Originally Posted by Esaias (Post 1384533)

How do YOU determine what is true, proper, and correct for faith and practice, as a Christian?
Let's get specific, and lay it out. What is doctrine? How do we find it? How is a doctrine, belief, or practice judged as to whether it is truly apostolic, proper, approved by God, or not?
What guidelines do you follow in determining what to believe and how to practice your faith?

Originally Posted by Esaias (Post 1384533)

How do YOU determine what is true, proper, and correct for faith and practice, as a Christian?

Originally Posted by Esaias (Post 1384533)

How do YOU determine what is true, proper, and correct for faith and practice, as a Christian?

Originally Posted by Esaias (Post 1384533)

What is doctrine? How do we find it?

Originally Posted by Esaias (Post 1384533)

How is a doctrine, belief, or practice judged as to whether it is truly apostolic, proper, approved by God, or not?

Originally Posted by Esaias (Post 1384533)

What guidelines do you follow in determining what to believe and how to practice your faith?

Originally Posted by Esaias (Post 1384615)

Honestly, I have been thinking that most "apostolics" do not have any solid framework within which to learn scripture and determine doctrine and practice. The responses so far seem to bear that out.
What I mean is this: OPs have not defined any reasonable, systematic, consistent method for determine faith and practice. Instead, we are, as a movement, highly inconsistent in our approach to scripture and the faith. Inconsistent not only with one another, but with ourselves, even.
Thus we have the following results:
Practically no unity in faith except in literally one or two, maybe three beliefs.
No unity in regards to several important practices (including "standards").
Unity in large measure regarding certain practices, but no rational and scripturally consistent explanation for why it is so. (In other words, traditions we keep without really knowing or understanding where they come from or why we keep them.)
Lots of private conjecture being propagated as doctrine, as binding, as obligatory, as truth, without any solid scriptural basis and usually in opposition to all the other private conjectures floating around.
"Just trust me, I'm the pastor" attitudes.
A lack of united front against heresies. We don't really have a clear and consistent mechanism for even identifying heresies in our own midst, let alone "out there", much less presenting a consistent witness to the truth.
A general across the board inability to maintain a rational examination of doctrine and practice, due to everybody coming at it from a completely different, unharmonized paradigm, point of view, worldview, etc. In other words, we make communication almost impossible because nobody is starting on the same page. We have no common framework within which to discuss or debate, examine, prove, etc. One's refutation is unheeded because the other can't even recognize the argument, for example. People disagree with each other without really understanding how and why they disagree.
And so many different views, doctrines, opinions, everyone screaming to be heard and believed, nobody in agreement... why, isn't that called confusion? And God is not the author of confusion...
So I submit we ought to get crackin' and figure out a reasonable, biblical, and apostolic approach to scripture, that can be taught to others. If the approach or method is correct, then the results ought to be consistent... and consistency is sorely lacking these days.

Originally Posted by n david (Post 1384616)

Since you've kindly critiqued what people have posted, may I ask, what is your method?

Originally Posted by thephnxman (Post 1384617)

So, it seems you have identified WHAT is the problem.

Do you have a clue as to WHY it developed? Knowing that would go a long way to
remedying the situation. WHEN that happens, we can then decide on the first
steps to towards rebuilding the foundation that has been neglected...maybe.

"And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and
some, pastors and teachers...".

Originally Posted by KeptByTheWord (Post 1384656)

Even the apostles didn't always agree... reading through the NT shows lots of controversy between the apostles. I think understanding that will help for us to see that even in the best possible situation, disagreements and understandings are going to be present, on doctrine, and application of the principles of the word of God.

For me.... Hebrews 6:1 is the standard that disciples of Jesus Christ can stand on, and hold fast to.

Originally Posted by KeptByTheWord (Post 1384656)

Even the apostles didn't always agree... reading through the NT shows lots of controversy between the apostles. I think understanding that will help for us to see that even in the best possible situation, disagreements and understandings are going to be present, on doctrine, and application of the principles of the word of God.

For me.... Hebrews 6:1 is the standard that disciples of Jesus Christ can stand on, and hold fast to.

Originally Posted by Esaias (Post 1384660)

Where did the apostles disagree on faith or practice?

Peter and Barnabas got caught up in a hypocritical moment. That was not a "difference of opinion".

