How do you know what the Christian faith is?

[MoreCoffee]

How do you know what the Christian faith is?

 

[onlyme]

As a Protestant I have to say that it is what God's Word teaches, surrounding the Person and Work of the Lord Jesus Christ as revealed in Scripture. The Epistle to the Hebrews has an especially clear description of His blessed Person and Work, in all His glorious offices and titles and work at the Cross for sinners.

I'd prefer not to get into circular arguments.

 

[MoreCoffee]

As a Protestant I have to say that it is what God's Word teaches, surrounding the Person and Work of the Lord Jesus Christ as revealed in Scripture. The Epistle to the Hebrews has an especially clear description of His blessed Person and Work, in all His glorious offices and titles and work at the Cross for sinners.

I'd prefer not to get into circular arguments.

How do you know that the holy scriptures are where you ought to look to find out what Christianity is and how do you know what is holy scripture and what is not? Many books contend for a place in defining who Jesus Christ is/was. A few years ago The gospel of Judas was published.

 

[onlyme]

How do you know that the holy scriptures are where you ought to look to find out what Christianity is and how do you know what is holy scripture and what is not? Many books contend for a place in defining who Jesus Christ is/was. A few years ago The gospel of Judas was published.

Even the Church of Rome agrees what are the Canonical books. The fact that some groups also use the Apocryphal books does not detract from the Canonical status of the books of the Bible. It's a question of recognizing their inherent Divine authority rather than holding that some human religious institution conferred its own authority onto the Word of God, supposedly. In the New Testament, Apostolic authorship is an important aspect of the NT books' authority; the exception being Acts, which is of course the Acts of the Apostles. While there are various Deuterocanical or Apocryphal books, their status as against the Canonical books is not seriously in question even among those of very widely differing theology.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Even the Church of Rome agrees what are the Canonical books. The fact that some groups also use the Apocryphal books does not detract from the Canonical status of the books of the Bible. It's a question of recognizing their inherent Divine authority rather than holding that some human religious institution conferred its own authority onto the Word of God, supposedly. In the New Testament, Apostolic authorship is an important aspect of the NT books' authority; the exception being Acts, which is of course the Acts of the Apostles. While there are various Deuterocanical or Apocryphal books, their status as against the Canonical books is not seriously in question even among those of very widely differing theology.

I know that the Catholic Church has a defined canon of the holy scriptures which includes 73 books and that many/most Protestants and Pentecostals and Independents and so on prefer 66 books in their bibles. That is a significant matter but it is not at the heart of the question I ask in the first post. How does one know that the holy scriptures (73 or 66 books worth or more or less depending on one's perspective) are where you ought to go to find out what Christianity is?

 

[onlyme]

I know that the Catholic Church has a defined canon of the holy scriptures which includes 73 books and that many/most Protestants and Pentecostals and Independents and so on prefer 66 books in their bibles. That is a significant matter but it is not at the heart of the question I ask in the first post. How does one know that the holy scriptures (73 or 66 books worth or more or less depending on one's perspective) are where you ought to go to find out what Christianity is?

Anyone with a church association who refers to God's Word should be a 'fellowhelper to the truth' (3 John), and not someone who stands above the text of Scripture and imposes his own meaning to it. You can see I take a Protestant approach: exegesis (getting the meaning out of what the text of Scripture actually says) rather than eisegesis (putting meaning into the text).

This whole sort of discussion can easily become unprofitably circular if these clear distinctions are not maintained; the view above is one that I would strongly take.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Anyone with a church association who refers to God's Word should be a 'fellowhelper to the truth' (3 John), and not someone who stands above the text of Scripture and imposes his own meaning to it. You can see I take a Protestant approach: exegesis (getting the meaning out of what the text of Scripture actually says) rather than eisegesis (putting meaning into the text).

This whole sort of discussion can easily become unprofitably circular if these clear distinctions are not maintained; the view above is one that I would strongly take.

It can become unprofitable if the interlocutors use it poorly. I do not believe that the faithful have an instinct that attracts them to bibles. They buy a bible (or are given one) because they hear about Christ from somebody who is either one of the faithful or knows of the faithful and the body of the faithful. First comes the community of faith and then comes attachment to the literature of the community.

 

[onlyme]

It can become unprofitable if the interlocutors use it poorly. I do not believe that the faithful have an instinct that attracts them to bibles. They buy a bible (or are given one) because they hear about Christ from somebody who is either one of the faithful or knows of the faithful and the body of the faithful. First comes the community of faith and then comes attachment to the literature of the community.

Well, I would advocate from the other perspective : the Scriptures and prayer are what I would see as the very essence of church activities. It's interesting that Acts 2.42 has four basic activities mentioned for the early believers in the time of the Apostles: the Apostles' doctrine, and fellowship and breaking of bread and prayers.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Well, I would advocate from the other perspective : the Scriptures and prayer are what I would see as the very essence of church activities. It's interesting that Acts 2.42 has four basic activities mentioned for the early believers in the time of the Apostles: the Apostles' doctrine, and fellowship and breaking of bread and prayers.

Yes, one's faith community teaches one what christianity is (from the community's perspective). Is that how it works?

By the way, the apostles doctrine, the breaking of bread and the prayers appears to be about the liturgy in use among the faithful.

 

[onlyme]

Yes, one's faith community teaches one what christianity is (from the community's perspective). Is that how it works?

By the way, the apostles doctrine, the breaking of bread and the prayers appears to be about the liturgy in use among the faithful.

We have the Apostles' teaching authoritatively described in Acts and the Epistles; I don't hold to some idea of an institution guarding and developing some repository of oral tradition attributed to the Apostles.

I think you see what I mean about how the argument can rapidly become circular.

 

[MoreCoffee]

We have the Apostles' teaching authoritatively described in Acts and the Epistles; I don't hold to some idea of an institution guarding and developing some repository of oral tradition attributed to the Apostles.

I think you see what I mean about how the argument can rapidly become circular.

I'd be inclined to observe that in the new testament scriptures (all of them) we have the written testimony to apostolic teaching from the first generation (including the apostles themselves). I'd also observe that written testimony is part of a wider teaching activity of the apostles in the first generation.

 

[onlyme]

I'd be inclined to observe that in the new testament scriptures (all of them) we have the written testimony to apostolic teaching from the first generation (including the apostles themselves). I'd also observe that written testimony is part of a wider teaching activity of the apostles in the first generation.

But (maybe) unlike you I would not argue that the written authority of the New Testament is somehow subservient to an unrecorded or dissimilarly recorded tradition deemed to be held by an institution.

 

[MoreCoffee]

But (maybe) unlike you I would not argue that the written authority of the New Testament is somehow subservient to an unrecorded or dissimilarly recorded tradition deemed to be held by an institution.

I do not argue that the holy scriptures are subservient to unrecorded traditions or traditions recorded in dissimilar ways.

 

[onlyme]

I do not argue that the holy scriptures are subservient to unrecorded traditions or traditions recorded in dissimilar ways.

Oh okay!

I know that for example the Church of Rome holds - and John Henry Newman in particular held - to the idea of the development of doctrine: which to my understanding means that what is authoritative is not necessarily Scriptural but depends on how the 'community of faith' gradually alters its perspective over the centuries. Always, it is the institution which supposedly ratifies what is authoritative or not.

This would be very distinct from Sola Scriptura. While the culture of churches changes, the essential doctrines of the faith as defended by those who generally hold to Sola Scriptura have remained remarkable constant.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Oh okay!

I know that for example the Church of Rome holds - and John Henry Newman in particular held - to the idea of the development of doctrine: which to my understanding means that what is authoritative is not necessarily Scriptural but depends on how the 'community of faith' gradually alters its perspective over the centuries. Always, it is the institution which supposedly ratifies what is authoritative or not.

This would be very distinct from Sola Scriptura. While the culture of churches changes, the essential doctrines of the faith as defended by those who generally hold to Sola Scriptura have remained remarkable constant.

It is true that doctrine does develop. First was the profession of Christ as the Son of God - this is found in the canonical synoptic gospels and in other new testament sources - then came the realisation that God's Son and God's Spirit are in fact fully God while not being the Father. The nature of the incarnation took several centuries to be properly comprehended in theology and even today the implications of teaching about the Incarnation and the Blessed Trinity is in the process of being fleshed out (so to speak, and pardon the fully intentional pun). The development of doctrine is visible in the transition from Torah to Prophets to Wisdom literature and on into the Gospels. Jehovah's nature is seen in ever growing clarity as time passes and revelation is accumulated. The Holy Spirit is no less active as teacher and bringer of wisdom today than he was in ancient times thus doctrine develops.

 

[onlyme]

It is true that doctrine does develop. First was the profession of Christ as the Son of God - this is found in the canonical synoptic gospels and in other new testament sources - then came the realisation that God's Son and God's Spirit are in fact fully God while not being the Father. The nature of the incarnation took several centuries to be properly comprehended in theology and even today the implications of teaching about the Incarnation and the Blessed Trinity is in the process of being fleshed out (so to speak, and pardon the fully intentional pun). The development of doctrine is visible in the transition from Torah to Prophets to Wisdom literature and on into the Gospels. Jehovah's nature is seen in ever growing clarity as time passes and revelation is accumulated. The Holy Spirit is no less active as teacher and bringer of wisdom today than he was in ancient times thus doctrine develops.

Well, I would hold that everything that is authoritative about the Trinty - God in Three Persons - is found in the New Testament. So revelation occurred between what faithful Jews in the Old Testament understood and what is seen in the New Testament; in this sense, I suppose, it developed; but I would also hold to the sufficiency of Scripture as regards the wondrous doctrine of God in Three Persons.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Well, I would hold that everything that is authoritative about the Trinty - God in Three Persons - is found in the New Testament. So revelation occurred between what faithful Jews in the Old Testament understood and what is seen in the New Testament; in this sense, I suppose, it developed; but I would also hold to the sufficiency of Scripture as regards the wondrous doctrine of God in Three Persons.

You would? I will not ask for a demonstration of the full doctrine because it would very likely be excessively long and we both believe the doctrine (I think).

One of the Church writers observed It's the love of God that lights the fires of hell - this is a fully Christian perspective but can you find it in the holy scriptures in plain prose?

 

[onlyme]

You would? I will not ask for a demonstration of the full doctrine because it would very likely be excessively long and we both believe the doctrine (I think).

One of the Church writers observed It's the love of God that lights the fires of hell - this is a fully Christian perspective but can you find it in the holy scriptures in plain prose?

\\Maybe you would also distinguish in your use of terminology the words doctrine and dogma; but I myself would not, anyway.

 

[MoreCoffee]

\\Maybe you would also distinguish in your use of terminology the words doctrine and dogma; but I myself would not, anyway.

Dogma and doctrine are "teaching". Dogma is fully settled teaching drawn either directly from the words of the holy scriptures or from holy scripture by what some might call "good and necessary consequence". Doctrine is usually well established teaching but some doctrines are speculative and hence not settled.

 

[onlyme]

Dogma and doctrine are "teaching". Dogma is fully settled teaching drawn either directly from the words of the holy scriptures or from holy scripture by what some might call "good and necessary consequence". Doctrine is usually well established teaching but some doctrines are speculative and hence not settled.

I wouldn't quite define it the same way, anyway; dogma particularly implies the idea of an overseeing institution.