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

[The Liturgist]

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.

That’s shocking, but unsurprising given Luther’s unwarranted dislike for the Epistle of St. James, which as other Protestant denominations have shown, in no way threatens sola fide, because if someone’s faith does not cause them to produce good works, it is not a living or sincere faith, nor is sola deo gratia threatened by this because the good works of genuine faith are the fruit of the Holy Spirit.

Of course these days I believe more the Eastern Orthodox model of soteriology; I see myself as seconded to Protestantism in order to try to inject Eastern Orthodox thinking.

 

[GreekOrthodox]

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?

TheLiturgist has a fairly extensive answer but yes. It's more of snippets are used in various services. These are some examples that come to mind.

The Prayer of Manasseh is read in its entirety in the Great Compline service during Lent.

Great Compline - Liturgical Texts of the Orthodox Church - Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America

The LXX version of Job is read on Holy Friday, which has an extended ending on the resurrection of Job.

We celebrate the martyrs of the Maccabees two Sundays before Christmas.

 

[BobRyan]

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.

True and it also gives us the 27 A.D. point for the start of Messiah's ministry on Earth in Dan 9. "ONE Text" alone does it and it proved to be 100% correct.

This establishes doctrine, There is no "God must say it twice for us not to ignore it" doctrine/teaching in the Bible. (And you have provided no such text)

 

[BobRyan]

Instead of trying to refute my "two passage" thesis which is derived from Scripture,

You provided no text calling for that rule - and I have already given you an example of your rule failing in Daniel 9 regarding the first coming of Christ.

 

[BobRyan]

what is your OBJECTIVE criteria for determining what is binding and not binding for a Christian to believe.

This is my objective criteria for determining what scripture teaches.

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"

that was given in response to this post by you

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

You appear to now be changing that question - to a question of the form: "of all the truths taught in the Bible which ones must all Christians accept as binding?".

Is that an intentional "switch"?

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

You appear to now be changing that question - to a question of the form: "of all the truths taught in the Bible which ones must all Christians accept as binding?".

THIS WILL BE MY LAST REPLY TO YOU ON THIS THREAD.

Does Scripture DEMAND all Christians through out time and space to believe in any and all circumstances under penalty of sin, to actually believe Jesus is literally be present on earth for roughly 3,650,000 days?

I AM FINISHED WITH YOU ON THIS THREAD.

 

[Clare73]

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.

Actually, God only has to say it once for it to be true.

The problem with "premillennialism" is that it is from prophetic riddles (dark sayings), which God told Miriam is the form in which he speaks to the prophets, and does not give their meanings clearly (Numbers 12:8).

That being the case, prophetic riddles are not didactics, and we don't take doctrine from prophetic riddles, we take it only from the didactics, where this "millennium" is not.

What is in the didactics is:

the Church is the fulfillment of the ages (1 Corinthians 10:11) and

the Church is the last times and the end of the ages (1 Peter 1:20, Hebrews 1:2, Hebrews 9:6).

According to NT apostolic didactics, the next age is the new heavens and new earth of eternity, not a temporal millennial reign of Christ.

Not to mention the never-ending kingdom of Christ (Luke 1:33)
is now (Matthew 12:8; Luke 11:20, Ephesians 1:20-23),
not of this world (John 18:36),
spiritual--invisible and within (Luke 17:20-21) the hearts where he reigns and rules, and
the saints are now reigning with him (Ephesians 2:6).

Apostolic didactics present no kingdom, temporal or eternal, set up alongside this current eternal kingdom.

That is a novelty and invention of man which he is fond of and wedded to, thinking it is the doctrine of God because it is so agreeable to his own fancy.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

Actually, God only has to say it once for it to be true.

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.

 

[Clare73]

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.

If Paul teaches it, it is didactics, no matter what prophetic riddle are interpreted to mean, and that is why it is authoritative.

(Check out my previous (edited) response.)

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

If Paul teaches it, it is didactics, no matter what prophetic riddle are interpreted to mean, and that is why it is authoritative.

(Check out my previous (edited) response.)

Name one teaching of Paul that is only based on ONE PASSAGE Scripture.

All the articles of the Creeds are based on two or more passages of Scripture.

Where people get into problems with their pet interpretations of Scripture is finding a obscure text, take it out of context, and have no parallel text to substantiate it. Then they tout it as new novel belief....then they ram the totality of Scriptures through that one verse...all the while claiming "Its Scripture! It is in the Bible! It is inspired! I only need one verse for this novel belief!

The safeguard the Scripture give us to stop bad and novel interpretation is SCRIPTURA INTERPRETUR SCRIPTURA. Two or more passages on the same teaching.

Rick Warren is a prime example of this. He quotes Proverbs 29:18 "Where there is no vision, the people perish." Then he develops a whole theological construct on the word "vision" which is not contextually there. Instead of "revelation" for the word "vision" his interpretation: the pastor has to have a vision for church growth. The he has to teach this vision of church growth to the church leadership. Then the leadership has to teach this vision of church growth the congregation.

Proverbs 29:18 has nothing to do with principles of church growth.

 

[The Liturgist]

Name one teaching of Paul that is only based on ONE PASSAGE Scripture.

All the articles of the Creeds are based on two or more passages of Scripture.

Where people get into problems with their pet interpretations of Scripture is finding a obscure text, take it out of context, and have no parallel text to substantiate it. Then they tout it as new novel belief....then they ram the totality of Scriptures through that one verse...all the while claiming "Its Scripture! It is in the Bible! It is inspired! I only need one verse for this novel belief!

The safeguard the Scripture give us to stop bad and novel interpretation is SCRIPTURA INTERPRETUR SCRIPTURA. Two or more passages on the same teaching.

Rick Warren is a prime example of this. He quotes Proverbs 29:18 "Where there is no vision, the people perish." Then he develops a whole theological construct on the word "vision" which is not contextually there. Instead of "revelation" for the word "vision" his interpretation: the pastor has to have a vision for church growth. The he has to teach this vision of church growth to the church leadership. Then the leadership has to teach this vision of church growth the congregation.

Proverbs 29:18 has nothing to do with principles of church growth.

The easier approach is to just trust the consensus of the Early Church Fathers, and depending on denomination, the Reformers, or later Orthodox or Catholic saints, such as Luther, Cranmer, Melancthon, Calvin and Wesley on the Protestant side, Saints Symeon the New Theologian, Gregory of Palamas, Nicodemus the Hagiorite, Macarius of Corinth or Ignatius Brianchaninov on the Orthodox side, or Thomas Aquinas, John of the Cross, Carlos Borromeo, Anthony Newman and Pius X on the Catholic side, because one is assured of exegetical thoroughness.

One criticism I have about SDA doctrine is that it has relatively few sources, such as George Miller and Ellen G. White, and White is imbued with a prophetic authority that makes her interpretations effectively infallible.

 

[Clare73]

Name one teaching of Paul that is only based on ONE PASSAGE Scripture.

1 Corinthians 2:13?

All the articles of the Creeds are based on two or more passages of Scripture.

Where people get into problems with their pet interpretations of Scripture is finding a obscure text, take it out of context, and have no parallel text to substantiate it. Then they tout it as new novel belief....then they ram the totality of Scriptures through that one verse...all the while claiming "Its Scripture! It is in the Bible! It is inspired! I only need one verse for this novel belief!

The safeguard the Scripture give us to stop bad and novel interpretation is SCRIPTURA INTERPRETUR SCRIPTURA. Two or more passages on the same teaching.

Rick Warren is a prime example of this. He quotes Proverbs 29:18 "Where there is no vision, the people perish." Then he develops a whole theological construct on the word "vision" which is not contextually there. Instead of "revelation" for the word "vision" his interpretation: the pastor has to have a vision for church growth. The he has to teach this vision of church growth to the church leadership. Then the leadership has to teach this vision of church growth the congregation.

Proverbs 29:18 has nothing to do with principles of church growth.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

The easier approach is to just trust the consensus of the Early Church Fathers, and depending on denomination, the Reformers,

I agree. But we are in America, in the land of Baptistic theology and restorationism with a tad of nationalism. After all, there is nothing more American than Mom, homemade apple pie, baseball and Baptistic theology. And because we are the greatest nation on earth, translates sometimes into the greatest theology in the world.

American Christianity to a certain extent is hostile to historical theology. The gates of hell really did prevail against the church until the Baptists came along! Modern evangelicalism tends to be anti creedal, anti confessional, anti liturgical, and anti historical...all these things I am not.

Therefore I try to marshal arguments which do not appeal to any authority, except Holy Writ. We can appeal to the Nicene Creed because it is apart of ChristianForums Standard Operating Procedures.

 

[The Liturgist]

I agree. But we are in America, in the land of Baptistic theology and restorationism with a tad of nationalism. After all, there is nothing more American than Mom, homemade apple pie, baseball and Baptistic theology. And because we are the greatest nation on earth, translates sometimes into the greatest theology in the world.

American Christianity to a certain extent is hostile to historical theology. The gates of hell really did prevail against the church until the Baptists came along! Modern evangelicalism tends to be anti creedal, anti confessional, anti liturgical, and anti historical...all these things I am not.

Therefore I try to marshal arguments which do not appeal to any authority, except Holy Writ. We can appeal to the Nicene Creed because it is apart of ChristianForums Standard Operating Procedures.

Well I myself compete with Baptists and win, as a Protestant but one committed to following Wesley’s footsteps and introducing EO and OO theological concepts, which the Anglicans and LCMS, and the Episcopalians for that matter, are also doing, but the Anglicans and LCMS are growing whereas Episcopalianism is shrinking because of alienation of traditionalists.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

Well I myself compete with Baptists and win

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.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

1 Corinthians 2:13?

Excellent passage. You got me on the quick. I was stumped for a few minutes. Will reply later. In the meanwhile, study Eph. 3:16-17, I Cor. 6:11, and especially Rom. 8:26. This is complex stuff because we are now "dividing the Spirit and Soul" stuff...Hebrews 4:12. Don't expect my reply soon.

 

[The Liturgist]

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.

Well, I am equipped with sufficient scripture to stand toe to toe with baptists. That being said, Baptists, at least Southern Baptists, General Baptists, Particular Baptists, Old School Baptists, Primitive Baptists, and so on, who preserve some unique traditions in American church music, like Square Note singing, do not concern me that much. The denominations whose deterioration upsets me the most are the liturgical mainline churches like the Episcopal Church, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (which swallowed up the Swedish-American Augustana Synod, where my godfather was a pastor, and most of the other Scandinavian synods, except for the predominantly Norwegian Evangelical Lutheran Synod) United Methodist Church, United Church of Christ, Presbyterian Church in America, Christian Church/Disciples of Christ, and the Moravians (the decay of the Northern Baptists is also distressing but less of an immediate concern). The decline of these churches has given rise to a large number of Pentecostal and non denominational churches and megachurches where worship is listening to Christian Rock music and where ideas in many cases deliberately contrary to shared Apostolic patrimony of the Catholics, Protestants and Orthodox proliferate, and unfortunately much of the membership lost by the mainline churches is going into these churches.

Many of these churches also lack adequate safeguards to protect members from abuse, of the sort that led to the collapse of the Mars Hill empire and its pastor Mark Driscoll in Seattle. Worse, there is a psuedo denomination called 9Marks which in the opinion of some experts, is perpetuating a lack of safeguarding by aggressively promoting “church discipline,” which links non-denominational Calvinists with some SBC, OPC and PCA churches, including the prestigious Capitol Hill Baptist Church.

 

[Clare73]

Excellent passage. You got me on the quick. I was stumped for a few minutes. Will reply later. In the meanwhile, study Eph. 3:16-17, I Cor. 6:11, and especially Rom. 8:26. This is complex stuff because we are now "dividing the Spirit and Soul" stuff...Hebrews 4:12. Don't expect my reply soon.

Also Ephesians 2:6 , our seating with Christ in the heavenlies, for a singular passage.

The soul doesn't figure in much in my understanding of Scripture, I'm more familiar with the Holy Spirit and his transforming power. You'll have to explain to me what you see in the above in relation to Hebrews 4:12.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

The soul doesn't figure in much in my understanding of Scripture, .

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.

 

[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.