Why the orthodox view on the Nature of God?
- Thread starter raderag
- Start date
- Status
I believe that the Athanasian Creed in particular is a gift of God to the Church. It is, of course, thoroughly backed by the revealed Word of God. It covers both positively and negatively every aspect of the nature of God and of each individual in the Trinity. It is the best treatment of the subject and stands hundreds upon hundreds of years later as a stalwart and trustworthy guardian of orthodoxy.
I believe every Christian should be thoroughly familiar with it, although most would laugh at the idea.
I believe every Christian should be thoroughly familiar with it, although most would laugh at the idea.
#1 is only 1/2 right (i.e. it's wrong) because it makes no reference to the Scriptures.
#3 is fundamentaly correct, and could be chosen, if not for #2.
#2 is better than #3 because it adds the related truth that God actively guides his church in the discovery and application of biblical doctrine, without making the church supreme or a final authority.
#4 errs in essentially denying the usefulness of systematic theology, and the difference in gifts imparted to men for the building up of the church in history.
#5 errs in asserting that any man-made summary or statement of the truth (derived from Scripture) is (at best) of momentary value, and inherently unreliable at any level.
#3 is fundamentaly correct, and could be chosen, if not for #2.
#2 is better than #3 because it adds the related truth that God actively guides his church in the discovery and application of biblical doctrine, without making the church supreme or a final authority.
#4 errs in essentially denying the usefulness of systematic theology, and the difference in gifts imparted to men for the building up of the church in history.
#5 errs in asserting that any man-made summary or statement of the truth (derived from Scripture) is (at best) of momentary value, and inherently unreliable at any level.
[quote:22defa97e5][i:22defa97e5]Originally posted by Contra_Mundum[/i:22defa97e5]
#1 is only 1/2 right (i.e. it's wrong) because it makes no reference to the Scriptures.
[/quote:22defa97e5]
I was not excluding scriptures. The questions is can we trust the Church on such important doctrines just by the nature of the Church. If not, why can we trust the canon? Do we need to reevaluate that also?
#1 is only 1/2 right (i.e. it's wrong) because it makes no reference to the Scriptures.
[/quote:22defa97e5]
I was not excluding scriptures. The questions is can we trust the Church on such important doctrines just by the nature of the Church. If not, why can we trust the canon? Do we need to reevaluate that also?
[quote:e595c1d49b]The questions is can we trust the Church on such important doctrines just by the nature of the Church. If not, why can we trust the canon? Do we need to reevaluate that also?[/quote:e595c1d49b] Many church councils have erred (WCF XXXI.4). The church cannot be utterly relied upon. We may consider a matter settled, until apostates, heretics, and schismatics raise the matter up again. If an appeal to church history does not win the day, silence the mouths, and put the matter to bed, then recourse must be made back to Scripture again to prove it once more. We should be careful to differ from the ancient testimonies only when forced to by wieghty deliberation.
The bottom-line, ultimate, fundamental, you-name-it [i:e595c1d49b]ground[/i:e595c1d49b] of our faith in the canon of Scripture is spelled out well in the WCF I.5. [quote:e595c1d49b]We may be moved by the testimony of the Church to a high and reverent esteem of the Holy Scripture....[/quote:e595c1d49b] Here we have the church passing along the "received" canon. [quote:e595c1d49b]... And the heavenliness of the matter,
the efficacy of the doctrine,
the majesty of the style,
the consent of all the parts,
the scope of the whole (which is, to give all glory to God),
the full discovery it makes of the only way of man's salvation,
the many other incomparable exellencies,
and the entire perfection therof,
are arguments whereby it doth abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God:...[/quote:e595c1d49b] All these are "internal evidences" which are self-witness to any one part of it, and the whole thing together. [quote:e595c1d49b]... yet notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority therof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts.[/quote:e595c1d49b] [i:e595c1d49b]You[/i:e595c1d49b] recognize God's Word because you know the Voice of your Master. "My sheep hear my voice" (Jn. 10:27). The Holy Spirit [i:e595c1d49b]contents[/i:e595c1d49b] you in the Word of God (1 Jn. 2:20).
You don't [i:e595c1d49b]absolutely[/i:e595c1d49b] necessarily have to accept the testimony of the church down through the ages, although the consistency of its testimony is of incalculable value (notwithstanding Rome's later 16th century additions, by which they pretty much write themselves out of the historic church anyway). And if you were to operate as a Lone Ranger you would be liable to gross errors of perception, indwelling sin still limiting and corrupting you. That's why we are joined to the Body.
When the Reformers down to the confessional framers had to answer Rome, they were forced to partly reasses the canon. They didn't have to reinvent the wheel, and they had a lot of good church history to help bolster them. But as they witness themselves, the testimony of the Church, past and present, was not the final word on the canon's constitution. Otherwise, if the Church determined the canon, the next question is, "Well, which church's canon? England's? Rome's?" And some church ends up as the final authority.
[Edited on 6-30-2004 by Contra_Mundum]
The bottom-line, ultimate, fundamental, you-name-it [i:e595c1d49b]ground[/i:e595c1d49b] of our faith in the canon of Scripture is spelled out well in the WCF I.5. [quote:e595c1d49b]We may be moved by the testimony of the Church to a high and reverent esteem of the Holy Scripture....[/quote:e595c1d49b] Here we have the church passing along the "received" canon. [quote:e595c1d49b]... And the heavenliness of the matter,
the efficacy of the doctrine,
the majesty of the style,
the consent of all the parts,
the scope of the whole (which is, to give all glory to God),
the full discovery it makes of the only way of man's salvation,
the many other incomparable exellencies,
and the entire perfection therof,
are arguments whereby it doth abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God:...[/quote:e595c1d49b] All these are "internal evidences" which are self-witness to any one part of it, and the whole thing together. [quote:e595c1d49b]... yet notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority therof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts.[/quote:e595c1d49b] [i:e595c1d49b]You[/i:e595c1d49b] recognize God's Word because you know the Voice of your Master. "My sheep hear my voice" (Jn. 10:27). The Holy Spirit [i:e595c1d49b]contents[/i:e595c1d49b] you in the Word of God (1 Jn. 2:20).
You don't [i:e595c1d49b]absolutely[/i:e595c1d49b] necessarily have to accept the testimony of the church down through the ages, although the consistency of its testimony is of incalculable value (notwithstanding Rome's later 16th century additions, by which they pretty much write themselves out of the historic church anyway). And if you were to operate as a Lone Ranger you would be liable to gross errors of perception, indwelling sin still limiting and corrupting you. That's why we are joined to the Body.
When the Reformers down to the confessional framers had to answer Rome, they were forced to partly reasses the canon. They didn't have to reinvent the wheel, and they had a lot of good church history to help bolster them. But as they witness themselves, the testimony of the Church, past and present, was not the final word on the canon's constitution. Otherwise, if the Church determined the canon, the next question is, "Well, which church's canon? England's? Rome's?" And some church ends up as the final authority.
[Edited on 6-30-2004 by Contra_Mundum]
- Status
Similar threads
