Christian Non-Negotialbles?

[StefanM]

That is a very good point Agnus_Dei. If scripture is indeed sufficient, shouldn't one therefore conclude that any sort of biblical commentary is not only unnecessary but also contradictory to a true 'sola scriptura' doctrine?

No. Biblical commentary is an aid in understand the text. The commentary is neither inspired nor binding, but it can be useful. The sufficiency of scripture does not mean that we do not need help in understanding it but that scripture alone is binding and contains all that is sufficent for the Christian life. It does not guarantee proper interpretation.

One could use the same argument to say that translation of the Bible is unnecessary because the scripture is sufficient in the Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic.

 

[swaimj]

Sola scripture is non-negotiable. Pardon me for quoting myself, but earlier I said:

A group that holds to another source or holds open the possibility of another source is either not truly Christian now or apt to cease being truly Christian in the future.

The Church is built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets; Christ himself being the chief cornerstone. In the scriptures and specifically in the New Testament, we have preserved for us the teaching of the apostles which they received directly from the Lord. This record of their teaching is the foundation for the church. If a group adds to that foundation or rejects the foundation they are not Christian.

 

[cowboymatt]

Sola scripture is non-negotiable. Pardon me for quoting myself, but earlier I said:
The Church is built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets; Christ himself being the chief cornerstone. In the scriptures and specifically in the New Testament, we have preserved for us the teaching of the apostles which they received directly from the Lord. This record of their teaching is the foundation for the church. If a group adds to that foundation or rejects the foundation they are not Christian.

While I agree with you generally, isn't it interesting that the Church existed prior to the Bible?

That doesn't mean that the Church stands over against the Bible. But it does mean that the relationship between tradition and the Bible is not as simple as some of us would like to make it!

 

[swaimj]

isn't it interesting that the Church existed prior to the Bible?

Matt, the church was founded by Jesus and then by his apostles as the verse I quoted indicates. When the apostles began to leave this earth through death or martyrdom, the church began to collect their writings so that they, and we, would have a record of what they taught. That collection of writings is the New Testament. The New Testament is the authority of the Church for faith and practice because, to follow it, is to follow the teaching of the apostles and, thereby, of Christ. Any group or church that has an authority for faith and practice other than or alongside what the apostles wrote is elevating error to the level of authority. By doing so, they will or they already have departed from the body of truth which the church has been given.

 

[cowboymatt]

Matt, the church was founded by Jesus and then by his apostles as the verse I quoted indicates. When the apostles began to leave this earth through death or martyrdom, the church began to collect their writings so that they, and we, would have a record of what they taught. That collection of writings is the New Testament. The New Testament is the authority of the Church for faith and practice because, to follow it, is to follow the teaching of the apostles and, thereby, of Christ. Any group or church that has an authority for faith and practice other than or alongside what the apostles wrote is elevating error to the level of authority. By doing so, they will or they already have departed from the body of truth which the church has been given.

But my point is that the Bible (read: NT) is tradition concerning Jesus handed down, etc as you say. The Church existed first, created tradition, and this tradition was one of the things that determined what was canonical and what was not (the "rule of faith").

Thus, shouldn't we Protestant be greater respecters of tradition, since the Early Church was?

 

[FriendofSpurgeon]

The New Testament is the authority of the Church for faith and practice because, to follow it, is to follow the teaching of the apostles and, thereby, of Christ. Any group or church that has an authority for faith and practice other than or alongside what the apostles wrote is elevating error to the level of authority. By doing so, they will or they already have departed from the body of truth which the church has been given.

What about the Old Testament? Is that not also Scripture??

 

[swaimj]

the Bible (read: NT) is tradition concerning Jesus handed down, etc as you say.

The Bible is more than tradition. The Bible is given by inspiration of God. Tradition is not inspired. My church congregation stands and sings The Doxology after the offering each Sunday morning. That is a tradition. It is fine, but it is not an essential of the faith and it is not binding on any other church. Also, the NT writings concerning Christ are eyewitness accounts and the result of research among eyewitnesses. By calling the scriptures "tradition", you seem to be...and I may be misreading you here...forgive me if I am and I certainly welcome a clarification...regarding the scriptures as less than they actually are.

FOSpurgeon, yes, the OT is scripture.

