What is the criteria for the establishment of a Biblical doctrine?

[Ain't Zwinglian]

Example of the Incarnation.

The Doctrine of the Incarnation is presupposed on every page of the NT and binding on all Christians for believe. The Incarnation is established by the two virgin birth narratives (Mt 1 and Lk 1). Using the guidance from the Scriptures themselves, this suggests two passages of Scripture commenting on the same teaching establishes a particular doctrine. Two passages from two different authors, or two passages from the same author in two different books, or two passages from the same book, yet in two different contexts.

This criteria and usage of the incarnation example will certainly upset the Premillennialist apple cart, as 1,000 year reign of Christ is only recorded once (Rev.20) and in within apocalyptic writing genre. Basing a doctrine on the basis of one passage of Scripture seems to go against the Bible's own criteria.

 

[sandman]

Biblically the significance of two or twice establishes something. But depending on how you are defining the premillennialist would determine if what you state (recorded only once) is correct.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

Biblically the significance of two or twice establishes something. But depending on how you are defining the premillennialist would determine if what you state (recorded only once) is correct.

Correct. I should clarify. A "literal" 1,000 year reign of Christ. If we use the old hermeneutical rule Scriptura interpretur Scriptura we find no parallel passage of a "literal 1,000 years to compare it to

 

[The Liturgist]

Example of the Incarnation.

The Doctrine of the Incarnation is presupposed on every page of the NT and binding on all Christians for believe. The Incarnation is established by the two virgin birth narratives (Mt 1 and Lk 1). Using the guidance from the Scriptures themselves, this suggests two passages of Scripture commenting on the same teaching establishes a particular doctrine. Two passages from two different authors, or two passages from the same author in two different books, or two passages from the same book, yet in two different contexts.

This criteria and usage of the incarnation example will certainly upset the Premillennialist apple cart, as 1,000 year reign of Christ is only recorded once (Rev.20) and in within apocalyptic writing genre. Basing a doctrine on the basis of one passage of Scripture seems to go against the Bible's own criteria.

I would argue the Patristic interpretations, especially the prevailing interpretation, are also critical, because as the 4th century Nicene Trinitarian apologist known as “the Western Athanasius) St. Hilary of Poitiers argued, “Scripture is in the interpretation and not the reading,” based on an argument from the 2nd century St. Irenaeus of Lyons, considered by Eastern Orthodox theologian Fr. John Behr to be the first Christian theologian in the modern sense of the term.

The Church Fathers, such as Origen, St. Athanasius, St. Basil, St. Gregory the Theologian, St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. Ambrose of Milan, St. John Chrysostom, St. Vincent of Lerins, St. Augustine of Hippo, St. John Cassian, St. Cyril of Alexandria, St. Severus, St. Gregory Diologos, and St. John of Damascus, the Scholastics, chiefly Thomas Aquinas, but also St. Theresa of Avila, and St. Odo of Cluny, among several others, and Magisterial Reformers like Martin Luther, John Calvin, Thomas Cranmer, Philip Melancthon, St. Jan Hus and St. Jerome of Prague (founders of the independent Czech church a remnant of which survives as the Moravian Church, who are recognized as martyrs and are thus venerated as saints by the Orthodox Church of the Czech Lands and Slovakia), and later Jacob Arminius, Archbishop Laud, and John Wesley, and more recently the likes of Karl Barth, Protopresbyter Michael Pomazansky, NT Wright, Metropolitan Kallistos Ware, John MacArthur, Hank Haanegraaf, and Pope Benedict XVI, are all well versed in sacred scripture, and their works reflect rigorous Scriptural exegesis producing a hermeneutic of consistency in their respective works.

 

[The Liturgist]

Correct. I should clarify. A "literal" 1,000 year reign of Christ. If we use the old hermeneutical rule Scriptura interpretur Scriptura we find no parallel passage of a "literal 1,000 years to compare it to

The Nicene Creed was modified in 381 to exclude this belief, known as Chiliasm, because it was associated with a heretical group called the Apollinarians. This is what the Christological confession “whose kingdom shall have no end” actually means.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

The Nicene Creed was modified in 381 to exclude this belief, known as Chiliasm, because it was associated with a heretical group called the Apollinarians. This is what the Christological confession “whose kingdom shall have no end” actually means.

Interesting. Geez if you could track that quote down on Chiliasm it would be helpful. Please post it. In the Reformation era, the phrase "Jewish Opinions" referred chiliasm.

 

[The Liturgist]

Interesting. Geez if you could track that quote down on Chiliasm it would be helpful. Please post it. In the Reformation era, the phrase "Jewish Opinions" referred chiliasm.

The Inconsistency of Chiliasm

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

The Inconsistency of Chiliasm

Thanks. It never occurred to me to explore how the Orthodox respond to Chiliasm. I have always used Western sources. This looks like a fun read.

Modern Chiliasm is a post-reformation belief. Interesting belief on this subjects tracks perfectly with credobaptists. The official canonical position of paedo mega theologies, excludes belief in Chiliasm.

