Primary Doctrines Versus Secondary Doctrines?

[steve]

I will not condemn someone who is unconvinced of the authority of scripture, but, if they do not accept at least the authority of the New Testament, then they can hardly claim any reliable basis for any of their other Christian beliefs.

If the apostles who wrote the New Testament are not reliable and authoritative, then we have no reliable information about Jesus upon which to base any Christian faith at all.

Without a shared final authority to which we all submit (the scriptures are the only such final court of appeals for the believer), we have no basis to correct one another and we can make no progress in our own understanding of Christ and His doctrine.

[darinhouston]

I will not condemn someone who is unconvinced of the authority of scripture, but, if they do not accept at least the authority of the New Testament, then they can hardly claim any reliable basis for any of their other Christian beliefs.

If the apostles who wrote the New Testament are not reliable and authoritative, then we have no reliable information about Jesus upon which to base any Christian faith at all.

Without a shared final authority to which we all submit (the scriptures are the only such final court of appeals for the believer), we have no basis to correct one another and we can make no progress in our own understanding of Christ and His doctrine.

That raises canonical issues -- certainly, one who has reservations on the authority of Hebrews, Revelation, or Jude (for example) might still be a Christian. What of Acts/Luke? I certainly have no problem with any of these, but I think I could respect someone as a serious Christian if their only doctrinal defect was a question of their canonicity or apostolic authority.

[steve]

The canonicity of several books could be (and was, for a long time) debated. When I say "scripture," I am referring to the authoritative prophetic and apostolic writings—whatever books may fit into those categories. The authorship of the vast majority of biblical books, it seems to me, is certain beyond the reasonable doubt. Those books whose apostolic credentials are open to question might well be disputed.

[anochria]

I will not condemn someone who is unconvinced of the authority of scripture, but, if they do not accept at least the authority of the New Testament, then they can hardly claim any reliable basis for any of their other Christian beliefs.

If the apostles who wrote the New Testament are not reliable and authoritative, then we have no reliable information about Jesus upon which to base any Christian faith at all.

Without a shared final authority to which we all submit (the scriptures are the only such final court of appeals for the believer), we have no basis to correct one another and we can make no progress in our own understanding of Christ and His doctrine.

That raises canonical issues -- certainly, one who has reservations on the authority of Hebrews, Revelation, or Jude (for example) might still be a Christian. What of Acts/Luke? I certainly have no problem with any of these, but I think I could respect someone as a serious Christian if their only doctrinal defect was a question of their canonicity or apostolic authority.

Agreed.

I do, of course, believe that all of the Scripture is authoritative (of course what that means is another discussion), but I don't necessarily see it as black and white as Steve is suggesting here:

If the apostles who wrote the New Testament are not reliable and authoritative, then we have no reliable information about Jesus upon which to base any Christian faith at all.

In fact, I think we can establish the truth of the basics of the gospel message even if we did have a flawed or less than authoritative New Testament. But that's probably another topic....

On another note, I think it's easy to confuse the issue of "who I am willing to fellowship with/ call a brother" and "what a church community or church leadership wants to promote". There are a lot of beliefs that I can tolerate in the name of unity and Christian brotherhood. There are many viewpoints I hold tenuously. But there are a relative few that I would insist on being consistantly upheld by teachers in the community in which I serve as an overseer. And those are the kind of things I think might be part of a "statement of faith" as a practical help.

[Paidion]

For the disciple, the authority is Jesus Christ, not a canon of infallible writings. Having said that, it must be asked, "How can anyone know what Jesus Christ taught and practised except by accepting the records of what He said. The primary documents of His life are found only in the memoirs (or "gospels"), and so these must be regarded, if not authoritative, at least historical. Extant also are many gnostic writings which purport to be records of what Jesus said and taught, but the stories are so unlike Jesus as He is described in the memoirs, as to be clearly unbelievable.

If a person were to reject the entire New Testament, including the memoirs, how would he know what the Lord Jesus requires of him? He may claim that Jesus speaks to him directly, as do millions of others. Since these "revelations" are conflicting, it is impossible to accept all as genuine. The only way that we can really know the heart of Jesus is through reading the primary records of His life in the memoirs of the apostles. When He reveals Himself to people, these revelations will be consistent with the memoirs, and with each of the revelees (newly coined word).

As for me personally, I accept Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, the 13 letters of Paul, I Peter, and I John as authentic. I am uncertain about the others (that doesn't mean I reject them).

What follows is an example of an apparent conflict between what Isaiah prophesied concerning "The New Heaven and Earth", and what the author of 2 Peter wrote:
The former's prophecy indicated it to be a restoration and healing of what now is. The latter considered it to be a complete annihilation of the present heaven and earth and then a creation of another.

