There are so many varied beliefs amongst so many people that ALL stem from the same book. How is this explained? What makes you different from all the other Christians that call themselves by a different name?
|
There are so many varied beliefs amongst so many people that ALL stem from the same book. How is this explained? What makes you different from all the other Christians that call themselves by a different name?
Very simple. Man!
Man is interpreting the Bible. Because of that mistakes can and often are made. It is when those mistakes are not caught and stopped/fixed does a teaching become a problem. That is one of the reasons cults can spring up, people do not question a teaching if it is against what they believe the bible is teaching.
If it is as simple as merely "mistakes" then why do so many sects STILL exist?
Who has the correct interpretation?
Since EVERY sect is based off the interpretation of Man, and apparently some of these are in error, isn't it then possible that everyone has it wrong?
Yes it is possible. But I don't believe that is the case. While man is fallible if you sit 50 or 100 knowledgeable people down in a room and try and teach them something that is factually incorrect. You may be able to get through your talk, but how many will believe you? How many will challenge your theories? All? Some? None? My guess is some. Same for the Christian beliefs. If I was sitting in a church and the teachings did not line up with how I as a rational adult understood the Bible on that subject. I would have to challenge the theories. Sadly all too many people have not done that for what ever reason and fallen into one cult or another blindly following a personality and not the word of God.
Most of the differences in belief revolve around issues that are not central and have taken Scripture too far by focusing on one verse. It is an unfolding Revelation and some cannot accept those who have looked and seen something that was there all the time but ignored.
It is exactly like a prophetic vision I heard preached one time. The preacher saw a line of people extending and then it branched at 45 degrees, but some people kept going as they had before, and after a time it turned back again at 45 degrees, but some people kept going as they had before, and after a time the line turned again at 45 degrees but some people kept going as they had before. If you draw this series of lines you will see that some are now headed back towards the point where it first branched, but many are far away from the original path
Let me put this in context; ( one point of view )the first branch was Constantine and the Church becoming the "offical religion", the second was the Reformation, the third; the rise of Pentacostalism. In between there have been many small diviations in the path, each one leaving a group of people headed in a slightly different direction
This is why I'm not religious. There is always people who claim to be part of the same religion, and yet, they fight over which sect is the right one. Also I can't stand it when the religious-finatics shove their religion down people's throats and say it's the only truth. I never believed that and I never will. It's pathetic. God wouldn't have allowed the world to create so many religions if he only destined the world to only have one religious truth, or two if you count Judaism. Basically I'm an Agnostic Chrisitian who commits Buddhist practices. How's that for a set of beliefs?
Sounds like you don't have the truth of any there. God isn't afraid of skeptics you should ask God to reveal himself to you, then you will no longer be agnostic. You fail to realise Christianity is a relationship, a one on one with Jesus Christ, this can only happen when you believe
In the US, the US Constitution is a few pages long. And how can there be so much dispute between people on what it means ? People wish to take their personal beleifs and use it to prove their point of views
Which Christian beliefs do you want to talk about? That babies are or are not to be baptized? That the devil is real or just an avoidance of human responsibility? That God gave the land of Israel to Abraham and his family forever? How many sacraments there are? That Creation took place in six 24-hour days? -- all beliefs of certain Christians but not other Christians, each of whom interpret the Bible a certain way.Quote:
Originally Posted by DrJizzle
In the beginning, the Catholic Church was the teacher of Christian doctrine, and then, like someone just mentioned on this thread, there came the Reformation and sola scriptura, the Bible interpreting itself, but also opening up interpretation to disagreement not only among church bodies but also between individuals. As I had posted on a now-closed thread, Christianity does not come down the pike smoothly and glides to a stop. It swerves and veers and fishtails all the way.
So each sect of Christianity was based off how someone interpreted the Bible to define their own personal beliefs. Would that be accurate?
(I have to assume a yes to that. I'm sure plenty will say no but there is no way prove that without using personal beliefs.. which would, in turn, kind of just disprove it at the same time)
To take it a step further, is it also accurate to say as long as the Christian has accepted Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior that, regardless of what Christianity sect they belong to, they will be saved?