 

[cowboymatt]

I agree with you that the Bible is inspired, but it is, historically speaking, part of Tradition. You can't escape this. The Church existed prior to the Bible, the Church utilized the rule of faith (tradition) amongst other things to decide what was canonical and what was not, etc.

To be a clear as possible: I am saying that historically the Bible was the product of tradition -- the Church preceded the Bible. So my question is this: since this is so, how might this influence our understanding of Tradition and Scripture?

 

[Doubting Thomas]

I agree with you that the Bible is inspired, but it is, historically speaking, part of Tradition. You can't escape this. The Church existed prior to the Bible, the Church utilized the rule of faith (tradition) amongst other things to decide what was canonical and what was not, etc.

To be a clear as possible: I am saying that historically the Bible was the product of tradition -- the Church preceded the Bible. So my question is this: since this is so, how might this influence our understanding of Tradition and Scripture?

Ahhh...very good points, ones with which I heartily agree. Though before someone strenuously objects to your point about "the Church preceded the Bible", I'd clarify that the Church existed before the NEW TESTAMENT Scriptures, and that it's the OLD TESTAMENT preached as being fulfilled--and properly interpreted--in the Person and work of Jesus Christ that is the heart of the original Apostolic Tradition.

I could say more on this relationship between Church, Tradition, and Scripture (which you've correctly alluded), but I've already recently said much in a previous thread.

However, your original question on this thread, along with your observations about the correct historical relationship between Church, Tradition, and Scripture, raises another question: Who decides (and How) when different groups of "Christians" can't even agree on the "non-negotiables"? (Because I think Oneness folks, and even Mormons, would object and declare that indeed they are Christians, and who are we to tell them otherwise??? :smilewinkgrin: )

 

[swaimj]

I am saying that historically the Bible was the product of tradition -- the Church preceded the Bible. So my question is this: since this is so, how might this influence our understanding of Tradition and Scripture?

I notice that you say that the Bible is a the product of tradition with a small "t" then you speak of "our understanding of Tradition and Scripture" with a big "T" Is there a reason for this?

You have stated that you believe that the Bible is inspired. Do you believe that it is inerrantl? Also, do you see tradition as inerrant?

 

[FriendofSpurgeon]

Let me clarify my point a bit...what I am getting at is how do we tell if a group of believers is Christian or not? Individual beleivers is one thing; only God can be their judge. But can't we and shouldn't we try to determine if sects, cults, churches, etc are Christian? How can we do this?

I believe we can do this by holding to two non-negotiables: the Trinity and the efficacy of Christ's death to bring about salvation.

Here's an example. Is Benny Hinn's ministry Christian or not? (Note that I asked if his ministry was Christian, not whether or not he was because that's God's job not mine). Well, Benny Hinn breaks the first of my non-negotiables -- he doesn't believe in the Trinity: he believes that each person of the Trinity is a Trinity, which places him outside of the Christian tradition. Thus, Benny Hinn's ministry is not Christian.

Another example, T.D. Jakes ministry. Jakes does not believe in the Trinity, therefore his ministry is not Christian. Jakes believes that there is not a Trinity, instead in the unity of God...part of the Oneness movement.

Other examples could be Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons who don't believe properly about Jesus' nature as expressed in the Bible and Christian tradition, thus their churches are not Christian.

Any group of people who teach that someone can go to heaven in any way other than through faith in Jesus, who's death on the cross opened the way for us to have eternal access to God, is not Christian. This also would excise any group who taught Jesus plus anything gets one to heave, like the opponents of Paul in Galatians who taught that Jesus plus Law overservance was required.

It should be noted that there is much room left for disagreement without pulling out the "you're not a Christian!" card. We can disagree about exactly how Jesus' death is efficacious, about the observances of the church, about modes of baptism, etc, etc. But the two things that we must hold to are the Trinity and the efficacy of Jesus' death for salvation.

Matt --- I still think you have to go back to the Apostle's Creed, which is the universal creed of all orthodox (small o) Christians. Otherwise, you get into what we have here -- one person says x, another says y, and so forth.

 

[BobRyan]

I agree with you that the Bible is inspired, but it is, historically speaking, part of Tradition. You can't escape this. The Church existed prior to the Bible, the Church utilized the rule of faith (tradition) amongst other things to decide what was canonical and what was not, etc.

In Acts 17:11 NON Church members were able to use the "scriptures" to TEST the church-member teachings of Paul.

In Gal 1:6-11 the church-member Paul tells other church members NOT to listen to EITHER Apostles OR even an oral tradition/teaching coming from "an Angel from Heaven" if it was found to be in contradiction to established doctrine.

And of course - "No scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation - but Holy Men of old moved by the Holy Spirit - Spoke from GOD".

in Christ,

Bob

 

[AAA]

beside the death of christ, i believe that we also have to belive that HE was raised on the 3rd day...

Read: Rom. 10:8-10

 

[Linda64]

I agree with you that the Bible is inspired, but it is, historically speaking, part of Tradition. You can't escape this. The Church existed prior to the Bible, the Church utilized the rule of faith (tradition) amongst other things to decide what was canonical and what was not, etc.

To be a clear as possible: I am saying that historically the Bible was the product of tradition -- the Church preceded the Bible. So my question is this: since this is so, how might this influence our understanding of Tradition and Scripture?

The Bible was NOT the product of Tradition, nor did the Church exist prior to the Bible. How could the Church exist prior to the Bible.... Jesus quoted Scriptures, didn't He? The O.T. was Scriptures before the N.T. was complete. It was the Lord Jesus Christ Who stated what was canonical and what was not. He certainly didn't quote "Tradition".

Luke 24:44 And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.

The Bible has about 40 human authors who wrote over a period of time spanning 1600 years. The Bible has one divine Author-God.

2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

2 Peter 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

2 Peter 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

Questioning the divine inspiration of the Bible (like saying that the Church existed before the Bible and was the product of traditon) is non-negotiable.

 

[cowboymatt]

Linda: What I mean is that the Church existed before the Church decided what books to finally include in our canon, specifically the NT. I am sorry for the confusion. To put it differently, the Church existed before the NT was canonized. The Church, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit of course!, canonized the NT. This is a historical fact. You simply can't say that it wasn't so. The Bible did not magically appear from heaven like the golden tablets from the angel Moroni. Also, I've never said that I doubted the divine inspiration of Scripture; all I've asked is since the Church pre-dates the NT, then how does that affect our perception of tradition? You may not like the question and it may cause you some theological discomfort, but that doesn't mean that I have doubted anything. And don't be fooled, we are all dependent on tradition in our Christian walks in one way or another, even us Baptists.

Bob: Jesus and Paul did utilize the OT. Again, my point is that the Church existed before the canonization of the NT. And the Church used the "rule of faith" to help determine what was to be canonized and what wasn't. That is tradition. In other words, if a book of the Bible did not meet up to what the Church had always taught and believed, as passed down by the Apostles, it wasn't accepted as inspired. That's tradition at work.

swaimj: I goofed and put a capital T. My bad. As far as the inerrancy of the Bible and tradition, I don't think that tradition is inerrant because not all of tradition meets up to the rule of faith. All of the Bible does however, thus making it, in my estimation, the inspired Word of God. To call it inerrant would require a close parsing of definitions, which is not the point of this thread.

DoubtingThomas: Thanks for sharpening my comments with your insightful thoughts! As to the "who gets to decide" question, as a person who teaches the Bible every week, I get asked all the time whether this group or that one is "Christian." A professor friend of mine is the one who gave me the distinction of determining a group, church, or ministires status as Christian or not as opposed to determining whether individuals are believers. I don't doubt that there are members of T.D. Jakes' church and even the Mormon Church that are sincere believers in Jesus; however, the doctrines of these two churches stand outside what I would consider Christian, thus I have no problem saying so. And I feel that I can do this because of two things: the Bible and the creeds, which, I believe, can be boiled down to my two non-negotiables: the Trinity and the efficacy of only Jesus' death for salvation.

 

[TCGreek]

What are the beliefs or doctrines that one must hold to in order to be called Christian?

In my opinion there are two that one must affirm to be Christian: The Trinity (three persons, one substance; includes the deity of Christ) and the efficacy of Christ's death for salvation.

Would you add more to this? Why or why not?

I think we can see a thematic thread throughout the Letters: The Trinity, The Word, The Gospel, The Resurrection, the Second coming, The Judgment.

Eph 4:4-6 is good too, as shown by Skypair above.

 

[cowboymatt]

Thanks for the addition.

I guess, though TCGreek, my next question would be do groups have to have a particular understanding of those ideas to be Christian (especially inerrancy [however defined] and narrow views of the eschaton)?

 

[swaimj]

CowboyMatt, here is part of what you said to Bob

...the Church used the "rule of faith" to help determine what was to be canonized and what wasn't. That is tradition.

And here is part of your last reply to me:

I don't think that tradition is inerrant because not all of tradition meets up to the rule of faith.

So the rule of faith is tradition and yet some tradition does not "meet up" to the rule of faith. The problem with your argumentation is that it is impossible to know what the early church's "tradition" was and it is impossible to know what their "rule of faith" is because neither of these is written down for us to examine. Neither has been passed on to us in complete form. If we had either one in written form then we would have no problem defining what a real Christian organization is.

Which is precisely where my terms for defining a true Christian comes in. For it is in the inspired New Testament that the early church has preserved the valid tradition and the rule of faith. That is what has been preserved for us and it is our authority. If a person rejects this standard, I don't know what means you have to determine who is Christian or not.

Having said this, it is quite obvious that, even among groups who agree with my terms; that the New Testament is the rule of faith, there is disagreement in many doctrinal areas including soteriology, use of gifts, eschatology, and much more. However, generally, even those who disagree in such areas, regard one another to be brothers in Christ. And yet, though they regard one another as brothers, their disagreements limit their ability to work with one another. It is a conundrum!

 

[cowboymatt]

Thanks swaimj! You pointed out something that I need to think about!

I think that you are right: the Early Church used the rule of faith to canonize the NT, thus what we have in the NT must fall within that rule of faith. So perhaps this pre-NT rule of faith is trustworthy and binding, but the tradition after the NT is not.

I still don't know if I want to add to my list of non-negotiables for identifying whether or not a group is Christian or not "believe in the Bible" because it is such a loaded phrase. What does that mean? That a group must adhere to a particular version of inerrancy, infallibility, inspiration, etc? I know solid Christian groups that take very different positions on these issues. Perhaps we could say that in order for a group to be Christian that have to have to view the Bible as authoritative. That leaves some room for disagreement about specifics.

So perhaps I now have three non negotiables: the Trinity, the efficacy of Jesus' death alone for salvation, and viewing the Bible as authoritative.

 

[Linda64]

Linda: What I mean is that the Church existed before the Church decided what books to finally include in our canon, specifically the NT. I am sorry for the confusion. To put it differently, the Church existed before the NT was canonized. The Church, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit of course!, canonized the NT. This is a historical fact. You simply can't say that it wasn't so. The Bible did not magically appear from heaven like the golden tablets from the angel Moroni. Also, I've never said that I doubted the divine inspiration of Scripture; all I've asked is since the Church pre-dates the NT, then how does that affect our perception of tradition? You may not like the question and it may cause you some theological discomfort, but that doesn't mean that I have doubted anything. And don't be fooled, we are all dependent on tradition in our Christian walks in one way or another, even us Baptists.

First of all, tradition has never been inspired as the Scriptures. Your previous statement (the one which I quoted) said that the Church existed before the Bible--and that is clearly false. You have changed your statements 3 or 4 times as I have been reading through this thread.

Way of Life Encyclopedia: David Cloud
CANON

(a straight rod or rule). Canon refers to testing something by a set rule. First used in the 4th century A.D., today it is the term commonly used to describe the books of the Bible which are regarded as the pure Word of God. This term is used because the books of the Bible were tested, or measured, before being accepted as God's Word and because the books are themselves the rule by which truth is tested.

I never said that the Bible magically appeared from heaven. What I did say, using your original quotation, was that Jesus quoted from the Old Testament (not tradition) Scriptures, so therefore, the Scriptures existed before the Church.

Upon which "tradition" are we dependent? Where does God and His Word fall into this "tradition"? My perception of "tradition"? I reject it. Theological discomfort? You got to be kidding!!!

Mark 7:8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.

Mark 7:9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.

Mark 7:13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

The Pharisees loved their "traditions" and rejected the commandment
of God. (Scriptures) and made the commandment of God of none effect (useless).