A Biblical Type For Determining Biblical Truth

Sometimes a writer will try so hard to prove a point that he makes a bigger mess than anything he was originally trying to correct.  This illustrates a Biblical principle.  “Whoso diggeth a pit shall fall therein: and he that rolleth a stone, it will return upon him. (Pro 26:27)  It’s just something we all have to be careful about.  You don’t have to fall into the pit that you just dug and you don’t have to let a stone you just moved roll back on you.  But if you’re not careful those tragedies will happen.

About a year or so ago, I read an article by a guy who is completely opposed to the Gap Fact.  That is to say, that he believes in the Skip Theory.  But the problems of the Skip Theory are not the topic of this post.  The topic of this post is the erroneous thinking that he used to “prove” that there was no Gap.  As Bible Believers, there is no reason to really be mad at someone for rejecting the Gap.  It affects very little in the long run.  But if you are going to use horrible thinking and reasoning to reject the Gap, that can be bad.  

The author of the aforementioned article against the Gap is King James Only and Dispensational.  I honestly respect the man and his work and labour for the Lord.  But he really created a problem when he published his article.  In fact, I will not post a link to that brother’s article out of respect to a fellow Bible Believer.  I’ll leave it to you to make the connection yourself.

The brother mainly accepts as a “proven fact”, statements that  are explicit in Scripture.  That is to say, that if a doctrine doesn’t have a verse that word-for-word states the doctrine, then we can’t be sure of it.  All other doctrines are suspect.  He states, “even though a doctrine may have strong yet implicit evidence to support it (as the Pre-Tribulation rapture), that still does not mean it is a proven fact.”

Thinking about doctrine in this way will lead to problems.  

One of my main rules in life is to “apply your own ideas to your own ideas.”  This idea actually does come up in the text of Deut 19 but we’ll briefly look at it here.  If your idea or theory is self refuting, then throw it out.  Junk it.  And here we see that the author’s own ideas don’t work on his own ideas.  There is no explicit statement in the Bible about the King James Bible.  If we only use explicit verses from the King James Bible and there are no explicit verses about the King James Bible in the King James Bible, then we’ve got a mess on our hands.  It means that you cannot trust the authority.

We also do not have an explicit verse in the Bible that tells us that we can only be completely sure of explicit statements in the Bible.  His whole premise is based off of an implicit reading into a handful of verses in the Bible.

The third problem is that there are a good number of explicit statements in Scripture that are not literally true.  In John 6:35 Jesus says, “I am the Bread of Life”.  Pretty explicit.  But, of course, we don’t hang our hats on some obscure teaching of Christ being ground wheat that was baked in an oven.  Christ was also explicitly called a “Lamb”.  That does not mean he had four feet, ate grass, and had clothing made from his hair.  

Finally, you must note that this unreasonable burden of proof is exactly the same as Muslims have for rejecting the Deity of Christ.  They say, “Where is the verse where Jesus says, ‘I am God, worship me’?”  Showing that they are requiring explicit verses as a burden of proof and then using that as a reason to put their souls in hell.  It’s all very unfortunate.  

Hopefully, those examples are enough to make you reject the idea that we can only be completely sure of doctrines that are based on explicit verses.

It would be wrong to not give an alternative.  I think delving into the “epistemology” of how we get doctrine and how sure we are of our doctrine is a worthy subject.  

I believe that I have found an alternative in Deuteronomy 19.  Let us look at the passage and make comments.  

Deuteronomy 19:15-21

vs. 15 – One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established. 

The first rule is to not make a big deal about a doctrine for which there is just one verse.  If you can’t find two or three “witnesses”, then it’s probably best to keep quiet about it and not make a huge deal about it.  You could probably think of an example or two, but they’re almost not worth mentioning.  Especially if you’ve spent years doing personal work, you come to realize that the mere mention of goofy doctrines is enough to get someone rattled and so they’re better left unsaid.  If you have a theory that comes from one verse then file it away in your notes or brain, but keep it to yourself.  

vs. 16 – If a false witness rise up against any man to testify against him that which is wrong; 

Let’s start with a basic truth.  Let’s start with the Law of Noncontradiction.  Two opposite and opposing statements cannot both be true at the same time.  You cannot have “A” and “Not A” both be true at the same time.  (Exceptions to this rule must be extremely clear in Scripture, i.e. the Divinity of Christ.  [These exceptions seem to be used by God to test what’s going on in someone’s heart. {Heb 4:12}])  I hope you enjoyed my use of 3 levels of parentheses!  Also note that there has to be the possibility of breaking the rule in order for there to be opportunity to break the rule.  I.e. God by his nature is able to be 3 parts (persons, etc).  He is God!