 

[The Liturgist]

Thanks. It never occurred to me to explore how the Orthodox respond to Chiliasm. I have always used Western sources. This looks like a fun read.

Modern Chiliasm is a post-reformation belief. Interesting belief on this subjects tracks perfectly with credobaptists. The official canonical position of paedo mega theologies, excludes belief in Chiliasm.

The Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox and Assyrian Church of the East as well as the various sui juris Eastern Catholic Churches in communion with Rime definitely reject it.

I also really resent the Left Behind books and video game. The former have the anti-Christ be a Romanian, which I think is racist, named Nicolae Carpathia (not even a real Romanian last name), which is an insult to Romanian Christians, who were among the most severely persecuted behind the Iron Curtain (with clergy monitored, blackmailed and sometimes tortured or confined in mental hospitals by the dreaded Securitate).

The villian was obviously named after Communist dictator Nicolae Ceaușescu, however, his name is an insult to St. Nicholas of Myra, a bishop who was tortured under Emperor Dioceltian (forensic analysis of his skeleton indicates his nose was broken at least three times). He is famous for his generosity, for an incident where he gave purses filled with gold coins from the church treasury secretly in the night to three girls at risk of becoming prostitutes due to the poverty of their family, thus ensuring they had funds for a dowry, and for being deposed for slapping Arius at the Council of Nicaea (the ancient canon law forbids clergy from striking anyone). He was subsequently forgiven and reinstated, and together with the great Cappadocian scholar of divinity St. Basil the Great of Caesarea, who used diocesan funds to build hospitals, hospices and accommodation for travelers, among other humanitarian funds, St. Nicholas is one of the two main inspirations for Santa Claus.

The video game is particularly offensive, because it ties in with the Tribulation Force novels aimed at young adults (read: ages 11-17), and in it, the player must preach to people aligned with the antichrist to convert them, but if that fails the player has a gun with which he can shoot them.

 

[BobRyan]

Example of the Incarnation.

The Doctrine of the Incarnation is presupposed on every page of the NT and binding on all Christians for believe. The Incarnation is established by the two virgin birth narratives (Mt 1 and Lk 1). Using the guidance from the Scriptures themselves, this suggests two passages of Scripture commenting on the same teaching establishes a particular doctrine. Two passages from two different authors, or two passages from the same author in two different books, or two passages from the same book, yet in two different contexts.

This criteria and usage of the incarnation example will certainly upset the Premillennialist apple cart, as 1,000 year reign of Christ is only recorded once (Rev.20) and in within apocalyptic writing genre. Basing a doctrine on the basis of one passage of Scripture seems to go against the Bible's own criteria.

1. The Bible does not have a text saying "if God does not say it twice - it is not true" - as we both might agree.

2. The command "do not take God's name in vain" is not quoted from at all in the NT - that does not make it "false teaching"

3. As you seem to admit - "the pre-mill teaching in Rev 19 and 20 is pretty obvious" - one has to declare that part of the Word of God to be "false doctrine" to avoid it.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

1. The Bible does not have a text saying "if God does not say it twice - it is not true" - as we both might agree.

2. The command "do not take God's name in vain" is not quoted from at all in the NT - that does not make it "false teaching"

3. As you seem to admit - "the pre-mill teaching in Rev 19 and 20 is pretty obvious" - one has to declare that part of the Word of God to be "false doctrine" to avoid it.

So, what is YOUR criteria for the establishment of a Biblical doctrine?

Precision in your answer would be appreciated. Appealing to an objective standard would also help. None of this subjective "I think" stuff.

Be honest. If you don't know, then state you don't know.

 

[GreekOrthodox]

Thanks. It never occurred to me to explore how the Orthodox respond to Chiliasm. I have always used Western sources. This looks like a fun read.

Modern Chiliasm is a post-reformation belief. Interesting belief on this subjects tracks perfectly with credobaptists. The official canonical position of paedo mega theologies, excludes belief in Chiliasm.

Chiliasm is one reason why it took so long for the Eastern churches to include Revelation in the Biblical canon. In fact, other than a few exceptions, Revelation is never read publicly in church as part of the lectionary in the EO. The first commentary from an eastern theologian was written in the 6th century. So while there is iconography portraying some events in Revelation, the book itself does not have the weight that it does in the west.

 

[BobRyan]

So, what is YOUR criteria for the establishment of a Biblical doctrine?

Precision in your answer would be appreciated. Appealing to an objective standard would also help. None of this subjective "I think" stuff.

Be honest. If you don't know, then state you don't know.

1. Believe God's Word
2. Apply the standard rules of exegesis
3. Take the obvious meaning of the text unless a symbol is employed
4. Let the Bible interpret itself - define its own symbol meanings
5. Be consistent.
6. All timelines in the bible are internally contiguous - no slicing and dicing and scattering in the middle of a timeline

=========================

So for example - the 490 years of Dan 9 is the only timeline showing that Christ would be anointed for ministry in 27 A.D. And yet Dan 9 is still "true"

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

In fact, other than a few exceptions, Revelation is never read publicly in church as part of the lectionary in the EO.

