• Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.

Meat Determining Sound Doctrine

Joleneakamama said:
How much weight do you give the traditional interpretation of verses?
...
In the case of support for a doctrine or position coming from non-canonical books, do the verses carry as much weight as those in the regular biblical books?
Click to expand...
The very selection of canonical vs non-canonical books is tradition. And I rely on that heavily to judge the relative reliability of different documents. I take those universally canonical books (Protestant bible) as 100% reliable, those considered canonical by a portion of Christians as strongly worth paying attention to, and everything else to be treated with more caution. On what basis do I justify this? Honestly, only tradition.

In the non-canonical books, you must use discernment to see what is more likely to be reliable and profitable, and what is less reliable. For instance, Tobit is awesome for studying marriage - whether it's 100% historical fact I couldn't tell, but it describes Hebrew marriage in more detail than anything in the Protestant bible. Bel and the Dragon contains a great and plausible account of a probable dinosaur - but whether Daniel actually was thrown to the lions a second time like it suggests I find less likely. The Gospel of the Birth of Mary reads like pure fiction. While the letters of Clement to the Corinthians seem as sound as any New Testament writing bar a couple of very minor matters of question.

But how do I tell this? Only by comparing what they say to the canonical books. And I accept them as the gold standard due to tradition. I cannot escape tradition.

Tradition is the accumulated wisdom of generations of Christians who have gone before us. It is not to be discarded lightly. If in doubt, I'd run with the traditional understanding (or at least a traditional understanding if there are multiple options...), because it's more likely to be correct than anything I come up with by myself.

But if the text clearly contradicts the tradition, then go with the text.
 
Asforme&myhouse said:
If He wishes to speak to someone, they will hear Him loud and clear.
Click to expand...
Can you provide Scripture for that statement?

This line of conversation doesn’t completely support the op, so I am not comfortable with discussing it too deeply here.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cap
FollowingHim said:
The very selection of canonical vs non-canonical books is tradition. And I rely on that heavily to judge the relative reliability of different documents. I take those universally canonical books (Protestant bible) as 100% reliable, those considered canonical by a portion of Christians as strongly worth paying attention to, and everything else to be treated with more caution. On what basis do I justify this? Honestly, only tradition.

In the non-canonical books, you must use discernment to see what is more likely to be reliable and profitable, and what is less reliable. For instance, Tobit is awesome for studying marriage - whether it's 100% historical fact I couldn't tell, but it describes Hebrew marriage in more detail than anything in the Protestant bible. Bel and the Dragon contains a great and plausible account of a probable dinosaur - but whether Daniel actually was thrown to the lions a second time like it suggests I find less likely. The Gospel of the Birth of Mary reads like pure fiction. While the letters of Clement to the Corinthians seem as sound as any New Testament writing bar a couple of very minor matters of question.

But how do I tell this? Only by comparing what they say to the canonical books. And I accept them as the gold standard due to tradition. I cannot escape tradition.

Tradition is the accumulated wisdom of generations of Christians who have gone before us. It is not to be discarded lightly. If in doubt, I'd run with the traditional understanding (or at least a traditional understanding if there are multiple options...), because it's more likely to be correct than anything I come up with by myself.

But if the text clearly contradicts the tradition, then go with the text.
Click to expand...

Good point.

But what tradition did the original Protestants draw on to make their determination of canonicity? They came about 1400 years after the fact.
 
rockfox said:
Good point.

But what tradition did the original Protestants draw on to make their determination of canonicity? They came about 1400 years after the fact.
Click to expand...
In my understanding, they simply ran with the assumption that the Jews would know what they were doing when preserving the OT, so they preserved only the books in the Masoretic Hebrew Tanakh as the Old Testament, and labelled the other OT books that were only preserved in Greek at the time into the Apocrypha. They likewise ran with the assumption that the Christian Church knew what it was doing when preserving the NT, and kept the Catholic New Testament.

That assumption of the Masoretic text being supreme is debatable, I understand the early church in many ways favoured the Septuagint, hence the inclusion of the apocryphal books in the Catholic and Orthodox bibles. And since then, some of the apocryphal books have been found in Hebrew at Qumran, so it is clear that the Masoretes were just one Jewish sect who chose their particular selection of books as authoritative and may or may not have chosen the full selection that other sects used.

The apocrypha in some ways reads as more "Christian-like" than the rest of the OT, and I do wonder whether the Masoretes deliberately dropped those books they thought were too Christian in character from their canon. But I am by no means an expert in this topic, it's just a nagging feeling I get when I read the apocrypha.
 
FollowingHim said:
In my understanding, they simply ran with the assumption that the Jews would know what they were doing when preserving the OT, so they preserved only the books in the Masoretic Hebrew Tanakh as the Old Testament, and labelled the other OT books that were only preserved in Greek at the time into the Apocrypha. They likewise ran with the assumption that the Christian Church knew what it was doing when preserving the NT, and kept the Catholic New Testament.

