SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Image Map
Discussion Forum : Scriptures and Doctrine : Are the scriptures alone sufficient to teach us doctrine?

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 Next Page )
PosterThread
Martyr
Member



Joined: 2012/6/10
Posts: 225
United States

 Re:

Who taught you these things? Did the Spirit of God through His wisdom and grace lead you to this conclusion? Because the idea that everything needs to be tested against Scripture IS NOT IN THE BIBLE. Therefore your foundation of this must rest on something other than scripture, perhaps the teaching of man?

You think I call you a Pharisee because you know scripture? No sir, I reference the pharisees because they too had the scriptures "doctrinized" and because everything had to match the scripture they didn't see Christ who EXCEEDS the scriptures.

You say: How do we know things are the holy spirit ?
How do we know things are jesus ?

Then you quote 1st Corinthians 2:16 which is the very answer, because we have the mind of Christ!

In your quote from 1 John 4 John does not mention the scriptures as the test, not once!! It does not prove your point but it does show that the key to discernment lies within the Christians whom he is addressing and that they themselves are capable of it because they have the Spirit of God. If the bible was involved in that wouldn't he have said it??

You quote from Galatians. Thank you! Paul learned the gospel through a revelation of Christ. Again, no scriptures and not proving your point.

You say: Can I ask you if we are saying it is the holy spirit ? Can you prove to me that it is from the scriptures as if someone was preaching a different gospel and they were saying that it is the holy spirit I would disagree because it goes against scripture?

Yes I can prove it according to the truth that is in Christ that now dwells within me. How did the prophets do it? They spoke as moved by the Holy Spirit. They did not make sure everything aligned with the bible (at that point the books of Moses) in fact the word they were given superseded it and pointed towards its elimination.

You say: We have to define things biblically else we may fall into deception

Okay, let's do that. Have you studied what the word "doctrine" means in the bible? Have you looked at that other word in other writings of the time to maybe get a fuller sense of what it meant 2000 years ago? 2000 years is a long time, especially for language (considering Koine Greek is a dead language). Reading an ancient manuscript with a modern brain is a very easy way to get something wrong.

What then serves the purpose of the bible? Paul mentioned to Timothy: "All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice that the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work."

I am not against studying the bible. It is good but it is only good to those who are in Christ and walking in His Wisdom and have been made complete in Him. By those who are not dictated in thought by a denomination or church but are open to Him and His truth. Indeed the scriptures are profitable, they are very profitable, not because they DEFINE God (As you are claiming they do) but because they point to Him and through His Spirit the scriptures - which cannot be broken-guide us towards a greater understanding of Him.

I am all for the scriptures being used as a "standard" (so to speak.) For example, those preachers that hit people to heal them. The scriptures say the fruit of the Spirit is gentleness. Ergo they are not acting in the Holy Spirit. But to understand the truth of Christ, that's a work that is done in a mans heart, not in the head.

One more point, the Galatians verse. I saw your (Matt Slicks) explanation of the gospel using all kinds of different verses to tie it together. Very nice, it does nothing. Experience the gospel and you'll see not that its written in the scriptures but that the writers of it had themselves undergone it and are speaking FROM it, not OF it and then you will see it and not have to cross reference and tie things together to paint a nice pretty picture. The apostles did not write their letters for that purpose.

So sir, we are in agreement about things. It's the underlying thought and heart behind the arguments where I see a foundation built not totally on Christ but on things you have learned from other men. Throw it out. Forget Matt Slick and Luther and Spurgeon and see the scriptures with an open mind apart from the influence they have on your viewpoint.


_________________
Tyler

 2017/5/30 21:51Profile
Martyr
Member



Joined: 2012/6/10
Posts: 225
United States

 Re:

dspks if that is a reference to me deltadom quoted a large section of teaching from Matt Slick. This I think will suffice as the reference which you feel I need to address specifically. (If this is directed towards me.)


_________________
Tyler

 2017/5/30 21:56Profile
proudpapa
Member



Joined: 2012/5/13
Posts: 2936


 Re:

There is a misconception about a verse that I often hear people use that is not in accordance with the over all teaching of Scripture nor with the context of which it is found.

