Bible Study What Might Be Valid Indicators Any Given Theologian's Doctrine Is Correct?

[Jacob62]

Let us first note that the authors of the Biblical canon we have today never recorded disputes of Doctrine. The Galatians ch. 2 Peter/Paul legalism dispute was not an ongoing problem after being quickly resolved.

However in contrast, both throughout historic Christendom and today there exist innumerable varieties of belief upon every tenet of faith and upon every part of Scripture. No consensus exists upon any aspect of the Bible amongst those who claim to pursue Elohim through Jesus Christ. Explore here, now, how to spot the Truth from any person presuming to speak it.

Considerations might be:

1.) SCHOLASTIC AND PROFESSIONAL PEDIGREE.
However, titles, c. vitae, academic activity, reputation, endorsements, public exposure, peerage, association membership, heritage of doctrine, and such do not guarantee Godly theology and doctrine.

2.) THE LIVE PRESENTATION.
Some people need to personally listen to and watch a person to see if they are reliable and credible. Body language, demeanor, grooming, communication skills, affability, personal kindness, all of those things seen only within a live, first hand event. Does their spirit witness with your spirit.

3.) PRAYERFUL AND CONSIDERED RESEARCH UPON THEIR PERSONAL PROFILE.
Investigation of their criminal record, family upbringing, public testimony, history of marriage & divorce, news media findings, types of people who oppose them, their friends, the integrity of their children, family heritage, family heritage, personal habits, hobbies.

4.) THEIR POLITICAL BELIEFS.
Patriotism, political party, views on immigration, government intrusion, Earth biome stewardship, conspiracy theories, world order, constitutional rights, gun control, taxes.

5.) SIGNIFICANCE OF THEIR THEOLOGY.
Well ordered and logical vs. intuitive, their material application of what they speak, existence of spiritual fruit, existence of deeds and works, existence of peace and joy, their attitude toward the disadvantaged and poor, their prayer life, their temperance, what do they actually do in the Kingdom, are they just all talk.

6.) THEIR TESTIMONY.
Is it believable, does it reflect the Hand of God, was it a personal event.

This can go on endlessly. Notice there is here no mention of whether or not they cite the Bible, whether or not they say they love Jesus, whether or not they claim Salvation, whether or not they understand the Cross.

How should we decide?

 

[Hopeful]

Let us first note that the authors of the Biblical canon we have today never recorded disputes of Doctrine. The Galatians ch. 2 Peter/Paul legalism dispute was not an ongoing problem after being quickly resolved.

However in contrast, both throughout historic Christendom and today there exist innumerable varieties of belief upon every tenet of faith and upon every part of Scripture. No consensus exists upon any aspect of the Bible amongst those who claim to pursue Elohim through Jesus Christ. Explore here, now, how to spot the Truth from any person presuming to speak it.

Considerations might be:

1.) SCHOLASTIC AND PROFESSIONAL PEDIGREE.
However, titles, c. vitae, academic activity, reputation, endorsements, public exposure, peerage, association membership, heritage of doctrine, and such do not guarantee Godly theology and doctrine.

2.) THE LIVE PRESENTATION.
Some people need to personally listen to and watch a person to see if they are reliable and credible. Body language, demeanor, grooming, communication skills, affability, personal kindness, all of those things seen only within a live, first hand event. Does their spirit witness with your spirit.

3.) PRAYERFUL AND CONSIDERED RESEARCH UPON THEIR PERSONAL PROFILE.
Investigation of their criminal record, family upbringing, public testimony, history of marriage & divorce, news media findings, types of people who oppose them, their friends, the integrity of their children, family heritage, family heritage, personal habits, hobbies.

4.) THEIR POLITICAL BELIEFS.
Patriotism, political party, views on immigration, government intrusion, Earth biome stewardship, conspiracy theories, world order, constitutional rights, gun control, taxes.

