Posted on 11/21/2013 6:55:00 AM PST by Gamecock
Christians will commonly argue with each other about “secondary” issues of doctrine, while assuring themselves and the rest of us that it’s okay since they agree on the “primary” issues. Obviously, not all topics of biblical teaching are on the same level of importance. On the basis of this sort of distinction between “primary” and “secondary” we can readily join with Christians across denominational lines while continuing to warn Mormons that they have the primary material wrong.
My concern is that the well-intentioned emphasis on the basics of mere Christianity and “primary issues” that we can all agree on also disparages the “secondary issues.” Less clarity in the Bible, less agreement among Christians, and less treatment by the tradition should not add up to counting these matters as unimportant. I suggest that the doctrinal topics that Christians feel free to disagree about are not adiaphora in the sense that we need not take them seriously. I propose a different analogy to help alleviate this concern.
For example, lots of people will line up and howl about disagreements regarding eschatology. People readily roll their eyes, let out heavy sighs, and check their watch (or phone) to see if somehow they can escape a nit-picky and acrimonious discussion. Topics such as the rapture of the church, the tribulation, the meaning of the millennium, and the nature of hell seem to get seconded to the status of “let’s not talk about that now.” Also uncomfortable are discussions about contemporary prophecy, speaking in tongues, the office of apostleship, and the correlation between science and our theology of the Genesis account.
The problem with setting these topics aside from discussion among friends in the local church is that people don’t think about them, as if such topics are a waste of time and harmfully divisive. (On many occasions, discussion has led to division, but maybe the fault in these splits has not been theology but other interpersonal issues are the real cause of division). Without thinking about these doctrines rigorously, I doubt that people are going to understand them well, so people will be limited to the thoughtless sound bites about these topics that come through jokes, or derogatory comments about someone who actually believes some position on the topic. Sometimes, it seems that people just doubt the truth is even knowable for these topics, and judge anyone who forms a conviction about them as just narrow, arrogant, and not to be listened to. In a word, such a person is counted a Fundamentalist Bible-thumper of yesteryear.
The usual model offered to correlate the various levels of doctrines in their importance may contribute to the marginalization of and distaste for the “lesser” topics of theology. Concentric circles display the center as the core of Christian doctrine: Trinity, Jesus, Scripture, and salvation by grace through faith. Outer layers to this core give levels of decreasing importance that account for differing denominations and Christian practices, such as views of the meaning of water baptism, the Lord’s Supper, topics of eschatology, and etc.
This typical model of a hierarchy of doctrines haunted me when someone in a large audience at a debate asked me if hell was an essential doctrine. Hmmm, I wondered. Essential to what? Essential in what way? I think the intended meaning was “primary” and “core” as a doctrine that is central to Christian faith, something that must be affirmed to count as Christian. The concentric circles model was misleading for me to think through how to answer that question. I have another model to suggest in its place.
I offer the model of the human body to understand and explain the relation of doctrinal topics in our belief system. In the body, a dysfunction or sickness for an organ such as the heart is going to bring down the body much faster than a similar problem in another organ, such as the gall bladder, a muscle group, or the skin (the largest organ). A tumor in the brain is harder to ignore and usually more lethal than a tumor in the forearm. By application to theology, a problem with your doctrine of God is going to cause more severe problems that are more immediately apparent than a problem with your doctrine of hell. This does not mean that hell, like your gall bladder or forearm, is unimportant or even less important to the whole doctrinal system. Similarly, people probably don’t think very often about the identity of the church in relation to biblical Israel, but a problem here can show up in subtle ways like having high cholesterol in the bloodstream, and the buildup of plaque in one’s arteries. We only think about this when we get a blood test that shows a problem, or when there is some sort of disruption of blood flow.
The analogy shows that a problem may take longer to show up because that doctrinal part, the theological organ, does not do as much for the overall well-being of the body, as compared to your doctrine of Jesus or salvation by grace (alone, as my affinity for Luther presses me to add).
People can live without considering some doctrines (such as eschatology), but I wonder if this is similar to living without a leg. You can do it, but it’s not best, and your overall functioning will be disabled. We may be more aware of certain organs in our bodies (such as our skin, or our lungs and heart), but this does not mean that the organs we pay less attention to on a daily basis are not doing important jobs. Similarly, everything that God revealed as topics of doctrine does important jobs in our belief and practice, whether we are aware of it or not.
A truly whole-Bible theology should embrace all the doctrines, and pursue confidence and understanding of everything God has given us, no matter how much or how little it drifts into the center of our attention. Know your body, and it will help you know your theology. In this way, the ultimate unity of our understanding of biblical teaching may be preserved in a way that the concentric circles model seems to miss (and mislead). You can have your core circles and leave the others behind. You can’t do this with the body: a heart without a stomach, arms, blood vessels, etc. is not going to be alive very long. All the parts contribute to each other in many ways, manifesting the interdependence and unity of the whole. Such is our theology as well, even the weird stuff that seems just foolishness and weakness to us.
Once Paul wrote it down, it ceased to be *tradition* but became Scripture.
IOW, the important stuff for us to know, Paul made sure and wrote down.
How do YOU know you’re on the right path?
The very same arguments you are using against iscool can be applied to yourself.
Does dogma evolve?
Is Mary Dead?
God gave us what we need and we haven't digested all of THAT nor incorporated it into our lives yet
I give very little thought about what I may not know nor what I may not understand ... I'm too busy pleading for God's forgiveness as I violate that which I DO know and understand.
O miserable wretch that I am ...
Good grief. Just dealing with what the Bible has to say can keep one busy for more than a dozen lifetimes.
Go figure that people feel the need to add to that. What gluttons for punishment.
This is something I do not do.
You must have a more polite name for it then...The bible calls it perverting...This is what you posted, quoting scripture...
Yes, those have been written, but there are other teachings that are not written.
This is the real scripture from your own Catholic bible...
Joh_21:25 And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.
Jesus did not teach anything more than John told us about but he did however do many more things...
And then you use your false quote to defend your religion's unbiblical position of 'Sacred Tradition' passed on by Jesus and the Apostles outside of the written scriptures...
86 was meant to go to Salvation
No, it’s a common saying like “An apple a day keeps the doctor away” for example. We all quote this one line that Paul says Jesus said — but that the actual words of Jesus saying it aren’t in the Bible. Thus, proving that information got handed down person to person, in this case, by Paul.
I’ll find out what it is today and write it down, then post it later tonight.
You posted: That’s why “All scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable ... “ !
***
A great verse, but what was “scripture” at the time it was written?
You posted: But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.
Who wrote the others? Are they inspired of the Holy Spirit? Does the Catholic Church claim to have them in their possession? Why did the Catholic Church not make them a part of the NT Canon?
***
These verses do not state that anything else was written. It says that IF the full story of Jesus were written, it fill the world with books.
Come with me now, as we enter the time of yesteryear ...
A man ... preaching around the countryside, finds himself writing (a?) letter and realizes ... perhaps knows ... he's "under the influence" so to speak .. of God.
Is he thinking, listening or autowriting ?
Is he analyzing what he's doing?
I think mostly he is talking to the people he's writing to via quill and ink.
He's preaching .... he's just not in the presence of the people he's writing (preaching) to.
There was no "Bible" at the time thus there were no "scriptures" ... the commonly used word for the words of the Bible.
knarf, I tried to travel back with you, not sure I made the journey correctly. I totally agree with what was written about scripture. The trick is determining what is scripture and what is not. All scripture is inspired by God, but that does mean that all writings considered by men as scripture are in fact scripture. It also does not mean that all writings rejected by men as scripture are NOT scripture.
As in most things regarding the Christian faith, it is indeed about FAITH, that gift of God (Eph. 4:8). Faith in God, faith in Christ, faith in scripture, faith that that which is proclaimed as scripture IS scripture, faith that the “still, small voice” we hear is God speaking to us, etc.
Fortunately, we have the historical Christ, his unexplained (by earthly standards) resurrection, his appearance to the disciples, and the willingness of those who witnessed Jesus’ ministry to cling to it despite the threat of, and performance of acts of cruelty and torture that, did they not believe, surely they would have recanted.
I do not reject the Bible as God’s word, I accept it, but I recognize that it is, in part, the result of decisions made by men, led by God, but men nonetheless.
I do not reject the Bible as God’s word, I accept it, but I recognize that it is, in part, the result of decisions made by men, led by God, but men nonetheless.
For instance, was Paul being led by the holy spirit when he accused peter of being wrong to the hole world?
And if he was right about what he accused Peter of, then was Peter being led by the holy spirit?
I admit to not knowing for sure, i fervently believe what Jesus said was directly from the holy spirit and also the acts through the day of Pentecost.
But after Paul enters the scene there are some differences of the story, Paul describes some details in Galatians ch 1 on his first trip to Jerusalem different than the same trip is described in acts.
Also his second trip 14 years later is described a little different, and he does not mention that Peter stood up and proclaimed to the whole Church ( Paul included ) how it was given him to ( Peter ) to preach the word to the gentiles.
He also does not mention that his second trip was to get support from Peter which Peter gave him and by Peters words of support also got the support from James who must have been the over seer of the Church in Jerusalem at that time.
In one of Peters letters he supports Paul but Paul does not say but very little to support any of the apostles, he does say that he perceived them to be pillows of God.
So regardless of who was right and who was wrong, or maybe no one was absolutely right or wrong it does not sound like every thing that was said came directly from the holy spirit but from men.
Sorry, it should have been whole, not hole.
So what then? Paul lied?
The Holy Spirit allowed error in Scripture?
Pick your poison.
Not according to THAT Scripture verse. Notice that it says many things Jesus "did", not many things Jesus "taught". That is significant in light of what John said BEFORE this in John 20:30,31
Jesus performed many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.
Many religions want to add to the body of Divinely-inspired Scripture things that they believe the Apostles taught, things they call "Traditions", but we should remember that we have IN Holy Scripture all that God wants us to know to have life in Christ's name by believing in Him and that, through Scripture, we can be thoroughly furnished and complete unto all good works. Nothing wrong with traditions, but any that conflict with Scripture should be rejected along with any that add to what God says is needed so that we might believe and have life through Christ.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.