infant baptism (just one of many examples) is false doctrine?

 

[Sanoy]

So, if one teacher or denomination teaches infant baptism (never stated in words of scripture) and another teaches that believers are to be baptized (as scripture states) which doctrine is sound and which is false? Can both be deduced by GNC and thus be valid and sound???

I imagine #1 takes precedence over #2 when available.

 

[bcbsr]

The Westminster Confession Section VI on the Holy Scriptures seems to recognise two kinds of doctrines: (1) Those which are expressly set forth in scripture and (2) Those which by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from the scriptures. Does not the latter actually undermine and totally destroy the authority of scripture as our only and final authority? If one theological camp can deduce doctrines by good and necessary consequence, what is to prevent any other camp from doing the very same thing? If both can claim that their "deduced doctrines" were arrived at by "GNC", have we not then lost any hope of an objective standard by which to distinguish sound doctrines from false ones?

I have contacted dozens of Bible Schools and Seminaries across North America and asked their presidents if their school recognises and teaches their students an objective standard by which to distinguish between sound and false doctrines. NOT ONE has claimed that they recognise any objective standard for doing so!!! If that is the case, then they have no way of knowing whether ANYTHING which they believe is actually sound doctrine!!!

But I would suggest that there is only one kind of sound doctrine and that all such are expressly stated in words of scripture. I have applied 3 tests of scripture to all the doctrines which I have embraced and these three tests compelled me to reject many doctrines I'd embraced before! They are as follows:
(1) Ps.12:6 Can my doctrine be stated in the pure words of the Lord?
(2) Prov.30:5,6 Can my doctrine be stated in pure words of the Lord apart from any additional words? and
(3) I Cor.2:13 Can my doctrine be stated in words which the Holy Spirit teaches apart from any words which man's wisdom teaches?

What are your comments on the above?

Virtually every denomination claims that its doctrine is based on scripture. We all have the words of scripture. The problem is how to interpret scripture.

You take, for example, that which Jesus said through the apostle Paul, like in Romans 4. "to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness." Many Christians claim that "work" refers to a subset of commands of the law of Moses. Others claim that this is referring just to some "initial justification", but "final justification" is based upon one's works. To me it's referring to the idea that trying to work for your salvation disqualifies you from being saved, which is by faith alone. And there are many other issue of interpretation of the Word of God on this subject.

That's just an example. Likewise you can quote Jesus in the gospels and come up with ten different interpretations of what he means.

Sound doctrine not only has to include scripture, but also the interpretation must be based upon sound hermeneutical principles, such as context, consistency with the rest of scripture, consistency with the character of God, perspicuity and such.

 

[dreadnought]

So when scripture commands that believers are to be baptised and never says a word about infants being baptized, would you not agree that the teaching of infant baptism (just one of many examples) is false doctrine?

The fact that is says nothing about infant baptism proves nothing, does it? Do you realize why people choose to baptize infants? It's because they believe you need to be baptized to go to heaven, and they don't want their children to go to hell if they die before they are old enough to get baptized.

 

[Bruce Woodford]

I imagine #1 takes precedence over #2.

I entirely agree! But should #2 doctrines EVER be considered to be sound doctrines at all? What about "purgatory", "the perpetual virginity of Mary", "infant baptism", "substitutionary atonement", "pre-tribulation coming of the Lord", "Christians go to heaven when they die" etc??? BTW every one whom the Bible tells us went to heaven, went there while their body was alive and well!!!! None of the above doctrines are Bible doctrines! So should any of them be considered as "sound doctrines"???

 

[Bruce Woodford]

Virtually every denomination claims that its doctrine is based on scripture. We all have the words of scripture. The problem is how to interpret scripture..

"Based on scripture" by deductions by good and necessary consequence is a far cry from STATED IN WORDS OF SCRIPTURE! It is the latter to which I appeal.

 

[Sanoy]

I entirely agree! But should #2 doctrines EVER be considered to be sound doctrines at all? What about "purgatory", "the perpetual virginity of Mary", "infant baptism", "substitutionary atonement", "pre-tribulation coming of the Lord", "Christians go to heaven when they die" etc??? BTW every one whom the Bible tells us went to heaven, went there while their body was alive and well!!!! None of the above doctrines are Bible doctrines! So should any of them be considered as "sound doctrines"???

I can't speak to the confession, but I, personally, would consider conclusions from the text to be tentative and on a lower rung from what is explicitly being stated or intended by the Author.

 

[Bruce Woodford]

Do you realize why people choose to baptize infants? It's because they believe you need to be baptized to go to heaven, and they don't want their children to go to hell if they die before they are old enough to get baptized.

Yes, and this is my point... Is not their belief based on FALSE DOCTRINE which is never stated in scripture? False beliefs always lead to false practices and behaviours!

 

[dreadnought]

Yes, and this is my point... Is not their belief based on FALSE DOCTRINE which is never stated in scripture? False beliefs always lead to false practices and behaviours!

Isn't there something in the Bible that suggests you need to get baptized?

 

[Bruce Woodford]

I can't speak to the confession, but I, personally, would consider conclusions from the text to be tentative and on a lower rung from what is explicitly being stated or intended by the Author.

My question is...should "conclusions deduced from the text" every be taken and embraced as sound doctrine? Or should we always go back to what scripture actually says and take that as our sound doctrine?

 

[Bruce Woodford]

Isn't there something in the Bible that suggests you need to get baptized?

Certainly is! Matthew 28:18-20; Acts 10:47.48 for starters.

 

[dreadnought]

Certainly is! Matthew 28:18-20; Acts 10:47.48 for starters.

So aren't there two sides to that issue? But I wouldn't consider it a core issue. The Lord is just. He isn't trying to hang us on technicalities. He loves us.