What is Biblical Christianity...

[Alexander]

There are indeed points in the Bible which use language that refers to essentials, such as, "this is what we (the apostles) preach," or "the core of our teaching" or "Jesus said such-and-such...

And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?  And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.

Yet still many many protestants consider the above "non-essential" or even heretical amd say Jesus was being sarcastic.

[Tanyan]

Tanyan, to answer your question we are free to do everything you mentioned.

As for your list of labels as to what kind of Christian I am I will have to disagree.

You claim I am:

1. Greek. Actually I am Scotch-Irish.

2. Neo-Platonic. This philosophy is not consistent with Biblical Christianty. According to the definition here I am not a Neo-Platonist: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoplatonism

3. Gnostic. They believed things outside the realm of Biblical Christianity. Along with many other things I disagree with, here is an example of one of those beliefs:

"They did not look upon the world as having been created perfectly and then having degenerated as a result of the sin of Adam and Eve. Rather the world was seen as being evil at the time of its origin, because it had been created by an inferior God."

4. Hellenized. Again, this philosophy goes against biblical Christianity. Here is an example:

"The Hellenistic worldview understood matter as questionable at best--if not down-right evil. The body was seen as something like an unnatural tomb, within which the eternal human soul was temporarily trapped until released by death. Whereas, with Judaism, Christianity proclaimed that to be human was to have a body, and thus that we would experience resurrection of the body (an uncorruptible body!) in the after-life, the Greek view of the after-life was freedom from the body."

5. Fundamentalist. This term can mean many things. Please define what you mean.

6. Evangelical. This term is probably correct.

#1 I was reffering to the adoption of the system not your phyical heritage.

#2 Neo-Platoism was one of the systems that was part of the polygamous marriage to christian doctrine.

#3 Same as #2

#4 Same as #2

#5 Belief in the essentials established in early 20th century in response to ultra Liberal concepts.

#6 We agree.

[Tanyan]

Benji, Does your "House Church" teach the same "Biblical" Doctrines as in the Anchient Church ?.

[wenglund]

okay, then my answer is: In some ways yes.

And in other ways no.

This only evasively answers the first question, and doesn't at all address the second.

You are welcome to try a third time. (Or, am I harboring false hopes that you are capable and willing to provide a direct, meaningful, and intelligent answer to each question?)

Thanks, -Wade Englund

[wenglund]

As to Wade's questions:

"Is there only one way for Christians to interprete the millions of words contained in the Bible?"

Not to be a twit, but Benji's answer is somewhat accurate, if cryptic. There are some areas of biblical testimony about which one can only have one interpretation and still be considered "in the stream" of Christian thought. Benji has already laid out some good examples: One God, the deity and humanity of Jesus Christ, the nature of man, the means of salvation. These are explicitly taught throughout the Bible. There are other examples of such core doctrines that are held by all branches of mainstream Christianity.

That might make sense were the question: "Is there only one "mainstream Christian" interpretation of the millions of words in the Bible?". (Even then your claim is rather dubious.)

But my question wasn't "mainstream Christian" specific. It was general regarding any interpretations.

This is because the question about Biblical Christianity is general, and not specifically to what is "mainstream" Biblical Christianity.

What I am trying to avoid here is circular reasoning, or quibling over a point where their may be no real disagreement. (I don't think many of us LDS apologist would object to one of the so-called "mainstream Christians" suggesting that LDS are not "Mainstream" Biblical Christians. It is the unwarranted and unathoritative exclusion for Biblical Christian in general that we dispute.)

Now, if you, too, would like to answer the question I actually asked, that would be much appreciated.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Herb]

Those are some good essentials. Others would be the fallen nature of man, man's need for salvation, man's complete inability to save himself from his sins, repentance and faith in Christ for the remission of sins and salvation, baptism and the Lord's supper as ordinances of the church, the church as the body of all believers in Christ, the perfection of God, Christ being both fully human and fully divine, salvation being for all men, the resurrection of Christ, the resurrection of man, heaven and hell, etc. There are probably some others, but those are the biggies

So, beliefs of Biblical Christianity, according to this list, excludes:

-Gnostics

-Arians

-Deists

-Modern Protestants who see baptism as optional

-Calvinists

-Jehovah Witnesses

Others will be excluded as the other terms are more defined. "The Lord's supper as ordinances of the Church" for example. As a saving ordinance or an optional ordinance? Is the blessing of the holy wafer in Catholicism and transubstantiation equivalent to a preacher saying a perfunctory prayer over HillBilly Bread and the symbolism of the rite? Judgement Day and a specific day of resurrection or the spirit of the dead procede immediatelty to Heaven, a pre-judgement day judgement?

Other questions might be, at what point in time did these guidelines separate the biblical Christians from the non-biblical Christians? Is not having the complete Bible the reason the fallen groups did not follow the main body or did the main body, by outlasting and inclusion/exclusion of books to the Bible, purposely excise other groups?

[rhinomelon]

[Thank you for your post rhinomelon,

I think you gave some rather poor example of "non-essentials". To include the Catholic Church - or others - in with Protestant Christianity you would be forced to conclude that issues such as mode of baptism, necessity of baptism, faith vs. works, definition of scripture, church organization, nature of communion, etc are "non-essentials." These are not trivial issues such as what kind of ice cream we should eat.

Where in the Bible does it say that such major issues are "non-essentials?"]

