Necessarily Implied Doctrine vs True Church Doctrine

[Reformed]

No one who holds a different view finds your opinions persuasive.

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.

 

[JonC]

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.

I do not believe in persuading others with my arguments. I actually think that ia part of the problem. It is counter to objectivity.

I know we are never fully objective but we do need to try our best to separate our subjective readoning and understand from Scripture itself. Our understanding can change, if we are willing to be less self-persuading. But God's Word never changes.

About 35 years ago I leaned towards Arminianism. As I studied I saw flaws in that theology and leaned towards Calvinism. And as I continued to pray and study I've tried to be less subjective to the point I can not in good conscience affirm Penal Substitution Theory. BUT Scripture never changed. Even my affirmation of Scripture never changed.

That is the distinction I hope people realize. For Spurgeon, Calvinism was the gospel. At the same time he reasoned it was not the gospel for others who were his brothers in Christ (he even acknowledged a tendency towards error in the doctrine itself). What Spurgeon was speaking of was subjective understanding in the face of completely greater and objective truth.

We need to know not only what we believe but why we believe it. When we can no longer distinguish between what is written and what we believe necessarily contained in Scripture then it is time to shut up and start prayerfully seeking God because Scripture has become to us just as much a personal and subjective journal as it is God's Word.

We have to measure by what is written in Scripture. We cannot trust our own intellect over God's Word.

 

[Reformed]

We have to measure by what is written in Scripture. We cannot trust our own intellect over God's Word.

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.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

The reason is your theory is not "necessarily contained". That is my point. It is not contained in the text of Scripture at all. You believe it necessarily implied because otherwise your theory falls apart.

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.

No verse states, implies, or necessarily contains that God punished sin apart from punishing the persons who sinned. It simply is not there.

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

This does not make your theory wrong, but it does mean you should be capable of defending the presuppositions at the foundation of the theory. Many who hold the Theory have - so it is not an impossibility. My point is that you can't. You just jump from "plainly stated" to "necessarily contained" to try and hide the fact that you can not pinpoint where the biblical text ends and the reasoning begins.

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.

This is why I was drawn to seminary to begin with - too many people hold views they can only defend within an "echo chamber". I am not trying to get you to change your view. I am trying to get you to wake up and defend it.

Your pomposity knows no bounds. See post #54.

 

[JonC]

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.

I agree that we cannot divorce our reasoning from our understanding of Scripture. What I mean is that we hold firm to our faith, which means we hold to our doctrines (as we understand them). But we need to always recognize (the nest we can) that our readoning is involved and know what is Scripture and what is our understanding of Scripture. There is a difference.

We need to constantly test our understanding of Scripture against Scripture. This is impossible if we believe our understanding is clearly and plainly stated in Scripture, or even necessarily contained. If we are blind to our presuppositions we cannot say, with Spurgeon and Whitefield, that we are able to detect that failing of humanity in our thoughts.

What I had hoped to hear in these conversations was something like "I realize you interpret the passage like _____. I understand it to mean this because _______." What I got was more along the libe of "you deny orthodox faith....these truths, while not stated, are clearly expressed....you are denying these passages....ect.".

For my part I allowed such to set the tone of how I engaged the topic here. As a reason (not an excuse) we have several who simply do not want other interpretations voiced.

There never has been dialogue, debate, or honest discussion on this topic here on the BB. And the reason, I believe, is some need an echo chamber because they cannot honestly discuss opposing positions. As evidence, can you tell me what I believe in terms of the Atonement? Probably not because we (not you and I, but in general) never get that far into a discussion.

I believe there is a difference between indoctrination and discipleship. One fears other views whole the other engages other Christian views for the betterment of the whole. Even when people remain at a difference, disciples of Christ are not at odds. The discussion goes to understanding one another and engaging God's Word.

 

[Reformed]

But we need to always recognize (the nest we can) that our readoning is involved and know what is Scripture and what is our understanding of Scripture.

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

We need to constantly test our understanding of Scripture against Scripture. This is impossible if we believe our understanding is clearly and plainly stated in Scripture, or even necessarily contained.

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.

If we are blind to our presuppositions we cannot say, with Spurgeon and Whitefield, that we are able to detect that failing of humanity in our thoughts.

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.

What I had hoped to hear in these conversations was something like "I realize you interpret the passage like _____. I understand it to mean this because _______." What I got was more along the libe of "you deny orthodox faith....these truths, while not stated, are clearly expressed....you are denying these passages....ect.".

There never has been dialogue, debate, or honest discussion on this topic here on the BB. And the reason, I believe, is some need an echo chamber because they cannot honestly discuss opposing positions. As evidence, can you tell me what I believe in terms of the Atonement? Probably not because we (not you and I, but in general) never get that far into a discussion.

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.

I believe there is a difference between indoctrination and discipleship. One fears other views whole the other engages other Christian views for the betterment of the whole. Even when people remain at a difference, disciples of Christ are not at odds. The discussion goes to understanding one another and engaging God's Word.

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.

 

[JonC]

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.

I agree that not all disagreements are equal - it depends on the doctrine in question. Some have viewed my disagreement with Penal Substitution Theory as very minor ("angels dancing on the head of a needle", "differences without a distinction", are two quotes that come to mind). But I believe that our view here influences our view elsewhere. That is why I am less open to theory in this area of theology than I am in other areas (like eschatology).

One issue is how one views orthodoxy. With this discussion, I believe that we both know that Penal Substitution Theory is not the Orthodox view as there is no single orthodox position (speaking of "orthodox" as being Christian....not "Reformed" or such). That said, views can go outside of biblical and orthodox boundaries. That is why it is also important to be open to other believers. When one comes up with a new view it is undoubtedly a mistake.

I would love to discuss my view of the Atonement as it is a topic that interests me. If it were you and I, perhaps a few more, then I would be open to it. Unfortunately, I have very little faith such a thread would get off the ground before the vultures swarm in. I may try anyway.

I do not have my dander up. I've just realized we're just arguing to argue, so I'm arguing. I know Penal Substitution Theory (it is what I held and taught for decades). So I was just helping the older crowd with their circulation.

 

[Yeshua1]

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?

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.

 

[The Biblicist]

No. Use Scripture but leave off the philosophical opinions.

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.

 

[JonC]

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.

You are offering a false accusation (but I understand why). I only read the first three lines on another thread due to the topic and the nature of your replies on the thread. I have not responded to passages we both affirm because where we differ is in the interpretations of those passages (something you have been unwilling to consider). When I ask why you never respond except with "that's what it says". That is why I make the charge of "philosophy". There are reasons why we differ and it is not Scripture. It is in philosophy of interpretation, traditions, worldviews....something. But we both affirm the same passages. So it is useless to ignore the reasons for our different interpretations to just keep posting verses we both affirm.

That is why we cannot have an honest discussion, not for the reasons you suppose.

 

[The Biblicist]

You are offering a false accusation (but I understand why). I only read the first three lines on another thread due to the topic and the nature of your replies on the thread.

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?

I have not responded to passages we both affirm because where we differ is in the interpretations of those passages (something you have been unwilling to consider). When I ask why you never respond except with "that's what it says". That is why I make the charge of "philosophy".

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.

There are reasons why we differ and it is not Scripture. It is in philosophy of interpretation, traditions, worldviews....something. But we both affirm the same passages. So it is useless to ignore the reasons for our different interpretations to just keep posting verses we both affirm.

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.