Now you’re being even more intellectually dishonest than usual (which is quite an achievement in itself).
Do you seriously think Scripture would repeatedly emphasize the importance of sound doctrine if there were no reliable means of identifying what constitutes sound doctrine in the first place?
Do you really think that these rethoric tricks can work? Seriously?
I never said that. I just said that the passage in question does not specify the doctrines in question.
You cannot just assume that your doctrines are sound and that mine are not. That is not your call to make.
Richard
You’re only correct about this one narrow point: the passage in question does not provide an exhaustive list of Christian doctrines. But I never claimed that it did.
The relevant question is whether Scripture establishes an identifiable standard for distinguishing sound doctrine from false teaching, and whether it provides a means of preserving that doctrine. The answer to both questions is clearly yes.
This is what the New Testament actually teaches.
1. Sound doctrine is identified with the teaching received from the apostles (whoops)
Acts 2:42 tells us that the earliest Christians devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching.
In 2 Thessalonians 2:15, Paul commands Christians to preserve the traditions they received from the apostles, whether transmitted orally or in writing.
The standard, therefore, is not whatever interpretation an individual Christian happens to find persuasive. It is the apostolic faith that the Church received.
2. Scripture explicitly establishes the transmission and preservation of that teaching.
In 2 Timothy 2:2, Paul instructs Timothy to entrust what he received from Paul to faithful people capable of teaching others (thus continuing the apostolic mission).
In Titus 1:9, the qualifications for ecclesiastical leadership include holding firmly to the authentic teaching so that its ministers can instruct others in sound doctrine and refute those who contradict it.
This establishes a recognizable pattern: apostolic teaching is received, preserved, transmitted, authoritatively taught, and defended against error.
3. Scripture identifies the Church as the guardian of the truth.
In 1 Timothy 3:15, Paul explicitly describes the Church of the living God as the “pillar and foundation of truth.”
Notice that he does not describe the Church as an arbitrary collection of individuals whose mutually contradictory doctrinal interpretations are equally authoritative.
4. Scripture provides an actual example of how the Church resolves serious doctrinal disputes.
In Acts 15, Christians disagreed over whether Gentile converts needed circumcision and observance of the Mosaic Law for salvation.
What happened?
The apostles and presbyters assembled, considered the dispute, and reached a decision that was communicated to the churches.
Their declaration was introduced with the words:“It is the decision of the holy Spirit and of us” (Acts 15:28).
Acts 16:4 subsequently records that these decisions were delivered to the churches for observance.
In short: a controversy concerning Christian teaching was resolved through the collective judgment of recognized ecclesiastical authorities.
The Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15 established the apostolic precedent for subsequent ecumenical councils, and while the apostles’ unique, foundational role was not transmitted to their successors their mission of teaching, governing, and preserving the apostolic faith, however, was continued through the bishops who succeeded them.
5. Most importantly, the very chapter that commands unity in faith also explains how Christ intended that unity to be fostered and protected.
Ephesians 4:5 declares that Christians share “one Lord, one faith, one baptism.”
But read what follows: Ephesians 4:11–14 explains that Christ established apostles, evangelists, pastors, and teachers to build up His Church, bring believers to unity in faith, and protect them from being carried away by erroneous teaching.
The passage itself connects doctrinal unity with Christ’s establishment of teaching ministries within His Church.
So the New Testament gives us:
The doctrinal standard: the apostolic teaching.
The means of transmission: faithful teachers entrusted with preserving that teaching. *
The ecclesial responsibility: safeguarding the truth and correcting doctrinal error.
The practical precedent: the apostles and presbyters resolving a serious controversy and communicating their decision to the churches.
The objective: unity in the faith rather than fragmentation through incompatible teachings.
So the observation that one particular verse does not enumerate every Christian doctrine does absolutely nothing to undermine the biblical principle that sound doctrine is identifiable, must be preserved, and is entrusted to the Church’s teaching ministry. This comes from the Bible itself.
Edit: *The institution of ecclesiastical overseers (episkopoi, the Greek term from which the English word bishops derives) is already documented in the New Testament. Titus 1:5–9, Acts 20:17–31 and 1 Timothy 3:1–7, and then, as I have already mentioned, we have the extraordinarily important extrabiblical testimony of Clement of Rome, who attests to the principle of apostolic succession in chapters 42 and 44 of his First Letter to the Corinthians. He explains that the apostles appointed bishops and deacons and, anticipating future disputes over ecclesiastical office, made provisions for other approved men to succeed them in their ministry after their deaths. In other words, Clement testifies that the apostles themselves intended the ecclesiastical ministry they had established to continue through successive generations. Apostolic succession was therefore , as I said, not a later innovation, but a principle already attested by one of the earliest Christian witnesses. This is obviously of enormous significance, because it demonstrates that the teaching authority entrusted to the apostles ( those very men to whom Christ said, “Whoever receives you receives me” (Matthew 10:40) ) was not intended to die with them, but to continue through the ecclesiastical ministry they established and provided with successors. And the claim that Christians had already fundamentally misunderstood the Gospel by AD 96 (Right at the threshold of the post-apostolic age), while not inherently impossible, would require extraordinarily compelling evidence to be credible
You argued that the biblical command for Christians to profess one faith is compatible with holding mutually contradictory beliefs. But it isn’t.
Professing the same faith is not compatible with embracing mutually contradictory doctrines on fundamental matters of faith and morals.
Think about the Arian controversy. Christians were divided over the very nature of Christ: whether He was truly divine, sharing the Father’s divine nature, or a created being. This disagreement had profound implications for Christian worship, since worshipping Christ as God would be entirely appropriate under one understanding and heretic under the other. The Nicene theologians at a certain point even argued that the Arian understanding of Christ would turn the worship of the Son into the worship of a creature, and therefore into idolatry (and they were right since the Arians taught that the Son was a created being),
These aren’t merely different perspectives on the same doctrine, they are mutually incompatible theological claims.
And while this is perhaps the most striking historical example, the divisions that continue to plague Christianity today present similar problems: mutually contradictory teachings concerning the Eucharist, the sacraments, grace, salvation, and fundamental questions of Christian morality cannot simply be treated as different expressions of an otherwise identical faith, they are proper contradictions.
I doubt @1Cor15.54 has criticised you 1000 times.
Why is it that every Christian objects to these words from Jesus? The Bible says we were created in God’s image. God is a divine, immortal, spiritual being. Humans are corrupt, mortal, physical beings. God created us in spirit as divine, immortal beings. We were cast out of Heaven, and the material universe was created for us to regain our grace and virtue. Humans are dualistic beings - a corrupted, immortal spirit inhabiting a physical body, just like Plato taught, and just like NDE, OBE and reincarnation demonstrate.
I on the other hand, …
Pray tell, @RichardG , If a mixture of propositions is not, necessarily, a coherent argument, how long before you make one?
Why is it that you discard Jesus’ extremely clear teaching on the final bodily resurrection? I’m asking you this because he couldn’t have been any clearer on the subject.
Please give me the full, undeniable quote from Jesus.
To the contrary; I submit this as exhibit A–
“Listen, O Israel: Yahweh our God; Yahweh is One.”
Exhibit B–
He is the image of the invisible God,
the firstborn of all creation.
For by him all things were created,
in heaven and on earth,
visible and invisible,
whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—
all things were created through him and for him.
And he is before all things,
and in him all things hold together.
And he is the head of the body, the church.
He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent.
For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell,
and through him to reconcile to himself all things,
whether on earth or in heaven,
making peace by the blood of his cross.
Other ‘exhibits’ are numerous.
John 5,28-29: “Do not be amazed at this, for a time is coming when all who are in their graves will hear his voice and come out—those who have done what is good will rise to live, and those who have done what is evil will rise to be condemned.”
John 6:40: “For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life,and I will raise them up at the last day.””
Within Christianity, your position is heresy.
True – the doctrines must be examined – which he did.
That is a call Christians are admonished by the Apostles to make!
First clause: not from the scriptures.
Second clause: contrary to the scriptures.
Third clause: Gnostic heresy.
That hour has long come and gone. Jesus is referring to His final judgment that He proclaimed over Satan on Easter Sunday, when He took those from the grave (hell) who rejected Satan with Him when he rose out of Hell on Easter Sunday. This is laid out in my paper on the Final Judgment.
I know many Christians cannot wait for the end of the world, but this Earth has more than billion years of useful life before the sun becomes a problem.
It has not. Jesus was talking about the final judgment which clearly hasn’t come yet. * I’m not sure that twisting Scripture is particularly good for your soul.
*And the second letter to the Thessalonians clearly says what will happen before Jesus’ returns.
That is your assertion. It has no foundation.
So says Islam.
Bhuddism does not specify God at all.
Hinduism has drifted to a single God with demi-gods.
That is the Christian basis, it does not exclude other beliefs par se
It is all a matter of understanding and perspective, let alone an understanding of God Himself.
Scripture does not describe an exclusive view of God, it describes what He has revealed to a specific group, to which we have allied or adopted.
Scripture does not mention or include any revelation God may have made outside the view of the writers. It is clear that many religions existed in parallel with Judaism. Are you claiming God just ignored them? Or that God was not aware of genuine attempts to both contact and please Him. Whereas the Jews went out of their way not to please Him, so it would seem.
It is very human to want to be the exclusive followers. It would seen that only Christians hold onto this. I am sure that God is impressed, or maybe that is why He offers us forgiveness.
Richard
It has foundation. Having the same faith is incompatible with embracing mutually contradictory beliefs, it’s a matter of basic logic. The fact that you dismiss even this basic principle as unfounded makes me wonder whether I’m dealing with someone who is profoundly and astonishingly intellectually dishonest or someone who is genuinely incapable of grasping the simplest logical arguments.
I’m inclined to believe it is the former
Your logic not mine, or God’s.
I know my place with God, so any attempt to discredit me or my beliefs can be brought to Him.
Richard
ROTFL. Honestly. Just ROTFL.
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.