The quote button doesn't seem to be working for some reason, so sorry if it confuses people.

You're welcome! I could have been more clear in my post, thanks for pointing out my mistake. The issues that I laid out in the "not-clearcut" category are, in one sense, non-essential, because the Bible makes no clear stance on the issue. In your example of mode of baptism (or baptism in general, for that matter), the Bible makes no clear statement as to how a person is to be baptized. The general assumption is that it was by full immersion, although some of the earliest Christian writings (the Didache, for example) state that baptism by pouring is also legitimate. Now please don't misunderstand; I am not giving the Didache scriptural authority on this issue, but I am using it as a window into how the very first Christians dealt with this issue. Since, to the earliest Christians, immersion apparently was not absolutely essential, and the Bible is silent on the subject, both positions can be held and still be within the bounds of biblical thought.

I didn't mean in my post to imply that those foggier issues were unimportant, because I believe that they are. These are issues that should be dealt with and studied! But the Bible is silent on exactly what kind of conclusion should be come to, so multiple conclusions are possible (within the realm of what is conclusively laid out in the Bible, of course). They are not trivial issues, but they are also not issues on which there is only one possible position, biblically speaking.

To answer your last question, the Bible does not say these are non-essentials. It doesn't say much, if anything, at all, so there is apparently room for personal conviction and differences of opinion. That's my point. I hope this clarifies my thinking for you. Take care, everyone

[Big Dogger]

The issues that I laid out in the "not-clearcut" category are, in one sense, non-essential, because the Bible makes no clear stance on the issue. In your example of mode of baptism (or baptism in general, for that matter), the Bible makes no clear statement as to how a person is to be baptized. The general assumption is that it was by full immersion, although some of the earliest Christian writings (the Didache, for example) state that baptism by pouring is also legitimate. Now please don't misunderstand; I am not giving the Didache scriptural authority on this issue, but I am using it as a window into how the very first Christians dealt with this issue. Since, to the earliest Christians, immersion apparently was not absolutely essential, and the Bible is silent on the subject, both positions can be held and still be within the bounds of biblical thought.

I would agree with rhinomelon that no clear mode of batism is defined in the Bible. The Bible does tell us that we should be baptized in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit (I think we can all agree on that). Whether "baptize" means pouring out or immersion...well that is left unclear.

Peace be with you.

[rhinomelon]

[That might make sense were the question: "Is there only one "mainstream Christian" interpretation of the millions of words in the Bible?". (Even then your claim is rather dubious.)]

What about my claim makes it "dubious"? Was there some part of my answer that wasn't clear? There are some issues about which the Bible is startlingly clear and unambiguous. In these instances, only one interpretation is possible, and that interpretation is what will be found in "Biblical Christianity". I believe that today's "mainstream Christianity" (for lack of a better term) is by far the closest to that ideal of "Biblical Christianity". However, for the sake of discussion, I will attempt to make a separation between biblical Christianity and today's mainstream Christianity, as long as I am able. Perhaps that is where your confusion came from; I equated biblical Christianity with mainstream Christianity, because in my mind the two are equivalent, and in your mind they are wildly different. I will endeavor to take that into account in further posts in this thread. I apologize if I unknowingly offended you.

[it is the unwarranted and unathoritative exclusion for Biblical Christian in general that we dispute.)]

Whether that exclusion is unwarranted or unauthoritative (whatever that means in this case) is precisely the point of this thread. If I am going to put aside my views on mainstream Christianity=biblical Christianity, I would ask you to put aside your bedrock assumption that everything I say is unwarranted, unauthoritative, and therefore wrong. Let's have a discussion!

["Is there only one way for Christians to interprete the millions of words contained in the Bible?"

"If not, then don't each of the respective Christian interpretations qualify as "Biblical Christianity?"]

Okay, now to your "real" questions. I'll try to answer them in light of your later clarification, but if I again stray from what you're really looking for, let me know

There is a circular aspect to this question, which might make it more difficult for me to answer it. By asking if there is only one way for a Christian to interpret the millions (my, is there really that many? Wow!) of words in the Bible, you assume that a person can be called Christian before they have interpreted anything out of the Bible. In contrast, I would submit that it is only one's interpretation of the Bible that makes one a Christian in the first place, not vice versa. It's like asking, "Can an American be born to non-American parents in the country of Bolivia?" You assume that the person born is already American, even though the circumstances you pose would not lead to that conclusion at all.

Perhaps a better way to phrase the question is this: "Is there only one way for a person to interpret the millions of words contained in the Bible and still be considered to be within "biblical Christianity"?" To that, my original answer would probably suffice, but let me be more specific. In some issues, and in some areas, there is only one interpretation possible without disregarding some other portion of the biblical text. In other areas, there are multiple interpretations possible within biblical Christianity, because the Bible is either completely silent (like mode of baptism), or offers more than one possible interpretation itself (as in church government or women in leadership).