(While a "no" from some here is inevitable, I have to look passed that and assume a yes, once again)
To stretch that a little bit more, it should also be accurate to say that, as long as one has accepted Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior, regardless of what THEIR interpretation of the Bible IS, they, too, will be saved. Yes?
So then even the act of "accepting Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior" is open to interpretation, since all that we know about Christ and Salvation is found in the Bible..?
Wasn't this covered in your world history class in high school? Originally, the Catholic Church carried from the early Christian church doctrines that everyone agreed on. The Protestant denominations were started to "protest" against the Catholic Church in some way. None of the "protesters" had the same reason for protesting. Once this started (the Reformation), the doctrines differed from each other and the Bible was open to interpretation. The various Christians here were raised in either the Catholic Church or in one of those protesting church bodies or maybe in a more recent sect. Now there are widely differing ideas on various doctrines and Christian teachings.Quote:
Originally Posted by DrJizzle
It most likely way... but, regretfully, I lacked the appreciation for knowledge at that age and therefore, never paid much attention to history.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
But thank you, I really do appreciate you spelling that out for me. Strange how things that are common knowledge to one, seem to slip right by another. :o
So is there also an answer as widely accepted about who is right? Or more so, who is wrong? Do Catholics believe Protestants, or any other protesting sect, is not saved (or the other way around)?
Each church or denomination thinks it's right. Catholics and Protestants believe each other is saved, but may disagree on the finer points such as, should babies be baptized, was Jonah really swallowed by a great fish (or is that an allegory), did Creation take six 24-hour days or did it happen in some other way, was Mary a virgin or a "young woman," should the Bible be understood literally, and on and on.Quote:
Originally Posted by DrJizzle
So what then of other interpretations?
What about them? If we are to be charitable--as I think we should be--and suppose that one belongs to a particular denomination because one believes that denomination's interpretations to be correct, then the only thing left is for competing interpretations to duke it out. Let them be sifted by means of reasoned argument in order that it might be determined which are and which are not plausible.Quote:
Originally Posted by DrJizzle
There's been an awful lot of hand-wringing about arguments among Christians. I can't see why this should be cause for concern. If your faith is something about which you care very deeply--as it should presumably be--then of course you're going to want to (a) advocate for it and (b) defend its claims to truth from those who subject it to critique. That's as it should be. The problem as I see it isn't that there is too much argument among Christians at this site, but that there is too little. Argument is reasoned discourse governed by the laws of logic. Instead of that, what we get is, at best, barrages of biblical verses (as many as a search engine can dig up) with little or no hermenutical care taken by the "barrager". The idea--held dear by some--is that the Bible interprets itself, so there's really no need for reasoned discourse: just cut and paste from your search engine and plaster a bunch of verses on the screen and, well, QED.
I'm sure someone will be along soon to admonish you that one oughtn't to "interpret" Scripture. Again, the idea seems to be that any bozo sitting on his couch with a beer in one hand and the other down his pants and the Bible open on his lap can understand every jot and tittle of the Good Book without ever "interpreting" any of it. This may make absolute mush of the English language, but the sort who take this view don't seem too concerned about linguistic subtleties. Nor, for that matter, have they any evident regard for the cognitive operations of the human mind, which interprets squiggles of ink as letters and words and interprets letters and words as bearers of linguistic meaning, and so on. If you ever find yourself really, really bored, or stuck with a bad case of insomnia, you might read through some of the threads from December through about March. It's illuminating.
Denomination Shmenomination! If any other interpretation of the Bible is acceptable, then should ANY interpretation be acceptable? I realize this opens it up to some pretty creative interpretations but still... if sense can be made of it and it doesn't disprove itself, it would seem that it should also be considered as a valid interpretation.
What being a Christian really boils down to is being a follower of Christ. That is all the word means, right? I know I have been called a non-believer or "not a Christian" due to my own beliefs/interpretations of the Bible, God, Jesus Christ, Salvation, etc and that seems to be caused by certain interpretations being invalid or unacceptable.
