Necessarily Implied Doctrine vs True Church Doctrine

[JonC]

In theological discussions (recently with a discussion of Penal Substitution Theory) a term often crops up. This term is “necessarily implied”.

The problem with the term is that it bridges the gap between two opposing methods of viewing Scripture by bring both exegesis and eisegesis together as an acceptable mode of “interpretation”. Quite simply, if it is not actually in the text of Scripture one can say it is “necessarily implied” as a way of masking the eisegesis, or the foreign element being brought into the text.

Anything can be said to be “necessarily implied” if it is expected to be believed but in fact foreign to the biblical text itself. Infant baptism is “necessarily implied”. The sinlessness of Mary is “necessarily implied”. Peter as the first Church Bishop is “necessarily implied”. The primacy of Rome is “necessarily implied”. And Penal Substitution Theory is “necessarily implied”.

In our previous discussion this is where @The Biblicist departs from the doctrine of the “true church”. Christian doctrine has historically and at its core rested upon what is written rather than what is implied. Interpretations may vary, and this was an issue of discussion and debate (e.g., the Jerusalem counsel Luke mentions in the book of Acts).

But the idea of “necessarily implied” is just a mask to retain philosophical or religious traditions, often flavors of Roman Catholicism, within one’s doctrine without admitting to the average church member that the doctrine they are being fed is not actually written in the text of Scripture.

We have to start being mindful of what is actually written in Scripture. We have to abandon these false ideas of the church - that it rests upon “Church dogma” and what is “implied” in Scripture rather than what is written and written again.

At this time we have entire denominations resting not only their soteriological views but their understanding of the gospel itself on what they see “necessarily implied” in Scripture rather than what is actually stated.

Throughout history there has always been a “true church” in the sense of those who hold a correct understanding of the true gospel of Jesus Christ. I would encourage those here to consider how much has been built on the Reformed view of Penal Substitution Theory rather than on Scripture itself. How much of your doctrine is “necessarily implied” and how much is actually stated in Scripture?

 

[The Biblicist]

In theological discussions (recently with a discussion of Penal Substitution Theory) a term often crops up. This term is “necessarily implied”.

The problem with the term is that it bridges the gap between two opposing methods of viewing Scripture by bring both exegesis and eisegesis together as an acceptable mode of “interpretation”. Quite simply, if it is not actually in the text of Scripture one can say it is “necessarily implied” as a way of masking the eisegesis, or the foreign element being brought into the text.

Anything can be said to be “necessarily implied” if it is expected to be believed but in fact foreign to the biblical text itself. Infant baptism is “necessarily implied”. The sinlessness of Mary is “necessarily implied”. Peter as the first Church Bishop is “necessarily implied”. The primacy of Rome is “necessarily implied”. And Penal Substitution Theory is “necessarily implied”.

In our previous discussion this is where @The Biblicist departs from the doctrine of the “true church”. Christian doctrine has historically and at its core rested upon what is written rather than what is implied. Interpretations may vary, and this was an issue of discussion and debate (e.g., the Jerusalem counsel Luke mentions in the book of Acts).

But the idea of “necessarily implied” is just a mask to retain philosophical or religious traditions, often flavors of Roman Catholicism, within one’s doctrine without admitting to the average church member that the doctrine they are being fed is not actually written in the text of Scripture.

We have to start being mindful of what is actually written in Scripture. We have to abandon these false ideas of the church - that it rests upon “Church dogma” and what is “implied” in Scripture rather than what is written and written again.

At this time we have entire denominations resting not only their soteriological views but their understanding of the gospel itself on what they see “necessarily implied” in Scripture rather than what is actually stated.

Throughout history there has always been a “true church” in the sense of those who hold a correct understanding of the true gospel of Jesus Christ. I would encourage those here to consider how much has been built on the Reformed view of Penal Substitution Theory rather than on Scripture itself. How much of your doctrine is “necessarily implied” and how much is actually stated in Scripture?

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.

 

[The Biblicist]

In our previous discussion this is where @The Biblicist departs from the doctrine of the “true church”..... Throughout history there has always been a “true church” in the sense of those who hold a correct understanding of the true gospel of Jesus Christ.

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?

 

[JonC]

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.

No, there are passages that teach the Atonement was God redeeming mankind through His own righteousness manifested apart from the law.

You see it as centered on God's moral law necause you see this idea implied throught Scripture. You see your interpretation of Scripture as if it were actually stated in Scripture.

So do other sects (like the Catholics, the Pentecostals, etc) but the problem is non-Christian groups like the Jehovah Witnesses do the same.

We need to build on what is actually written. You will not change my mind about that.

 

[JonC]

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?

No. I am talking about true church doctrine as defined in Scripture (what is written). Your view is reformed RCC dogma (I do not believe the RCC was the "true chuech").

 

[The Biblicist]

No, there are passages that teach the Atonement was God redeeming mankind through His own righteousness manifested apart from the law.

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.