5.) SIGNIFICANCE OF THEIR THEOLOGY.
Well ordered and logical vs. intuitive, their material application of what they speak, existence of spiritual fruit, existence of deeds and works, existence of peace and joy, their attitude toward the disadvantaged and poor, their prayer life, their temperance, what do they actually do in the Kingdom, are they just all talk.

6.) THEIR TESTIMONY.
Is it believable, does it reflect the Hand of God, was it a personal event.

This can go on endlessly. Notice there is here no mention of whether or not they cite the Bible, whether or not they say they love Jesus, whether or not they claim Salvation, whether or not they understand the Cross.

How should we decide?

If it accommodates or minimizes sin, it is not of God.

 

[Jacob62]

If it accommodates or minimizes sin, it is not of God.

Are you without sin?

 

[Hopeful]

Are you without sin?

Yes.
Thanks be to God for His merciful supply of what I needed to permanently "turn from" sin.

 

[Jacob62]

Yes.
Thanks be to God for His merciful supply of what I needed to permanently "turn from" sin.

Wonderful to hear.

Did you perhaps have something to say about the actual topic of this thread?

How do you personally know when someone is correctly dividing The Word?

 

[for_his_glory]

We can know truth by Spiritually testing the spirits that teach us, 1 John 4:1-6. If what one teaches does not line up with that which is already written, being the doctrine of Christ then don't believe them. It is up to the individual to seek out truth so they are not deceived. Many twist scripture to make it fit their own theories an we need to be aware of this.

2Timothy 2:14 Of these things put them in remembrance, charging them before the Lord that they strive not about words to no profit, but to the subverting of the hearers.
2Timothy 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
2Timothy 2:16 But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness.

 

[Jacob62]

We can know truth by Spiritually testing the spirits that teach us, 1 John 4:1-6. If what one teaches does not line up with that which is already written, being the doctrine of Christ then don't believe them. It is up to the individual to seek out truth so they are not deceived. Many twist scripture to make it fit their own theories an we need to be aware of this.

2Timothy 2:14 Of these things put them in remembrance, charging them before the Lord that they strive not about words to no profit, but to the subverting of the hearers.
2Timothy 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
2Timothy 2:16 But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness.

Please tell us the practical means for how we test the spirits.

Please recall there is more to an answer than the fuzzy, default statement "By Using Scripture and Prayer." For instance, I am curious:

1.) Exactly what is there to pray for? What has been your consistent experience upon answered prayer to discern the spirits? Do you have an actual testimony of doing that?

2.) What Scripture have you personally used to discern, say, 5 spirits? How did you know the spirits existed?

3.) We're they actual supernatural spirits, or were they just "How a person's spirit seemed to be?"

Thanks for your help on this. Blessings.

 

[Quantrill]

Please tell us the practical means for how we test the spirits.

Please recall there is more to an answer than the fuzzy, default statement "By Using Scripture and Prayer." For instance, I am curious:

1.) Exactly what is there to pray for? What has been your consistent experience upon answered prayer to discern the spirits? Do you have an actual testimony of doing that?

2.) What Scripture have you personally used to discern, say, 5 spirits? How did you know the spirits existed?

3.) We're they actual supernatural spirits, or were they just "How a person's spirit seemed to be?"

Thanks for your help on this. Blessings.

Who is 'us'?

What are 'your' indicators that a theologians doctrine is correct? And, do you consider yourself a 'theologian'? I would be surprised if you said yes, because you don't know the Bible.

Are you asking because you don't know, or because you think you know. Just what do you consider yourself?

What is your game?

Quantrill

 

[Fastfredy0]

What Might Be Valid Indicators Any Given Theologian's Doctrine Is Correct?​

An excellent, thought provoking question. An infalible answer is not to be found.

To start, “One must believe God exists eternally as the personal, transcendent, triune Creator and has revealed his character, purposes and will in the infallible and inerrant pages of his special revelation, the Bible.

