I am a . . .

[Jac3510]

Here's one for all the Christians on board, both active and lurking.

What would you classify yourself as and why:

1) A Biblical Christian
2) An Ecclesiastical Christian
3) A Pneumatological Christian

These are in alphabetical order so as not to offer any type of preference. If none of the above, please state what and why.

These terms are simply my definitions. For discussion, I have defined them as follows:

A Biblical Christian is one whose doctrine is derived from the Bible and the Bible alone.

An Ecclesiastical Christian is one whose doctrine is derived from the Church.

A Pneumatological Christians is one whose doctrine is derived from his or her personal experience as guided by the Spirit (if anyone can think of a better name for that, shoot).

If you disagree with the labels, let me know how you view things and why.

God bless

fakeedit: I'll put myself on the list later, when we have a few replies, so as not to bias anyone's reading of my categories.

[Kurieuo]

Hi Jac,

I'm a bit of a mix.

I'm wondering, did you do an introduction to theology subject in your studies? Just that from my own, there are generally four recognised sources of theology within Christianity that seem equivical to your characterisations above. For example, there is Scripture (biblical), tradition (ecclesiastical?), experience (pneumatological perhaps?) and reason. I think "reason" is perhaps being overlooked in the above (rational Christians?).

Each source is very dependant upon the other, so it is perhap impossible to really separate them. I wrote an essay on theological sources which I have online. Perhap you might be interested to read it and let me know your thoughts?

Kurieuo.

[BavarianWheels]

For example, there is Scripture (biblical), tradition (ecclesiastical?), experience (pneumatological perhaps?) and reason. I think "reason" is perhaps being overlooked in the above (rational Christians?).

This seems to imply that a "Biblical/Scripture" Christian is without reason and irrational. It also seems to further imply that basic teachings in Scripture are likewise and cannot be followed for lack of latter, more precise "interpretations." (...understanding of course that time and study does bring about enlightenment...)

Can you explain it a bit for me.

I find myself in the "Biblical/Scripture" side, but also see some "rational" in me. I can't say I'm one and not the other (putting my own idea in "rational")

.
.

[Jac3510]

I'm wondering, did you do an introduction to theology subject in your studies? Just that from my own, there are generally four recognised sources of theology within Christianity that seem equivical to your characterisations above. For example, there is Scripture (biblical), tradition (ecclesiastical?), experience (pneumatological perhaps?) and reason. I think "reason" is perhaps being overlooked in the above (rational Christians?).

Actually, this particular course I'm taking right now (which indirectly inspired the post) is Survey of Theology. The textbook is Charles Ryrie's Basic Theology, and sadly, he totally ignores this particular aspect. To be bluntly honest, I am not at all impressed with the class. I am learning things, of course, but in comparison to some other works on systematic theology, this one is, indeed, basic.

That said, I do agree that the four sources you mentioned are typically recognized, but I personally don't consider reason a source of information. On this subject, J. P. Boyce states:

The mind is not itself an original source of knowedge, like the Scriptures, but is merely an instrument by which the man attains knowledge through the exercise of its appropriate faculties. There are no such things as innate ideas. These arrive only through the exercise of proper thought and reflection, in connection with some perceived facts. Abstract of Systematic Theology, 1887 (.pdf format, page 38)

Similarly, Stephen Downs asserts the following:

Finally - a point about logic and truth.

The idea of logic is truth preservation. What that means is that if you start with true beliefs, your reasoning will not lead you to false conclusions.

But logic does not generate true beliefs. There's no easy way to do that.

Most people use the evidence of their senses to generate true beliefs. They see that apples grow on trees, that some bananas are yellow, and so on.

For many other truths, we must rely on faith. That God exists, that right is better than wrong, that truth is a virtue: these are beliefs which cannot be confirmed by the senses, and reflect therefore a certain world view.

After thinking about that, I came to the conclusion that reason can only be a source of doctrine if it has some pre-existing ideas to work with, and these ideas must come from something. You recognized this in your paper when you said, "facts from experience are required to provide subject matter for reason."

It, then, seems to me that all people are "rational" Christians in the sense that they derive their doctrine from their reason. The questions are:

1) Where did the material with which the reasoning process works originate?
2) What particular hermeneutic (or possibly better, philosophical framework) is that material put through? (That is, what "type" of reasoning process is the material submitted to?)

Concerning, then, the material from which we may derive doctrinal statements, it seems to me the only possibilities are Scripture, Tradition, and Experience.

