mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (09/21/84)
I'm going to stick my neck out and state my personal position on
Christianity and the Bible. I shall be very disappointed if I don't
receive lots of flames from both sides.
First of all, the Bible simply is not essential to being a Christian. There
were plenty of gentile Christians before any of them knew much about the
Jewish scriptures, and the New Testament simply didn't exist until some time
after the year 60 (if that early). The only essential christian doctrines
are these:
(1) All men are sinners.
(2) Christ, who was the son of God, died for our sins.
(3) We are all reborn to eternal life in his resurrection.
That's it.
Now, we as modern Christians do in fact have a New Testament, and believe
in the inspiration and relevance of the Old. What then shall we do with
them? First, it is patently obvious that the scriptures are not error-free.
For one thing, the Bible has come down to us in many versions; For another,
there are many parallel passages which do not agree in ANY version; an
example is the geneologies of Jesus which are given in Matthew and Luke.
Much of the Hebrew text of the Old Testament is quite corrupt, to the point
of gibberish.
I refuse to subscribe to the notion that their is no Godly inspiration in
the scriptures. I must, however, submit that the writers and copyists have
added a lot of their own rubbish and lost lots of the good material. All
the evidence suggests that the human ear hears the divine voice imperfectly
at best.
So what good is the Bible, given these caveats? To keep this article short,
I will postpone this for a later article.
Charley Wingate umcp-cs!mangoejnelson@trwrba.UUCP (John T. Nelson) (09/24/84)
First of all, the Bible simply is not essential to being a Christian. There were plenty of gentile Christians before any of them knew much about the Jewish scriptures, and the New Testament simply didn't exist until some time after the year 60 (if that early). I agree with you here, except that the only record of what you will call "the essential doctrines" of being a Christian were communicated to us through that book. That being the case, many people will then claim that therefore the New Testiment must be taken in its entirety, and the Old Testiment too. Frankly I prefer your veiw better. The only essential christian doctrines are these: (1) All men are sinners. (2) Christ, who was the son of God, died for our sins. (3) We are all reborn to eternal life in his resurrection. That's it. No flames, sorry... but I can't agree with you entirely here. There are other tenets to observe like "Love your neighbor as yourself", "Forgive your neighbor's sins", "Be kind to animals." I suppose you've pointed out the rough essentials though. I'm glad that you didn't phrase the first of your doctrines as, "All men are born into sin." Do you believe that men are sinfull by the fact of man's fall from grace.... i.e. we're all destined for the fires of Hell because of Adam and Eve's little indescretions? I refuse to subscribe to the notion that their is no Godly inspiration in the scriptures. I must, however, submit that the writers and copyists have added a lot of their own rubbish and lost lots of the good material. All the evidence suggests that the human ear hears the divine voice imperfectly at best. Which certainly upholds your first doctrine, that men are sinfull or at least imperfect. Many argue that the Bible is absolutly inerrant and flawless in its description of all the universal subtlties... yet the Bible itself (in Revalations) admits that it is possible to change scriptural content.
mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (09/26/84)
[John Nelson] > I agree with you here [on the existence of christians before the NT], > except that the only record of what you will call "the essential > doctrines" of being a Christian were communicated to us through that > book. What about the teachings of the Church? I don't mean the RC church, either; I mean all the writings and teachings of the Churchs throughout christian history. The Episcopal Church, for one, recognizes the Apostle's Creed and the Nicene Creed as being equal in merit to the scriptures. It seems to me that this is how fundamentalism got its start, with the notion that any man could, in total isolation, read the Bible and be able to interpret it absolutely correctly. > No flames, sorry... but I can't agree with you entirely here [concerning > my three principles]. There are other tenets to observe.... I suppose I should have listed the two great commandments as numbers 4 and 5 on my list. Beyond this, Jesus said to the lawyer that the remainder of the law is derivable from this. The write of the Acts of the Apostles seems to subscribe to the view that the Holy Spirit will provide guidance, as does Paul, although to a lesser extent. In practice, this view would mean that the members of the church (or elders, or bishops, if you prefer) sit down and work out the meaning and substance of the law. And in fact, this is what they did, with reference to the Jewish scriptures and what sayings of Jesus were remembered. I don't believe in original sin. I'm not really sure what I believe in (i.e. I don't have an answer to the "what happens to little babies that die?" question). I'm reasonably sure that most people have a reasonably lengthy list of transgressions by the age of 13, which is sufficient for me at this time. Charley Wingate
nlt@duke.UUCP (N. L. Tinkham) (09/26/84)
[John Nelson] >> I agree with you here [on the existence of christians before the NT], >> except that the only record of what you will call "the essential >> doctrines" of being a Christian were communicated to us through that >> book. [Charley Wingate] > What about the teachings of the Church? I don't mean the RC church, > either; I mean all the writings and teachings of the Churchs throughout > christian history. The Episcopal Church, for one, recognizes the > Apostle's Creed and the Nicene Creed as being equal in merit to the > scriptures. It seems to me that this is how fundamentalism got its > start, with the notion that any man could, in total isolation, read the Bible > and be able to interpret it absolutely correctly. ---------------------------------- As an Episcopalian (and as a student of theology, for that matter), I agree with Charley Wingate's statements about the value of the teachings of the Church, and I agree that the interpretation of the Bible by individuals in isolation is a "fundamental" (sorry!) aspect of Fundamentalism. But I think the claim that the Apostles' and Nicene Creeds are viewed as equal in merit to the Scriptures is a bit strong. Even among Episcopalians I hear terms like "inspired" and "the Word of God" used for the Bible but not for the creeds. What they mean by those terms (or what I would mean by them) isn't clear; theories such as dictation or "verbal inspiration" are not popular in Anglican theology. But there does seem to be a special status, however difficult to define, given to the Bible which sets it apart from other writings of the apostles or church fathers. N. L. Tinkham duke!nlt