That assumption of the Masoretic text being supreme is debatable, I understand the early church in many ways favoured the Septuagint, hence the inclusion of the apocryphal books in the Catholic and Orthodox bibles. And since then, some of the apocryphal books have been found in Hebrew at Qumran, so it is clear that the Masoretes were just one Jewish sect who chose their particular selection of books as authoritative and may or may not have chosen the full selection that other sects used.

The apocrypha in some ways reads as more "Christian-like" than the rest of the OT, and I do wonder whether the Masoretes deliberately dropped those books they thought were too Christian in character from their canon. But I am by no means an expert in this topic, it's just a nagging feeling I get when I read the apocrypha.
Click to expand...

Quite a number of the NT quotations of the OT are from the Septuigint. And the Orthodox OT to this day is based on the Septuagint; and they're quite harsh in their evaluation of the MT.

I think that's a pretty common opinion that the Masoretics dropped texts because they were too Christian; but like you say, post Dead Sea Scrolls, that looks pretty foolish. But not unsurprising; Justin Martyr quite famously accused them of modifying scriptures to eliminate prophecies of Christ.
 
Joleneakamama said:
What kind of factors do you consider in determining what is sound doctrine?
Click to expand...
Consistency.

His Word, as Written, is utterly consistent, from "Genesis to maps."

If something in Scripture contradicts Scripture...guess Who is NOT wrong?

"Study, to show yourself approved..." until EVERY single piece fits.
 
In the churches of Christ, we use "Command, Example, Necessary Inference" to determine doctrine. This is article covers this idea thoroughly. I add a "strength" scale to anything I believe.

Example: I believe there is a strong argument for adult immersive baptism for the forgiveness of sins. There is multiple Commands for believers to be baptized. Every example of conversion in the NT included baptism, and Baptism is inferred throughout the NT. On the other hand, I believe there is a weak argument that musical instruments are no longer permitted in worship. We are commanded only to sing to each other and make melody in our hearts (Eph. 5:19). There is no example of musical instruments being used in the early church and it cannot be inferred that instruments were used.

Based on the strength of these conclusions, I can judge what is a personal conviction (instruments) and what I believe should be bound on others (baptism). The failure of many in the churches of Christ is understanding there are matters of opinions that we should not bind on others.
 
Last edited:
NS4Liberty said:
Every example of conversion in the NT included baptism,
Click to expand...
Luke 23:39-43, Then one of the criminals who were hanged blasphemed Him, saying, “If You are the Christ, save Yourself and us.”

But the other, answering, rebuked him, saying, “Do you not even fear God, seeing you are under the same condemnation? And we indeed justly, for we receive the due reward of our deeds; but this Man has done nothing wrong.” Then he said to Jesus, “Lord, remember me when You come into Your kingdom.”

And Jesus said to him, “Assuredly, I say to you, today you will be with Me in Paradise.”

The above is NT and there is no baptism(?)
 
frederick said:
Luke 23:39-43, Then one of the criminals who were hanged blasphemed Him, saying, “If You are the Christ, save Yourself and us.”

But the other, answering, rebuked him, saying, “Do you not even fear God, seeing you are under the same condemnation? And we indeed justly, for we receive the due reward of our deeds; but this Man has done nothing wrong.” Then he said to Jesus, “Lord, remember me when You come into Your kingdom.”

And Jesus said to him, “Assuredly, I say to you, today you will be with Me in Paradise.”

The above is NT and there is no baptism(?)
Click to expand...
In the bound volume of the Bible it is NT but the OT didn't end until Christ fulfilled the Law through His sacrifice, so that was not under the new covenant.
 
NS4Liberty said:
In the bound volume of the Bible it is NT but the OT didn't end until Christ fulfilled the Law through His sacrifice, so that was not under the new covenant.
Click to expand...

This is what you wrote.
NS4Liberty said:
I believe there is a strong argument for adult immersive baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
Click to expand...
The repentant criminal was forgiven and promised paradise by Christ.

Mark C said:
Ugh. Sorry, but that was pretty much a Stinkeroo...try again. ;)
Click to expand...
I might not word my response quite like that, but it gets the message across.

There has only ever been forgiveness of sin by grace, through faith in the death of the substitute. Shalom
 
frederick said:
The repentant criminal was forgiven and promised paradise by Christ.
Click to expand...
Yes. Jesus saves. But from the Day of Pentecost on, how are we saved?

Acts 2:37-38 NASB95 — Now when they heard this, they were pierced to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brethren, what shall we do?” Peter said to them, “Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

1 Peter 3:21 NASB95 — Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you—not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience—through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

Romans 6:3-7 NASB95 — Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death? Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life. For if we have become united with Him in the likeness of His death, certainly we shall also be in the likeness of His resurrection, knowing this, that our old self was crucified with Him, in order that our body of sin might be done away with, so that we would no longer be slaves to sin; for he who has died is freed from sin.

I understand there is plenty of evidence for salvation through grace by faith, but when the word seems to be contradictory, it is our understanding that is wrong. Sin seperates us from God. Baptism of one with Faith removes sin by the Grace of God. Thereby rejoining him to God through Christ.
 
I understand there is some question as to the legitimacy of Mark 16, but for those who believe it is inspired there is also this:
Mark 16:15-16 NASB95 — And He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation. “He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top