The second question carries much the same circular assumption as the first, but I will look at it a bit differently. I think I see a distinction in the way we view "biblical Christianity" as an ideal. (At this point I am not even speaking of doctrines or whatever.) I see biblical Christianity as that framework of interpretations that has already been laid out by careful study by godly men and leaders. It is not the composite of all possible interpretations by all sorts of different groups over time. In other words, for me it is the ideal of biblical Christianity that governs what my interpretation of the biblical text is supposed to be today.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be operating under the assumption that any possible interpretation that can be gleaned from any part of the biblical text by anyone claiming to be a Christian today must be a part of biblical Christianity. It sounds logical on the face of it, because if a person claims to be Christian (that's the "Christianity" part of the phrase) and bases their interpretation on a part of the Bible (that's the "biblical" part), then it's obviously part of "Biblical Christianity". I would see it much differently, however. If you would like me to be more specific in how I see it, just let me know.

Okay, one more post, and then I'm taking a little break. Take care, everyone

[rhinomelon]

Okay, one more Why is my quote thing not working, but Big Dogger's appears to be? Hmm... I wish I weren't computer illiterate

[so, beliefs of Biblical Christianity, according to this list, excludes:

-Gnostics

-Arians

-Deists

-Modern Protestants who see baptism as optional

-Calvinists

-Jehovah Witnesses]

You hit on some major ones, but I don't see how my list would exclude either Modern Protestants or Calvinists. Perhaps the part about baptism being an ordinance of the church might seem like I am excluding those Modern Protestants. However, that is not the case. Those modern Protestants still practice baptism as an ordinance of the church, and certainly would not refuse baptism to someone who wanted it. They simply don't think that baptism is 100% necessary for salvation. I didn't say anything about baptism and salvation, just that baptism was an ordinance of the church. Those Modern Protestants would agree.

And as far as Calvinists go, perhaps my statement about "salvation being for all men" would lead some to conclude that that would kick Calvinists out. Let me clarify, because I wasn't as clear as I should have been. Salvation has been offered to all men, that much is clear in the Bible, and I think Calvinists would agree. They would just say that salvation would be offered to all, but only be accepted by the elect. I think that's all I'll say at this point; I have no desire to get into a "Calvinism vs. Arminianism" tangent debate here! Suffice it to say that I have no problem with reconciling Calvinist thought with the list of essentials I mentioned.

The other groups you mentioned, I would indeed define out of biblical Christianity. In each case, the group has taken their primary interpretations out of the Bible, yes, but have taken that interpretation even though it contradicts other issues and doctrines the Bible is clear on. For instance, the Gnostics used the verse that talks about Jesus "being found in appearance as a man" to defend the notion that Christ was not really a material being. Of course, this flatly contradicts the numerous other passages that refer to "God in the flesh" and Jesus actually living, eating, dying, bleeding, etc.

Another example, Deists hardly use any verses to support their position, because the Bible is explicit time and time again that God is actively involved in His creation, whether through prophets, miracles, or Jesus Christ himself. Their position is more philosophically based than biblically.

[Others will be excluded as the other terms are more defined. "The Lord's supper as ordinances of the Church" for example. As a saving ordinance or an optional ordinance? Is the blessing of the holy wafer in Catholicism and transubstantiation equivalent to a preacher saying a perfunctory prayer over HillBilly Bread and the symbolism of the rite? Judgement Day and a specific day of resurrection or the spirit of the dead procede immediatelty to Heaven, a pre-judgement day judgement?]

The issues you mention are indeed important, but there is room for interpretation. For instance, with regard to the Lord's Supper, it is indeed an ordinance of the church, but the Bible is not clear on how it functions. We only know we are to do it, and so we obey. As far as the study of last things, that's another thing the Bible is not clear about. In my opinion, eschatology in the Bible boils down to only two things that are clearly taught: Jesus is really coming back, and we are always to be ready. That's basic eschatology. Everything else is based on strands of possible interpretation, that don't really affect anything the Bible is specific about.

More in a bit. Thanks for bearing with me! Take care, everybody

[Alexander]

I understand that mode of baptism was probably the easiest issue to address in my post, nevertheless, I did provide other issues. Probably the most significant issue I stated was faith vs. works which the Bible does take a clear stance on but some simply ignore the other verses choosing to appeal to tradition or popularity rather than the Bible.

In your example of mode of baptism (or baptism in general, for that matter), the Bible makes no clear statement as to how a person is to be baptized.

I strongly disagree with the idea that the Bible is unclear on the issue of baptism in general. Ex. John 3:5

You said: "There are indeed points in the Bible which use language that refers to essentials, such as, ... 'Jesus said such-and-such'... " But the above is another example of such doctrine defining language that is ignored or brushed off by "Biblical Christianity."

To answer your last question, the Bible does not say these are non-essentials. It doesn't say much, if anything, at all, so there is apparently room for personal conviction and differences of opinion.

This outlines my point exactly. Extra-biblical ideas and terminology are introduced, meaning the claim to relying on the "Bible only" is misleading. If the Bible doesn't define what is essential and what is non-essential than clearly something or someone else is.

[Big Dogger]

I understand that mode of baptism was probably the easiest issue to address in my post, nevertheless, I did provide other issues. Probably the most significant issue I stated was faith vs. works which the Bible does take a clear stance on but some simply ignore the other verses choosing to appeal to tradition or popularity rather than the Bible.

Alexander,

I would like to respond to your "faith vs. works" question. But first, would you please explain for me what you believe Holy Tradition teaches us about "faith vs. works"?

Peace be with you.

