Are there "as good as inspired" doctrines?

[cyberjosh]

I ask a question that can be taken in one of two directions, I know, but take for example the doctrine of the Trinity. It is not explicitly stated in the Bible, not written in the inspired text (though the evidences are there I believe), yet we place it in human words (a doctrine) to get the idea. Now the tricky question: can we say that though it is not inspired (as in explicitly written in the Bible), that it can be "as good as inspired" truth?

If I had to answer my own question I would have to say yes and no, depending on which way you took it. Yes if we are talking about recognizing truths as they really are as revealed by God, but no if we say that human teachings outside the Bible attain to the level of inspired infallibility, else many other man made doctrines might aspire to attain "as good as" status with the written word of God.

What do you say?

 

[Laudate Dominum]

The more strictly CAhtolic understanding is that these ideas are part of Sacred Tradition and are just as inspired as Scripture. I have heard the Bible called "God-breathed", but in John 20:22-23 Christ breatehs on the APostles when he confers on them the authority to forgive sins. Also, Matthew 16:17 shows us that God revealed a Sacred truth to Peter.

22And with that he breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit. 23If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven."

17Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven.

but that's the CAtholic perspective. I hope I haven't hijacked your thread already :-D

I have just put forward my own views. If you wish to discuss these or any other Catholic views, I am sure that an appropriate thead can be found in the RCC subforum, or you could PM me with any questions.

 

[stranger]

Hi Josh,

Here is one that is found commonly in hymns in various forms:

that 'the blood of Jesus cleanses us from all sin'

If there are scriptures for this - please quote reference and translation - anyone? So far I believe that it is more of a tradition which may surprise some people.

 

[cyberjosh]

Hi Josh,

Here is one that is found commonly in hymns in various forms:

that 'the blood of Jesus cleanses us from all sin'

If there are scriptures for this - please quote reference and translation - anyone? So far I believe that it is more of a tradition which may surprise some people.

Well that one is simple enough to explain actually. You know how in the OT the priests garments were to be white linen, symbolizing purity, and white is the symbol of righteousness & sinlessness: "And to her was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white: for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints" (Revelation 19:8). Spots on garments were symbolic of sin, and in the OT God told them to wash their garments when they came out of Egypt (a type of the world). Since God got them out of Egypt, they had to 'get Egypt out of them'.

Anyway that idea is all explained by this verse (knowing that background of what the garments stand for):

"I said to him, "My lord, you know." And he said to me, "These are the ones who come out of the great tribulation, and they have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb. " (Revelation 7:14).

Though one could possibly argue that this is a specific reference to those who have gone through the tribulation only, the idea is nonetheless a valid one for all saints, since we know we have been washed and that Christs' blood "given for us" on the cross has acomplished our salvation. But the terminilogy comes from this verse.

God Bless,

~Josh

 

[Vic C.]

Hi stranger,

I'm not Josh 8-) But I felt compelled to offer up some scripture without going into doctrinal details between the Old and New Covenants. I will say that the remission of our transgressions for the believer through the shed blood of Messiah is a vital common thread throughout the New Testament (Covenant).

(all KJV, but will provide alternate translation if needed)

Peace.

1 John 1:7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.

Rev 1:5 And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,

Mat 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

Acts 20:28 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.

Rom 5:8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
Rom 5:9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.
Rom 5:10 For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.
Rom 5:11 And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement.

Eph 1:6 To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved.
Eph 1:7 In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace;

Col 1:13 Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son:
Col 1:14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:

Just about all of Hebrews 9 and 10. Actually it's a theme throughout Hebrews and the NT also.

 

[Rick W]

I have heard the Bible called "God-breathed"...

KJV

 

[handy]

Josh, I agree with your premise, except that I wouldn't call the doctrine of the Trinity 'as good as' for it is something that is quite clear in the Scriptures. As a matter of fact, I think the reason why the Trinity gets attacked so consistantly is if the enemy can ever get the church to deny the Trinity, then the Scriptures themselves will fall. For there are vitally important doctrines that can only be explained when we understand the Triune nature of God. So, your answer "Yes if we are talking about recognizing truths as they really are as revealed by God" is the correct answer.

The same can be said about the Rapture. The word "Rapture" is never once mentioned in Scriptures, but the word is what we call the event described Matthew 24:29-31 and 1 Thess 4:15-18. (Other references as well but these will do.) The Second Coming is when Christ returns, the rapture is the part when the dead in Christ are resurrected and the living are caught up with the dead to meet Him. Very clear in the Scriptures what Rapture is, just never is the word used.

