Featured Necessarily Implied Doctrine vs True Church Doctrine

Wrong! My argument was not based on "it is necessarily implied" but "clear and explicit" statements which I produced in black and white (well, actually in blue print).

The problem is that you do not argue from the scripture as your starting point nor is it your basis as you never present scripture at all but from secular Christian history and philosophical speculation. You do not argue from the point of divine law but from the point of human jurisprudence.

There is no "necessarily implied" in John 1:29 but clear and explicit language.
There is no "necessarily implied" in Leviticus 16 but clear and explicit language
There is no "necessarily implied" in Isaiah 53 but clear and explicit language

Finally, all Biblical writers make their arguements in behalf of atonement based on DIVINE LAW that governs atonement - Leviticus - but you do not but rather you make your arguments beginning with speculative philosophy and secular history and work back into scripture.

 

Now you have become the judge and jury of what is and what is not "the true church" and its doctrine? How convenient! How can anyone then dispute you as you have already determined the outcome before the debate ever begins?

 

I never disagreed with this statement. I specifically stated that our righteousness is not of the law but it is not contrary to it either as the law simply reveals the righteousness of God but does not convey it any manner. Where are disagreement lies is that you deny the righteousness revealed in the Law is a revelation of God's own righteousness.

Romans 7:12 actually states in the plainest clearest possible language that the Law is holy, just and good, all of which are moral descriptive terms.

Righteousness and unrighteousness are moral terms and thus both are moral by nature. You have the convulted notion that God's righteousness is a-moral and thus can neither be defined as "right" or "wrong" but is morally neutral.

 

Again, you are claiming to be the final authority for "true church doctrine" whether in scripture or in history. So, what is the point for entering into a discussion that you have already finalized before the debate even begins?

My view is strictly based upon "clear and explicit scriptures" properly interpreted in context and I dare you to challenge that by offering exposition of the very same scriptures which you can support by context with equal clarity.

What you are attempting to do is completely base argumentation on philosophy and traditions instead of scripture, thus cutting scriptures out of the debate.

 

I believe when asking ourselves what is this verse or passage saying, we sometimes need to include by "logical necessity" what cannot be avoided.

For example, the word translated "eternal" in John 3:16 is sometimes claimed only to refer to an age (with an end). However, if you shall not perish, requires that your life is eternal, without end. Otherwise at some point you would perish.

But I agree wholeheartedly with the underlying premise, we see interpretations that "expand" the scope of statements. The things of the Spirit is said to necessarily imply "all" things. No one seeks after God necessarily implies No one seeks God at any time.

That is why I advocate minimalism, where we ask "what is the least God is saying?" Now the actual scope intended might be greater, but we should always start at the minimum and only go further based on other verses minimally interpreted.

 

No, it is you that really misunderstands. My approach has been explicit scriptures and that has not been your approach at all. When I present scripture you simply make accusations which do not accompany any scripture, or exegesis to repudiate my interpretation. The readers can easily see that scripture is the only defense I present in my posts whereas in direct contrast your posts are full of philosophy, secular history but complete void of scripture. You simply do not want to engage scripture and context and proper and improper principles of exposition and exegesis and everyone can see it plainly.

I am meeting you on the basis of scripture and that is where you need to meet me and let proper exegesis establish true interpretation from false interpretation.

So you are not practicing what you are preaching but I am practicing precisely what I am preaching. I am not inserting philosophical speculation but pointing to the actual wording of scripture and to the actual context in which those words are placed. You will have nothing to do with scripture but want to philosophize. Put away your philosophical speculations and accusations and meet me on the common ground of inspired scripture. Can you do that? Thus far, you have done everything but that.

 

Paul wrote to the Roman Church. The first Bishop of Rome was Linus. Mentioned by Paul.

• 2 Timothy 4:21 Do thy diligence to come before winter. Eubulus greeteth thee, and Pudens, and Linus, and Claudia, and all the brethren.

Then there was Clement, also mentioned by Paul.

• Philippians 4:3 And I intreat thee also, true yokefellow, help those women which laboured with me in the gospel, with Clement also, and with other my fellowlabourers, whose names are in the book of life.

At what time did the Roman Church become not a church? When the temple was corrupted by the high priests and the people by pagan worship of Baal and other gods and goddesses, it was still a temple.

 

Great!

Here is the root of your problem. You keep making this same accusation but NEVER DEMONSTRATE IT IS TRUE IN PRACTICAL APPLICATION TO MY USE OF SCRIPTURE!!!!!!! I am saying your accusation is false and I present scripture ALONE to prove it is false. Your response has been?? NADA, ZILCH, NOTHING except repetition of your false accusation.

This is being purely naive! Christians will NEVER agree on everything. That is why debate based on proper rules of exegesis will establish who is right and wrong.

This is precisely YOUR PROBLEM as I have seen you attempt to develop a consistency with your other false beliefs. And in these other false beliefs your MO is the same - speculative philosophization completely void of Scripture.

 

I agree!

 

Jon, our Presbyterian brethren replace "necessarily implied" with "good and necessary consequence." They use this to make their point for paedobaptism. While I reject paedobaptism, there are times when scripture does not specifically reveal a doctrinal point but the doctrine is true. The Trinity and the Hypostatic Union are two examples. These two things put a torpedo broadside in the argument of, "If it the Bible does not say it, it is not true!" No orthodox Christian will deny the Trinity or the Hypostatic Union, even though they cannot point to one clear passage that makes a positive statement of these doctrines. However, if we use the principle of good and necessary consequence, we can see that scripture reveals enough about these two doctrines that it is impossible to come to any other conclusion. I know you and I disagree about the atonement, however, I do believe penal substitution is derived in the same way as the other two doctrines I mentioned. I do not believe it is necessarily implied, as I think it is more than just implied. My response here is not really about the atonement but about how to approach points of doctrine that are not clearly laid out in scripture. Of course, there are plenty of doctrines that are in theological left field, having no basis in scripture whether implied or necessary.

 

There is an old saying "there is none as blind as those who just won't see"

 

You should know because you have come down with a bad case of it. I don't build any doctrine on "necessary implications" but explicit clear statements and then only support that with implicit texts. This is particularly true with Penal Substitutionary atonement. Penal is clearly stated "judged according to your works" and "by one man sin entered the world and death by sin" as "sin is the violation of the law" and by one man's disobedience many were "condemned." The wages of sin is death - that is the penalty for violating law.
Substiutionary is clearly presented in Levitical Law "for the people" and "because of their transgressions" and "for an atonement." The sacrificial animals that atones for sin is explicitly and clearly applied to Jesus Christ "the lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world" and "without spot or blemish." Clear explicit language.