The Bible is to the theologian what nature is to the scientist, --a body of unorganized or only partially organized facts. It is necessary, therefore, if we are to know all the facts on any given subject for us to gather together the scattered teachings and to construct them into a logical and harmonious system. The function of systematic theology is to unfold the Bible using revelation and reason; where the former trumps the latter. It is the orderly collecting, scientifically arranging, comparing, exhibiting and defending of all facts from any and every biblical source concerning God and His works.

Exegetical theology is foundational for systematic theology. John Murray said, “The main source of revelation is the Bible. Hence exposition of the Scripture is basic to systematic theology. . . . Systematics must coordinate the teaching of particular passages and systematize this teaching under the appropriate topics.” Murray warned, “Systematic theology has gravely suffered, indeed has deserted its vocation, when it has been divorced from meticulous attention to biblical exegesis.” Geerhardus Vos (1862–1949) said that theology “is eminently a process in which God speaks and man listens.” At the same time, both exegesis and hermeneutics depend upon systematic theology. The better an interpreter understands the great teachings of the Bible as a coherent system, the better he will understand and interpret its individual parts. Joel Beeke Reformed Systematic Theology

Beware of the Hermeneutical Spiral and Individual Bias
Inductive reasoning starts with particular facts and moves toward a general truth to interpret particular facts. Deductive reasoning uses a general truth to interpret particular facts.
No one ever comes to the Bible and simply begins by inductively studying a particular passage. Inductive Bible study leaders may give the impression that they are setting aside their prejudices and simply reading Scripture, but this is not really the case. Baptists tend to read the Bible as if it teaches adult-only baptism, non-charismatics as if it teaches that there is no longer an office of prophet, and Calvinists as if it teaches unconditional election. We all read expecting to find specific things.
In other words, we never see Scripture through completely fresh, unprejudiced eyes.

Systematic theology can be limited by the following factors:
1. The silence of the Bible on a particular topic (Deuteronomy 29:29; John 20:30; 21:25)
2. A theologian’s partial knowledge/understanding of the entire Bible (Luke 24:25–27, 32; 2 Pet. 3:16)
3. The inadequacy of human language (1 Corinthians 2:13–14; 2 Corinthians 12:4)
4. The finiteness of the human mind (Job 11:7–12; 38:1–39:30; Isaiah 55:8-9; Romans 11:33–35 )
5. The lack of spiritual discernment/growth (1 Cor. 3:1–3; Hebrews 5:11–13 ) John MacArthur – Biblical
and
6. The depravity of man
7. Unbelief (1 Corinthians 2:14 ) and spiritual immaturity
8. An organized, disciplined mind that can correlate knowledge. A knowledge of the original languages of the Bible and exegetical methods.
9. Personal bias
10. The Spirit’s illumination
11. Knowing the purpose of God
12. Ignorance, intolerance, unreachable, preconceived views, and slavish bondage to human leaders and creeds, an overabundance of varying complex interpretations are the roots of doctrinal confusion.
13. The problem of spiritualizing scripture

Using Proper hermeneutics

• The Bible should be interpreted literarily. When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense.
• Using the Historical-grammatical method. This means pursuing initially the meaning of the author/Author as expressed in the text with a sensitivity to its original textual setting.
• Scripture interprets Scripture
• Interpret the implicit by the explicit; the unclear by the clear
• Use didactic scripture to interpret narrative.
• Proof texts should be provided
• Minimalism: Do not draw more out of a verse than is there
• Never use unclear passages validate an idea
• Word of God cannot contradict itself
• Pay attention to grammar
• God’s word is infallible and inerrant, our interpretations are not infallible
• Consider who is writing scripture and whom they are writing to and the circumstance
• understanding the original languages
• the genre of the book (poetry, narrative, psalms, wisdom, letters,...

What Might Be Valid Indicators Any Given Theologian's Doctrine Is Correct?​

We have indicators, but human limitations make the correct application of a myriad of indicators impossible. ​

End of my rantings.

 

[Hopeful]

Wonderful to hear.

Did you perhaps have something to say about the actual topic of this thread?

