Number Two
of the Nine Theses on the Interpretation of Scripture
"Scripture is rightly understood in the light of the church's rule of faith as a coherent dramatic narrative."
the problem I see here is that different churches seem to have different "rules of faith".
methodist churches seem more concerned with free will, holiness, and the social gospel,
charasmatic churches seem to think its all about Holy Spirit and talking in tongues,
roman catholics are blasted for teaching salvation through works or rituals, although in my 19 years as a catholic I never heard such teaching...
no church or denomination is perfect, so trusting the church's rule of faith to help interpret scripture might not be such a good thing
2 comments:
How about the regula fide,i.e. the original rule of faith:
The "Rule of Faith" as recorded by Irenaeus:
. . . this faith: in one God, the Father Almighty, who made the heaven and the earth and the seas and all the things that are in them; and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who was made flesh for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who made known through the prophets the plan of salvation, and the coming, and the birth from a virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the bodily ascension into heaven of the beloved Christ Jesus, our Lord, and his future appearing from heaven in the glory of the Father to sum up all things and to raise anew all flesh of the whole human race . .
This became the basis for the great creeds of the early church. The only tradition that the early fathers cared about was the tradition of the apostles essentially recorded in the Scriptures. Therefore they viewed the Scripture and tradition as virtually one and the same thing.
As for the RC, while they may teach that the grace of God saves you, they also hold to the extreme arminian theology that we are constantly losing and gaining back salvation through the sacraments via "holy mother the church". That is not biblically accurate at all.
Thus we have the daily "sacriice of the mass" etc.
As Luther once said, I paraphrase,
"salvation can be found outside of the Roman chuch, but not outside of Christ."
I'm not sure exactly how I feel about these nine theses, other than they are interesting to think about.
Uggg, Irenaeus - Pastor Art once wrote a 12 page paper on him, which I had to proof read and type. The Bibliography alone made me crazy!
I don't agree that the only tradition the early fathers cared about was the tradition of the apostles, and that they viewed Scripture and tradition
as virtually one and the same thing. In scripture they are two seperate things. Certianly the earliest of "fathers", the apostles, had a different understanding of tradition.
I would certainly agree with the quote from Luther, although he said a good many other things that are quite disagreeable. Yet I would have to add that as much as there is salvation outside the Roman Church, there is also salvation inside the Roman Church.
as i pointed out, different churches seem to have different rules of faith. proof being that Chris and I come from very similar religious background, receiving the first of our religious training in the Roman Catholic tradition, yet I was never taught that anything besides faith in Jesus could save. I certainly did not learn a false Christ as some antiRomans claim is taught in the RCC.
Post a Comment