[rhinomelon]

The quote thing still isn't working for me. Any computer guys have any ideas? Anyway, back to the thread. Let me first get to Herb's last question:

[Other questions might be, at what point in time did these guidelines separate the biblical Christians from the non-biblical Christians? Is not having the complete Bible the reason the fallen groups did not follow the main body or did the main body, by outlasting and inclusion/exclusion of books to the Bible, purposely excise other groups?]

The separation between "biblical and non-biblical Christians" as you put it, was a process over time, that is still going on. There are always new interpretations popping up, and they need to be evaluated in light of the whole of biblical testimony. I would not say that not having the complete Bible was a reason for certain groups breaking away, because the whole of the Bible was available to all groups. Usually, the (dare I say) heretical groups simply came to a certain interpretation, then changed or completely disregarded the rest of the biblical witness, including the writings that were almost universally accepted as authoritative from the apostles. One prominant example of this would be Marcion, who actually cut out the entire Old Testament, and then edited the rest of the NT to suit his particular theology. This was a fairly common practice. Gnostic writings, for example, often took certain sections from NT writings, then interpreted those their way and disregarded the rest that didn't fit. Biblical doctrine must conform to the whole of the biblical witness.

The development of the official canon was, in part, to adopt those writings which were almost universally considered as authoritative. This provided a standard by which biblical doctrine could be evaluated. Otherwise, someone could use just any writings and claim Christian authority. And lest we think that the canon was just an attempt at manipulation, it must be noted that the Jews also had a canon of their own, which served a similar purpose as the backbone to their faith. The problem, almost always, was not that the "non-biblical" people didn't have the whole of Scripture. Rather, the problem was that they had their own doctrines and ideas before ever going to the Scripture, and then they attempted to force their interpretation into the text, regardless of obvious contradictions, and cut out the rest. In other words, the problem was not that the "heretics" didn't have the letters of Paul; the problem was that they had them, but didn't like all of what he had to say for whatever reason.

I have a feeling I'm not being too clear here. I'll try to refine my thinking on this if anybody wants me to. Take care, everyone

[Herb]

Perhaps the part about baptism being an ordinance of the church might seem like I am excluding those Modern Protestants. However, that is not the case. Those modern Protestants still practice baptism as an ordinance of the church, and certainly would not refuse baptism to someone who wanted it. They simply don't think that baptism is 100% necessary for salvation. I didn't say anything about baptism and salvation, just that baptism was an ordinance of the church. Those Modern Protestants would agree.

Now, it seems to me, the answers are becoming more and more fuzzy. As long as the church agrees that its an ordinance, it can disagree on the importance or necessity of the ordinance, its members can forgo the ordinance and yet it still can be biblically Christian is what I gleen from this. Is that a fair, no pun intended, assessment?

They would just say that salvation would be offered to all, but only be accepted by the elect.

I would argue, from my observations of Calvinists who have posted here, that this is an errent statement. But, as the board tends to attract some fringe elements I'll accept that statement.

The issues you mention are indeed important, but there is room for interpretation.

Whether it be a single individual or a group, these interpretations are personal interpretations, and so the Bible is open to these private interpretations ?and since there is no consensus on them in biblical Christianity then is it a matter of one group failing in its duty to correct the interpretations of the others? Everyone can't be right, the Bible is prophecy, fulfilled and yet to pass, and each group interprets it in their own fashion. In 2Peter 1:20-1 the prophecy was given by the Holy Spirit, if as these groups proclaim, that they have that Spirit, then there should be no dissention as to the meaning(the same Spirit which proclaims it is the same Spirit the explains it), yet we know that there is quite a bit of dissention present. Which one(s) of these groups is misrepresenting themselves and thus blaspheming the Holy Spirit?

[Alexander]

Alexander,

I would like to respond to your "faith vs. works" question. But first, would you please explain for me what you believe Holy Tradition teaches us about "faith vs. works"?

Peace be with you.

I don't know what "Holy Tradition" teaches about faith vs. works - or exactly what it is for that matter - however it is largely irrelevant because my point is that Biblical Christianity is a sham.

[rhinomelon]

[i understand that mode of baptism was probably the easiest issue to address in my post, nevertheless, I did provide other issues. Probably the most significant issue I stated was faith vs. works which the Bible does take a clear stance on but some simply ignore the other verses choosing to appeal to tradition or popularity rather than the Bible.]

The relationship between faith and works is a complicated one, but I do not think it is a "versus" relationship, biblically speaking. I don't know of any Christians who would say that either faith or works is not part of being a Christian. How these two interrelate in terms of salvation is a different matter, and this issue is one of large disagreement, I agree.

[i strongly disagree with the idea that the Bible is unclear on the issue of baptism in general. Ex. John 3:5

You said: "There are indeed points in the Bible which use language that refers to essentials, such as, ... 'Jesus said such-and-such'... " But the above is another example of such doctrine defining language that is ignored or brushed off by "Biblical Christianity."]

John 3:5 is not necessarily talking about baptism. Indeed, in the context of Nicodemus' words, it is more likely talking about childbirth. In either case, it is not clear. Then there is the issue of the thief on the cross. Anyway, that could be a big tangent.

[This outlines my point exactly. Extra-biblical ideas and terminology are introduced, meaning the claim to relying on the "Bible only" is misleading. If the Bible doesn't define what is essential and what is non-essential than clearly something or someone else is.]