For there shall be a new heaven and a new earth: and they shall not at all remember the former, neither shall they at all come into their mind. But they shall find in her joy and exultation; for, behold, I make Jerusalem a rejoicing, and my people a joy. And I will rejoice in Jerusalem, and will be glad in my people: and there shall no more be heard in her the voice of weeping, or the voice of crying. Neither shall there be there any more a child that dies untimely, or an old man who shall not complete his time: for the youth shall be a hundred years old, and the sinner who dies at a hundred years shall also be accursed. And they shall build houses, and themselves shall dwell in them; and they shall plant vineyards, and themselves shall eat the fruit thereof. (Isaiah 65:17-21 a translation of the Septuagint)

But the heavens and the earth which are now preserved by the same word, are reserved for fire until the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. But, beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance. But the day of the lord will come as a thief in the night, in which the heavens will pass away with a great noise, and the elements will melt with fervent heat; both the earth and the works that are in it will be burned up. Therefore, since all these things will be dissolved, what manner of persons ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness, looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be dissolved, being on fire, and the elements will melt with fervent heat? (2 Peter 3:7-12 NKJV)

[anochria]

For the disciple, the authority is Jesus Christ, not a canon of infallible writings. Having said that, it must be asked, "How can anyone know what Jesus Christ taught and practised except by accepting the records of what He said. The primary documents of His life are found only in the memoirs (or "gospels"), and so these must be regarded, if not authoritative, at least historical. Extant also are many gnostic writings which purport to be records of what Jesus said and taught, but the stories are so unlike Jesus as He is described in the memoirs, as to be clearly unbelievable.

If a person were to reject the entire New Testament, including the memoirs, how would he know what the Lord Jesus requires of him? He may claim that Jesus speaks to him directly, as do millions of others. Since these "revelations" are conflicting, it is impossible to accept all as genuine. The only way that we can really know the heart of Jesus is through reading the primary records of His life in the memoirs of the apostles. When He reveals Himself to people, these revelations will be consistent with the memoirs, and with each of the revelees (newly coined word).

Paidion, note that I said a person might hold the New Testament to be to somewhat less than authoritative or flawed in some way. Of course if someone completely rejected the New Testament, it wouldn't be useful for faith. But it's not all or nothing (as you yourself apparently acknowledge). And it's not necessarily just some books and not others. For instance, a person could believe that certain New Testament books contain a mix of legendary material and historical truth. And they might apply a certain criteria to help them decide which.

[christopher]

No, but, seriously, I think a statement of faith can be helfpul, not as a salvation litmus test, or an an aboslute final list of dogma, but as an outline of the general understanding of what a community (or the leaders of a community) sees as the plain teachings of Scripture. Bascially a thumbnail sketch of some points that the community/ leaders think are worth going to the mat over.

A thumbnail sketch for who? For what reason? That's my main question. What is the negative result of not having one? (may be a better question)

I still have never heard a good argument for having a "statement" of faith. Honestly, there is nothing "main" or "plain" about most statements of faith I've read (including ours) as far as I can tell.

It seems to me that they are usually defensive in nature, intended to guard against what are perceived "heresies", kind of like a warning sign (this place is for orthodox Christians only, heretics need not apply). And my biggest beef is that they presume to speak for everyone in the church ("we" believe...)

[anochria]

A thumbnail sketch for interested newcomers, a thumbnail sketch especially for spiritual seekers or new Christians who may not yet have thought a lot about their theology. Sometimes it's nice to simplify complex concepts to begin the process of thinking about them. And lest we reply "but the Bible doesn't simplify itself", remember that Paul enumerated "statements of faith" for just these sort of audiences as well. The most famous one, of course would be:


1 Corinthians 15:1-8
1 Now, brothers and sisters, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. 2 By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.
3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8 and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

but that's just one of many "let me sum up the most important things" snippets in the New Testament.

And, yes, a statement of faith could be designed to fend off heretical views. That's a potentially dangerous role, depending on what we're labeling as heresies. But, for instance, a statement of faith that emphasises that Jesus rose physically (not merely spiritually) from the dead, or that Jesus, the Father, and the Holy Spirit are all spoken of as God in the Bible, might be very helpful to the audience I mentioned above without venturing to get too technical about disputable aspects of what the resurrection body is like or the exact nature of the mystery of the Trinity.

[Singalphile]

It's a bit difficult. I'm inclined to just list those things that the Bible specifically mentions. Of course, when you find those things (e.g., here, about 1/2 way down), you then find yourself having to say what those statements actually mean. (Not to mention that you have to assume that Hebrews, Paul, etc. have the final word on such matters.)

I share christopher's concern about the benefit of having these kinds of lists, but I do think that a statement or confession of faith is necessary and helpful. A good list ought to be short, easy to understand, and comprised mostly or entirely of quotes from the Bible (just to be safe, you know). I think that such a list would include (with Scripture) 1) the existence of the one and only God of the Bible, 2) the physical life, resurrection, and lordship of Jesus the Messiah, the unique Son of God, 3) justification of sin and reconciliation to God by grace through faith and trust in Jesus, 4) and that a believer's life is primarily and increasingly characterized by love for God and everyone and adherence to the commands of his Lord Jesus. Much more than that makes me a bit nervous.

I actually came to this thread after reading Hank Hannegraaff's What is Essential Christian Doctrine? article. He uses the acronym DOCTRINE: Deity of Christ, Original Sin, Canon, Trinity, Resurrection, Incarnation, New Creation, Eschatology. Those words themselves are okay, I think, but his explanations include a little that I disagree with and a little stuff about which I'm not certain and wouldn't consider essential.