question

What do you think of a doctrinal basis of faith that opens with a statement about the Bible?

If you don't like that move (and I hate it) - what is wrong with it? Surely we need to establish the truth of the Bible before we can move on to discuss its content, right? (That's a leading question because I obviously don't think so.)

Comments

Anonymous said…
There shouldn't be anything wrong with it, and yet ...

Doesn't it pain us that there is not even one doctrine based on the Bible upon which Christians are in complete agreement? How do we theologise about this vexing situation? Or do we say it's not vexing, only a natural result of the human condition.

btw, I used to think there was one doctrine which was an exception: the love of God -- but no, we have hard Calvinism saying that God has two kinds of love, that his love is not as we know love.

Oh well ...
PamBG said…
A doctrine of the bible is not a doctrine about God; it is a doctrine about the bible.

We can't escape iteration and get back to some first source that will tell us about a God-Idea that is unmediated by human experience.

The bible is already the recorded experience of the faithful and, Spirit-inspired and "reliable" though it may very well be, its Source is within human experience, not exterior to it.
Timothy Wheatly said…
There is much disagreement between mainstream Protestants and Catholics over doctrinal agreement. For instance, Protestants doctrine usually includes the Bible only on matters of authority, whereas the Roman Catholic Church as sacred tradition for matters of final authority. However, both sides would probably agree on the ancient Nicene Creed as a solid basis of doctrine. To find out more about the Nicene Creed and its significance and what it means, visit audienceofonechristianstore.com and read "Clues to the Nicene Creed: A Brief Outline of the Faith" by David Willis, in which he examines the Nicene Creed and expounds upon the interpretation of the creed.

Popular Posts