It is John Chapter 5 v 39 : "Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Often times I hear/read men misuse the above verse to make an argument against the Verbal plenary inspiration of the Scriptures.

They often times will try to give a misconception that the Scripture only purpose is to point us to Christ.
And that somehow Jesus was undermining the power of the Scriptures and its authority by making the above statement.

But if they would read a little deeper they would find that Jesus was not undermining the Scriptures at all nor criticizing men for believing them.

He points out that they did not believe the Scriptures ch 5 v 46 and that because they did not believe the Scriptures they could not believe his Words.

to be continued 'if not led otherwise'

 2017/5/30 23:49Profile
proudpapa
Member



Joined: 2012/5/13
Posts: 2936


 Re:

The Scriptures are more trust worthy than anything that we have experienced :

In 2nd Peter 1 :
Peter confirms that what he is speaking of is True and can be validated because of what he has seen,heard and experienced v 16-18
and than in verse 19 he points out that there is a more sure word than even his experience and that is of the word of prophecy (Scriptures)


When Jesus was tempted , What did he rely on to secure him through the temptation ?

"It is written,"
"It is written again"
"for it is written,"

It might be brought up by some that even "the tempter" used Scripture to tempt Jesus with.
I will point out that the translation that the tempter used, contained an omission, and had it not been removed first by the tempter, The verse would have not been a temptation.


clarity

 2017/5/31 0:31Profile
drifter
Member



Joined: 2005/6/6
Posts: 657
Campbell River, B.C.

 Re:

I know this is off topic, but some of these posts completely lack love, patience, gentleness etc. It always makes me wonder when I see someone who claims to be "holy" but lacks love. The closer you get to Jesus the more loving you become. Even if you get all your doctrine 100 percent correct, you can move mountains with your faith, understand all mysteries etc without love you have missed the whole point.


_________________
Nigel Holland

 2017/5/31 6:49Profile
savannah
Member



Joined: 2008/10/30
Posts: 2007


 Re: forgetting





"Forget Matt Slick and Luther and Spurgeon and see the scriptures with an open mind apart from the influence they have on your viewpoint."

In the quote above, the person quoted must have forgotten to add the name Tyler to the forget list. So don't forget to forget everything Tyler has written.

Oh...on second thought...maybe you should just forget what I just said!

 2017/5/31 7:28Profile
InTheLight
Member



Joined: 2003/7/31
Posts: 2736
Phoenix, Arizona USA

 Re:

Quote:
In the quote above, the person quoted must have forgotten to add the name Tyler to the forget list. So don't forget to forget everything Tyler has written.

Oh...on second thought...maybe you should just forget what I just said!



Thanks brother, I think this thread needed a little tongue in cheek humor.


_________________
Ron Halverson

 2017/5/31 19:38Profile
Martyr
Member



Joined: 2012/6/10
Posts: 225
United States

 Re:

That I may become less and he may become more. I push no doctrine or agenda other then that men would be wholly committed to Christ and His teachings apart from the influence of the doctrines of men. So yes you are correct I did forget to add myself to that list. Thank you!


_________________
Tyler

 2017/5/31 21:59Profile
Renoncer
Member



Joined: 2010/6/26
Posts: 482


 Re: Are the scriptures alone sufficient to teach us doctrine?

Hi brother:

I appreciate your question, but I think that paedobaptists would say that the Scriptures teach infant baptism. Here is an article that I have come across:

----
The church should certainly baptize the children of believers. The practice of paedobaptism is not simply a matter of tradition or the prescription of our confession of faith (WCF 28.4). Rather, it is rooted and prescribed in the Holy Scriptures. Since baptism is the sign of the New Covenant that replaces the Old Covenant sign of circumcision (Mt 28:19-20, Col 2:11-12), it follows that those who belong to the New Covenant must be baptized. And since the children of believers belong to the New Covenant (Ac 2:38-39, 1 Cor 7:14), they must also be baptized. We should note that when Jesus gave the command to baptize, He also gave a particular condition: the people who are baptized must be discipled and taught to obey the Lord’s commandments (Mt 28:19-20). But, He gave no prerequisite related to a personal profession of faith, maturity of understanding, or personal obedience.
Credobaptists reject infant baptism for several reasons. First, as Bruce Ware has stated in Baptism: Three Views, they believe that the New Testament simply does not prescribe the baptism of infants. However, this statement fails to recognize that covenant children are also being discipled (Mt 28:19-20) and doesn’t read passages that mention the baptism of entire households through the covenantal lenses of Scripture. Sinclair Ferguson correctly pointed out that in the New Testament, God deals with the households of believers as part of the covenant. Moreover, since the apostle Paul makes a clear connection between circumcision and baptism (Col 2:11-12), by default baptism should also be applied to the children of God’s covenant people under the New Covenant, unless otherwise proscribed. Besides, 1 Corinthians 10:1-2 and 1 Peter 3:20-21 force us to recognize that the doctrine of baptism was already present in seminal form in the Old Testament, where the water ordeals of entire households in the days of Noah and Moses are described as types of baptism.
Some credobaptists have argued that the children of believers do not belong to the New Covenant because of passages like Jeremiah 31:31-34 (cf. Hebrews 8:8-12) and Ezekiel 36:26-27, which describe the blessings of the New Covenant such as knowing the Lord, having the Law of God on the heart and mind, receiving a new heart, having all sins forgiven, and obeying all of God’s statutes and rules. But, only an over-realized eschatology would lead someone to claim that these conditions and blessings of the New Covenant have already been fully realized. Obviously, even believers do not perfectly follow the Lord’s statutes and rules because their sinful flesh has not yet been eradicated. Rather, those passages describe the New Covenant in its eschatological fullness; it has been inaugurated, but it has not yet been fully realized. Besides, other passages teach that people can be sanctified in the New Covenant and still reject its eternal blessings (Heb 10:26-29, 12:22-25). The same is true of the children of believers who are sanctified, that is, made holy by virtue of God’s covenant with the believing parent (1 Cor 7:14). Bruce Ware has argued that this simply means that the unbelieving spouse and children are “set apart to gospel witness” due to the presence of the believer. However, this interpretation is completely divorced from the use of αγιαζω (to make holy or to set apart) and αγιος (holy) in the New Testament, including how Paul uses those words in his letter to the Corinthians. It always denotes a special relationship with God by virtue of His covenant.
Finally, some people may argue that Romans 6:3-8 teaches that everyone who receives the sign of baptism must be regenerated. However, this fails to recognize that not everyone who receives the sign (water baptism) also receives the thing signified (Spirit baptism). Howard Griffith correctly stated that we must distinguish between the sign and the thing signified without separating them. Also, as Bavinck pointed out, even in the case of adult baptisms, [w]e are never totally certain that a given person is not a hypocrite and hence receives the sacrament illegitimately” (p.526). We cannot avoid the predicament that the New Covenant church is currently made up of a mixture of elect and reprobate, which will only be settled when the Lord will finally bring about the eschatological fullness of the New Covenant (Mt 13:24-30, 25:31-46). In baptism, professing believers and their children receive the sign and seal of the eternal benefits of the covenantal union with the exalted Christ, which are appropriated by faith. Let us improve our baptism and not refuse Him who spoke to us through the sprinkled blood of the New Covenant (Heb 12:24-25).

For further studies, please consult this interview with Dr. Richard Gaffin: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tDqmENmL_Gk.
----

So, as much as I appreciate your question, I think that we have to be fair and recognize that some doctrines may not be as easy to grasp as others. Not every doctrine comes in the form of "Thou shalt..." Personally, I appreciate the fact that God has given us mystery. It is part of the esthetic value of his intricate redemptive history.

Nevertheless, it is good for you to remind us that we have to make sure that the Scriptures guide us, rather than the doctrines of men.

Blessings,
Renoncer

 2017/5/31 22:20Profile
yuehan
Member



Joined: 2011/6/15
Posts: 510


 Re:

Great posts, proudpapa! I appreciate them.

To embrace Jesus is to embrace His Scripture.

To embrace His Scripture is to embrace Him.

 2017/6/1 5:53Profile





©2002-2020 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Privacy Policy