"Bible only" is not what is being discussed here. Nowhere have I said that "biblical Christians" go only where the Bible goes and no further. Biblical Christians use the Bible as the standard by which to judge ideas and doctrines, but where the Bible is silent, other terms are used. I don't see it as a problem at all. The same is done in the LDS church. For one prominent example, the phrase "eternal progression" is found nowhere in the four standard works, and yet the majority of LDS would hold that to be a distinctive essential of the LDS faith. The idea of eternal progression is consistent with your Scriptures, so it is not dismissed by your faith. Likewise, the idea of sprinkling or pouring as a mode of baptism is consistent with the Bible, so for us, it is not dismissed.

The issue is conflict with what the Bible is clear about, not believing certain things that the Bible is silent or indifferent on. Take care, everyone

[Big Dogger]

I don't know what "Holy Tradition" teaches about faith vs. works - or exactly what it is for that matter -  however it is largely irrelevant because my point is that Biblical Christianity is a sham.

I ask the question because you had made reference to "tradition" in an earlier quote.

Probably the most significant issue I stated was faith vs. works which the Bible does take a clear stance on but some simply ignore the other verses choosing to appeal to tradition or popularity rather than the Bible.

Perhaps we are thinking of two entirely different things.

May I ask what specifically you consider a "sham" in regard to Biblical Christianity?

Peace be with you.

[rhinomelon]

[Now, it seems to me, the answers are becoming more and more fuzzy. As long as the church agrees that its an ordinance, it can disagree on the importance or necessity of the ordinance, its members can forgo the ordinance and yet it still can be biblically Christian is what I gleen from this. Is that a fair, no pun intended, assessment?]

What you propose is a rather extreme case (I know of no Christian who wouldn't want to be baptised), but I think I can agree with you here, except maybe the "importance" part. The issue, as far as this thread is concerned, is where the Bible is clear. Baptism is without a doubt important, biblically speaking. Therefore, we are to consider it important as well. Whether baptism is 100% necessary for salvation, or how baptisms are to be performed, or what kind of spiritual effect it has, those are side issues, at least in my opinion. Biblical Christians should want to get baptized, but what if someone dies without baptism? Rare, but it happens. (The LDS have a contingency plan in this regard, I know, but that contingency plan runs afoul of other areas the Bible is more clear on, in my opinion. Like I said, that's another tangent, and I'll stay away )

[Whether it be a single individual or a group, these interpretations are personal interpretations, and so the Bible is open to these private interpretations ?and since there is no consensus on them in biblical Christianity then is it a matter of one group failing in its duty to correct the interpretations of the others? Everyone can't be right, the Bible is prophecy, fulfilled and yet to pass, and each group interprets it in their own fashion. In 2Peter 1:20-1 the prophecy was given by the Holy Spirit, if as these groups proclaim, that they have that Spirit, then there should be no dissention as to the meaning(the same Spirit which proclaims it is the same Spirit the explains it), yet we know that there is quite a bit of dissention present. Which one(s) of these groups is misrepresenting themselves and thus blaspheming the Holy Spirit?]

I can see your point here, but I think you're taking it a little too far. The Bible does not make 100% percent agreement in every single issue a requirement for being a "biblical Christian". Quite the opposite. Colossians comes to mind, as well as I Corinthians. There are Christians who disagree about what to eat and not eat, what day to worship on, etc. Paul and Barnabas themselves had a disagreement in Acts, and ended up parting ways. But it is not said that one or the other was no longer a Christian. What the Bible calls Christians to is agreement on the essentials (one God, one Jesus Christ, one faith, etc.) There is room for different convictions on various issues, different ways of doing things. The Holy Spirit gives people different gifts and different areas of service, for example (I Cor. 12), but those different people in their different areas of service are to be serving the same God and the same body of Christ.

If complete unanimity on all matters of doctrine and practice is absolutely essential to being a "true church", then I would submit that the LDS church is even further from that ideal than is today's mainstream Christendom, just based on my experience and discussion with many different LDS friends. I don't say this to offend, by any means. It just deals directly with the topic here.

As to there being dissension, I agree with you. I find it saddening and discouraging at times, but I also see substantial agreement and reasons to hope. For every example of Christians disagreeing vehemently over relatively minor points of doctrine and practice, there are many more examples of Christians living and worshipping together, even with differing convictions on peripheral matters. That's just part of being a church filled with imperfect, squabbling human beings.

[i don't know what "Holy Tradition" teaches about faith vs. works - or exactly what it is for that matter - however it is largely irrelevant because my point is that Biblical Christianity is a sham. ]

Why would you consider the notion of biblical Christianity a sham? Is it simply because you don't agree with it? If I may be so bold, "biblical Christianity" is no less a sham than is "true Mormonism", in my opinion. Again, no offense meant. It just seems like there is something of a double standard in your thinking on the matter. Again, just my thoughts. I apologize if I was a little brusque. Take care, everyone

[rhinomelon]

[May I ask what specifically you consider a "sham" in regard to Biblical Christianity?]

To go along with Big Dogger's question: If "biblical Christianity" is a sham, then how can the LDS claim to have restored it?

By the way, Big Dogger, good thoughts on baptism earlier. As I read your posts (and others on this thread) I find myself wishing I had your knack for brevity. As is probably obvious by now, I talk too much

Take care, everyone

[wenglund]

["Is there only one way for Christians to interprete the millions of words contained in the Bible?"

"If not, then don't each of the respective Christian interpretations qualify as "Biblical Christianity?"]