So where is that line drawn in people's minds? What constitutes acceptance over absurdness?
I'm not sure what the upshot of the "denomination shmenomination" bit is supposed to be--though I suspect I would like it if I did. It strikes me as perverse when people who regard the Bible as the unadulterated word of God at the same time suppose that it can accommodate only a quite superficial literal interpretation (or "understanding", for those whose panties get in a twist over the use of the word "interpretation"). In the history of Christianity--which I find it useful to consult on such matters--the idea that the text has only its surface meaning is a very recent phenomenon. Historically, it was held to have a literal meaning, an allegorical meaning, a typological meaning, etc. In other words, any given passage has several meanings, at different levels. This strikes me as not only plausible but as blazingly obvious. So, yes, in that sense anyway, I would agree that a multiplicity of interpretations can all be right--at the same time. But, of course, this requires considerable care and sophistication, since one can run amok with the "multiplicity of interpretations" line. Too often I've seen it used to paper over sheer laziness on the part of the interpreter. (Same goes for the restriction to the literal, by the by.)
As for you other point: I would be cautious about claiming that being a Christian "boils down" to any one thing. It's a way of life, or it should be, and it is and ought to be rich and complex and, yes, complicated. People often crave the bullett, the nugget, the bare bones. They want things to be simple and they want complex things to be simplified. But if Christianity is to mean anything, it shouldn't be the sort of thing that can be put on a friggin' bumper sticker.
Now I know that this is going to seem just appalling to some in the fundamentalist crowd who take the view that being a Christian is neither more nor less than "accepting Jesus Christ and your Lord and Savior". But that's a howler. Every word of that motto needs to be unpacked, and if you undertake the unpacking of it seriously, then what you're going to end up with is something rich and complex and, yes, complicated. Which is as it should be. I always encourage people to avoid the salesman pitching them salvation on the cheap.
That should be a very basic question but people will argue over it for eons.Quote:
Originally Posted by DrJizzle
Acceptance comes from believing, reading, learning about hearing.preaching the word of God. It does not mean that you have to belong to some certain religious organization to be saved. Nor does it require you to follow some ceremonies that man has devised.
Now what the word says is very important. One of the verses talks about not forsaking the fellowship of other believers. That one is conveniently left off by many people who feel that organized religion is not the way to God or for what ever reason not for them. I Jn chapter one is short, but very important in how we walk this life called Christianity.
Just to be clear.Quote:
Originally Posted by 450donn
The Word (of God) is the second Person of the Trinity.
The "word", i.e. the Bible, is a book. It is an inspired book, to be sure, but a book just the same. Start conflating the Word and the "word" and what you've got is idolatry. One can be a perfectly good Christian without ever having read a sinlge word of the "word".
First of all, they do not all come from the same book. Not every sect of Christianity observes their faith using the same translation. While you can call it the same Bible all you want, technically some words are either not translatable or there are so many different words for it that the meaning can be corrupted in translation. No I am not saying that the Bible is corrupt, only that if you ask any translator they will agree on some level that you cannot completely and accurately translate some parts of languages into others.Quote:
Originally Posted by DrJizzle
I harped on that because some of these sects were formed by simple people who had no ability to read from the same Bible that Catholic priests did at the time. Many of these sects were formed by people who took their understanding of the Bible, compared it to other practicing factions of their religion of the time, and saw corruption. I believe someone already pointed out the Protestant, so I don't need to delve into that further.
I'm surprised no one else has pointed this out, so I am going to. The Bible was written by man, inspired by God. Man is fallible, and while God is not, he did give the fallible man a free-will.
Many sects of Christianity are a sect because they choose to focus on a different aspect of Christianity. sect - Definition from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary Some sects are considered heretical, while some simple choose to follow the basic tenets and teachings of the New Testament. Some differ over things as small as what animal God has said man can eat. In no way does this make their faith less observed by those of their sect. Faith is what brings the sects together, observation of the faith is what makes them unique.
