and embrace something that would say that "where the Scriptures speak we can speak with authority: where the Scriptures are silent we do not speak with authority but allow the operation of commonsense, opinion and liberty". Though this will move away from the church's tradition that is based on Campbell's maxim that "Where the Scriptures speak, we speak; and where the Scriptures are silent, we are silent", it will remove the current inconsistencies but in the long run strengthen the common acceptance of the bible?
2007-02-12 07:24:47 · 5 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
The problem with your train of thought is that Scriptures (like all written words) don't inherently "say" anything. Like all written words, they require interpretation, partiucarly in light of the fact that they have been translated and transcribed over thousands of years. For example, we often think of "Thou shalt not kill." Well, if this is true, you can never believe in a justified war, you cannot believe in capital punishment, you can't believe in euthenasia; yet, many Christians do, because they interpret the phrase differently (e.g., most accept that a "better" translation is "Thou shalt not murder.") Ever word in the Bible is open to interpretation (as all words are). Thus, there is no literal rock on which to stand, and there will always be a requirement that the Church--both leaders and followers--make interpretive gestures.
2007-02-12 07:31:30 · answer #1 · answered by Qwyrx 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The whole concept of the bible is God's will, God's love, God's commandments and the forgiveness of our sins through Jesus's sacrifice. I've been to several churches in my life and they all seem to be wrong about something. I finally desided to love my neighbor as my self, feed and visit the fatherless, believe that Jesus is the son of God, and be willing to say so in front of people.
2007-02-12 07:36:01 · answer #2 · answered by Handy man 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Many churches have embraced a relativistic doctrine. The growth, if any, they have received has hardly been healthy.
2007-02-12 07:33:27 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I am not really sure that there are any practical differences between Campell's maxim and what you just proposed to replace it.
Makes sense, though.
2007-02-12 07:29:11 · answer #4 · answered by Randy G 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, that would be following the Satanist standard, written by Alasteir Crowley, "Do what thou wilt".
2007-02-12 07:29:53 · answer #5 · answered by Doug 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