Okay, now to your "real" questions. I'll try to answer them in light of your later clarification, but if I again stray from what you're really looking for, let me know

There is a circular aspect to this question, which might make it more difficult for me to answer it. By asking if there is only one way for a Christian to interpret the millions (my, is there really that many? Wow!) of words in the Bible, you assume that a person can be called Christian before they have interpreted anything out of the Bible. In contrast, I would submit that it is only one's interpretation of the Bible that makes one a Christian in the first place, not vice versa. It's like asking, "Can an American be born to non-American parents in the country of Bolivia?" You assume that the person born is already American, even though the circumstances you pose would not lead to that conclusion at all.

Hi Rhino,

I am grateful for your thoughtful reply.

From my experience, the way to achieve the worthy and productive goal of mutual understanding (though not necessarily complete agreement) in interfaith dialogue, is to focus less on semantics (words) and more on meaning. To do so, that often requires abandoning, during such discussions, definitions unique to one's own tradition in favor of more generally accepted definiitons (typically, those found in the dictionary).

I see by your gracious actions above that you, at least implicitely, agree in part. Wonderful!

But, so as to decomplicate the issue for the moment, let's follow your lead by rephasing my questions even further so as to deal only with what may be generally meant by "Biblical." Once that is resolved, then we can move on to combine it with the generally accepted definition of Christian, and determine the meaning thereof. Here are the rephrased questions:

"Is there only one way to reasonably interprete the numerous words contained in the Bible?"

"If not, then don't each of the reasonable interpretations qualify as "Biblical?"

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Herb]

One prominant example of this would be Marcion, who actually cut out the entire Old Testament, and then edited the rest of the NT to suit his particular theology. This was a fairly common practice.

Really? Considering that the NT in its presently accepted form did not exist as a codice, this is amazing! The individual writings existed, but they were not collectively the NT.

Whether baptism is 100% necessary for salvation, or how baptisms are to be performed, or what kind of spiritual effect it has, those are side issues,

Rather important side issues at that? Would be ashame if a believer died without an ordinance considered necessary by God, yet did not have it done because man thought it unnecessary. Also since the importance, method, and effect are in question, then an LDS baptism would be as good as a Catholic baptism which is as good as any other baptism, so that re-baptism into a church other than the one which baptized them is as valid as any other, since there would be no valid arguement against it, correct? Not trying to be arguementive here, just clarifying.

The Bible does not make 100% percent agreement in every single issue a requirement for being a "biblical Christian". Quite the opposite

But there is no reason for dissention to the degree that is exhibited, the one of baptism and is meaning and effect is the one most commonly brought up this thread. If something considered "essential" cannot be explained, agreed upon, or administered in a manner consistent with the repect that should be rendered it, then that "essential" rite should be reconsidered. That something is essential, basic, should not be addressed in a haphazard manner as suggest by the various private interpretations that are presented by the "biblical" Christian churches. If the spirit is the same Spirit which gave the instruction then it should be consistent in its interpretation. That the biblical Christians agree that the Spirit gave the scriptures to man. That same spirit must be able to give the correct interpretation, it cannot give a false one. Yet, the biblical churches all claim, correct me if they don't, that they have the correct interpretation. In saying so, then they exclude the other churches which must be wrong and must, since the Spirit will not lie, be under the influence of Satan. Suppose, for example, the Baptists are totally correct in everything and the only suitable baptism method is immersion. A Methodist rejects the teaching only to find out at death, he was wrong. He was never really baptized, having been sprinkled, and his denial of the Baptist method is equivalent to the rejection of the Spirit whose function it is to testify of the truthfulness of the Gospel of which baptism by immersion is a part of. All Methodist go to Hell. Beause the importance of, method by, and influence of something isn't agreed upon is not a reflection of the essentiality of a rite or practice, but the short comings of those who attempt to privately interpret it.

If complete unanimity on all matters of doctrine and practice is absolutely essential to being a "true church", then I would submit that the LDS church is even further from that ideal than is today's mainstream Christendom, just based on my experience and discussion with many different LDS friends. I don't say this to offend, by any means. It just deals directly with the topic here.

No offense taken, but I'm not interested in your views on LDS, at this point, but on your take of biblical Christianity.

[rhinomelon]

Quote still isn't working!! Anyway, thanks for the posts and your thoughts everybody. I appreciate the discussion going on

["Is there only one way to reasonably interprete the numerous words contained in the Bible?"

"If not, then don't each of the reasonable interpretations qualify as "Biblical?"]

Thank you for understanding and for your candor, wenglund. It is appreciated. Now, to be honest, I have no idea how to answer your question to your satisfaction, but I'll try. There is a yes and no element to the answer. On the one hand, yes, there are obviously many ways to interpret the words of the Bible. Some of them might even be reasonable. However, the reasonableness of some of these interpretations does not mean anything, if the interpretation does not agree with the rest of the biblical testimony. An historical example: Marcion and other gnostics interpreted verses talking about "Christ in the appearance of a man" and Christ "taking on the form of a servant" to mean that Christ was not really human, but merely appeared to be. They found other verses to support this claim, but had to throw out a great deal of biblical testimony to the contrary to hold onto this interpretation. That interpretation was a possible one, even a reasonable one, but could not be considered truly biblical because it contradicted other parts of the Bible.