I suppose, though, you could add a fourth category if you defined "observation" (that is, Natural Theology) as a separate source of doctrine. I had combined both subjective and objective experiences (personal experiences and observational data) into a single category, for better or for worse.

Each source is very dependant upon the other, so it is perhap impossible to really separate them. I wrote an essay on theological sources which I have online. Perhap you might be interested to read it and let me know your thoughts?

I don't know that each source is dependant on the other. It comes down to a question of authority. Is Scripture, tradition, or personal experience authoritative? It is easiest to separate experience from Scripture and tradition, but I think even these last two are separate issues as well. In showing the interdependence of Scripture and tradition you stated:

The working of these two sources provides fertility for an outgrowth of tradition. In addition, Scripture which was a result from early Christian tradition provides a norm by which reasoning and experiences can be evaluated. This in turn impacts upon future Christian traditions by keeping them in line with foundational Christian beliefs.

I absolutely agree with these statement, but I think you might be using the word "tradition" here in two different ways. The pre-Scripture traditions were not the same type of traditions as post-Scripture traditions. In other words, the traditions that gave rise to Scripture (i.e., the oral accounts of Christ) of an entirely different nature than, say, the Infallibility of the Pope.

In any case, I think at this point we might be splitting hairs, but this is probably because I wasn't exactly clear in my original post. My statement, "doctrine is derived from . . ." was more ambiguous than I hoped. Perhaps I should have used the form:

"A [insert type] Christian is one for whom [insert source] is the primary authority from which the material for doctrinal statements is derived."

BTW, excellent summary of a complicated issue, by the way. I do think you should say something about pre and post-Scriptural traditions, but that is just me. Maybe you don't see a difference?

Side note: for those who aren't familiar with the term "pneumatology" (I only recently learned it myself), it actually has to do with the study of the Holy Spirit. In trying to find a good term for the third category, I was trying to emphasize the importance of the Spirit's guidance of us in Truth based on our experiences and rationale. If anyone has a better term, I'm all ears.

God bless

[Kurieuo]

That said, I do agree that the four sources you mentioned are typically recognized, but I personally don't consider reason a source of information....

I think you have some valid points, although I'm not sure I'd be ready to dismiss reason so quickly as an actual source given that it seems to me that logical reasoning does lead to new knowledge. In one part of my paper I also hinted at reason being required for experiences, hence these two "sources" (labelling reason a source for ease ) are at least dependant on each other:

... experience is only “experienced” by an entity with intelligence, or a sense of “self”. I believe such highlights the very close relationship that exists between an experience and the mind. While revelations are disclosed to us by receiving experiences, it seems some sort of “reason” is required in order to have an awareness that we are “experiencing”.

Reason is a source in the sense that it acknowledges, structures and makes sense of data and in doing so I think it becomes a source of knowledge itself.

In thinking on this, there seems to be different ways in which "reason" can be seen. When taken as only a tool, I'm not even sure this would mean pointblank that reason is not a source. For example, think of there being no sentient beings in the world... Would it really make sense to then say that in such a world anything was a source of knowledge? It makes sense for me to think that in order for a source of knowledge to contain knowledge it requires a knower to draw out that knowledge. And a knower requires reason to know. So I'd surmise that reason is required in order for sources such as Scripture, tradition and nature to really be sources. This no doubt makes it a tool, but it is also a part ingredient that makes up a source being source. Therefore reason seems to still be a source in some sense, despite whether or not it possesses information in and of itself.

But logic does not generate true beliefs. There's no easy way to do that.

Most people use the evidence of their senses to generate true beliefs. They see that apples grow on trees, that some bananas are yellow, and so on.

For many other truths, we must rely on faith. That God exists, that right is better than wrong, that truth is a virtue: these are beliefs which cannot be confirmed by the senses, and reflect therefore a certain world view.

You started off saying there is no easy way to generate true beliefs, then it seems you associated the knowledge one receives through their primary senses (i.e., sight, touch, smell, etc) as true beliefs. I'd say you're giving these senses too much credit, as the most we can have is that we "think" they're true because so seem so real. If you've watched the movie A Beautiful Mind it would perhaps help exemplify my point here better. It reveals so clearly how we can be wrong about something we experience as so real. And so my point would be that we need faith in our experiences, no matter where they come from, in order to believe anything. Truth is objective, but I see that our beliefs on what is real will always be tainted by uncertainty whether we acknowledge it or not. And this is where "faith" can help us jump the gap of uncertainty when it makes sense for us to do so.

After thinking about that, I came to the conclusion that reason can only be a source of doctrine if it has some pre-existing ideas to work with, and these ideas must come from something. You recognized this in your paper when you said, "facts from experience are required to provide subject matter for reason."

It, then, seems to me that all people are "rational" Christians in the sense that they derive their doctrine from their reason.

I was thinking that as I wrote--that all Christians are rational, but then I took your question as asking where you do place the most authority (i.e., Bible, Church, Spirit). From this, the obvious missing one for me was "reason." But then I can't help but see some categories as tied in with others in some way... so I think I got confused a little as to what you were meaning...

The questions are:

1) Where did the material with which the reasoning process works originate?
2) What particular hermeneutic (or possibly better, philosophical framework) is that material put through? (That is, what "type" of reasoning process is the material submitted to?)

Concerning, then, the material from which we may derive doctrinal statements, it seems to me the only possibilities are Scripture, Tradition, and Experience.

Yet, nothing can be derived or received experientially without reason. So I would classify experience+reason together as one whole source, but for simplicities sake calls them sources even individually.

I suppose, though, you could add a fourth category if you defined "observation" (that is, Natural Theology) as a separate source of doctrine. I had combined both subjective and objective experiences (personal experiences and observational data) into a single category, for better or for worse.

I'd perhaps define observation as coming in under the experience+reason duo. I think natural theology though would definitely be a source in a similar manner to Scripture and tradition.

Each source is very dependant upon the other, so it is perhap impossible to really separate them. I wrote an essay on theological sources which I have online. Perhap you might be interested to read it and let me know your thoughts?

I don't know that each source is dependant on the other. It comes down to a question of authority.

If Scripture is authoritative, then ones experiences in life, influenced by previous Christian tradition and reasoning affects how they will understand Scripture. Perhaps "church" would not necessarily be dependant, but then I had tradition on a broader level in mind (as you noticed below), rather than an organised Christian governing body which should pay attention the Christian sources of theology without perhaps being dependant on them.

I'm starting to realise that I hijacked what you meant at the beginning by "ecclesiology" and took things on a tangent. Not that I regret it too much as I've never really have anyone who I could discuss these things with, and it helps to evolve my own thoughts having to consider your own words.

The working of these two sources provides fertility for an outgrowth of tradition. In addition, Scripture which was a result from early Christian tradition provides a norm by which reasoning and experiences can be evaluated. This in turn impacts upon future Christian traditions by keeping them in line with foundational Christian beliefs.

I absolutely agree with these statement, but I think you might be using the word "tradition" here in two different ways. The pre-Scripture traditions were not the same type of traditions as post-Scripture traditions. In other words, the traditions that gave rise to Scripture (i.e., the oral accounts of Christ) of an entirely different nature than, say, the Infallibility of the Pope.

I'm thinking my using "tradition" in a general sense has confused matters greatly. I see Scripture (especially the NT) as a part of early Christian tradition, handed down by the Apostolic tradition. In this way Scripture is authoritative, more so than later traditions which are built upon the earlier one. Therefore Scripture is a norm we have which we can measure things against. With this in mind it might become more evident with what I meant when I wrote: "Each source is very dependant upon the other..."

In any case, I think at this point we might be splitting hairs, but this is probably because I wasn't exactly clear in my original post. My statement, "doctrine is derived from . . ." was more ambiguous than I hoped.

I think you are right about us splitting hairs on that ambiguity. Yet, I still do think understanding how each source affects the other is important to realise. I suppose some people can see Scripture as separated from the Holy Spirit and ecclesiology as separated from Scripture (which I can see when I don't think of ecclesiology in my broader sense of Christian tradition). If by ecclesiastical Christian you mean one who holds the Church they are apart of as an authority, I'd personally relegate it as not very authoritative. On the other hand, Christian tradition has shed insights on Christ's nature, the God-head, liturgy and the like... something which filters into how we interpret Scripture. So saying I place Scripture as authoritative (which I do), I think would be gliming over influences on how I have come to interpret and understand Scripture. And holding the Holy Spirit up as authoritative would be gliming over that the Holy Spirit ministers through the church and Scripture to us... Yet, if I were to rate them in order of importance I'd have to say Holy Spirit is foundational, Scripture is next and then the ecclesiology.

BTW, excellent summary of a complicated issue, by the way. I do think you should say something about pre and post-Scriptural traditions, but that is just me. Maybe you don't see a difference?

I wanted to actually write more on this distinction, but my word limit was capped and I was having a hard time compressing it down . If I ever revise my writing though and have time, I'll definitely add this distinction as it is an important one to make.

Kurieuo.

[Jac3510]

although I'm not sure I'd be ready to dismiss reason so quickly as an actual source given that it seems to me that logical reasoning does lead to new knowledge.

I totally agree that reason leads to new knowledge. Let's take the idea of the Trinity. It isn't specifically formulated in the Bible, but logically there is no way to avoid it if we accept Scripture as authoritative. So, would I say, then, that the source of doctrine for the Trinity was Scriptural or Reason? I'd say the source is the Scriptures, but it was organized by reason. In other words, our ability to reason led us, not necessarily to "new" knowledge, but the discovery of an implicit knowledge found somewhere already . . .

Reason is a source in the sense that it acknowledges, structures and makes sense of data and in doing so I think it becomes a source of knowledge itself.

Ultimately, I agree with you here, but I think if you try to separate it you get into the problem (well, it's not really a PROBLEM) that we are now . . . you can't say what the source of doctrine is. By separating reason into its own category rather than simply a tool for assessing the information found in other places, you create an interesting situation in which everything becomes completely interdependent. Ultimately, I think this is the case, but I also think that on a more basic level, the various sources of information can and should be separated from our ability to process it.

To use an analogy, consider a gold mining company. The source of the gold is may be a mine and a river bed. The tools the company uses to gather the gold would correspond to what we call "observation," and the tools they use to purify it into high quality gold would be what we call "reason." No new gold is found by these purification (systematizing) tools, but the value of the purified gold is much higher. You could then mold the gold into, say, a ring. Of course, the ring wasn't in the river bed, but it was drawn out of the ore. I'd say the same goes with doctrine. The doctrine itself isn't in the Bible or the Church or Natural Theology or Experience or anything like that. All that is in the Bible are words. All that is in the Church are people. All that is in Natural Theology are stars, dust, plants, animals, and natural laws. And all that is in Experience are chemical reactions. It is when we apply our selves--our ability to interpret those words, sayings, implications of observations, and/or experiences--when we put this raw material through the system of reason that we can get formal doctrines.

Thus, my question: where do you get the source for the material? I personally get my material from the Bible and the Bible alone (sola scripture), BUT, I absolutely DO let the other three influence my reasoning. Again, that's why I separate them. If the Church has uniformly agreed on an interpretation sense the day of Jesus Christ Himself, chances are that I'll interpret that passage of Scripture the same way. If scientific observation tells me a certain thing, I'll incorporate that into my world view and read the Bible from that position, but my SOURCE of doctrine is the Bible and the Bible alone. I know that some people get doctrines from the Church (councils, popes, etc.). Some people get it from experience (very, very extreme protestants and fringe cults, I think ). So, for someone in the second category, if the Church says something contrary to the Scriptures, then the Church is right as it is the source of doctrine. If someone in the third category experiences something contrary to Scripture and the Church, then both are wrong. If someone in the first category reads something contrary to Church dogma and/or their personal experiences, they reject those as being false.

That's all I was getting at, really.

For example, think of there being no sentient beings in the world... Would it really make sense to then say that in such a world anything was a source of knowledge?

I can see what you are saying here, but again, I come back to the basic argument I had first: what "new" knowledge does reason come up with? If you never fed your mind anything at all to work with, how could you come up with any doctrines or ideas? Of course, without reason, you could fill up your head with all kinds of sense-perceptions and you'd never have any doctrines or ideas either--just instinct, I suppose. That, again, is why I separate them into a two step process. First information-gathering (from various sources) then information processing (reason).

I'd say you're giving these senses too much credit, as the most we can have is that we "think" they're true because so seem so real. If you've watched the movie A Beautiful Mind it would perhaps help exemplify my point here better. It reveals so clearly how we can be wrong about something we experience as so real. And so my point would be that we need faith in our experiences, no matter where they come from, in order to believe anything. Truth is objective, but I see that our beliefs on what is real will always be tainted by uncertainty whether we acknowledge it or not. And this is where "faith" can help us jump the gap of uncertainty when it makes sense for us to do so.

Eh, I give the senses the credit that they tell us something about the real world, and apart from them, I couldn't know anything. The senses are the ways by which I experience whatever is out there. Here's the way I see it: if they are lying to me, I could never know that anyway, unless my sense-perceptions starting contradicting one another. But, then I'd have to assume that at least one of them actually was right, or that both are wrong. If both are wrong, then I can't even be sure that the world exists at all, and if that's the case, then there are absolutely no sources of knowledge at all, not even reason itself . At this point, we certainly do need a bit of faith . . .

I just hold reason on a lower level. In my mind, it is purely a tool--nothing more and nothing less. It evaluates and systematizes perception and revelation.

But then I can't help but see some categories as tied in with others in some way... so I think I got confused a little as to what you were meaning...

Well, again, I do agree that all the sources, in the sense that you are talking about them, are interdependent. We have just been taking a different slant on how those sources are handled--I've been picturing it as a very two-step process, where as you've been taking a big picture approach, it seems to me.

I'd perhaps define observation as coming in under the experience+reason duo. I think natural theology though would definitely be a source in a similar manner to Scripture and tradition.

Yeah, I really should add it to the list. I just wanted to avoid getting into general revelation vs. special revelation. I consider natural theology the former, and doctrine the latter, but I'll have to think that through more.

If Scripture is authoritative, then ones experiences in life, influenced by previous Christian tradition and reasoning affects how they will understand Scripture. Perhaps "church" would not necessarily be dependant, but then I had tradition on a broader level in mind (as you noticed below), rather than an organised Christian governing body which should pay attention the Christian sources of theology without perhaps being dependant on them.

Agreed, BUT--notice that the authority comes from the Scriptures. How you interpret them comes from your experiences and background, but again, the authority, in this case, is still Scripture. There are those, such as Catholics, who put Tradition (in their sense of the word) on a greater or equal footing with Scripture. For them, how they read that would affect how they interpret Tradition, and the authority would come from there.

I'm starting to realise that I hijacked what you meant at the beginning by "ecclesiology" and took things on a tangent. Not that I regret it too much as I've never really have anyone who I could discuss these things with, and it helps to evolve my own thoughts having to consider your own words.

Haha, 'tis all good. The whole thing was sort of off the top of my head anyway, so the critique, on a tangent or not, is still good.

Anyway, I think line-by-lining the rest would end up having me just repeat myself on different issues. I get what you mean, and agree, that each source of knowledge has some influence over the others. I especially agree with Tradition->Scripture if we limit Tradition to the pre-gospel Apostolic Traditions. But, I think we need to be careful to differentiate between the affects these have on the various sources and our interpretation of them.

That, of course, begs the question--if all sources are subject to interpretation, how do you know if you have properly understood the source itself?!? I guess that's where the actual sciences of theology come in. No one said that part was easy

I wanted to actually write more on this distinction, but my word limit was capped and I was having a hard time compressing it down . If I ever revise my writing though and have time, I'll definitely add this distinction as it is an important one to make.

At least it forces you to be concise, something I still need to learn . You really should flesh that out, though. Lot's of good stuff in there.

God bless

[jeff]

I lean to the positions that seem to have been held by the early church fathers in general. They held to the apostolic writings as the highest in authority. Though technically these writings can also be termed as church tradition they also held a distinction between the two. Tradition was held in high regard and was authoritative in its function but ultimately had to fall under the authority of the apostolic writings (finally organized into our bible). Reason can also lead to insights but once again have to fall under the authority of the Scriptures. Why is this? The Bible is the only authoritative source we have for matters Spiritual. Unless God allows us glimpse into this realm, we can only guess at what is there. For example if it had not been explained to us by God we would not have understood the spiritual significance of the death of Christ. We could have guessed and wondered and come up with as many explanations as there are people and no one could have affirmed absolutely the meaning of his death. Blaise Pascal had some wonderful insights into the insufficiency of reason to come up with absolute truth.

Anyway I hold to the absolute authority of the Scriptures (inspiration and inerrancy, of the originals of course) with tradition and reason being subject to them. I seem to fall closer and closer to Reformation theology in many areas.

Jeff

[Anonymous]

i am a biblical christian because whatever the bible says i live by

[Anonymous]

Biblical christian

[fizzzzzzzzzzzy]

i wold say im a mix of biblical and pneumatological christian

[Poetic_Soul]

I'M all of the three.

[Deborah]

well I would have to say A Biblical Christian is one whose doctrine is derived from the Bible and the Bible alone.
well kind of, but I as for guidence from god to come to an understanding of the scriptures.

[Joel Freeman]

I would have to say that I'm a mix of the three.