To date there are over 87 known versions of the Bible, and those are just the complete Bibles.
And for that matter, what about the Mormon Bible, or the Catholic Bible? These are two sects that consider themselves Christian. The Mormons have an entire extra Bible they believe inspired by God. The Catholic Bible has 7 books that aren't included in the Protestant version. Granted, they don't differ theology wise over the important things, but this is a fact.
Heh yeah "Denomination Shmenomination" just was meant to do away with all the names, titles, sects, denominations, etc. It seems rather pointless... especially since beliefs vary even within the different denominations. A big controversy at the Protestant Church I was raised in was whether modern music (that included a guitar and drums instead of an organ) was considered holy. This debate actually split the Church into two sermons every Sunday.
So doing away with the names and all, when it comes down to it, it is likely that every Christian has their very own specific interpretation of it all. With so much variation (however minute), the only true constant would be what? Following Christ.. aka "accepting Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior"? I don't mean to say that it is "simplistic"... but still it really is just that "simple".
Like when you are learning something new... while learning, it can seem complex, difficult, confusing, etc... but once you finally KNOW it... it seems so simple.
Anyway, not sure where I was going with all this...
Chey, I completely agree. The Bible was written by man... I know many people that God somehow protected it but I don't see how that could be possible. On top of that, there was a CONSIDERABLE amount of time between the last book that was written and the first assembly of a the Bible as we know it today.. which ever Bible that is.
And if the Catholic Bible came first and it also included the verse about adding to or taking away from the Bible being the sin of all sins, how is having such a popular Bible that contains 7 less books explained/accepted? Just curious... I don't claim to have the answers... but I do have the questions :D
And when it comes down to it, are all these other denominations accepted by each other... or by God, in their eyes?
Beyond that, denomination or not, would any disprovable, reasonable interpretation also qualify?
Well, I certainly hope that "following Christ" isn't the only constant. It's not much of one, taken on its face. Here again, the thing has to be unpacked. An awful lot gets smuggled in with one simple word, "following". And there's tons of theology packed into the other one, "Christ".Quote:
Originally Posted by DrJizzle
Here again, I am not at all fond of the urge to boil things down. Things are complex and complicated, and there are reasons for this. We do ourselves no favors by pretending things are otherwise; we just distort the reality that we hope to understand. You mention how what at first "seems" a difficult task later, once mastered, "seems" easy. But notice that the difficulty or ease with which we perform various tasks isn't always, or even often, reflective of the complexity of those tasks. There's an awful lot of complexity involved in seeing a colored object. The fact that we don't pause over it, that we take it for granted, doesn't by any means imply that there isn't complexity. Why on earth would anybody suppose that something as transformative, historically rich, cognitively demanding, and, well, deep as Christianity could ever be boiled down to a slogan? It's preposterous.
Someone may mouth the words "Jesus Christ is my Lord and Savior". She may even, in mouthing them, feel a warm tingle in her belly or be overtaken by a faint quiver in her voice. Can it be inferred from this that she has the foggiest idea what she's talking about or what she's committed to? Of course not. This sort of thing is quite commonplace (subsitute this phrase, "I love you", for the other, and you'll see what I mean--lots of people say those words and haven't a clue what they mean or what they commit themselves to thereby). Similarly, someone can read and re-read the Bible assiduously over many years, be able to recite lengthy passages, etc. What is this evidence of? Is it evidence of a deep understanding of Scripture? Is it evidence of one's salvation? Is it evidence of--or somehoe constitutive of--being a Christian? Clearly the answer is no on each count.
So what is it that all these people with all these interpretations have in common? Probably no single thing. It's unlikely that there is one essential feature that is to be found among all Christians, even among all authentic Christians (if we play along and accpet the fundamentalist distinction between real Christians and faux Christians). And there are lots of reasons for this too, though I'm not sure how much good is to be had from wading into them here. Suffice it to say, for present purposes anyway, that Christianity is a highly variegated phenomenon. This isn't to suggest that one ought to adopt a relativistic attitude toward the differences and, with a shrug of the shoulders, incline to the notion that truth is in the eye of the beholder. Not every interpretation is a good interpretation; and not every idiot opinion is an interpretation. This is why it is important to argue things out, in a rigorous way. Beliefs aren't sacrosanct, and the mere fact that I believe X doesn't make it true that X. I had better be in a position to justify my belief that X, and if I can't I'd better be prepared to jettison that belief. That's how we mature intellectually, to say nothing of morally and spiritually. It profits me nothing to cling to false beliefs. So rational people have a responsibility to be reasonable and argue about their beliefs, adopting the true ones and rejecting the false ones.
The difficulty I sometimes run across is this, that there are some who are prepared to jettison the most basic norms of reason in order to avoid surrendering a belief they are unable to justify. Thus we find, for instance, the bizarro-world logic involved in holding the belief that one does not interpret the Bible. The line runs something like this: The Bible says not to interpret the Bible. Therefore, I don't interpret the Bible. Not only is that an invalid argument (the conclusion doesn't follow from the premise by any rule of inference), but it assumes that the word "interpret" means the same thing in the two propositions--which isn't at all obvious. My point here is that one cannot reason, and so one cannot argue, with someone who refuses to adhere to the most basic rules of logic. The conversation has to stop because the issue isn't one of fact or belief but of intellectual honesty and rationality. This is why so few people outside the fundamentalist crowd stick with the Christianity forum at AMHD. And this has a lot to do with the nastiness that so often erupts there. When you are attempting to argue with someone who simply won't conform to the most basic norms of reason (logic) there are two common courses of action: give voice to your frustration or quit the conversation entirely. I don't post here much anymore--and I'm not alone in this--because I chose the second. But there have been some recent exchanges in which it is blazingly obvious that someone got frustrated and lost his or her temper because one party to the discussion chose to leave rationality to one side in order to press a rhetorical advantage. It is my sense that this is the reason nothing ever seems to get resolved: It isn't the differences of opinion and belief, nor differences of interpretation or denomination. It is rather that those differences cannot be rationally assessed and sifted unless all parties observe fundamental rational norms. And that is something that has nothing whatever to do with one's commitments coming in; that has everything to do with one's character.
I certainly don't intend to take away from the complexity of it all or boil it down to a slogan that can be slapped on a t-shirt. I guess I am choosing my words based off beliefs already in my mind.
I agree that everything as we know is complex beyond most of our understanding. But, in the end, it still ALL boils down to one simple thing. However, attempt to unpack that one simple thing and you unravel complexities are unfathomable.
"Simple" is still a tricky word to use there...
I guess it seems to me that one could live their life with one basic understanding (and I certainly mean "understanding" in the truest sense of the word... not just someone's cop-out)... but that one true understand would then guide his life in the right direction. Of course the actual events of that persons life could be wildly rich and complex, difficult and trying, etc... but he is still driven by just that one true understanding.
Isn't that the way Jesus lived His life? Sure, He studied the OT but He obviously wasn't able to study the NT.
But He did posses the ultimate understanding of God.
Still no point here.. just thinking this stuff out on paper :D
The Bible actually talks about how we should all be of "the same mind," and avoid divisions. The divisions in Christianity are the effects of people following more after the "traditions of men" rather than what the Bible actually teaches.
It's not as simple as many people think. Acts is a great book on conversions. They all have a pattern:Quote:
Originally Posted by DrJizzle
1.)Hearing the Word
2.)Beliving in Christ
3.)Be baptized
4.)Walk in the newness of life
5.) Be faithful until death
Most people today do not follow the examples and structures laid out in the Bible. If it was good enough for the first Christians, why is it not good enough for people today? The same stuff people went through back then, people still go through today; it's just a different time.
Also, people think that "believing" automatically exempts them from everything. "Oh, I'm a Christian, but it doesn't matter if I do wrong because God will forgive me in the end." It's not that easy.
In the end isn't the bible just a book?
The problem is that man is fallible and man is the one interpreting the bible. That's why we have so many different sects, so many arguments about the "word".
I have to question why a book that's supposedly written by God is so difficult to interpret. Wouldn't God make it easier? After all, we're only human.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Altenweg
To a Non believer that is the pat answer. However to a Christian, the Bible is the inspired word of God. It is a blueprint for our daily living. It is one of the ways God speaks to us. It is an owners manual for our bodies and our lives. You need to believe that before you can accept anything else in the world of Christianity.
The Bible is not difficult to interpret. Man through his stubbornness to cling to tradition is generally responsible for a lot of the rabbit trails that churches lead people down. Often times to failure because again it has turned into a man made religion, not Christianity. If God made the Bible any easier would man be able to understand it any better? Not likely!
There's something I like about what Akoue said earlier:Quote:
Originally Posted by 450donn
The "word", i.e., the Bible, is a book. It is an inspired book, to be sure, but a book just the same. Start conflating the Word and the "word" and what you've got is idolatry. One can be a perfectly good Christian without ever having read a single word of the "word".
450donn, you say that it is a blueprint for our daily living. To which blueprint are you referring?
You also said, "the Bible is not difficult to interpret." Why then have there been so many religious wars throughout history, why the Protestant Reformation, and why do differences in interpretation and belief about the Bible break up friendships, families, and even nations?
In order to understand the bible one must first have faith and believe. Each person has a different relationship with Jesus. It still boils down to whether or not you believe and have faith, in something not seen or not being able to touch this Holy Person. I try very hard to walk the walk not just talk it. So my view is wait until Jesus comes again then we can all ask Him these questions.
Because you have an fallible man trying to interpret what the word of God is saying without accountability!Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
I don't think accountability has anything to do with it. I agree with the "fallible man" part though. Just as we are individuals with different life experiences, so also are there as many interpretations.Quote:
Originally Posted by 450donn
And Bible verses mean different things to me at different times of my life.
I'm sure there are plenty of people that believe that the Bible is not difficult to interpret... and I'm willing to bet a lot of them have a different interpretation of it.
As for not being able to understand the Bible until you believe... well, that seems a bit backwards to me. It would seem that such an inspired work would be what makes most a believer... not the other way around.
OK DJ think of it this way. Could you possibly understand a text book aimed at a person seeking a doctorate degree before you could learn to spell the word doctor? No, definitely not. In the same way, the bible is a collection of words until you believe. Then the meanings of the words becomes understandable as your spirit grows in the Lord.
Those that have strayed from the teachings of the word and are teaching their followers what they believe without accountability are in for a rude awakening come judgment day In my opinion
Well true... someone reading it would have to be open to it and prepared to learn it first. So someone first sparks someone's interest in Christianity... then they turn to the Bible to learn more. I'm sure there are people that would dive right into a religion and "believe" whatever based on what other people tell them but there are plenty of intelligent people that would want some first hand information, right?Quote:
Originally Posted by 450donn
As for your second statement, I agree. But there seems to be no real way of knowing who is actually on the right path. Who has strayed and who has not? It seems that everyone's belief was somehow originally determined by someone else's personal belief, interpretation, or misinterpretation.
So since one cannot know which is the correct teaching... one must believe what they choose to believe. So how do they decide what that is? By settling on an interpretation of their own? Well, then we are back to square one.
OH but there is!
If you do a web search on cults you will come up with a large list of identifiers. That is a good first start.
Second if you are attending a church, I don't care what flavor, and somet teaching does not sit right with how you understand the word of God, it is your right, no duty, to confront the teachers. If they cannot show you in the bible that their teaching was/is sound or if they state that it is their was or the highway, you know they are far off base. You need to then run as fast as you can from them because it is fast becoming a cult if not already one.
Sound church teachings are not of man but of God, and if any organization feels the need to supplement books to support their teachings there is a problem with that organization. Book of Mormon is a classic example In my opinion!
Rev 22:18-19
I testify to everyone who hears the words of this prophesy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues which are written in this book;19 and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophesy, God will take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in the book."
Pretty cllear to my way of thinking.
I do see where you are going with this.. but ultimately, it seems that it will lead to the same dilemma.
That's apparent just by the amount of soundly backed sects that exist today. Everyone of them using the "a" Bible to back their various claims.
That still leaves so much to what you are willing to accept in your own mind... again, dropping us back at the beginning.
On a side note, is that verse you just quoted also in the Catholic Bible?
No clue, I am not of that religion.
I guess the end of all this has to be "faith" without it you cannot believe, or understand what God is saying to you when you read the scriptures.it
DrJ, I think you are falling into some of the same old arguments. In order to actually discuss this you would have to do something like what the council of Nicea did. They met to officially decide what went into the Bible as we know these books today. The books excluded can almost all be found in a different book called the Gnostic Gospels.
There's the issue, as far as I am seeing it. You are not defining WHAT "Christian" means. Sect or no sect, in order to be a Christian you have to have some kind of an understanding of this. I don't think anyone would dispute that the Bible says," I am the way the truth, and the light, no man shall come to the father except through me." (John 14:6)
There ARE clear and identifiable markers in Christianity. You cannot simply discount one part of the teachings of Christ for another more easily interpreted teaching. One of the things the early church fought over was wither or not Christ was the literal or Figurative Son of God. Many people don't know this in the more modern Christian world today.
The issue becomes not one of faith, but one of ignorance. The guidelines are laid out there, the interpretation IS actually more personal and wrought from wisdom than simply knowledge.
These were two key conflicting ideas in the Catholic church that led to dissent into the Protestant faith. The clergy of the Catholic church were the only people other than the wealthy that were able to actually read the Bible, thus the common and poor were completely dependent on the clergy to interpret the Bible for them. The corruption of these clergymen led to the common people's dissent and eventual ability to have the Bible available to them in a language they could read.
The issue in modern day is not the availability of these scriptures, nor is it IF a man can interpret the word of God. The question becomes, is the man teaching ignorant of what he teaches. A politician would be hung if he misquoted policy the way a LOT of Christians misquote scripture. People are so easy to spout off about what the Bible says, what it means, and how it should be applied to our daily lives.
See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ. (Col 2:8)
Oh, by the way, early Christianity was viewed as a cult. ;)
Chey5782 makes some good points.
As I said in an earlier post, I don't think that there is some one essential trait that is going to determine Christian from non-Christian. Even something as basic as belief in the salvific import and effect of the death and resurrection of Christ is going to be understood differently. Among different Christians--or different groups of Christians--there are family resemblances which need to be explored with considerable care.
So to the question, What is a Christian? there isn't, I think, likely to be a single univocal answer. Even a slogan like, "A person who accepts Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior" is going to mean different things. And it just makes no sense at all to try to define what is Christian by apeal to the Bible since there were Christians before there was a distinctively Christian Bible. I think a much more useful set of criteria involve relations of historical continuity. Certainly this is how early Christians themselves answered this question. The so-called Rule of Faith controversy of the second and third centuries took up this very issue since it was important to distinguish Christianity from, for instance, gnosticism. It was necessary, in other words, to distinguish orthodox Christianity from heterodox or heretical alternatives.
The solution decided upon by early Christians is one that makes eminent sense, even though there are some here who are violently opposed to it: Orthodox Christianity is defined not by appeal to a book but rather by appeal to ecclesial structure. Christian communities are those overseen by bishops who have apostolic succession. This provides for continuity in the face of itinerant preachers who claim to have had some private revelation, etc. Then as now, eccelsial structure provides a mechanism of stability and continuity of doctrine that charismatic movements of the sort that are so popular in the US, and so stridently represented here at AMHD, simply cannot. Enthusiasm is all well and good, but it isn't a reliable guide to the truth. Since the Christian Bible was produced by the Church as a means (among others) of providing for ecclesial and doctrinal stability, it strikes me as a profound misunderstanding of both the historical conditions of the (Christian) Bible's production as well as of its theological purview to make of it a criterion for what counts as Christian.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:36 PM. |