There are some verses in which the interpretation is not in doubt, and there is only one. For instance, there are dozens of verses that point to strict monotheism. There are many verses that point to Christ as the only bridge from man to God. There are many verse that speak of man's fallen nature and proclivity to sin. These are common themes throughout the Bible, OT and NT, and these are pillars of biblical faith that must support any other interpretation.

So, I guess I'll answer your question this way: As to the first question, the answer is yes. There are many ways to interpret the many words of the Bible. As to the second, the answer is no. Only those interpretations that match up with the whole of biblical testimony can be considered truly "Biblical", no matter how reasonable or logical they may seem to be on first examination.

Hope this helps. Thanks for your thoughts

[rhinomelon]

Darn computer ate my post again. Must be hungry Anyway, thanks for the thoughts, Herb. Back to the posts:

[Really? Considering that the NT in its presently accepted form did not exist as a codice, this is amazing! The individual writings existed, but they were not collectively the NT.]

Ah, good catch! I did get a little ahead of myself, didn't I ? You are correct in saying that the canon was not adopted by this time. However, there were writings being circulated that were considered universally authoritative. The fact that they were not officially bound together doesn't mean much in the case of Marcion. Certain writings were liberally quoted and used by the early church fathers as authoritative. The gospel of Luke, for example, was not considered authoritative because of it's later inclusion in a canon; rather, Luke was incorporated into the canon because it was already seen as authoritative. Not only did Marcion eject the whole OT (which was a canon by this point), he also ejected many writings that were seen as universally authoritative, and even edited other authoritative writings to suit his own preconceived theology. While this was not violence against the canon, it was still seen as violence against the authoritative writings of the apostles. Hope that clarifies things

[Rather important side issues at that? Would be ashame if a believer died without an ordinance considered necessary by God, yet did not have it done because man thought it unnecessary. Also since the importance, method, and effect are in question, then an LDS baptism would be as good as a Catholic baptism which is as good as any other baptism, so that re-baptism into a church other than the one which baptized them is as valid as any other, since there would be no valid arguement against it, correct? Not trying to be arguementive here, just clarifying.]

Not argumentative at all, you bring up a good point. I did not mean to imply that such "side issues" were not important, merely that they were not clearly defined. With regard to baptism, the Bible is clear that baptism is ordained as a command of God. No doubt about that. But God did not see fit to explain every little detail about how baptism should be done, or what unseen effect it has on the individual. Nor is it explicitly clear that baptism is 100% required for salvation. Don't get me wrong; I believe that to be baptized is to obey God's command, and I think every Christian should be baptized. I don't know of anyone who would disagree with me on that. However, if someone is unable to be baptized for whatever reason, the Bible is not clear that this negates their salvation, and even might suggest the opposite (the thief on the cross). In any case, our duty as "biblical Christians" absolutely includes baptism, even if we don't know exactly why.

As to your point about LDS baptism and other baptisms, this gets at the point I was trying to make earlier with wenglund. An interpretation (and an ordinance based on that interpretation) may be reasonable and even biblical at one point, but when that interpretation is expanded and filled out, it may end up contradicting an essential biblical claim at another point. While the practical aspects of the baptism ordinance may be similar from LDS to Catholics to Baptists, the theology that underlies that practice is wildly different between LDS and the other denominations, and therefore cannot be seen as biblically valid. I believe that is similar to the LDS reasoning behind rebaptising converts from other Christian denomination as well.

[but there is no reason for dissention to the degree that is exhibited, the one of baptism and is meaning and effect is the one most commonly brought up this thread.]

No argument here. I think Christians sometimes stake too much on the peripheral issues, and choose to ignore the essentials we have in common.

[That something is essential, basic, should not be addressed in a haphazard manner as suggest by the various private interpretations that are presented by the "biblical" Christian churches. If the spirit is the same Spirit which gave the instruction then it should be consistent in its interpretation. That the biblical Christians agree that the Spirit gave the scriptures to man. That same spirit must be able to give the correct interpretation, it cannot give a false one.]

Absolute unity on every single question and issue in faith is not possible, nor is it even biblical, oddly enough. The Bible gives room for differing interpretations on peripheral issues. In those situations, Christians are admonished to respect each others' convictions and love the other person, but still hold to their own convictions. Unity is not uniformity, in other words. An example from personal experience: I've had times where I have opened up my Bible, and for some reason a passage jumped out at me in a way it never had before. The Holy Spirit was working through that passage, and taught me something that I really needed to hear. Most likely it wasn't exactly what Paul meant when he was writing it, but it still affected me in that way. And the message that I got through that passage did not contradict or throw into doubt any previous convictions or biblical doctrines; rather, it strengthened my faith in them. This is not an interpretation that would make sense to everybody, but the Spirit does work like that sometimes.

[Yet, the biblical churches all claim, correct me if they don't, that they have the correct interpretation. In saying so, then they exclude the other churches which must be wrong and must, since the Spirit will not lie, be under the influence of Satan.]

Some churches do go that far, but not many. It's pretty rare, in my experience. And also in my experience, it is the peripheral issues that separate them from everybody else, not essential ones. Some people just hanker for a fight The vast majority of churches usually make a doctrinal stance on the more peripheral issues, but do not claim it to be the only correct interpretation. It is simply the conviction they have, and they usually respect the convictions of other churches as well. This is not to say that the Spirit lies, because the God does not lie, but that the Spirit can speak differently, just as it gives different gifts and tasks and personalities to different believers. I see this pattern in the Bible as well as the modern church.

