|
Post by Soulfyre on Feb 18, 2005 4:51:19 GMT -5
If you read the changes I made to the Statement of Belief and Our Ground Rules..., you know that my concept of tradition as a source of authority is undergoing some changes. I thought it only fair to note this for general forum comment. You will note that I have not, in any sense, discarded the inerrancy and authority of the Holy Scriptures. I have, however, recognized the important teaching work of the Holy Spirit within the church, sent to guide us into all truth. Did that apply only to the writings of the generally accepted New Testament canon, or does this ministry still apply today? Is it the work of the Holy Spirit ONLY to provide a guide to our interpretation of the inscripturated word of God? Many would disagree. Since there is undoubtedly a lot to discuss concerning this issue, I will leave this introduction open for comment. If we wish to discuss a particular aspect of this issue in detail, I would encourage you to open a new thread. God bless and keep you all, and I beg your patience as I work through this issue myself, Matthew (soulfyre)
|
|
mpethe
Supporting Member
Posts: 62
|
Post by mpethe on Mar 1, 2005 16:31:19 GMT -5
General thoughts on these very interesting issues...
I've tried to start this post a dozen times or so, but always get bogged down in choosing the right words. It's not a simple or a small topic to discuss. In fact, it's massive and complex and it certainly raises more questions for me than I have answers to.
God is obviously the ultimate Authority. But we also believe that God has revealed and preserved His unchanging will through the holy scriptures. (If only it were as simple just believing in what the Bible teaches). In some areas the Bible is plain and understandable. In other areas, we need to interpret and unfold what is meant. That is not to say that we become the authority - rather we rely on the Holy Spirit to reveal to us the truth found in the Bible. God is still the authority.
The key is that the truth revealed is Biblical. There very well may be 'new' revelation given by the Holy Spirit to individuals or churches - but it must not contradict what is written in scripture. It will always submit and conform to Biblical Truth.
But again, who holds the key to what Biblical truth is? Was it the apostles? Is it the church today? Any one denomination? Is it the scholars of theology? Has Biblical Truth been revealed to the church over time - so that we currently have a more refined and 'better' knowledge than did the historical church - or even the early church? Or are we ever diverging from that 'early church' era when truth was at its most pure?
Through the book of acts, we see that the early church is still in a developmental stage with respect to some doctrinal/theological issues. Examples include Jews/Gentiles & the Gospel, circumcision and baptism to name a few. Nevertheless, the apostles were seen as those who speak the Truth of God and who had authority in the church.
All this despite the fact that we still see fallibility in the apostles (ie highlighted in Paul's confrontation of Peter). Note: that is not suggest that the Bible may be fallible, just that even the apostles were not perfect!
And even today, when the Holy Spirit reveals truth to us - we need to note that as imperfect, fallen beings - we can get it wrong in at least 3 ways...
1) we can perceive the revelation incorrectly
2) we can interpret the revelation incorrectly
3) we can communicate the revelation incorrectly
We still see "but a poor reflection as in a mirror". Maybe it could also be said that we still think and speak in the same 'fogginess'.
That's all I got for now.
|
|
|
Post by JaytheHumble on May 9, 2005 13:33:25 GMT -5
Do a yahoo search: "Orthodox church scandal"...15 results
Do a search: "Catholic church scandal"...1660. (as of this time)
|
|
|
Post by rgrove on May 9, 2005 13:42:07 GMT -5
"baptist church scandal" gets five, but I'm not sure where you are going with this. Are you attempting to tie the doctrinal teachings of a church with the teachers in the church and thereby attack all authority of any church? Or is it significant that the two examples you wrote both claim sacred tradition to be coequal to scripture? Some further explanation would be nice.
Yours In Christ, Ron
|
|