|
|
Post by rickstudies on Sept 4, 2022 20:26:39 GMT -8
Where Do We Get Our Doctrine? Important question. Paul warns us on this issue in Acts 20.
26 Wherefore I take you to record this day, that I am pure from the blood of all men.
27 For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God.
28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.
29 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.
30 Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.
So Paul said that after he is gone the church would be afflicted with false teachers who will speak perverse things, meaning things that are unacceptable, contrary and against the gospel per the dictionary.
This is one of the scriptures that establishes the epistles of Paul as the doctrine that the saved must adhere to. For any Christian authority and/or writer who came afterward their doctrines must conform to Paul`s doctrine or they fall into the catogory of false teacher. This is the litmus test
Here are some more things Paul had to say about this.
1 Corinthians 4:16
Wherefore I beseech you, be ye followers of me.
1 Corinthians 11:1
Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.
Philippians 3:17
Brethren, be followers together of me, and mark them which walk so as ye have us for an ensample.
Romans 11:13
For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office:
Colossians 1:25
Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God;
Ephesians 3:2
If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward:
Ephesians 3:4
Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ)
Galatians 1:9
As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
|
|
|
|
Post by civic on Sept 5, 2022 4:15:59 GMT -8
Where Do We Get Our Doctrine? Important question. Paul warns us on this issue in Acts 20. 26 Wherefore I take you to record this day, that I am pure from the blood of all men. 27 For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God. 28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. 29 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. 30 Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. So Paul said that after he is gone the church would be afflicted with false teachers who will speak perverse things, meaning things that are unacceptable, contrary and against the gospel per the dictionary. This is one of the scriptures that establishes the epistles of Paul as the doctrine that the saved must adhere to. For any Christian authority and/or writer who came afterward their doctrines must conform to Paul`s doctrine or they fall into the catogory of false teacher. This is the litmus test Here are some more things Paul had to say about this. 1 Corinthians 4:16 Wherefore I beseech you, be ye followers of me. 1 Corinthians 11:1 Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ. Philippians 3:17 Brethren, be followers together of me, and mark them which walk so as ye have us for an ensample. Romans 11:13 For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office: Colossians 1:25 Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God; Ephesians 3:2 If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward: Ephesians 3:4 Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ) Galatians 1:9 As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. Great passages thanks and its so vital we get the gospel right. |
|
|
|
Post by resurrection33 on Sept 5, 2022 10:37:21 GMT -8
Where Do We Get Our Doctrine? Important question. Paul warns us on this issue in Acts 20. 26 Wherefore I take you to record this day, that I am pure from the blood of all men. 27 For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God. 28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. 29 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. 30 Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. So Paul said that after he is gone the church would be afflicted with false teachers who will speak perverse things, meaning things that are unacceptable, contrary and against the gospel per the dictionary. This is one of the scriptures that establishes the epistles of Paul as the doctrine that the saved must adhere to. For any Christian authority and/or writer who came afterward their doctrines must conform to Paul`s doctrine or they fall into the catogory of false teacher. This is the litmus test Here are some more things Paul had to say about this. 1 Corinthians 4:16 Wherefore I beseech you, be ye followers of me. 1 Corinthians 11:1 Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ. Philippians 3:17 Brethren, be followers together of me, and mark them which walk so as ye have us for an ensample. Romans 11:13 For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office: Colossians 1:25 Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God; Ephesians 3:2 If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward: Ephesians 3:4 Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ) Galatians 1:9 As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. Great passages thanks and its so vital we get the gospel right. Over the years God teaches us things (Jeremiah 31:33). Or we let ourselves be misled by Satan. Or some of both. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 13, 2022 9:31:59 GMT -8
Where Do We Get Our Doctrine? Important question. Paul warns us on this issue in Acts 20. 26 Wherefore I take you to record this day, that I am pure from the blood of all men. 27 For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God. 28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. 29 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. 30 Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. So Paul said that after he is gone the church would be afflicted with false teachers who will speak perverse things, meaning things that are unacceptable, contrary and against the gospel per the dictionary. This is one of the scriptures that establishes the epistles of Paul as the doctrine that the saved must adhere to. For any Christian authority and/or writer who came afterward their doctrines must conform to Paul`s doctrine or they fall into the catogory of false teacher. This is the litmus test Here are some more things Paul had to say about this. 1 Corinthians 4:16 Wherefore I beseech you, be ye followers of me. 1 Corinthians 11:1 Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ. Philippians 3:17 Brethren, be followers together of me, and mark them which walk so as ye have us for an ensample. Romans 11:13 For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office: Colossians 1:25 Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God; Ephesians 3:2 If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward: Ephesians 3:4 Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ) Galatians 1:9 As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. Curious op. Paul does not just "warn" us on this issue; he also encourages and exhorts us on this issue and that is left out of this op. As a consequence, the question asked in the title, " Where do we get our doctrine?" is not actually answered. For example, Paul wrote to Timothy about events in their future in which men would not tolerate sound doctrine but gather around themselves teachers who teach what they desire turning aside from the truth and following myths (2 Timothy 4:3-4). Not only does this text implicitly assert the existence of doctrine, but it also asserts the existence of sound doctrine. There is sound doctrine and there is unsound doctrine. These two verses also provide means for recognizing, knowing, understanding the former: the truth. The Greek word used here is " didaskalias," which simply means "teaching." Sound doctrine is sound teaching. In his earlier letter to Timothy Paul had already juxtaposed sound teaching against the teachings or doctrines of demons! ( 1 Tim. 4:1) So where do we go for sound doctrine? In Romans 15 Paul appealed to the Old Testament, or what to he and his ilk  was known as the Tanakh. Those were the scriptures of the early Church BUT they were rendered through the new covenant mediated through Christ (Heb. 9-12) and the new revelation inspired through the Holy Spirit (2 Tim. 3:16), NOT old covenant Judaism, and by the time the New Testament was drawing to a close the teachings of Paul (and the other NT writers) were being accepted and relied upon as scripture (2 Pet. 3:15-16). All Scripture is inspired by God and beneficial for teaching, for rebuke, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man or woman of God may be fully capable, equipped for every good work (2 Tim. 3:16-17). That is where we get our sound doctrine. Scripture juxtaposes the teachings, or doctrines, of men and demons against the teachings of the Tanakh, of Christ, and what we now call the New Testament. In writing to the Ephesians (and a couple of other places in the epistolary) Paul tells us Christ gave certain individuals (apostles, evangelists, prophets, teachers, and pastors) for several reasons and purposes, among them are unity of faith, knowledge of God's Son, unity and fitting together of the Church (the body of Christ), and to prevent falling prey to "every wind of doctrine" taught by crafty, deceitful people (Eph. 4). In other words, we get sound doctrine from those Christ has gifted the Church, and more specifically those Christ gifted the Church that help keep us from being swayed by bad teachers teaching within the Church (not just those on the outside)! Jesus referred to Isaiah when he admonished the Jewish leaders noting they taught the commandments of men as doctrine (Mt. 15:8-90; Mk. 7:7-8), disregarding the commandments of God. The implication there being sound doctrine comes from the commands of God BUT in that very same episode and throughout his incarnation teachings Jesus spoke about the principles of God's commands, not merely the letter of those commands. The commands on dietary restrictions are the case in point in these scriptures. It is NOT what goes into a person that defiles him, but what comes out of him. The letter of the commandment excluded from the principle of the commandment led to unsound doctrine. This is an example of the OT rendered by the NT leading to what the NT itself established as sound doctrine. Paul reiterated this when he wrote " These rules, which have to do with things that are all destined to perish with use, are based on merely human commands and teachings" (Col. 2:22). Most of scripture's commentary on "doctrine" is prohibitive, just as the 10 Commandments are worded in prohibitive language. This is common practice in the Bible. Directive statements in scripture must be noted, sought out, heeded, properly understood. When directing slaved to temporal obedience Paul said, ".... so that they will adorn the doctrine of God our Savior in every respect. For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all people, instructing us to deny ungodliness and worldly desires and to live sensibly, righteously, and in a godly manner in the present age, looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus" (Tit. 2:10-13). These are the places where sound Christian doctrine, the doctrine of God our Savior, are taught. The problem arises because the scriptures are sufficient, but they are no exhaustive AND the scriptures are so full of information, so rich in depth, that one lifetime is not enough to mine its knowledge and wisdom or understand it all. This, ironically, sets up the problem to be solved and explains 1) why it took so long for the core theological doctrines to be established, and 2) how so many different points of view arose over the last two millennia. Hebrews 6:1-3Therefore, leaving the elementary teaching about the Christ, let us press on to maturity, not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God, of instruction about washings and laying on of hands, and about the resurrection of the dead and eternal judgment. And this we will do, if God permits.1 Corinthians 11:17-19 Now in giving this next instruction I do not praise you, because you come together not for the better, but for the worse. For, in the first place, when you come together as a church, I hear that divisions exist among you; and in part I believe it. For there also have to be factions among you, so that those who are approved may become evident among you. Differences are not automatically a bad thing. 2 Corinthians 12:20For I am afraid that perhaps when I come I may find you to be not what I wish and may be found by you to be not what you wish; that perhaps there will be strife, jealousy, angry tempers, selfishness, slanders, gossip, arrogance, disturbances.... But sometimes they are bad things . Sound doctrine sometimes depends on the existence of divisions. Iron sharpening iron doesn't happen without friction and reasoning through the scriptures would be necessary if everything was self-evident. A larger problem occurs because as these differences become enshrined as doctrines and later generations of otherwise sincere and earnest believers are taught them, and they adhere to them, the idea that those doctrines are scripture's doctrines becomes conflated and exceedingly difficult to discard and replace. |
|
|
|
Post by rickstudies on Sept 13, 2022 11:10:44 GMT -8
Where Do We Get Our Doctrine? Important question. Paul warns us on this issue in Acts 20. 26 Wherefore I take you to record this day, that I am pure from the blood of all men. 27 For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God. 28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. 29 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. 30 Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. So Paul said that after he is gone the church would be afflicted with false teachers who will speak perverse things, meaning things that are unacceptable, contrary and against the gospel per the dictionary. This is one of the scriptures that establishes the epistles of Paul as the doctrine that the saved must adhere to. For any Christian authority and/or writer who came afterward their doctrines must conform to Paul`s doctrine or they fall into the catogory of false teacher. This is the litmus test Here are some more things Paul had to say about this. 1 Corinthians 4:16 Wherefore I beseech you, be ye followers of me. 1 Corinthians 11:1 Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ. Philippians 3:17 Brethren, be followers together of me, and mark them which walk so as ye have us for an ensample. Romans 11:13 For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office: Colossians 1:25 Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God; Ephesians 3:2 If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward: Ephesians 3:4 Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ) Galatians 1:9 As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. Curious op. Paul does not just "warn" us on this issue; he also encourages and exhorts us on this issue and that is left out of this op. As a consequence, the question asked in the title, " Where do we get our doctrine?" is not actually answered. For example, Paul wrote to Timothy about events in their future in which men would not tolerate sound doctrine but gather around themselves teachers who teach what they desire turning aside from the truth and following myths (2 Timothy 4:3-4). Not only does this text implicitly assert the existence of doctrine, but it also asserts the existence of sound doctrine. There is sound doctrine and there is unsound doctrine. These two verses also provide means for recognizing, knowing, understanding the former: the truth. The Greek word used here is " didaskalias," which simply means "teaching." Sound doctrine is sound teaching. In his earlier letter to Timothy Paul had already juxtaposed sound teaching against the teachings or doctrines of demons! ( 1 Tim. 4:1) So where do we go for sound doctrine? In Romans 15 Paul appealed to the Old Testament, or what to he and his ilk was known as the Tanakh. Those were the scriptures of the early Church BUT they were rendered through the new covenant mediated through Christ (Heb. 9-12) and the new revelation inspired through the Holy Spirit (2 Tim. 3:16), NOT old covenant Judaism, and by the time the New Testament was drawing to a close the teachings of Paul (and the other NT writers) were being accepted and relied upon as scripture (2 Pet. 3:15-16). All Scripture is inspired by God and beneficial for teaching, for rebuke, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man or woman of God may be fully capable, equipped for every good work (2 Tim. 3:16-17). That is where we get our sound doctrine. Scripture juxtaposes the teachings, or doctrines, of men and demons against the teachings of the Tanakh, of Christ, and what we now call the New Testament. In writing to the Ephesians (and a couple of other places in the epistolary) Paul tells us Christ gave certain individuals (apostles, evangelists, prophets, teachers, and pastors) for several reasons and purposes, among them are unity of faith, knowledge of God's Son, unity and fitting together of the Church (the body of Christ), and to prevent falling prey to "every wind of doctrine" taught by crafty, deceitful people (Eph. 4). In other words, we get sound doctrine from those Christ has gifted the Church, and more specifically those Christ gifted the Church that help keep us from being swayed by bad teachers teaching within the Church (not just those on the outside)! Jesus referred to Isaiah when he admonished the Jewish leaders noting they taught the commandments of men as doctrine (Mt. 15:8-90; Mk. 7:7-8), disregarding the commandments of God. The implication there being sound doctrine comes from the commands of God BUT in that very same episode and throughout his incarnation teachings Jesus spoke about the principles of God's commands, not merely the letter of those commands. The commands on dietary restrictions are the case in point in these scriptures. It is NOT what goes into a person that defiles him, but what comes out of him. The letter of the commandment excluded from the principle of the commandment led to unsound doctrine. This is an example of the OT rendered by the NT leading to what the NT itself established as sound doctrine. Paul reiterated this when he wrote " These rules, which have to do with things that are all destined to perish with use, are based on merely human commands and teachings" (Col. 2:22). Most of scripture's commentary on "doctrine" is prohibitive, just as the 10 Commandments are worded in prohibitive language. This is common practice in the Bible. Directive statements in scripture must be noted, sought out, heeded, properly understood. When directing slaved to temporal obedience Paul said, ".... so that they will adorn the doctrine of God our Savior in every respect. For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all people, instructing us to deny ungodliness and worldly desires and to live sensibly, righteously, and in a godly manner in the present age, looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus" (Tit. 2:10-13). These are the places where sound Christian doctrine, the doctrine of God our Savior, are taught. The problem arises because the scriptures are sufficient, but they are no exhaustive AND the scriptures are so full of information, so rich in depth, that one lifetime is not enough to mine its knowledge and wisdom or understand it all. This, ironically, sets up the problem to be solved and explains 1) why it took so long for the core theological doctrines to be established, and 2) how so many different points of view arose over the last two millennia. Hebrews 6:1-3Therefore, leaving the elementary teaching about the Christ, let us press on to maturity, not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God, of instruction about washings and laying on of hands, and about the resurrection of the dead and eternal judgment. And this we will do, if God permits.1 Corinthians 11:17-19 Now in giving this next instruction I do not praise you, because you come together not for the better, but for the worse. For, in the first place, when you come together as a church, I hear that divisions exist among you; and in part I believe it. For there also have to be factions among you, so that those who are approved may become evident among you. Differences are not automatically a bad thing. 2 Corinthians 12:20For I am afraid that perhaps when I come I may find you to be not what I wish and may be found by you to be not what you wish; that perhaps there will be strife, jealousy, angry tempers, selfishness, slanders, gossip, arrogance, disturbances.... But sometimes they are bad things . Sound doctrine sometimes depends on the existence of divisions. Iron sharpening iron doesn't happen without friction and reasoning through the scriptures would be necessary if everything was self-evident. A larger problem occurs because as these differences become enshrined as doctrines and later generations of otherwise sincere and earnest believers are taught them, and they adhere to them, the idea that those doctrines are scripture's doctrines becomes conflated and exceedingly difficult to discard and replace. In a discussion thread the OP doesn`t need to dictate everything or provide all the prooftexting that will be used. My first thought would be to inform you that I began hosting study groups in the mid 1980`s so don`t try to tell me how to do an OP. The purpose of the OP was to share a foolproof way to test extra Biblical sources such as the so called church fathers or the early Protestant commentators such as Calvin. The obvious answer is that we get our doctrine from Jesus which includes the gospel of Paul which was given to him by Jesus for us. It isn`t necessary for me to point that out because that is something any knowlegable Christian already knows. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 14, 2022 6:32:55 GMT -8
Curious op. Paul does not just "warn" us on this issue; he also encourages and exhorts us on this issue and that is left out of this op. As a consequence, the question asked in the title, " Where do we get our doctrine?" is not actually answered. The purpose of the OP was to share a foolproof way to test extra Biblical sources such as the so called church fathers or the early Protestant commentators such as Calvin. - The purpose just stated is nowhere mentioned in the op.
- Presumably Pelagius, Arius, Arminius, Wesley, and Flowers are also in the mix of extrabiblical sources that should be measured by the "foolproof way" asserted in this op. Or is this op to be understand as a veiled attempt to show contempt for specific unstated theological views?
- This "foolproof way" is incomplete.
- This "foolproof way" asserted in this op is flawed and demonstrates the very problem it seeks to address and solve.
That last point has probably prompted a reaction, so let me get ahead of the conversation and provide more with which to work and understand one of the problems in this op. I know the op was probably not intended to be exhaustive. No problem with that. That is the reason I replied to the op the way I did, by adding to that which was already presented. The opening statements cite Acts 20:26-30 but then ADDS extra-bibilcal commentary in saying, " This is one of the scriptures that establishes the epistles of Paul as the doctrine that the saved must adhere to." The problem is none of those five verses does any such thing AND it actually contradicts what the five verses do state. ? ? ? ? Yep. In Acts 20:28 Paul tells his audience to follow the overseers, not himself. Paul explicitly states the Holy Spirit has set the overseers to shepherd them, not Paul's epistles. There's no mention of Paul's letters in Acts 20:26-30! There is no mention of doctrine, either. Paul also places the onus on the individual's to whom he is speaking; he tells them to be on their guard. In point of fact the only thing Paul states about himself is that he is innocent of all men's blood and even that has a specific context because Paul had in fact earlier been a conspirator to murder. An eisegetic interpretation was asserted, and one that easily, readily, demonstrably evident simply by reading the scriptures and NOT consulting any extra-biblical source. No one needs Origen, Agustine, Calvin, or Arminius to see this mistake. So... we find that from the outset, the opening statements of the op it commits the very error it seeks to preclude: the adding to scripture in highly interpretive ways that neglects and contradicts what the scripture actually states. However, the point being made about Paul's bona fides can be made elsewhere without adding to or interpreting scripture. Paul's bona fides are established in three places in scripture. First in Luke's account of Saul's conversion when God tells Ananias " he is a chosen instrument of Mine, to bear My name before the Gentiles and kings and the sons of Israel" (Acts 9:15). The second is in Luke's account of Paul's standing before the apostolic council in Jerusalem and the scriptures state, " Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church, to choose men from among them to send to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas—Judas called Barsabbas, and Silas, leading men among the brethren" (Acts 15:22). The third and most explicit statement was mentioned in my op reply. Peter's second epistle draws an equivalency between the things that Paul wrote and the other scriptures, and it's a bit ironic because Peter tells his audience the exact same thing Paul said in Acts 20 = be on your guard, watch for unprincipled men, and be steadfast! 2 Peter 3:14-18
Therefore, beloved, since you look for these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, spotless and blameless, and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction. You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, be on your guard so that you are not carried away by the error of unprincipled men and fall from your own steadfastness, but grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ...... The point made is valid and correct (Paul's bona fides are established in scripture apert from his own testimony about himself) but the means by which it was arrived is completely contradictory to the way sound doctrine should be reached. And I didn't need a single word from any extra-biblical source to prove it. All I need was my Bible read as written and properly exegeted. The way asserted in this op turns out not to be " foolproof." And I will again point out this op does not actually answer the question asked in it title. We get sound doctrine from scripture. Some doctrines are explicitly stated in scripture. Others are asserted inferentially, and they require the Spirit's illumination, prayerful contemplation and proper examination of whole scripture. Scripture was written to be understood. Sound doctrine is nothing more than correctly understood whole scripture. |
|
|
|
Post by rickstudies on Sept 14, 2022 6:43:14 GMT -8
Romans 2
16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel
2 Timothy 2:8
Remember that Jesus Christ of the seed of David was raised from the dead according to my gospel:
1 Corinthians 9:17
For if I do this thing willingly, I have a reward: but if against my will, a dispensation of the gospel is committed unto me.
1 Corinthians 2:7
But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory:
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 14, 2022 10:20:10 GMT -8
Where Do We Get Our Doctrine? Important question. Paul warns us on this issue in Acts 20. 26 Wherefore I take you to record this day, that I am pure from the blood of all men. 27 For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God. 28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. 29 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. 30 Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. So Paul said that after he is gone the church would be afflicted with false teachers who will speak perverse things, meaning things that are unacceptable, contrary and against the gospel per the dictionary. This is one of the scriptures that establishes the epistles of Paul as the doctrine that the saved must adhere to. For any Christian authority and/or writer who came afterward their doctrines must conform to Paul`s doctrine or they fall into the category of false teacher. This is the litmus test. It is true that we should based our subsequently occurring doctrines on Paul's writings, but Paul's writings are not the only scriptures upon which sound doctrine should/must be based. Paul is only one scriptural writer of many, his works are exhaustive and don't cover everything we need to know and do, and attending only to Paul and not the rest of scripture is likely to lead to bad doctrine. Paul himself used the Old Testament often and repeatedly. So too did all the other New Testament writers. In point of fact, several of the Biblical writers used extra-biblical sources! John referenced the Jewish philosopher Philo and Paul quoted the Greek philosopher Epimenides. The whole of scripture must be used. Here's an example of a problem that has arisen as a consequence of relying solely on Paul We all know about this particular problem. It's the problem of women being silent in church. In the very same letter in which Paul states, " Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says," (1 Corinthians) he also writes, " And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head...." How can a woman pray and prophesy in church if she has to be silent? What need is there for head coverings? To what law is Paul referring? Yet I'll bet we all know Christians who believe the first statement and never consider the second. They do not have sound doctrine, even though they have relied on Paul. |
|
YouTeachAnotherGospelJosheb
Guest
|
Post by YouTeachAnotherGospelJosheb on Sept 14, 2022 12:27:01 GMT -8
6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:
7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.
8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
9 As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
10 For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.
|
|
|
|
Post by rickstudies on Sept 14, 2022 12:45:31 GMT -8
Where Do We Get Our Doctrine? Important question. Paul warns us on this issue in Acts 20. 26 Wherefore I take you to record this day, that I am pure from the blood of all men. 27 For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God. 28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. 29 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. 30 Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. So Paul said that after he is gone the church would be afflicted with false teachers who will speak perverse things, meaning things that are unacceptable, contrary and against the gospel per the dictionary. This is one of the scriptures that establishes the epistles of Paul as the doctrine that the saved must adhere to. For any Christian authority and/or writer who came afterward their doctrines must conform to Paul`s doctrine or they fall into the category of false teacher. This is the litmus test. It is true that we should based our subsequently occurring doctrines on Paul's writings, but Paul's writings are not the only scriptures upon which sound doctrine should/must be based. Paul is only one scriptural writer of many, his works are exhaustive and don't cover everything we need to know and do, and attending only to Paul and not the rest of scripture is likely to lead to bad doctrine. Paul himself used the Old Testament often and repeatedly. So too did all the other New Testament writers. In point of fact, several of the Biblical writers used extra-biblical sources! John referenced the Jewish philosopher Philo and Paul quoted the Greek philosopher Epimenides. The whole of scripture must be used. Here's an example of a problem that has arisen as a consequence of relying solely on Paul We all know about this particular problem. It's the problem of women being silent in church. In the very same letter in which Paul states, " Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says," (1 Corinthians) he also writes, " And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head...." How can a woman pray and prophesy in church if she has to be silent? What need is there for head coverings? To what law is Paul referring? Yet I'll bet we all know Christians who believe the first statement and never consider the second. They do not have sound doctrine, even though they have relied on Paul. As the Apostle of the Gentiles Paul`s gospel dictates what is orthodox. The judgement will take place according to Pauls gospel. The Torah and the Gospel of the kingdom are incorporated into Paul`s gospel. It is the contract that is in force for this dispensation. There are no relevant issues that are unaddressed in the epistles. |
|
|
|
Post by Theophilus on Sept 14, 2022 13:24:04 GMT -8
Where Do We Get Our Doctrine? Important question. Paul warns us on this issue in Acts 20. 26 Wherefore I take you to record this day, that I am pure from the blood of all men. 27 For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God. 28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. 29 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. 30 Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. So Paul said that after he is gone the church would be afflicted with false teachers who will speak perverse things, meaning things that are unacceptable, contrary and against the gospel per the dictionary. This is one of the scriptures that establishes the epistles of Paul as the doctrine that the saved must adhere to. For any Christian authority and/or writer who came afterward their doctrines must conform to Paul`s doctrine or they fall into the catogory of false teacher. This is the litmus test Here are some more things Paul had to say about this. 1 Corinthians 4:16 Wherefore I beseech you, be ye followers of me. 1 Corinthians 11:1 Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ. Philippians 3:17 Brethren, be followers together of me, and mark them which walk so as ye have us for an ensample. Romans 11:13 For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office: Colossians 1:25 Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God; Ephesians 3:2 If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward: Ephesians 3:4 Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ) Galatians 1:9 As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. It is an important question, and it is one that led me to study apologetics & cults. If you take a look at all the cult activity that's been going on, just from the time of Joseph Smith and his Latter-Day Saints it's amazing just how true Acts 20: 29-30 is. One thing that amazes me is how all the various Cults seem to have the same sales pitch in there "other gospel". I call it the bait of Satan. They use the same bait in the trap again and again. That's why it's important to know where you get your Doctrine and to be able to recognize the truth, to be led by the spirit. Christians identify a cult more precisely as a group “which surrounds a leader or a group of teachings which either denies or misinterprets essential biblical doctrine.” A cult can be defined as a perversion of biblical Christianity. A characteristic of many cults is their claim to be Christian or a fuller revelation of Christianity. This is what makes them so dangerous and why I’m mentioning them in this post at all. Many Christians are seduced into a cult by mistakenly believing that they represent just another Christian denomination. And many non-Christians join a cult thinking they are becoming Christians. This confusion is made more hazardous because cults frequently use Christian words and terminology, redefined to convey an altogether different meaning than the Christian understanding. So, a cult member can speak of Christ, the Holy Spirit, faith, and sin but mean something entirely different from the orthodox Christian understanding. This is nowhere more evident than in Christian Science. So it most certainly does matter where we get our Doctrine. Don't drink the Kool-Aid! |
|
|
|
Post by Obadiah on Sept 14, 2022 13:53:09 GMT -8
Where Do We Get Our Doctrine? Important question. Paul warns us on this issue in Acts 20. 26 Wherefore I take you to record this day, that I am pure from the blood of all men. 27 For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God. 28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. 29 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. 30 Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. So Paul said that after he is gone the church would be afflicted with false teachers who will speak perverse things, meaning things that are unacceptable, contrary and against the gospel per the dictionary. This is one of the scriptures that establishes the epistles of Paul as the doctrine that the saved must adhere to. For any Christian authority and/or writer who came afterward their doctrines must conform to Paul`s doctrine or they fall into the catogory of false teacher. This is the litmus test Here are some more things Paul had to say about this. 1 Corinthians 4:16 Wherefore I beseech you, be ye followers of me. 1 Corinthians 11:1 Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ. Philippians 3:17 Brethren, be followers together of me, and mark them which walk so as ye have us for an ensample. Romans 11:13 For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office: Colossians 1:25 Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God; Ephesians 3:2 If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward: Ephesians 3:4 Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ) Galatians 1:9 As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. I've always been a Paul guy. The letter to the Galatians was one of my first serious Bible studies. And like a lot of other folk Romans chapter 8 is the best chapter in the Bible as far as I'm concerned. You read and study enough of Paul's writings and I guarantee you that you will not fall for any false Doctrine. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 14, 2022 14:25:08 GMT -8
It is true that we should base our subsequently occurring doctrines on Paul's writings, but Paul's writings are not the only scriptures upon which sound doctrine should/must be based. Paul is only one scriptural writer of many, his works are exhaustive and don't cover everything we need to know and do, and attending only to Paul and not the rest of scripture is likely to lead to bad doctrine. Paul himself used the Old Testament often and repeatedly. So too did all the other New Testament writers. In point of fact, several of the Biblical writers used extra-biblical sources! John referenced the Jewish philosopher Philo and Paul quoted the Greek philosopher Epimenides. The whole of scripture must be used. Here's an example of a problem that has arisen as a consequence of relying solely on Paul We all know about this particular problem. It's the problem of women being silent in church. In the very same letter in which Paul states, " Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says," (1 Corinthians) he also writes, " And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head...." How can a woman pray and prophesy in church if she has to be silent? What need is there for head coverings? To what law is Paul referring? Yet I'll bet we all know Christians who believe the first statement and never consider the second. They do not have sound doctrine, even though they have relied on Paul. As the Apostle of the Gentiles Paul`s gospel dictates what is orthodox. Bad doctrine. Not supported by scripture. Evidence of the problem to be solved, not its solution. Another bad doctrine. The gospel is not " Paul's". When Paul speaks of the gospel he preached he is referring to Jesus and the whole word of Got, not just his writings. Yes, sort of. That would be better stated to say Paul's preaching incorporated the gospel of Christ and how it illuminated the Tanakh (not just the Torah). Properly understood Old and New are not completely different parts of God's word, but cohesive components of a larger whole that tesfiy to, about, and for the person of Jesus the Messiah through whose resurrection eternal life is possible. But..... A doctrine that is correct in part is not necesarily correct as a whole. Incompleteness in doctrine tends to incorrect as a whole. NOW we see the problem revealed! Dispensationalism is an extra-biblical construct!!! Dispensationalism is an extra-biblical construct literally invented by a man, John Darby, who had huge problems accepting the body of Christ as asserted by whole scripture. Dispensationalism was literally invented in the mid-1800s and is among the newest and most divisive of modern theologies. Dispensationalism is NOT scripture. Scripture defines dispensationalism, not the other way around. This is and has always been a problem within Dispensationalism. It's ironic that a Dispensationalist asserting Dispensationalism as the standard would write an op on how (sound) doctrine is reached by asserting Dispensationalism as the measure of sound doctrine for everyone else. I hope that irony isn't lost in the Dispies here in BAM, nor the irony of appealing to Dispensationalism instead of scripture. No, but there are plenty that are neglected in this op and it's this op that is the topic of discussion. Attempts to change the topic will be noted for what they are: attempts at digression and red herrings. When Paul wrote about the dispensation, such as the " dispensation of grace" that he mentions in Ephesians 3:2 he does so within the larger, overarching condition of the covenant relationship we have in Christ that runs through scripture from beginning to end. This was true of the early Church fathers, as well. When they mentioned any "dispensation" they always did so within the context of the covenant structure that is explicitly asserted in scripture. They never treated dispensations as something separate, distinct, and unaffiliated from the covenant(s). That all changed with John Darby. Darby was the one who created an entirely new and different hermeneutic (a means of examining scripture). Darby was the one who created an entirely new theology that separated "dispensations" from the covenant structure in scripture. It was Darby who defined the dispensations, not scripture. Nowhere does scripture actually state there is a "Noahic Dispensation," an Abrahamic Dispensation," or a "Mosaic Dispensation," BUT we can find scripture actually stating there are covenants specifically associated with each of these individuals. Darby was one of the men who created a discontinuity, or discontinuous approach to scripture over ad against the previously and looonng existing continuity Christianity had always had before Darby. It was Darby who completely redefined Christian theology to emphasize ecclesiology and eschatology over Christology and soteriology. These are the historical facts that anyone can objectively verify within a few minutes and a few clicks of the mouse. These are not facts up for dispute. Dispensationalism rejects the impeccability of Christ and considers the Church corrupt. One of its most defining features is its view of the Church. Dispensationalism arose during the mid-1800s as one of many sects that were part of what Church history now calls the restoration movement. All those sects (Millerites, Campbellites, SDA, CoC, JWs, LDS, and the Dispensationalists) viewed the Church as corupt and needing to return to the New Testament era Church as asserted in scripture. That would normally be a good thing, but each sect thought they knew the correct NT view, and they believed they possessed the true version to the exclusion of all other Christians! Darby and his congregants were the true Church and everyone else was corrupt. Its divisiveness made the Reformation look like amateur hour. An explosion of sectarianism ensued (and yet Dispensationalism are the ones most likely to complain about it). The very problem Darby sought to resolve he made worse. Not only does Dispensationalism emphasize ecclesiology, it emphasizes eschatology. All the restoration movement sects emphasized ecclesiology and eschatology. They were purists, pietists, and apocalyptic. The very sad thing about ALL of them.... ...is that not a single one of them were correct about the return of Christ EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM, including Darby were wrong. To make things worse there hasn't been a single Dispensationalist in the last 200 years who has got it correct. There is 100% fail rate among Dispensationalists and only now, after 200 years of their siblings in Christ trying to hold them accountable for two centuries of false teaching are we seeing any semblance of an in-house effort at reform. Here's the biggest irony of all: IF Dispensationalism is correct THEN 1800 YEARS OF CHRISTIANITY IS WRONG! Dispensationalism teaches a different Christology, a different soteriology, a different ecclesiology, and a different eschatology and each of those doctrines is completely new, different and irreconcilable with two millennia of Christian thought, doctrine and practice. Dispensationalism has a Jesus who is not currently ruling (bad Christology). Dispensationalism has a two-pronged soteriology in which Israel and the Church are separate and distinct and the Jews' salvation lies in a pile of stuff (like a geo-political nation-state, a temple, a Levitical priesthood, animal sacrifices - that are all works-based) BEFORE they get saved, while they could have salvation any day simply by coming to faith in Christ like the rest of us do. (Bad soteriology). Dispensationalism has an inherently corrupt body of Christ that will grow more and more impotent and unable to prevail over the gates of hell and need rescuing by a rapture, instead of a Chruch that possesses the authority and might of Christ and will never be prevailed over by the gates of hell (bad ecclesiology). Dispensationalism teaches the world is going to go to hell in a hand basket and Jesus is going to return any minute now and live here on earth for 1000 years, but his reign is not going to be effective because in the end man will still rebel and not a single teacher within Dispensationalism has ever gotten any of it correct. They make millions selling books and airtime teaching these falsehoods to others (bad eschatology). I used to be a Dispensationalist. In order to be fair, here is a link about Dispensationalism by Dispensationalists at GotQuestions. So, it is the epitome of ironies that a Dispensationalist would presume to tell others how sound doctrine is reached and do it by asserting Paul as preeminent over Jesus and the whole of scripture. However, lest anyone think I am overly critical, let me say the impetus for this op is good. It is an excellent thing to be mindful of sound doctrine and understand the importance of scripture as the basis for forming sound doctrine, especially in areas where the scriptures aren't explicit. If all we had was the Old Testament, then we would not correctly understand God's full will and purpose. The newer revelation reveals what was hidden and veiled in the older revelations. One of the many reasons this is critically important is because we are not Jews..... and Judaization of Christian theology remains a significant problem in Christendom even today. It is a problem that goes back as far as the New Testament epistolary. Likewise, if all we had was Paul we'd still have only a small portion of the whole revelation from God and there are those in Christendom who think only the words of Jesus (those red letters in their Bibles) or only the words of Paul are all we need. The impulse in this op is commendable. It's the execution I find problematic and in need of amendment. |
|
|
|
Post by Obadiah on Sept 14, 2022 15:04:33 GMT -8
Wow Dispensationalism... who knew? Thanks for all the info on it josheb. I plan on a deep dive into it right after this post. John Darby only took one mouse click. Dispensationalism: A Return to Biblical Theology or a Pseudo Christian Cult / I'm on a roll. I'll be back tomorrow with the inside scoop. I do so like the pre-tribulation rapture though. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 14, 2022 16:04:24 GMT -8
Wow Dispensationalism... who knew? Thanks for all the info on it josheb. I plan on a deep dive into it right after this post. John Darby only took one mouse click. Dispensationalism: A Return to Biblical Theology or a Pseudo Christian Cult / I'm on a roll. I'll be back tomorrow with the inside scoop. I do so like the pre-tribulation rapture though. Let me recommend you read the Dispensationalists themselves. I don't like it when my Christian siblings use second-hand and third-hand sources to criticize Augustine, Calvin, Arminius, or anyone else. I know of what I speak because I did the work and I read the Dispensationalists in their own words. I recommend starting with Lewis Sperry Chafer's book " Dispensationalism," and then Charles Ryrie's book with the same title. Here's why... John Darby's views received a great deal of resistance as they became popular. People like Spurgeon, Kuyper, and Barth spoke out against Dispensationalism (along with the also increasing liberal theologies). Darby's views became popular because of Scofield's Bible. Scofield's Bible was one of the first commentary Bible mass produced so every Christian could have a personal Bible in their home. People began learning, ironically, doctrine and not just scripture. The problem was the doctrine they were learning was Scofields' (Darby's) doctrines, not the mainstream doctrines Christianity had long held. In the early 1900s Lewis Sperry Chafer founded a seminary that expressly, purposefully taught Dispensationalism. It taught both the hermeneutic and the doctrines of Darby. That seminary was originally called Evangelical Theological College, but we know it today as Dallas Theological Seminary (DTS). After Chafer came Ryrie and the Walvoord. After Walvoord came Ice and then Vlach. In between we have D. L. Moody and Dwight Pentecost (whose book " Things to Come" is another good book for understanding Dispensationalism). We are now seeing the rise of "Progressive Dispensationalism" via from people like Bock and Saucy in an attempt to correct some of the acknowledged errors in classic Dispensationalism. I have often laid out Dispensational views and had posters respond, " That's not what I believe." Adherents often don't know all that Dispensationalism teaches. Many pastors don't know the whole schema. As a consequence, there are many who hold to the Dispensational Premillennial eschatology but not the rest of the theology. Read the DPists in their own words. That way when you read critics (like me) you'll know whether the critic is being fair, honest, and presenting a valid and accurate view of Dispensationalism. Even seminarians who have to take classes in Church history don't know about this huge shift because many history classes don't cover modern times. This is sad because Darby isn't the only adverse influence on modern theology. Marx had an enormous influence (so did Freud  ). If you do read Chafer or Ryrie, then let me also recommend you read Kim Riddlebarger's " A Case for Amillennialism". I don't recommend that book only because of the eschatological pov asserted; I recommend it because Riddlebarger handles scripture markedly better than any Dispensationalist I have ever read. As I have grown old and have more time for study I've gotten into the habit of reading a book with the Bible open and in my other hand (or on the computer screen ), and when an author says " scripture xyz says ____________," I look it up and verify that is in fact what the scripture states, and not just what the author makes it say. What scripture states and what people make it say are often two completely different things and that happens A LOT with the Dispensationalists. You'll see it happen a lot and most notably anytime they write about the temple. It's not that I agree with everything Riddlebarger writes; it's that his prowess with scripture is impressive in comparison to the Dispensationalists I've listed - ALL of them! Dispensationalism claims to read scripture literally. A literal reading of scripture is one of the three core tenets of the Dispensational hermeneutic. They are not very consistent with that rule but the real reason I mention this is because what they really do is read the Old Testament literally and not the New. So, when the OT speaks of a temple, they read that literally and neglect the FACT the NT tells us a new temple was built - the New Testament LITERALLY tells us a new temple was LITERALLY built. The literal statements of the NT are dismissed and when a non-Dispensationalist Christian brings up the literally reading of the New Testament s/he is criticized and dismissed for "spiritualizing" scripture. I read scripture more literally more consistently than any Dispensationalist I have read or met in person or online. Irritates the bejeebers out of them . I used to be a Dispensationalist and didn't know it and didn't know there was any other way to believe. Before I became a Christian I read Hal Lindsay's books in the 70s. I wasn't even a Christian and I believed that was the way things were going to be. In the 80s I became a believer and thought everyone subscribed to the Lindsay model. People like Chuck Smith (founder of Calvary Chapel), John Walvoord (president of DTS), Pat Robertson, and Jerry Falwell were writing and preaching about Jesus returning at the end of the 80s (a generation after Israel was established) and not a single one of them were correct but still I believed Dispensationalism. It was not until a dear friend of mine took me out to lunch, opened his Bible, and walked me through a pile of scriptures that I learned there was any other way. I was so angry I yelled at him right in the middle of the restaurant. How dare he upset my beliefs! But he calmly encouraged me to study the scriptures and that's what I did. I read and read and read the Bible and then I studied all the various eschatological views and their history, how the argument formed and evolved from the NT era and the ECFs up through modernity. About 25 years ago I parted ways with DPism. When I have the time I'll post some ops on problems I've found in Dispensational Premillennialism. I've stayed out of BAM's eschatology board because criticism of DPism is not well received in most forums and I don't want to break the forum's rules about criticizing others' beliefs. No matter how polite, respectful, and laden with scripture those ops are not typically well received. The soteriology and eschatology boards in most forums tend to be rancorous (unnecessarily), but maybe BAM will be different. (my apologies for the length) . |
|
was known as the Tanakh. Those were the scriptures of the early Church BUT they were rendered through the new covenant mediated through Christ (Heb. 9-12) and the new revelation inspired through the Holy Spirit (2 Tim. 3:16), NOT old covenant Judaism, and by the time the New Testament was drawing to a close the teachings of Paul (and the other NT writers) were being accepted and relied upon as scripture (2 Pet. 3:15-16). All Scripture is inspired by God and beneficial for teaching, for rebuke, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man or woman of God may be fully capable, equipped for every good work (2 Tim. 3:16-17). That is where we get our sound doctrine. 
).