[suppose, for example, the Baptists are totally correct in everything and the only suitable baptism method is immersion. A Methodist rejects the teaching only to find out at death, he was wrong. He was never really baptized, having been sprinkled, and his denial of the Baptist method is equivalent to the rejection of the Spirit whose function it is to testify of the truthfulness of the Gospel of which baptism by immersion is a part of. All Methodist go to Hell. Beause the importance of, method by, and influence of something isn't agreed upon is not a reflection of the essentiality of a rite or practice, but the short comings of those who attempt to privately interpret it.]

If this were an issue that was clearly delineated in the Bible, then it might be a problem. However, the Bible is absolutely silent on the mode of baptism. We are only told to baptize. Now, if the Methodists suddenly began teaching that Jesus Christ was only an angel and not God, that would be a serious area of disagreement, because the Bible is clear that Jesus was not an angel, but actually God in the flesh. That would be a biblical reason to doubt the Methodists' truth in doctrine, and their status as "biblical Christians". Whether that would result in hell or not is thankfully outside of my jurisdiction.

[No offense taken, but I'm not interested in your views on LDS, at this point, but on your take of biblical Christianity.]

No problem. I just wanted to make sure "biblical Christianity" is not being held to higher standard than everything else. Hope all my ramblings made sense. Take care, everyone

[wenglund]

Quote still isn't working!! Anyway, thanks for the posts and your thoughts everybody. I appreciate the discussion going on

["Is there only one way to reasonably interprete the numerous words contained in the Bible?"

"If not, then don't each of the reasonable interpretations qualify as "Biblical?"]

Thank you for understanding and for your candor, wenglund. It is appreciated. Now, to be honest, I have no idea how to answer your question to your satisfaction, but I'll try. There is a yes and no element to the answer. On the one hand, yes, there are obviously many ways to interpret the words of the Bible. Some of them might even be reasonable. However, the reasonableness of some of these interpretations does not mean anything, if the interpretation does not agree with the rest of the biblical testimony. An historical example: Marcion and other gnostics interpreted verses talking about "Christ in the appearance of a man" and Christ "taking on the form of a servant" to mean that Christ was not really human, but merely appeared to be. They found other verses to support this claim, but had to throw out a great deal of biblical testimony to the contrary to hold onto this interpretation. That interpretation was a possible one, even a reasonable one, but could not be considered truly biblical because it contradicted other parts of the Bible.

There are some verses in which the interpretation is not in doubt, and there is only one. For instance, there are dozens of verses that point to strict monotheism. There are many verses that point to Christ as the only bridge from man to God. There are many verse that speak of man's fallen nature and proclivity to sin. These are common themes throughout the Bible, OT and NT, and these are pillars of biblical faith that must support any other interpretation.

So, I guess I'll answer your question this way: As to the first question, the answer is yes. There are many ways to interpret the many words of the Bible. As to the second, the answer is no. Only those interpretations that match up with the whole of biblical testimony can be considered truly "Biblical", no matter how reasonable or logical they may seem to be on first examination.

Hope this helps. Thanks for your thoughts

Hi Rhino,

Again, I am grateful for your thoughtful reply.

I agree that the interpretations of individual passages should agree with other parts of the Bible. In fact, that is exactly what I had in mind when I said "reasonable interpretation."

But, to be more precise, let me rephrase the questions again so as to incorporate this clarification, and hopefully make it easier for you to answer them:

"Is there only one way to reasonably and consistently interprete the Bible as a whole?"

"If not, then do each of the respective, reasonable and consistent interpretations of the Bible as a whole, qualify as "Biblical?"

For example, I have written an online article in which I address the question whether God, our Heavenly Father, has a body (see: http://www.aros.net/~wenglund/BookB/Table.htm ). In that work I pull together hundreds of biblical passages which I use to answer that question. My interpretations of the individual passages are reasonable and consistent with my interpretation of other passages of the Bible. In other words, my interpretation of the Bible as a whole, is reasonable and consistent. However, my interpretation differs from "mainstream" Christianity. Even still, is my interpretation "biblical?"

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Alexander]

The relationship between faith and works is a complicated one, but I do not think it is a "versus" relationship, biblically speaking.

Sorry, I was referring to the issue regarding the relationship between faith and works, not necessarily in a this or that manner.

John 3:5 is not necessarily talking about baptism. Indeed, in the context of Nicodemus' words, it is more likely talking about childbirth.

I disagree with the idea that it could be referring to childbirth, there is simply no point for Jesus to mention childbirth as a necessary qualification for salvation. Your interpretation also rains confusion on the rest of the verses that refer to baptism. Anyway, I agree this could be a tangent.

"Bible only" is not what is being discussed here. Nowhere have I said that "biblical Christians" go only where the Bible goes and no further. Biblical Christians use the Bible as the standard by which to judge ideas and doctrines, but where the Bible is silent, other terms are used. I don't see it as a problem at all.

Sorry if I was unclear, it was typed in haste. My point is that there is no source within the Bible that defines specific doctrines as essential or non-essential. So it's pretty much up to the very whim of man to determine what "the Bible teaches." At what point does "Biblical Christianity" cease becoming Biblical?