How do you know what the Christian faith is?

[onlyme]

The faith as a body of doctrine already existed when the the Spirit-inspired Scriptures were complete.

 

[MoreCoffee]

The faith as a body of doctrine already existed when the the Spirit-inspired Scriptures were complete.

Long before the canon of the new testament was decided.

 

[onlyme]

Long before the canon of the new testament was decided.

...recognition of the Canon was a matter of their individual books inherent authority, and not through ecclesiastical people deciding that something was to become the Word of God.

 

[Josiah]

...recognition of the Canon was a matter of their individual books inherent authority, and not through ecclesiastical people deciding that something was to become the Word of God.

Good point. Thank you.


Our esteemed Catholic friend is, unfortunately, stuck in uber-individualism and institutionalism (as is the denomination he tries to defend). I commented on that approach earlier in this thread. I think a more valid approach is to look to community rather then exclusively in the mirror (as the RCC, LDS and some others do).... CHRISTIANS - universally - embrace Scripture. While the RCC and Anglican Church in the 16th Century, the EOC (sorta, kinda, unofficially) in the 18th Century, and the LDS in the 19th Century appointed self exclusively to determine what is and is not Scripture, most just accept the WE - Christian people rather than one singular, exclusive, individual denomination - look to Scripture as such. Indeed, the power-grabbing, the individualism, the institutionalism of the RCC is so incredible, so enormous that as a Catholic, I was taught that the Bible is authoritative only because the infallible, unaccountable, all-powerful, Voice of God Himself singular, individual RCC had declared it so - eventually (making the Bible subject to it itself - in this way, too).

 

[psalms 91]

Good point. Thank you.


Our esteemed Catholic friend is, unfortunately, stuck in uber-individualism and institutionalism (as is the denomination he tries to defend). I commented on that approach earlier in this thread. I think a more valid approach is to look to community rather then exclusively in the mirror (as the RCC, LDS and some others do).... CHRISTIANS - universally - embrace Scripture. While the RCC and Anglican Church in the 16th Century, the EOC (sorta, kinda, unofficially) in the 18th Century, and the LDS in the 19th Century appointed self exclusively to determine what is and is not Scripture, most just accept the WE - Christian people rather than one singular, exclusive, individual denomination - look to Scripture as such. Indeed, the power-grabbing, the individualism, the institutionalism of the RCC is so incredible, so enormous that as a Catholic, I was taught that the Bible is authoritative only because the infallible, unaccountable, all-powerful, Voice of God Himself singular, individual RCC had declared it so - eventually (making the Bible subject to it itself - in this way, too).

Amazing to me as well

 

[MoreCoffee]

...recognition of the Canon was a matter of their individual books inherent authority, and not through ecclesiastical people deciding that something was to become the Word of God.

I often wonder about that idea ... the books have inherent authority say some yet the books only have authority because the faithful recognise them as the work of God - created in some way and by some process quite beyond the ability of the faithful to fully describe - by the hand of men (I wonder if any of them were written by a women or women?). In His goodness and wisdom God chose to reveal Himself and to make known to us the hidden purpose of His will, it is said, by which through Christ, the Word made flesh, man might in the Holy Spirit have access to the Father and come to share in the divine nature. A most precious gift indeed.

 

[PezGirl73]

When I mean holy scripture I type holy scripture with scripture either singular or plural depending on grammar and context.

Great. I guess.

I say Word of God, the bible, word of God, God's word, scripture... Most people know what I'm talking about because of context.

 

[psalms 91]

Great. I guess.

I say Word of God, the bible, word of God, God's word, scripture... Most people know what I'm talking about because of context.

Yup, no ocnfusion to me at all

 

[popsthebuilder]

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'm sorry but I can't agree with that totally.

Though the bible is comprised of the writings of those inspired by GOD, that isn't to say that all religious texts not in the bible are, as a necessity, against the Word of GOD.

One can discern the Word of GOD, between that opposition, and deceit that can be written right next to it in cases. I believe reading and actually affirming that what you read is like in kind to what you know and feel, based on the selfless conscience, to be the Will and Word of GOD as it pertains to man is essential to correct discernment.

I won't go into too much detail at this time, but I can say that the vast majority of core religious texts, and non canon Christian texts are not against or contrary to the bible, or the Word of GOD. It is obvious that much of the works ascribed to the Gnostic school of thought are obviously attempts at confusion, misdirection, and deceit, yet even those do hold some partial truths.

Basically, I'm saying that the Christian Faith is faith in GOD, by following the teachings, example, and self sacrifice of the Christ, and the law that is written on the hearts of the Faithful, due to the Work of the Christ. This Faith is effectual in one's life and is causal of works or fruit of the Spirit, which too is of GOD.

peace, humbly

Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

 

[psalms 91]

The bible is our manual and tells us all we need to know about the faith and about what is expected of us in order to walk with God. There is no other book or man that can teach us what our faith is about, it will be the Holy Spirit teaching or at least it should be.

 

[MoreCoffee]

I am confident that the bible will not teach a reader what the Christian faith is even though the holy scriptures (all 73 canonical books) ought to be able to instruct a godly person in right conduct and right living. Without the church to teach, interpret, and guide a reader is likely to become an iconoclast, Arian, legalist rather than a fully Nicene Christian who believes and affirms the incarnation of the Lord rightly and who avoids the trap of legalism while maintaining a right estimate of the Law and grace.

 

[psalms 91]

Ths Holy Spirit leads and teachs, man is just the instrument.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Ths Holy Spirit leads and teachs, man is just the instrument.

People claim that the Holy Spirit leads them and yet a good number of the people making the claims teach error, live immoral lives, and deceive others.

 

[visionary]

I am confident that the bible will not teach a reader what the Christian faith is even though the holy scriptures (all 73 canonical books) ought to be able to instruct a godly person in right conduct and right living. Without the church to teach, interpret, and guide a reader is likely to become an iconoclast, Arian, legalist rather than a fully Nicene Christian who believes and affirms the incarnation of the Lord rightly and who avoids the trap of legalism while maintaining a right estimate of the Law and grace.

And that makes it right conduct and right living even though it contradicts scripture and Holy Living as explained in scripture? really? then Christians are not people of the book.

 

[MoreCoffee]

I am confident that the bible will not teach a reader what the Christian faith is even though the holy scriptures (all 73 canonical books) ought to be able to instruct a godly person in right conduct and right living. Without the church to teach, interpret, and guide a reader is likely to become an iconoclast, Arian, legalist rather than a fully Nicene Christian who believes and affirms the incarnation of the Lord rightly and who avoids the trap of legalism while maintaining a right estimate of the Law and grace.

And that makes it right conduct and right living even though it contradicts scripture and Holy Living as explained in scripture? really? then Christians are not people of the book.

You haven't replied to my post, your post is just an excuse for pointless disputes.

 

[visionary]

You haven't replied to my post, your post is just an excuse for pointless disputes.

You are confident that the Holy Scriptures need help to teach mankind. I am confident the Holy Scriptures need the Holy Spirit to teach mankind.

 

[MoreCoffee]

You are confident that the Holy Scriptures need help to teach mankind. I am confident the Holy Scriptures need the Holy Spirit to teach mankind.

Is the Holy Spirit the one who taught you to post that the Holy Trinity is apparently not true?

 

[psalms 91]

You are confident that the Holy Scriptures need help to teach mankind. I am confident the Holy Scriptures need the Holy Spirit to teach mankind.

Truth

 

[visionary]

Is the Holy Spirit the one who taught you to post that the Holy Trinity is apparently not true?

Yep.. now you have a dilemma... The Shema

 

[visionary]

Trinitarians readily admit that their definition of God is not explicitly taught anywhere in the scriptures. Not in the gospels, Paul, Moses, Peter, etc. In fact, they admit that the paradigm of three persons yet one God defies reason and refer to it as a profound divine mystery. The idea is that you can have any number of persons but if they are of the same "substance" then you still only have one God. Of course, this convenient principle does not work with humans, who all share the same substance and yet are all numerically added when there are multiple persons. Joe and John are two humans despite being of the same substance. The tricky math of 3 = 1 they consider part of God's incomprehensible nature.