Featured Necessarily Implied Doctrine vs True Church Doctrine

I learned this a long, long time ago in a Bible college far, far away. Part of doing good theology is persuading oneself. Call it being comfortable in your own skin. If you are waiting for those who hold to a different view to be persuaded by your arguments, you may be waiting for a long time. I first encountered this when debating the Lordship Salvation controversy after John MacArthur published "The Gospel According to Jesus." I was convinced that my argument was airtight and there was no way that my opponents could not be persuaded by them. I was young and very naive. That was not years ago, it was decades ago. Those decades have taught me to weigh criticism of my positions differently. I consider the person doing the criticizing, the reason they are criticizing, the weight of their argument, and the respect their argument holds in the theological community. These things determine whether to take their criticism seriously. I then determine whether the topic is worth discussing. That is a personal decision each person must make.

 

This first part of your statement is all well and good until we reach an impasse with a brother we disagree with based on our different interpretations of scripture. That impasse occurs when both sides have made their points and counter-points and the discussion has been exhausted with no change in either position. How do we react when that happens? What else can we do but graciously conclude the discussion (if the discussion has not deteriorated as to make that impossible)?

As to not trusting our own intellect over God's Word, that sounds good but we cannot divorce our ability to think and reason from understanding God's Word. Most Christians agree that a particular passage has only one interpretation. The same Holy Spirit works in all believers to illumine God's word to our minds. How then can two Christians come up with two different understandings of scripture if the same Spirit is at work? The individual's ability to think, reason and the emotional attachment to the subject has a lot to do with it. You might as well add religious tradition to that as well. Until such time as all God's people are of one mind in the eternal state, there will always be a degree of flux in our theological understanding.

 

First of all, you are determined to put words in my mouth that I have never said. STOP IT! Just because you are a moderator, it does not give you the right falsely to impute views to others that they do not hold. Shame on you! The Doctrine of Penal Substitution is not implied; it is necessarily contained in the Scriptures just as clearly as the Doctrine of the Trinity. I have given you an extended treatment of the subject, and some choice texts as well in my post #54. They are crystal clear to anyone whose presuppositions have not blinded him to the truth. If you disagree, show me where I'm wrong. Just saying, "'tain't so!" is not an argument.

Not one verse, but many, as I have shown you.

You have a brass neck! I have defended the doctrine over and over again, and you have never got to grips with the Scripture, because you can't -- either because you lack the simple ability or because you know the weakness of your position.

Your pomposity knows no bounds. See post #54.

 

This is a self-evident statement and I do not believe there are many serious Bible students who will disagree with it.

These two statements cancel each other out. Serious study of the scriptures may very well lead us to see a doctrine(s) clearly, plainly, or necessarily contained therein. By clear or plain I do not mean a statement that says something like, "There is a Trinity" or "Tongues have ceased by the end of the Apostolic age." What I mean is that the various parts of scripture fit together into a cohesive whole that does not do harm to any of the parts.

Some of this is unavoidable. We all travel with baggage. Some travel as though they plan to stay and others like they are just visiting. In and of themselves, presuppositions are not all bad. They can provide a foundation to begin a study and they are supremely useful if they have already been tested and tried.

I have not followed all the atonement threads because of lack of interest. Please do not take that as a knock on you. My involvement in atonement debates pre-dates my involvement on this board and my participation in them left me exhausted. So, I cannot speak to how others have interacted with you. You did write to me a few days ago that you think our atonement disagreement may be one of terms (semantics) but I am not sure if it is that simple. What we believe about the atonement is not of minor consequence. After all, the topic deals with the adjudication of sin. If we get that wrong we can dive headlong into a maelstrom of error.

May I make a suggestion? Why not begin a thread in which you explain your view of the atonement. Do not start by asking questions. Given the nature of internet discussion boards, asking questions first is a signal to everyone that the person is waiting to hear all the different responses and then crafts their positive statement to avoid all its potential weak points. I am not accusing you of this tactic but it is a one commonly used on this board. Make your case. Those that are interested will know exactly what you believe and how it is that you got there. A discussion can proceed from there. Of course, you may have already done this but since I have not participated in many of the threads I simply do not recall whether you have posted a thread which lays out your atonement position.

Jon, it depends on the differences. Not all disagreements over doctrine are equal. Some strike to the core of the faith. Some differences are of such a serious nature as to put a person outside of orthodoxy. If you are making the charge of indoctrination against some who have participated in your threads, it is up to you to prove that. I have muted quite a few members of this board, so I am not able to read their posts. However, I can read your responses to them and your responses reveal that all parties involved seem to have their dander up. That usually means the discussion has reached the point where people are talking past each other, even if they do not mean to do so.

 

PST was taken out from the scriptures themselves, as that view would be the plain and intended meaning based scripture regarding the whole of salvation. It would indeed be the needed way to see how God wrought our salvation based upon OT examples that He gave to us regarding the sacrificial system of atonement.

 

This is so hillarious coming from you and what you have written! I have stuck to the actual words of scripture in context according to their normal meaning - that is the extent of my philosophy!

Here is the real problem!

1. You admit you read no more than the first three lines -
2. You don't respond to any scriptural evidence presented except by labeling it "philosophy"
3. You make the unproven charge that such evidence is philosophy without any explanation WHY?.

There is no point in attempting to discuss with a person who responds this way BECAUSE it is impossible to do so. It is impossible because:

1. Nobody can treat a poster fairly be merely reading the first three lines
2. Nobody can say the other person is philosophizing when they read no more than three lines
3. Nobody can reason with an unreasonable person who ignores all evidence presented and merely reasserts "talking points.

So, I bid you adieu with no hard feelings, but it is a waste of my time to enter into a debate with you on this point or any point when you use this kind of MO.

 

False! Provide any post where I have presented a series of scriptures with expositiory comments which you have responded back point by point or given a reason why the exposition is exegesis rather than proper exegesis?

False! I never asked you to respond to the passage but to the exposition I give concerning the passage. For example, you made the claim that death was merely part and parcel with being made flesh but when I produced scripture texts that clearly and explicitly reputed that false idea carefully pointing to the time aspects of those texts - NO RESPONSE except repeating your false assertions once again and charging me with philosophy.

False! The above example with regard to death being part and parcel with being made flesh and my response with scriptures with exposition that explicitly repudiates that error. There is no "philosophy" of interpretation but plain simply exegetical facts. Romans 5:12 gives a TIME FRAME as does Genesis 2:17 which is not a matter of "philosophy" but pure exegetical evidence that is undeniable to any objective reader as it is contained in the NORMAL meanng of the words used by the writers.

You simply will not deal with the PLAIN SENSE of the words being used according to their NORMAL ORDINARY meaning! You simply will not deal with the obvious context setting of plain speech.