You see it as centered on God's moral law necause you see this idea implied throught Scripture. You see your interpretation of Scripture as if it were actually stated in Scripture.

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.

 

[The Biblicist]

No. I am talking about true church doctrine as defined in Scripture (what is written). Your view is reformed RCC dogma (I do not believe the RCC was the "true chuech").

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.

 

[JonC]

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.

You misunderstand.

I am saying that Scripture (not what is "implied" but what is written) is the final authority for true church doctrine. While we may hold other ideas and views that rest upon our own understanding, that CANNOT be where we lean.

That is where you fall short. You see your theory as being "based upon clear and explicit scriptures" rather than accepting what is actually recording in Scripture itself. Even the Jehovah Witnesses base their view "upon clear and explicit scriptures".

This is the difference between exegesis and eisegesis - not that you cling to your theories but that you seem unable to separate them from Scripture itself.

Scripture IS the final authority. Scripture IS sufficient. Scripture IS God "breathed". And Scripture IS "what is written", not what is "necessarily implied".

 

[Van]

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.

 

[The Biblicist]

You misunderstand.

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.

 

[David Kent]

No. I am talking about true church doctrine as defined in Scripture (what is written). Your view is reformed RCC dogma (I do not believe the RCC was the "true chuech").

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.

 

[JonC]

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.

I agree.

There is a sense where our understanding has to assume things are implied as we reason out Scripture.


I also completely agree that we should strive to keep our philosophies (what we see inferred) to a minimum. In principle I believe it is best when Scripture makes sense in and of itself to take it as it comes (no additions, no explanations, just God’s Word).


When doctrine (like we see with @The Biblicist 's argument) lean on theories people believe implied throughout Scripture this is pretty much the same as saying that Scripture does not make sense without the theories. There are two problems:


1. These people seem unable to grasp that other people have looked at the exact same passages and walked away with different interpretations and views. If their view is explicitly and plainly stated then Christians would walk away with the same understanding (reasoning would not be involved). This shows both a remarkable arrogance and an astonishing amount of ignorance.

2. Many times (as with the Atonement) these theories become the building blocks of other doctrine. The doctrine stands with our without Scripture because the adherent simply tries to base the philosophy on Scripture rather than rendering the honor and respect that Scripture deserves as God’s Holy Word.

So we end up with a theory that becomes the foundation of other doctrines (if Penal Substitution Theory is correct then the Calvinistic view of Limited Atonement is correct kind of thing). What ends up being debated are theoretical views that have no true foundation in Scripture itself (in what is written).

 

[JonC]

At what time did the Roman Church become not a church?

I am not speaking of the Christians in Rome, but of the Catholic Church. It became "not a church" in the early fourth century when it became the official religion of the Roman Empire. That is not to say Christians were not a part of the Catholic Church, but the "true church" is not that type of organization (at least not in the Bible).

 

[The Biblicist]

I agree.

There is a sense where our understanding has to assume things are implied as we reason out Scripture.


I also completely agree that we should strive to keep our philosophies (what we see inferred) to a minimum. In principle I believe it is best when Scripture makes sense in and of itself to take it as it comes (no additions, no explanations, just God’s Word).

Great!

When doctrine (like we see with @The Biblicist 's argument) lean on theories people believe implied throughout Scripture this is pretty much the same as saying that Scripture does not make sense without the theories.

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.

There are two problems:


1. These people seem unable to grasp that other people have looked at the exact same passages and walked away with different interpretations and views. If their view is explicitly and plainly stated then Christians would walk away with the same understanding (reasoning would not be involved). This shows both a remarkable arrogance and an astonishing amount of ignorance.

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.

2. Many times (as with the Atonement) these theories become the building blocks of other doctrine. The doctrine stands with our without Scripture because the adherent simply tries to base the philosophy on Scripture rather than rendering the honor and respect that Scripture deserves as God’s Holy Word.

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.

 

[The Biblicist]

I am not speaking of the Christians in Rome, but of the Catholic Church. It became "not a church" in the early fourth century when it became the official religion of the Roman Empire. That is not to say Christians were not a part of the Catholic Church, but the "true church" is not that type of organization (at least not in the Bible).

I agree!

 

[Reformed]

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.

 

[MB]

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.

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

 

[JonC]

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

"There is a condition worse than blindness, and that is, seeing something that isn't there." Thomas Hardy

 

[JonC]

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.

I agree with a lot you offer here. The problem with Penal Substitution Theory (our disagreement) is perhaps in terms. It is not (as articulated in the Theory actually stated in the text if Scripture itself. This is why I say some believe it is "implied". But I think we both know it is more than that. Our applied worldviews, the way we define terms, and the way we approach Scripture are things that also come into play.

My primary objection is not to Penal Substitution Theory, but to people who are unable to grasp those who hold differing views may be rejecting an interpretation rather than Scripture itself. Regardless of one's position that is a very dangerous place to stand.

 

[The Biblicist]

"There is a condition worse than blindness, and that is, seeing something that isn't there." Thomas Hardy

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.