The Western Church did somewhat hold to Eusebius distinction between the homologoumena & antilogemna (which Revelation was apart of). Some early Calvinists but especially the Lutherans today still hold to his distinction. The difference is Revelation is apart of the lectionary readings and can be read and preached on in the Divine Service.

The Book of Revelation stature rises to importance here in America in the early 1800's with John Nelson Darby dispensational & premillennial theories combined with the publication of the Scofield Reference Bible.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

1. Believe God's Word
2. Apply the standard rules of exegesis
3. Take the obvious meaning of the text unless a symbol is employed
4. Let the Bible interpret itself - define its own symbol meanings
5. Be consistent.
6. All timelines in the bible are internally contiguous - no slicing and dicing and scattering in the middle of a timeline

You are giving me hermenuetical rules for interpreting Scripture which may be subjective person to person. This is not what I am requesting.

What is the "Objective" criteria in establishing any doctrine of Scripture which is presupposed on every page of the NT and binding on all Christians to believe.

I gave you an OBJECTIVE criteria for consideration----two passages of Scripture teaching the same thing establishes doctrine. You disagree.

So what is your OBJECTIVE criteria for deciding what is doctrine that is binding on Christains. Be precise with your answer.

 

[BobRyan]

You are giving me hermenuetical rules for interpreting Scripture which may be subjective person to person. This is not what I am requesting.

I am giving objective criteria in establishing any doctrine of scripture.
Which accepts 2 Tim 3:16 "ALL scripture" is inspired by God AND to be used for doctrine" where as Paul points out Timothy was reading that scripture "from childhood".

2 Tim 3:5 and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus

Luke 24 Jesus preached "from ALL of scripture"
27 Then beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures.


I show in my response a good example of one scripture establishing a fact for doctrine and I make the obvious point that there is no such statement in scripture of the form "if God does not say it twice then it must not be true" proving it with the 27 A.D. start of Christ's ministry as predicted in Dan 9 and as referenced in the NT by Jesus Himself in Mark 1 "14 Now after John was taken into custody, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of God, 15 and saying, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel.”

The Dan 9 timeline pointing to the start date for the Messiah's ministry.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

there is no such statement in scripture of the form "if God does not say it twice then it must not be true"

You are demanding a level of precision which the Bible does not give. The Scripture does give the example of the Incarnation which is based upon TWO PASSAGES teaching the same thing. This establishes doctrine. Two or more passages of Scripture teaching the same thing. We follow the guidance and examples from Scripture.

Premillennialism (the "literal" 1,000 reign of Christ) is only mention in ONE passage, with NO parallel passages to support it. Therefore, it is not doctrinally binding on any Christian to believe. This is the criteria I am setting forth. SCRIPTURE GIVES US THIS GUIDANCE.

Instead of trying to refute my "two passage" thesis which is derived from Scripture, what is your OBJECTIVE criteria for determining what is binding and not binding for a Christian to believe.

 

[GreekOrthodox]

The Western Church did somewhat hold to Eusebius distinction between the homologoumena & antilogemna (which Revelation was apart of). Some early Calvinists but especially the Lutherans today still hold to his distinction. The difference is Revelation is apart of the lectionary readings and can be read and preached on in the Divine Service.

The Book of Revelation stature rises to importance here in America in the early 1800's with John Nelson Darby dispensational & premillennial theories combined with the publication of the Scofield Reference Bible.

Oddly, we don't use that peculiar distinction for the NT books. So for a Lutheran (I'm former LCMS), if a particular doctrine only comes from a book listed as antilogemna, it isnt official.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

Oddly, we don't use that peculiar distinction for the NT books. So for a Lutheran (I'm former LCMS), if a particular doctrine only comes from a book listed as antilogemna, it isnt official.

Establishment of doctrine solely from the antilogemna should be avoided. I agree. I don't know of any off the top of my head.

One question I have for the Orthodox, as we are on the topic.

Is the Apocrypha read or preached on in the Divine service?

 

[The Liturgist]

Establishment of doctrine solely from the antilogemna should be avoided. I agree. I don't know of any off the top of my head.

One question I have for the Orthodox, as we are on the topic.

Is the Apocrypha read or preached on in the Divine service?

The Anglicans read and preach it in the Divine Office, and the “Honor a physician” pericope from Ecclesiasticus (The Wisdom of Sirach) is read during Holy Communion on the Feast of St. Luke in the Episcopal Church USA as the Old Testament lesson.

In the Eastern Orthodox church however, the Old Testament, including the books some call Apocrypha, is read only at Vespers or during the Vesperal first part of the synaxis of a Vesperal Divine Liturgy, for example, the 14 proof texts of the resurrection read at the Vesperal Divine Liturgy on Holy Saturday (which is very similar to the Paschal Vigil where 12 lessons were read, before Pope Pius XII ruined it in 1955).