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.)
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
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 ...
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.