The issue of what to do with the gentiles was worked out, in keeping with the tenor of scripture.

What doctrinal differences did they have?

Originally Posted by Esaias (Post 1384662)

How does one get a correct understanding of Hebrews 6:1? People claim that verse yet differ on every single point in that verse.

Originally Posted by KeptByTheWord (Post 1384656)

Even the apostles didn't always agree... reading through the NT shows lots of controversy between the apostles. I think understanding that will help for us to see that even in the best possible situation, disagreements and understandings are going to be present, on doctrine, and application of the principles of the word of God.
For me.... Hebrews 6:1 is the standard that disciples of Jesus Christ can stand on, and hold fast to.

Originally Posted by thephnxman (Post 1384668)

Originally Posted by Esaias (Post 1384634)

The situation exists for three reasons which conspire together to produce the current condition:
1. A long period of apostasy where truth has to be rediscovered. Many come from various religious backgrounds, and many things need to be unlearned. Many have learned and studied the teachings of various people with various points of view. All this creates a milieu in which apostolic, bible truth is hard to discover without risk of being tainted by a priori assumptions.
2. Teachers have not taught a genuinely apostolic hermeneutic, nor has there been a serious, concerted effort to find it, in general. Some say it cannot be found. Some have other agendas. Some aren't sure how to go about it. Some are searching and making progress, but we haven't fully restored an apostolic hermeneutic to general teaching yet.
3.Americans, in particular, are nowadays suffering from a serious lack of basic thinking and reasoning skills. People are more emotional and heuristic these days, generally speaking. In other words, irrational ("unreasonable") and not prone to sequential thinking processes. Public school methods (developed by the Soviets and imported to the US via the NEA, for example) do not promote logical awareness. Mass media contributes to a passivity in acquiring "knowledge" resulting in a general inability to "prove all things." Fluoride might play a part as well... ;)

Originally Posted by KeptByTheWord (Post 1384663)

We don't really know what caused Paul and Barnabas to separate about John Mark, but there it was, a disagreement, and contention.

Originally Posted by thephnxman (Post 1384670)

So shall we begin by rebuilding the roof, when the frame might not sustain it?

Or maybe rebuild the walls, when the foundation has been eroding? Should we not, rather,
read the blueprints: surely they'll tell us what to do.

"...built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being
the chief corner stone...".

Originally Posted by KeptByTheWord (Post 1384667)

I think it comes down personally with what the Lord has shown, and revealed to you through your study of the Word, as to what you will be accountable for.

"He whom much has been given, much is required."

Originally Posted by Esaias (Post 1384678)

Obviously one should start at the beginning.
Jesus taught, was crucified, and resurrected. His resurrection validates his teaching. His teaching is known to us by the apostolic record. Who he is, what he did, and why, are revealed to us in the NT writings (the apostolic record).
Knowing that, how do we proceed? What do you suggest?

Originally Posted by Esaias (Post 1384615)

Honestly, I have been thinking that most "apostolics" do not have any solid framework within which to learn scripture and determine doctrine and practice. The responses so far seem to bear that out.

What I mean is this: OPs have not defined any reasonable, systematic, consistent method for determine faith and practice. Instead, we are, as a movement, highly inconsistent in our approach to scripture and the faith. Inconsistent not only with one another, but with ourselves, even.

Thus we have the following results:

Practically no unity in faith except in literally one or two, maybe three beliefs.

No unity in regards to several important practices (including "standards").

Unity in large measure regarding certain practices, but no rational and scripturally consistent explanation for why it is so. (In other words, traditions we keep without really knowing or understanding where they come from or why we keep them.)

Lots of private conjecture being propagated as doctrine, as binding, as obligatory, as truth, without any solid scriptural basis and usually in opposition to all the other private conjectures floating around.

"Just trust me, I'm the pastor" attitudes.

A lack of united front against heresies. We don't really have a clear and consistent mechanism for even identifying heresies in our own midst, let alone "out there", much less presenting a consistent witness to the truth.

A general across the board inability to maintain a rational examination of doctrine and practice, due to everybody coming at it from a completely different, unharmonized paradigm, point of view, worldview, etc. In other words, we make communication almost impossible because nobody is starting on the same page. We have no common framework within which to discuss or debate, examine, prove, etc. One's refutation is unheeded because the other can't even recognize the argument, for example. People disagree with each other without really understanding how and why they disagree.

And so many different views, doctrines, opinions, everyone screaming to be heard and believed, nobody in agreement... why, isn't that called confusion? And God is not the author of confusion...

So I submit we ought to get crackin' and figure out a reasonable, biblical, and apostolic approach to scripture, that can be taught to others. If the approach or method is correct, then the results ought to be consistent... and consistency is sorely lacking these days.

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa (Post 1384710)

I just eat bacon smothered in pizza sauce, wait for the voice. :bacondream :bacon :bacondream :bacon :bacondream :bacon

Originally Posted by Esaias (Post 1384615)

Honestly, I have been thinking that most "apostolics" do not have any solid framework within which to learn scripture and determine doctrine and practice. The responses so far seem to bear that out.

What I mean is this: OPs have not defined any reasonable, systematic, consistent method for determine faith and practice. Instead, we are, as a movement, highly inconsistent in our approach to scripture and the faith. Inconsistent not only with one another, but with ourselves, even.

Thus we have the following results:

Practically no unity in faith except in literally one or two, maybe three beliefs.

No unity in regards to several important practices (including "standards").

Unity in large measure regarding certain practices, but no rational and scripturally consistent explanation for why it is so. (In other words, traditions we keep without really knowing or understanding where they come from or why we keep them.)

Lots of private conjecture being propagated as doctrine, as binding, as obligatory, as truth, without any solid scriptural basis and usually in opposition to all the other private conjectures floating around.

"Just trust me, I'm the pastor" attitudes.

A lack of united front against heresies. We don't really have a clear and consistent mechanism for even identifying heresies in our own midst, let alone "out there", much less presenting a consistent witness to the truth.

A general across the board inability to maintain a rational examination of doctrine and practice, due to everybody coming at it from a completely different, unharmonized paradigm, point of view, worldview, etc. In other words, we make communication almost impossible because nobody is starting on the same page. We have no common framework within which to discuss or debate, examine, prove, etc. One's refutation is unheeded because the other can't even recognize the argument, for example. People disagree with each other without really understanding how and why they disagree.

And so many different views, doctrines, opinions, everyone screaming to be heard and believed, nobody in agreement... why, isn't that called confusion? And God is not the author of confusion...

So I submit we ought to get crackin' and figure out a reasonable, biblical, and apostolic approach to scripture, that can be taught to others. If the approach or method is correct, then the results ought to be consistent... and consistency is sorely lacking these days.

Originally Posted by votivesoul (Post 1384546)

I seek the Holy Spirit's guidance and illumination upon the texts of the Holy Scripture, i.e. the 66 books of the Bible.

When I am reading the Scriptures, I expect my natural intelligence to understand the English words I am reading. This is a basic level comprehension. As I understand the text, I absorb it into my way of thinking and way of life.

But, if I don't understand a text, or if in general I want to make certain I do, I pray and ask God for insight through the Holy Spirit. I wait for inspiration from the parakletos.

If it doesn't seem to be forthcoming, I use an assortment of various resources (e.g. Bible lexicons, commentaries, and other books) to see what others have come to understand. I then try to filter that with what I know to be truth, to see if any of it makes sense/is worthy to be accepted as accurate.

Sometimes I seek the counsel of my peers, who might have greater insight. I listen to them and make a choice to determine if what they are saying is accurate. I often ask my wife her opinion, as well.

But most of all, I seek the counsel of the true author and inspiration of the Holy Scriptures, God Himself.



Teaching.



I find doctrine in the Holy Scriptures, Old and New Covenant. But I also look to the Spirit for understanding. I might read a verse in the Bible, but the verse in question doesn't make any sense to me a part from additional information. I might need a Bible dictionary or atlas, for example. Then, with the new information in hand, I reread the verse and come to understand what God is, through the verse, attempting to teach (i.e. what doctrine He is looking to formulate in the minds of those who read and believe His Word).



The Holy Spirit has to bear witness to the Truth. Jesus is the Truth. He said the Holy Spirit would bare witness of Him. Therefore, we must rely upon the Holy Spirit to lead us into all Truth, as an extension and expression of the Messiah. Anything that doesn't jive with Jesus must be rejected out of hand.

This leads us back to the Gospels. Jesus is the foundation for all that we are and believe. Everything must go through Him. If it doesn't fit with what He said and did in the Gospel narratives, it can be tossed out.



I practice something along of the lines of Occam's Razor, or parsimony, when it comes to Bible interpretation. I believe cutting an interpretation down to it's most basic meaning is the right approach.

If I have to bend and twist and try to make things fit, or if I have to spiritualize a text in order to make sense of it, that is, the more complicated I make a verse in order to understand it, the less likely my understanding is accurate. I therefore parse it down to it's basic meaning.

An example:

Give us this day our daily bread.

A complex interpretation requires us to make assumptions about Jesus meant. We jump to Ezekiel and Revelation to see God compare His Word to bread. We then assume that all of the Word of God is "bread". We add to that verses that talk about feeding, as in "feed my sheep". We then assume that what Jesus meant was "give us this day our daily Word of God". We then assume Jesus wants us to read the Bible every day.

This is overly complex and too spiritualized, so I reject it, since it takes too much information and calculation to make sense of it. I have to make too many assumptions before I can determine what Jesus meant.

Here is an interpretation that has been parsed down, or put through Occam's Razor:

Give us this day our daily bread means we should pray and trust in God to give to us the food we need to eat on a daily basis. It's about provision, not a Bible reading program.

Much simpler, pretty literal, and it doesn't make any assumptions about what Jesus must have meant in a hidden way.

I try to leave gnostic interpretations that require secret knowledge of God and His Word alone.

Originally Posted by votivesoul (Post 1384807)

All of this has been attempted, going back to Acts 15, then forward in time to 325 AD. In general, it doesn't work. It wouldn't matter what any council decides, there will always be those who reject the decisions of said council and go their own way.

Every year, various Oneness Apostolic orgs have a general conference, and positions papers are issued, reviewed, and adopted. This doesn't really affect much, apart from the licensed ministers. The average apostolic on the street just goes about his or her day as he or she always did.

I fear that any attempt to make such ideas as you suggest the law of apostolic land will eventually result in witch hunts and inquisitions, just as they did in the false church. The "affirmation statement", for example, did just that. As Robert Sabin explained in his letter against the idea, no one has the right to govern the believer's mind. To create councils and hand down official rulings causes division and uncertainty.

Originally Posted by votivesoul (Post 1384808)

It seems to me very little has to be agreed upon in order to be a Christian. I think the list looks like this:

1.) Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God.
2.) God raised Jesus from the dead.
3.) We must be born again through the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, a.k.a. Gospel.
4. Salvation is by grace through faith in Jesus Christ, and not of works.
5. We need to love God and one another, i.e. the 1st and 2nd Commandments
6. We need to love Jesus at His appearing, i.e. maintain our blessed hope.
7. The Bible is the final authority for faith and practice.

Granted, all of the above can get difficult to agree upon, when we start in on specifics, but if we all could agree on the above, even if we didn't agree on every specific thing, I think, by love, grace, and forbearance, we could maintain unity of the Body and be pleasing to Christ.

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa (Post 1384710)

I just eat bacon smothered in pizza sauce, wait for the voice. :bacondream :bacon :bacondream :bacon :bacondream :bacon

Originally Posted by Esaias (Post 1384811)

I said NOT A THING about establishing a Council replete with Canons, making law throughout Apostolica.

I am simply asking about a truly correct method of learning God's revelation to us.

It's like we forget that Jesus actually taught some things, as did his apostles. So now we all just do our own thing, however we want, and any who don't agree are either wrong (for no articulable reason) or else it's all relative, nobody knows who or what is right, and so ultimately WHO CARES?

This nothing but moral relativism poisoning the church. "Everybody has different beliefs and we cannot change that so why try?"

So I guess one should just go with whatever doctrine doesn't give ya gas. I mean, might as well, what's the difference? That criteria is no less irrational than having NO criteria, right?

Nobody even wants to try to figure it out. It's hopeless, so quit trying. Just follow the Spirit, be led by inner impulses and who cares about an objective method of testing them.

"Just stick to the Bible." Which amounts to an empty platitude if one cannot explain what that encompasses or entails.

I am beginning to think Oneness Pentecostalism, as a movement, is dead in the water, for failing to grow.

But 'let the Church roll on!' I am being forced to a conclusion, that God is moving on and the OP movement in general is not.

Maybe I'm just having a bad day. Might be the cell towers today. I dunno??? lol