I already did, in post #2.

How do you personally know when someone is correctly dividing The Word?

If a doctrine foments disobedience to God, I know it is not of God.

 

[Jacob62]

What Might Be Valid Indicators Any Given Theologian's Doctrine Is Correct?​

An excellent, thought provoking question. An infalible answer is not to be found.

To start, “One must believe God exists eternally as the personal, transcendent, triune Creator and has revealed his character, purposes and will in the infallible and inerrant pages of his special revelation, the Bible.

The Bible is to the theologian what nature is to the scientist, --a body of unorganized or only partially organized facts. It is necessary, therefore, if we are to know all the facts on any given subject for us to gather together the scattered teachings and to construct them into a logical and harmonious system. The function of systematic theology is to unfold the Bible using revelation and reason; where the former trumps the latter. It is the orderly collecting, scientifically arranging, comparing, exhibiting and defending of all facts from any and every biblical source concerning God and His works.

Exegetical theology is foundational for systematic theology. John Murray said, “The main source of revelation is the Bible. Hence exposition of the Scripture is basic to systematic theology. . . . Systematics must coordinate the teaching of particular passages and systematize this teaching under the appropriate topics.” Murray warned, “Systematic theology has gravely suffered, indeed has deserted its vocation, when it has been divorced from meticulous attention to biblical exegesis.” Geerhardus Vos (1862–1949) said that theology “is eminently a process in which God speaks and man listens.” At the same time, both exegesis and hermeneutics depend upon systematic theology. The better an interpreter understands the great teachings of the Bible as a coherent system, the better he will understand and interpret its individual parts. Joel Beeke Reformed Systematic Theology

Beware of the Hermeneutical Spiral and Individual Bias
Inductive reasoning starts with particular facts and moves toward a general truth to interpret particular facts. Deductive reasoning uses a general truth to interpret particular facts.
No one ever comes to the Bible and simply begins by inductively studying a particular passage. Inductive Bible study leaders may give the impression that they are setting aside their prejudices and simply reading Scripture, but this is not really the case. Baptists tend to read the Bible as if it teaches adult-only baptism, non-charismatics as if it teaches that there is no longer an office of prophet, and Calvinists as if it teaches unconditional election. We all read expecting to find specific things.
In other words, we never see Scripture through completely fresh, unprejudiced eyes.

Systematic theology can be limited by the following factors:
1. The silence of the Bible on a particular topic (Deuteronomy 29:29; John 20:30; 21:25)
2. A theologian’s partial knowledge/understanding of the entire Bible (Luke 24:25–27, 32; 2 Pet. 3:16)
3. The inadequacy of human language (1 Corinthians 2:13–14; 2 Corinthians 12:4)
4. The finiteness of the human mind (Job 11:7–12; 38:1–39:30; Isaiah 55:8-9; Romans 11:33–35 )
5. The lack of spiritual discernment/growth (1 Cor. 3:1–3; Hebrews 5:11–13 ) John MacArthur – Biblical
and
6. The depravity of man
7. Unbelief (1 Corinthians 2:14 ) and spiritual immaturity
8. An organized, disciplined mind that can correlate knowledge. A knowledge of the original languages of the Bible and exegetical methods.
9. Personal bias
10. The Spirit’s illumination
11. Knowing the purpose of God
12. Ignorance, intolerance, unreachable, preconceived views, and slavish bondage to human leaders and creeds, an overabundance of varying complex interpretations are the roots of doctrinal confusion.
13. The problem of spiritualizing scripture

Using Proper hermeneutics

• The Bible should be interpreted literarily. When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense.
• Using the Historical-grammatical method. This means pursuing initially the meaning of the author/Author as expressed in the text with a sensitivity to its original textual setting.
• Scripture interprets Scripture
• Interpret the implicit by the explicit; the unclear by the clear
• Use didactic scripture to interpret narrative.
• Proof texts should be provided
• Minimalism: Do not draw more out of a verse than is there
• Never use unclear passages validate an idea
• Word of God cannot contradict itself
• Pay attention to grammar
• God’s word is infallible and inerrant, our interpretations are not infallible
• Consider who is writing scripture and whom they are writing to and the circumstance
• understanding the original languages
• the genre of the book (poetry, narrative, psalms, wisdom, letters,...

What Might Be Valid Indicators Any Given Theologian's Doctrine Is Correct?​

We have indicators, but human limitations make the correct application of a myriad of indicators impossible. ​

End of my rantings.

Lol. Thanks for stating your thoughts as they do appear to arrive at that conclusion, even graciously including "We" as pretend participants.

Regards.

 

[Jacob62]

I already did, in post #2.

If a doctrine foments disobedience to God, I know it is not of God.

How is any particular doctrine tested to be obedient to God? Perhaps by using chit chat explanations to create a feeling of confidence?

Regards.

 

[Jacob62]

What Might Be Valid Indicators Any Given Theologian's Doctrine Is Correct?​

An excellent, thought provoking question. An infalible answer is not to be found.

To start, “One must believe God exists eternally as the personal, transcendent, triune Creator and has revealed his character, purposes and will in the infallible and inerrant pages of his special revelation, the Bible.

The Bible is to the theologian what nature is to the scientist, --a body of unorganized or only partially organized facts. It is necessary, therefore, if we are to know all the facts on any given subject for us to gather together the scattered teachings and to construct them into a logical and harmonious system. The function of systematic theology is to unfold the Bible using revelation and reason; where the former trumps the latter. It is the orderly collecting, scientifically arranging, comparing, exhibiting and defending of all facts from any and every biblical source concerning God and His works.

Exegetical theology is foundational for systematic theology. John Murray said, “The main source of revelation is the Bible. Hence exposition of the Scripture is basic to systematic theology. . . . Systematics must coordinate the teaching of particular passages and systematize this teaching under the appropriate topics.” Murray warned, “Systematic theology has gravely suffered, indeed has deserted its vocation, when it has been divorced from meticulous attention to biblical exegesis.” Geerhardus Vos (1862–1949) said that theology “is eminently a process in which God speaks and man listens.” At the same time, both exegesis and hermeneutics depend upon systematic theology. The better an interpreter understands the great teachings of the Bible as a coherent system, the better he will understand and interpret its individual parts. Joel Beeke Reformed Systematic Theology

Beware of the Hermeneutical Spiral and Individual Bias
Inductive reasoning starts with particular facts and moves toward a general truth to interpret particular facts. Deductive reasoning uses a general truth to interpret particular facts.
No one ever comes to the Bible and simply begins by inductively studying a particular passage. Inductive Bible study leaders may give the impression that they are setting aside their prejudices and simply reading Scripture, but this is not really the case. Baptists tend to read the Bible as if it teaches adult-only baptism, non-charismatics as if it teaches that there is no longer an office of prophet, and Calvinists as if it teaches unconditional election. We all read expecting to find specific things.
In other words, we never see Scripture through completely fresh, unprejudiced eyes.

Systematic theology can be limited by the following factors:
1. The silence of the Bible on a particular topic (Deuteronomy 29:29; John 20:30; 21:25)
2. A theologian’s partial knowledge/understanding of the entire Bible (Luke 24:25–27, 32; 2 Pet. 3:16)
3. The inadequacy of human language (1 Corinthians 2:13–14; 2 Corinthians 12:4)
4. The finiteness of the human mind (Job 11:7–12; 38:1–39:30; Isaiah 55:8-9; Romans 11:33–35 )
5. The lack of spiritual discernment/growth (1 Cor. 3:1–3; Hebrews 5:11–13 ) John MacArthur – Biblical
and
6. The depravity of man
7. Unbelief (1 Corinthians 2:14 ) and spiritual immaturity
8. An organized, disciplined mind that can correlate knowledge. A knowledge of the original languages of the Bible and exegetical methods.
9. Personal bias
10. The Spirit’s illumination
11. Knowing the purpose of God
12. Ignorance, intolerance, unreachable, preconceived views, and slavish bondage to human leaders and creeds, an overabundance of varying complex interpretations are the roots of doctrinal confusion.
13. The problem of spiritualizing scripture

Using Proper hermeneutics

• The Bible should be interpreted literarily. When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense.
• Using the Historical-grammatical method. This means pursuing initially the meaning of the author/Author as expressed in the text with a sensitivity to its original textual setting.
• Scripture interprets Scripture
• Interpret the implicit by the explicit; the unclear by the clear
• Use didactic scripture to interpret narrative.
• Proof texts should be provided
• Minimalism: Do not draw more out of a verse than is there
• Never use unclear passages validate an idea
• Word of God cannot contradict itself
• Pay attention to grammar
• God’s word is infallible and inerrant, our interpretations are not infallible
• Consider who is writing scripture and whom they are writing to and the circumstance
• understanding the original languages
• the genre of the book (poetry, narrative, psalms, wisdom, letters,...

What Might Be Valid Indicators Any Given Theologian's Doctrine Is Correct?​

We have indicators, but human limitations make the correct application of a myriad of indicators impossible. ​

End of my rantings.

What is the outcome in your life of all the things you just spoke?

 

[Fastfredy0]

What is the outcome in your life of all the things you just spoke?

Absolute truth is elusive.

 

[Jacob62]

Absolute truth is elusive.

Nobody here asked about absolute truth. Citing hyperboli is avoidance. Is your life not impacted by what you posted at length? Why post it? Just kind of curious. You know, a testimony.

Regards.

 

[Hopeful]

How is any particular doctrine tested to be obedient to God? Perhaps by using chit chat explanations to create a feeling of confidence?

Regards.

Sure, as long as those conversations include scriptural backing.
And though a doctrine may "be obedient to God", it is the results of a doctrine that must be measured for adherence to holiness.

 

[Hopeful]

Absolute truth is elusive.

Do you have an example of that?
Or is that just your experience?

I don't think truth is hidden at all.

 

[Fastfredy0]

Nobody here asked about absolute truth.

Absolute (not qualified or diminished in any way; total) truth (not qualified or diminished in any way; total)
The subject is discerning "absolute truth" - What Might Be Valid Indicators Any Given Theologian's Doctrine Is Correct?

Premise 1: The bible is without error
Premise 2: the subject is God's teachings as organized in doctrines
Conclusion: the question is about absolute trust.

John 8: 32 So Jesus was saying to the Jews who had believed Him, “If you abide in My word [continually obeying My teachings and living in accordance with them, then] you are truly My disciples. 32 And you will know the truth [regarding salvation], and the truth will set you free [from the penalty of sin].”

 

[Hopeful]

Absolute (not qualified or diminished in any way; total) truth (not qualified or diminished in any way; total)
The subject is discerning "absolute truth" - What Might Be Valid Indicators Any Given Theologian's Doctrine Is Correct?

Premise 1: The bible is without error
Premise 2: the subject is God's teachings as organized in doctrines
Conclusion: the question is about absolute trust.

John 8: 32 So Jesus was saying to the Jews who had believed Him, “If you abide in My word [continually obeying My teachings and living in accordance with them, then] you are truly My disciples. 32 And you will know the truth [regarding salvation], and the truth will set you free [from the penalty of sin].”

Why did you add [from the penalty of sin] ??
I think, I hope, that it is understood that freedom from sin also negates any penalty for that which we don't do.

 

[Jacob62]

Sure, as long as those conversations include scriptural backing.
And though a doctrine may "be obedient to God", it is the results of a doctrine that must be measured for adherence to holiness.

Adherence to holiness is just a term, since actual holiness cannot either be defined or demonstrated without seeing a person's heart.

Scriptural backing is used for multitudes of Doctrinal error, such as the horrors of Calvinism.