If there are two opposite doctrines then one must be a “false witness”.  Hopefully, you can see how this passage is applicable and worthy of me writing an article such as this and applying it.  

We, as Bible Believers, teach Dispensationalism which is a basic method for taking “A” and “Not A” statements and putting them in their proper place as per the Law of Noncontradiction.  

Some teach that salvation is the same in the Church Age and the Tribulation.  We teach a difference.  Both cannot be true.  One must be a “false witness”.  That is how the Law of Noncontradiction works.  If you are the reader of the Bible, you will know that the evidence is overwhelming that salvation is different in the Church Age and Tribulation.  

Also, apply this to Sabbath observance.  God explicitly commands it in Ex 20:8, 16:23, and 31:12-18.  But then Paul acts like it’s not a big deal in Col 2:16-17.  This is easily reconciled by the ideas of dispensationalism.  The commands are literal and are literally addressed to literally different people and literally different times.  

Either the Sabbath must be observed by Christians today or not.  One doctrine must be a “false witness”.  

So the approach that I am advocating for is to look at two opposing doctrines and measure them in this “court of law” setting.  

We will enter the hypothetical courtroom believing that the two opposing doctrines can’t both be true at the same time because we believe in the Law of Noncontradiction as a basis for determining reality.  Failure to believe and act upon the Law of Noncontradiction will result in everything blowing up in your face.  Just ask your local electrician or plumber.  

Let us continue on in the passage.

vs. 17 – Then both the men, between whom the controversy is, shall stand before the LORD, before the priests and the judges, which shall be in those days; 

Notice that the ultimate judge is the LORD.  Not man.  Who cares if a bunch of punks don’t believe the doctrine?  Do you think you can stand before God and make a decent defense of why you believe such and such doctrine?  If you can, then believe it and “to blazes” with what others think.  If you can’t, then keep studying as we shall see in vs. 18.  

If you can stand and make a case for a certain doctrine before the Lord of the universe with a humble heart then you should believe it.  For example, look at eternal security.  The belief that you can lose your salvation is common, but can you take a Bible and show God why you believed it?  If you can, then who cares about the millions of people who disagree?  

Note that God is reasonable.  See Isaiah 1:18.  The burden of proof in a modern courtroom is modelled after the thinking of a “reasonable person”.  But this opens the door for lawyers to argue about how a “reasonable person” would think and behave.  In the Scriptures, we often have a better understanding of the thinking of God Almighty although, “canst thou find out the Almighty unto perfection?” Job 11:7.  

But, we must be honest and note that, as the passage stands, you should be able to bring the doctrine before other people.  If you find that you are the only person in the world (highly unlikely, but technically possible) that believes something, then you should be careful.  

So we must be balanced.  Man’s opinions are not the most important factor and they may be ultimately rejected, but they play a role nevertheless.  

As soon as I mention checking other men, you will begin to hear a clamour from the Catholics and Orthodox about how we must go to the Church Fathers (or the Church “babies” as I call them).  But the problem here is that the list of Church “babies” and which of their writings that we have today has been carefully protected by the unholy guardians of “church” history.  The main writers of ecclesiastical history are considered to be “main writers” because of how their doctrine matches the doctrine of the Whore of Papal Rome and her mini “Whorelings”.  Just because apostates like Augustine, Jerome, and Papias rejected a certain doctrine, doesn’t mean that the doctrine is incorrect.

That is why we “stand before the Lord” as the verse says.  “Priests” and “judges” are fallible as any quick reading of Judges through II Kings will tell you.  But as Psalm 19:9 says, “the judgments of the LORD are true and righteous altogether.

vs. 18 – And the judges shall make diligent inquisition: and, behold, if the witness be a false witness, and hath testified falsely against his brother; 

Here is the meat of my argument.  Look at the two competing doctrines, “make diligent inquisition”, and decide which of the two you can stand as true before God and believe.  

Not all doctrine that is false is 100% false.  Look back at our example of Sabbath observance.  Someone was commanded to observe it.  We don’t have any explicit commands in Scripture that changes it to Sunday or abrogates it. And so we have to look at the entire Bible, “make diligent inquisition” and see what is best as we stand before the Lord and make as godly a decision as possible.  

vs. 19 – Then shall ye do unto him, as he had thought to have done unto his brother: so shalt thou put the evil away from among you. 

vs. 20 – And those which remain shall hear, and fear, and shall henceforth commit no more any such evil among you. 

vs. 21 – And thine eye shall not pity; but life shall go for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot. 

Maybe it is a bit of a reach to say this, but I would apply these verses to my idea from this article’s introduction.  “You must apply your ideas to your own ideas”.  If you think, “My body. My choice.” when it comes to abortion, then you should believe this about Covid vaccines.  If you believe that the Gap Fact is false because it isn’t explicitly stated in Genesis, then you must be honest and believe that the idea that Lucifer fell AFTER Genesis 1, isn’t explicitly stated in Scripture either.  

If you do this, you will fulfill these verses and also verses like, “A false balance is abomination to the LORD: but a just weight is his delight.” Prov 11:1.  

To tie all this together I will note what seems to be a Biblical illustration of these principles.  The Book of Hebrews can be categorized as a small booklet aimed at the salvation of Jews in the Tribulation.  As Bible Believers (and not Hyperdispensationalists) we know that that is the PRIMARY application and that there still is plenty in the book “for us” even if it isn’t “to us”. 

The main claim in the book is that “Christianity” or the Tribulation sense of it, is BETTER than the religion of the Jews.  Christ is “better than the angels” in 1:4.  7:19 says that the religion of Christ is a “better hope”.  Heb. 8:6 has a “better covenant” and “better promises”.  9:23 speaks of “better sacrifices”.  11:16 speaks of a “better country” and 11:40 speaks of a “better thing”.  

Notice that the claim isn’t “your religion is wrong”.  The claim is that this is “better” than what you have.  This is what I am advocating, in essence.  

There’s always some truth in just about any idea or position or belief.  There is a kernel of truth in almost anything.  But when you are looking at two opposing doctrines, you have to compare and contrast them and decide to believe whichever one is BETTER.  

There is some truth to the Skip Theory.  They have a few valid points.  But the Gap Fact is better.  There are a few decent points made by people who deny the Trinity.  But there is way more evidence in favour of the Trinity.  But the question isn’t, “Is there any truth in it?”  The question is, “Which is better?”

Figure out which is better as if you were a lawyer standing in a courtroom before Jehovah God Himself and then believe that.  When you hear a new doctrine, put that new doctrine in the courtroom and try it and if it is a “false witness”, throw it out.  If not, believe it.  Preach it.  Teach it.  

I will conclude by throwing the doctrine of the King James Bible into the courtroom as an example.

The other witness would be the doctrine of “Nothing Onlyism”.  Does “Nothing Onlyism” have a few tricks up his sleeve?  Yes.  He throws out, “What about other languages?”  He retorts with “Where was the Word of God before 1611?”  He tries to win the debate with the “oldest and best” claptrap.  

But all these are only 3 small gnats trying to eat a lion.  The KJV wins the debate with the fact that he actually has a Bible in existence today.  “Nothing Onlyism” literally brings nothing to the table.  “Nothing Onlyism” cannot convince God Himself that God Himself is a liar and that he failed to preserve his words and that he was unable to translate the Bible into English.  

“Nothing Onlyism” was found to be a “false witness”.  

As usual, these articles about topics like this could be much expanded.  Hopefully this will be sufficient to be a blessing to you.  If there is anything that should be clarified or written differently, please comment.  

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s