 

[Laudate Dominum]

Josh, I agree with your premise, except that I wouldn't call the doctrine of the Trinity 'as good as' for it is something that is quite clear in the Scriptures. As a matter of fact, I think the reason why the Trinity gets attacked so consistantly is if the enemy can ever get the church to deny the Trinity, then the Scriptures themselves will fall. For there are vitally important doctrines that can only be explained when we understand the Triune nature of God. So, your answer "Yes if we are talking about recognizing truths as they really are as revealed by God" is the correct answer.

The same can be said about the Rapture. The word "Rapture" is never once mentioned in Scriptures, but the word is what we call the event described Matthew 24:29-31 and 1 Thess 4:15-18. (Other references as well but these will do.) The Second Coming is when Christ returns, the rapture is the part when the dead in Christ are resurrected and the living are caught up with the dead to meet Him. Very clear in the Scriptures what Rapture is, just never is the word used.

I have no desire to turn this into a rapture thrad, but scripture is ambiguous enough on this topic to warrant an opposite view.

 

[francisdesales]

I have no desire to turn this into a rapture thrad, but scripture is ambiguous enough on this topic to warrant an opposite view.

Agreed. Even the Church Fathers had some interesting thoughts on milleniumism and rapture. Apparently, God did not give major details on this issue for a reason - and thus, such things remain speculative at best. Thus, it is probably not worth wasting our time on such matters.

The Trinity, on the othe hand, is most certainly an Apostolic Tradition. While based on a particular understanding of Scriptures, it is not something that the bible "stands alone on", such as Jesus dying on the cross. Arianism proves that one could possibly take the SAME bible and interpret something else regarding Trinity and the relationship between Jesus and the Father.

For the most part, I have found most Christians tend to under-emphasize the teaching of the Trinity, but in reality, it is THE KEY teaching of Christianity that makes sense of all the rest.

Regards

 

[handy]

Just to clarify, I don't suscribe to any premillennial rapture by the church. The term 'rapture' gets misused a lot. It basically only refers to the resurrection of those who died in Christ, and the catching up of those still living when Christ returns, as per the texts I posted. Purists will ascribe no time frame for the rapture, just the event. That's all, 'cause I don't want to turn it into a 'rapture' thread either. :wink:

 

[Laudate Dominum]

Just to clarify, I don't suscribe to any premillennial rapture by the church. The term 'rapture' gets misused a lot. It basically only refers to the resurrection of those who died in Christ, and the catching up of those still living when Christ returns, as per the texts I posted. Purists will ascribe no time frame for the rapture, just the event. That's all, 'cause I don't want to turn it into a 'rapture' thread either. :wink:

If by rapture, you are simply referring to the last day when all will be judged and the saved will enter Heaven, as opposed to the idea that faithful Christians will be spared a period of suffering before the world's end, then you get no argument from me, except that the term is often used in an unintentionally misleading way.

 

[BobRyan]

I ask a question that can be taken in one of two directions, I know, but take for example the doctrine of the Trinity. It is not explicitly stated in the Bible, not written in the inspired text (though the evidences are there I believe), yet we place it in human words (a doctrine) to get the idea. Now the tricky question: can we say that though it is not inspired (as in explicitly written in the Bible), that it can be "as good as inspired" truth?

First of all look at the SALIENT POINTS of the Trinity doctrine.

One God -- Three PERSONS.

Is it really true that we do not find ONE GOD and yet THREE Persons in the Bible?

No.

The salient arguments -- aLL the key elements for the Trinity are EXPLICITLY in scripture.

Matt 28 "Baptizing them in the NAME OF the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit".

impossible to miss.

And often we see "The Holy Spirit HIMSELF" is a term mentioned in the NT.

BY CONTRAST let's take something totally made up... Purgatory and INDULGENCES.

What are the KEY salient points of such a man-made tradition?

1. The SAINTS SUFFER after death until they are ready for heaven.
2. The Church has a spiritual bank of sufferring from which she can draw to aid those in Purgatory
3. Prayers to the "Dead in Christ" (1Thess 4) are helpful for other dead people.
4. Plenary indulgences instantly free the suffering saint in purgatory allowing them to wing their way into heaven.
5. Every sin committed in this life has associated with it a temporal punishement that must be PAID by the PERSON before they enter heaven.
6. People who die having SUFFERRED more than what "they owed" have their excess torment placed into bank -- that can be used for others but only after those other people die.

This is NOT like "Trinity" where one argues that all the points of the term are IN the Bible but the WORD is simply not used.

This is a case where it does not matter what WORD you want to use because the ELEMENTs the salient points of the doctrine of Purgatory - are not there in scripture!!

It is a doctrine "by PRESUMPTION" where the argument is of the form "The Bible does not say there are NOT 54 Easter bunnies guarding the gates of purgatory so we assume there ARE".

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

In the case of the RAPTURE the "salient points" are that the DEAD are raised at the APPEARING of christ and at that same moment "We who are ALIVE and remain are caught up together with them IN THE AIR to meet the Lord" 1Thess 4.

Turns out - that is IN scripture.

But there are other "details" that point to some errors in some "popular forms of the rapture teaching" -- like the "detail" that the RESURRECTION of the saints in 1Thess 4 is called the "FIRST resurrection" in Rev 20 and it happens at the "appearing of christ" which is clearly seen in both Rev 19 and 1Thess 4 to be "the second coming".

But still - this is the rapture.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[RadicalReformer]

In regards to "God-breathed" there is a difference in the terms to say "breathed on by God" and "God -breathed".

God-breathed literally means "coming from God", or "spired from God". In other words, Scripture is not something that was created and then later given divine inspiration as a "second work". The creation of Scripture itself was spired by God using human authors as the tools of the creation.

 

[stranger]

Hi stranger,

I'm not Josh 8-) But I felt compelled to offer up some scripture without going into doctrinal details between the Old and New Covenants. I will say that the remission of our transgressions for the believer through the shed blood of Messiah is a vital common thread throughout the New Testament (Covenant).

(all KJV, but will provide alternate translation if needed)

Peace.

1 John 1:7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.

Rev 1:5 And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,

Mat 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

Acts 20:28 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.

Rom 5:8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
Rom 5:9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.
Rom 5:10 For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.
Rom 5:11 And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement.

Eph 1:6 To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved.
Eph 1:7 In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace;

Col 1:13 Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son:
Col 1:14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:

Just about all of Hebrews 9 and 10. Actually it's a theme throughout Hebrews and the NT also.

Hi Vic and Josh,

Ok, both 'washed and cleanse' are found in the direct context of the blood of Christ. These are references to sanctification. I don't know the exact number of verses - a few would be my guess.

The majority of references to the blood of Christ, if I am not mistaken in this also, have to do with justification.

There is too finer a point to be made about a verse that mentions both justification and sanctification as the work of Christ.

Josh - is this what you are getting at: Something popularised can become 'tradition' adhered to as if it were in scripture?

 

[francisdesales]

First of all look at the SALIENT POINTS of the Trinity doctrine.

One God -- Three PERSONS.

Is it really true that we do not find ONE GOD and yet THREE Persons in the Bible?

No.

The salient arguments -- aLL the key elements for the Trinity are EXPLICITLY in scripture.

Matt 28 "Baptizing them in the NAME OF the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit".

impossible to miss.

First, I would like to say that I believe God is a Trinity of Persons. However, I do not believe that BECAUSE of the "explicit" writings of Matthew 28...I believe it because the Church teaches it.


First, WHERE does Jesus say that all three "persons" in Matthew 28 are equally God???

yes, this is a Catholic interpretation based on Apostolic Tradition and you don't even realize it...

If I said "take out the garbage in the name of your mother, your father, and your brother", does that insinuate that all three are of equal status???

How about "Baptize in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit" - and defining the Spirit, in the fashion of Gnosticism - as a lower deity? The Scriptures ALONE do not teach the Trinity explicity. You are reading my Church's theology into the Scriptures...

What is impossible to miss is that you have a difficult time separating your eigesis from what Scriptures say.

What are the KEY salient points of such a man-made tradition?

sola scriptura.
sola fide.

A man-made tradition is harshly treated by the Lord NOT because it was invented by men, but ONLY when it leads men AWAY FROM GOD. ANYONE who can read can understand the Lord's example of Korban. He even tells us HOW it countermands Scriptures. Is our Lord really upset with the Pharisees because they give up MORE tithing than is required??? Is our Lord upset because people have pious devotions that go beyond what the Scriptures require?

Let's try to have a bit of common sense here...

Unforunately, our friend Bob has not made any efforts to explain how "Purgatory" has countermanded Scriptures. NOT A SINGLE VERSE...He is just worried because it doesn't fit his personal eigesis. We see his eigesis and inconsistency regarding Trinity and Purgatory. BOTH are implied in Scriptures. NEITHER are explicit. Yet, our friend believes one and not the other. Why? Because he has a particular set of beliefs and then haphazardly look to the Scriptures to "proof-text" them.

In other words, he has already picked and choosen what God has revealed - and don't bother with what the Scriptures ACTUALLY allows...

Regards

 

[Heidi]

I ask a question that can be taken in one of two directions, I know, but take for example the doctrine of the Trinity. It is not explicitly stated in the Bible, not written in the inspired text (though the evidences are there I believe), yet we place it in human words (a doctrine) to get the idea. Now the tricky question: can we say that though it is not inspired (as in explicitly written in the Bible), that it can be "as good as inspired" truth?

If I had to answer my own question I would have to say yes and no, depending on which way you took it. Yes if we are talking about recognizing truths as they really are as revealed by God, but no if we say that human teachings outside the Bible attain to the level of inspired infallibility, else many other man made doctrines might aspire to attain "as good as" status with the written word of God.

What do you say?

What other book contains the living word of God? :o And if such a book exists, then why would it contradict God's word in the bible? :o If it did, it doesn't come from God because God doesn't contradict himself. So there's no reason for another book to be written. God also tells us not to go beyond what is written. That means do not add or subtract any words in the bible. That command is from God. So there can be no other book that says something more than the bible does and at the same time be the infallible word of God. But as the bible tells us, false prophets will crawl out of the woodwork during end times and people will abandon sound doctrine for myths. That's because few people worship God but instead, they worship men and pass along the teachings of men.

 

[Laudate Dominum]

I ask a question that can be taken in one of two directions, I know, but take for example the doctrine of the Trinity. It is not explicitly stated in the Bible, not written in the inspired text (though the evidences are there I believe), yet we place it in human words (a doctrine) to get the idea. Now the tricky question: can we say that though it is not inspired (as in explicitly written in the Bible), that it can be "as good as inspired" truth?

If I had to answer my own question I would have to say yes and no, depending on which way you took it. Yes if we are talking about recognizing truths as they really are as revealed by God, but no if we say that human teachings outside the Bible attain to the level of inspired infallibility, else many other man made doctrines might aspire to attain "as good as" status with the written word of God.

What do you say?

What other book contains the living word of God? :o And if such a book exists, then why would it contradict God's word in the bible? :o If it did, it doesn't come from God because God doesn't contradict himself. So there's no reason for another book to be written. God also tells us not to go beyond what is written. That means do not add or subtract any words in the bible. That command is from God. So there can be no other book that says something more than the bible does and at the same time be the infallible word of God. But as the bible tells us, false prophets will crawl out of the woodwork during end times and people will abandon sound doctrine for myths. That's because few people worship God but instead, they worship men and pass along the teachings of men.

You've got that backwards.And even then, the warning not to "add or subtract" is not necessarily applicable to the entire Bible.

 

[francisdesales]

What other book contains the living word of God?

Hello Heidi...

I have a Catholic Catechism on my shelf that contains the Word of God in it. Actually, any teaching of an Apostle (unless given as a personal opinion, as Paul sometimes notes), is considered the Word of God. There is no regulation that ALL of their teachings are listed in one book that we now call "Bible"...

:o And if such a book exists, then why would it contradict God's word in the bible? :o

And who said that it would? God's Word doesn't contradict itself, even if it is found in different sources.

If it did, it doesn't come from God because God doesn't contradict himself. So there's no reason for another book to be written.

When if history tells us that the Bible was not written first? When if the Bible ITSELF tells us to hold onto teachings not found in Scriptures??? It seems that you are ignoring part of Scriptures THEMSELVES with your insistence on the bible being the SOLE place where we find God's Word.

God also tells us not to go beyond what is written. That means do not add or subtract any words in the bible.

And yet, you hold to an idea not found in Scriptures... How is it you hold to an addition to the Bible?

That command is from God. So there can be no other book that says something more than the bible does and at the same time be the infallible word of God.

Again, you have presumed that the Bible is the ONLY place we can find God's revelation to mankind. The Bible tells us EXPLICITLY that this is false! I find your logic to be defeated before it even gets off the ground.

But as the bible tells us, false prophets will crawl out of the woodwork during end times and people will abandon sound doctrine for myths. That's because few people worship God but instead, they worship men and pass along the teachings of men.

Oh, I will agree with you on that! We have a whole slew of false prophets readily identified from the 16th century...

Regards

 

[cyberjosh]

Josh - is this what you are getting at: Something popularised can become 'tradition' adhered to as if it were in scripture?

That certainly is a valid suggestion posed by the question, yes. I don't know why, but I still can't shake the feeling that even though some of the earliest Church Fathers who claim to represent the earliest Church traditions, such as Ignatius and Justin Martyr (even the Didache), still hold things in them that are extraneous to the Bible. I wish I could say that the earliest witnesses are the best ones, but that is not necessarily true.

Although in the interest of seeking out the earliest Christian writers I sure wish we had more of Polycarp's writings preserved (we only have fragments & stories), because he held some more orthodox views than the later Fathers did, and even Justin Martyr departed from him in the observation of the Sabbath and of traditional Passover, which Polycarp says was handed to him straight from John and the Apostles (since he had actually met them). Anyway, let wishes be wishes...