| ← Previous · 2008·07·22··07:39:34 · Next → |
| 4 Comments |
| Dogma and Life |
These words by Horatius Bonar, though written around one hundred and fifty years ago, have never been more true than they are today. While those who would call themselves “the church” today are always looking for something fresh and innovative, they continually fall back on the same errors that have been common in ages past. The good news, then, is that we need no fresh answers. The saints who have gone before us and, indeed, Scripture itself, have said all that needs to be said.
Christianity, say many among us, is a life, not a dogma; and they reckon this the enunciation of a great and unappreciated truth. It is, however, a mere truism, or it is an unmeaning antithesis, or it is an absolute falsehood. It sounds oracular and great; it is only pompous.
Christianity is both life and dogma; quite as much one as the other.
But it is a dogma before it is life; it cannot be the latter till it has been the former. It is out of the dogma that the life emerges; not the dogma out of the life; and the importance that is attached in Scripture to knowledge—right knowledge—should make us cautious in disparaging doctrine, as if it were harmless when wrong, and impotent or uninfluential when right. The mystics of different ages have tried hard to depreciate doctrine, to praise what they call “the spirit” at the expense of “the letter”; And it is somewhat remarkable that infidelity has generally taken their side . . .
. . . doctrine in general, at least if precise and defined, is inconsistent with liberty of thought and expansion of intellect. “Life” is a pliable thing; it is unfenced and common; it may mean anything a man likes to call it or to fancy it; there is no imperiling of human liberty in calling Christianity a life; the men of “progress” and “freshness” are safe in making their standard; for Christianity = life may mean just Christianity = 0; at least it is an equation capable of being manipulated as to bring out any result which the theological algebraist may desire.
And then there is the advantage of having a popular and high-sounding watchword. “Christianity a life, not a dogma” sounds noble. . . . it is an axiom rather than a proposition. It takes largely; it convinces hundreds without further inquiry or argument . . . it would enable us to believe anyone to be pious—Moslem, Hindoo, Romanist, Pantheist, or Sceptic—who could produce a worthy and earnest life.
. . . Religion without creed, religion without truth, religion without the Bible, religion without Christianity, religion without Christ—is set down now, not simply among things possible, but amongst things desirable. . . . “Unconditioned” religion is to be accepted as not inconsistent with philosophy or liberty, but conditioned or defined religion is to be regarded as imbecility.
—Horatius Bonar, Christ Is All, ed. Michael A. G. Haykin & Darrin R. Brooker (Reformation Heritage Books, 2007), 145–146.
by David
TrackBack URL: http://www.thirstytheologian.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/693
Share this post: Email · Del.icio.us · Digg · Facebook · Stumble · Technorati
Posted in: Darrin Brooker · Horatius Bonar · Michael Haykin
Permalink · 4 Comments · 0 TrackBacks
← Previous · Home · Next →
TrackBack URL: http://www.thirstytheologian.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/693
Share this post: Email · