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

[Clare73]

Understanding the soul, is basic Christian anthropology.

Check out some of J. P. Moreland's work on Youtube. He seems to be one of the leading experts on the soul living today.

Well I know what it is, but it doesn't seem to be the subject of the NT as the spiritual is.

 

[BobRyan]

Personal one on one with Baptists---not good for me. You are a better man than I am in this area.

However, using Sola Scriptura against them has distinct advantages. Take for example the Doctrine of Baptism. They say they get their doctrine from Scripture, but in examining their arguments it is anything but.

First of all, they say baptism is SYMBOLIC. Where to they get that notion? The greek word "Symbolia" is not found in the NT nor in in the LXX. Nor does any passage of Scripture hint at such a thing. This interpretation is an innovation and therefore not apart of Sola Scriptura.

The usage of the Didache for their belief in immersion baptism. This is not Scripture, it is extra Biblical....therefore rejected by sola Scriptura.

The constant appeal to "most Scholars believe immersion baptism is the only baptism"..."Objection your honor! Sola Scriptura....this is an appeal to authority outside of Scripture. Strike the comment from the record." Gotta love the court room language there.

Their definition of baptism such as "outward sign of an inward change" is not found in Scripture. This definition is an innovation. This violates sola Scriptura.

There are a lot more "innovations" we can comment on.

The usage of the word "innovation" has devastating effects on the credos. It should be used more by paedos.

The most amazing thing about this whole process of pointing out innovations in others, we are thinking about the innovative beliefs of ourselves. AND THIS IS A GOOD THING.

I like that you are using a "sola scriptura" test. But in this case - the Baptists are right.

1 Peter 3 is clear that the touch of sacramental waters does nothing at all. rather the saving aspect is the "appeal to God for a clean conscience" by the one being baptized.

1 Peter 3:20 who once were disobedient when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water. 21 Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you—not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience—through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22 who is at the right hand of God, having gone into heaven, after angels and authorities and powers had been subjected to Him.

Rom 10 says the person is saved at the point of confession "with their mouth".
8 But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart”—that is, the word of faith which we are preaching, 9 that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; 10 for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation.

Salvation precedes baptism and must include confession and belief.

In a debate between R.C. Sproul and John MacArthur about baptism Sproul starts off by admitting that there is no reference in the Bible to infant baptism or baptism by sprinkling. It is only by immersion in the Bible.

Romans 6:1-6 says "buried with Him in baptism"

The Gospels say "coming up out of the water" the Spirit descended in the form of a dove.

The Gospels say "where there is much water" is where John baptized...

The Ethiopian Eunuch goes "down into the water" to be baptized.

Luke 23 has the thief on the cross saved without even being baptized at all.

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

The idea that Baptists would lose their believer's baptism by full water immersion teaching on a "sola scriptura" basis is hard to show, certainly in the case of Southern Baptists.

 

[The Liturgist]

I like that you are using a "sola scriptura" test. But in this case - the Baptists are right.

1 Peter 3 is clear that the touch of sacramental waters does nothing at all. rather the saving aspect is the "appeal to God for a clean conscience" by the one being baptized.

1 Peter 3:20 who once were disobedient when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water. 21 Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you—not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience—through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22 who is at the right hand of God, having gone into heaven, after angels and authorities and powers had been subjected to Him.

Rom 10 says the person is saved at the point of confession "with their mouth".
8 But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart”—that is, the word of faith which we are preaching, 9 that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; 10 for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation.

Salvation precedes baptism and must include confession and belief.

In a debate between R.C. Sproul and John MacArthur about baptism Sproul starts off by admitting that there is no reference in the Bible to infant baptism or baptism by sprinkling. It is only by immersion in the Bible.

Romans 6:1-6 says "buried with Him in baptism"

The Gospels say "coming up out of the water" the Spirit descended in the form of a dove.

The Gospels say "where there is much water" is where John baptized...

The Ethiopian Eunuch goes "down into the water" to be baptized.

Luke 23 has the thief on the cross saved without even being baptized at all.

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

The idea that Baptists would lose their believer's baptism by full water immersion teaching on a "sola scriptura" basis is hard to show, certainly in the case of Southern Baptists.

The early church, and to this day the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox, the Eastern Catholics, and the Assyrian Church of the East baptize infants with three full immersions, in complete safety.

 

[BobRyan]

The early church, and to this day the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox, the Eastern Catholics, and the Assyrian Church of the East baptize infants with three full immersions, in complete safety.

Do the infants make "an appeal to God for a good conscience" in those cases?

 

[The Liturgist]

Do the infants make "an appeal to God for a good conscience" in those cases?

The infants are noetically aware of God, so yes, just as they benefit from Holy Communion without a rational understanding of what it is. Their nous is fully functional, and that is what the Church focuses on in terms of sacramental grace delivered to infants. Additionally, the sponsor of the infant makes the baptismal promises on their behalf; these promises have to be made, and by merely assenting to these promises mentally at the age of reason having them made for us by our godparents, we affirm and take ownership of them. Conversely, if we reject these baptismal promises, that puts us in the same dangerous waters outside the Ark of Salvation we would be otherwise.

 

[The Liturgist]

Yes of course, if anything is in Scripture it is at least said once. The question is: Are there other ways to interpret Revelation 20 besides literally. One is not bound to a literal interpretation unless a parallel passage of Scripture tells us to. Scripture interprets Scripture.

If St. Paul said there is a literal 1,000 reign of Christ on earth, then we are bound to believe it as literal. Why? Because Scripture interprets Scripture.

And also, if St. Paul would teach such a thing it might have been put into the creeds.

Indeed, as I said earlier, the 1,000 year reign of Christ is actually contrary to the Nicene creed, the phrase “whose Kingdom shall have no end” having been inserted to preclude it, however, most Chiliasts are unaware of this and a large number confess the Nicene Creed, and one can argue they confess it honestly, because they believe that Christ shall be a king forever, even after his millenial reign, and the Council of Constantinople either did not care about such a variation on the Chiliast doctrine or it did not occur to them to word it that way.

Specifically I think Chiliasm only becomes contra-Nicene therefore if one says that Christ ceases to be a King after a thousand years, which the Apollinarians did claim, but everyone else refutes.

However, it is still an example of a dubious doctrine, since the Nicene Fathers clearly rejected it, characterizing the belief in a millennial kingdom as “carnal,” and opposition to this doctrine I suspect was a major driver behind opposition to the inclusion of the Apocalypse.

 

[BobRyan]

The infants are noetically aware of God .

That's funny -- I Never met one who claimed that.

 

[GreekOrthodox]

That's funny -- I Never met one who claimed that.

Luke met one. "When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the infant leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth, filled with the holy Spirit,"

 

[Danthemailman]

It’s critical that we rightly divide the word of truth and properly harmonize scripture with scripture before reaching our conclusion on doctrine.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

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.

Jesus is walking around the whole gospel like a regular person and was hung up on a cross, I'm not sure where the two verse hypothesis comes from.

 

[BobRyan]

1 Peter 3 is clear that the touch of sacramental waters does nothing at all. rather the saving aspect is the "appeal to God for a clean conscience" by the one being baptized.

1 Peter 3:20 who once were disobedient when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water. 21 Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you—not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience—through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22 who is at the right hand of God, having gone into heaven, after angels and authorities and powers had been subjected to Him.

Rom 10 says the person is saved at the point of confession "with their mouth".
8 But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart”—that is, the word of faith which we are preaching, 9 that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; 10 for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation.

Salvation precedes baptism and must include confession and belief.

In a debate between R.C. Sproul and John MacArthur about baptism Sproul starts off by admitting that there is no reference in the Bible to infant baptism or baptism by sprinkling. It is only by immersion in the Bible.

Romans 6:1-6 says "buried with Him in baptism"

The Gospels say "coming up out of the water" the Spirit descended in the form of a dove.

The Gospels say "where there is much water" is where John baptized...

The Ethiopian Eunuch goes "down into the water" to be baptized.

Luke 23 has the thief on the cross saved without even being baptized at all.

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

The idea that Baptists would lose their believer's baptism by full water immersion teaching on a "sola scriptura" basis is hard to show, certainly in the case of Southern Baptists.

The early church, and to this day the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox, the Eastern Catholics, and the Assyrian Church of the East baptize infants with three full immersions, in complete safety.

Do the infants make "an appeal to God for a good conscience" in those cases?

The infants are noetically aware of God .

That's funny -- I Never met one who claimed that.

Luke met one. "When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the infant leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth, filled with the holy Spirit,"

Is it your claim that while in the womb - John the baptizer was being baptized by "making an appeal to God for a clean conscience"?

If so, how many other babies do you find doing that?

 

[The Liturgist]

That's funny -- I Never met one who claimed th

I hear them say the name of God all the time.

 

[The Liturgist]

Do the infants make "an appeal to God for a good conscience" in those cases?

Asked and answered, in the affirmative, which us to say, noetically. I can refer you to the literature on the subject if you are having trouble grasping this.

 

[BobRyan]

I hear them say the name of God all the time.

We apparently know different newborns.

 

[BobRyan]

1 Peter 3 is clear that the touch of sacramental waters does nothing at all. rather the saving aspect is the "appeal to God for a clean conscience" by the one being baptized.

1 Peter 3:20 who once were disobedient when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water. 21 Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you—not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience—through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22 who is at the right hand of God, having gone into heaven, after angels and authorities and powers had been subjected to Him.

The early church, and to this day the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox, the Eastern Catholics, and the Assyrian Church of the East baptize infants with three full immersions, in complete safety.

Do the infants make "an appeal to God for a good conscience" in those cases?

Asked and answered, in the affirmative,

Again - we know different newborns apparently

 

[GreekOrthodox]

Is it your claim that while in the womb - John the baptizer was being baptized by "making an appeal to God for a clean conscience"? If so, how many other babies do you find doing that?

I'm saying that even John the Baptist recognized his Savior while even in the womb.

 

[The Liturgist]

Do the infants make "an appeal to God for a good conscience" in those cases?




Again - we know different newborns apparently

Apparently, because I routinely hear them say the name of God. Its one of the few things they can pronounce, and one mainly hears them say it in Orthodox churches.

Also, its very rare to hear an infant cry in an Eastern or Oriental Orthodox church.

 

[GreekOrthodox]

Apparently, because I routinely hear them say the name of God. Its one of the few things they can pronounce, and one mainly hears them say it in Orthodox churches.

Also, its very rare to hear an infant cry in an Eastern or Oriental Orthodox church.

If you do, you'll have an assortment of yiayias coming over to play with the baby. When we converted 20 years ago, our daughter was 3 years old. We suddenly had family that we never knew about

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said: ↑
Is it your claim that while in the womb - John the baptizer was being baptized by "making an appeal to God for a clean conscience"? If so, how many other babies do you find doing that?

I'm saying that even John the Baptist recognized his Savior while even in the womb.

The Bible does not say "John the Baptist" recognized someone or had the capacity of abstract reasoning while in the womb. Babies in the womb are known to kick. We do not argue that this proves they have the capacity of abstract reasoning or seeing who is in the room from inside the womb.

The Bible says that when Elizabeth "heard" Mary's greeting the Baby kicked, but not that the baby understood language, or could see outside the womb or had abstract reasoning before the age 3. Even Elizabeth needed to first be filled with the Spirit to respond as she did and the baby would likely have been affected by it.

A great many babies are born without the ability to do abstract reasoning before the age of 3. Salvation, the Gospel, eternal life etc are all abstract concepts. The 1 and 2 year olds don't get it - much less unborn babies - much less "an appeal to God for a clean conscience".

 

[BobRyan]

Apparently, because I routinely hear them say the name of God. Its one of the few things they can pronounce, and one mainly hears them say it in Orthodox churches.

Also, its very rare to hear an infant cry in an Eastern or Oriental Orthodox church.

So we have gone from "an appeal to God for a clean conscience" to "How often do babies cry in church"??

This on a thread that starts off with the idea that the Bible must say it "twice" to be confirmed doctrine.

by contrast

Rom 10 says the person is saved at the point of confession "with their mouth".
8 But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart”—that is, the word of faith which we are preaching, 9 that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; 10 for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation.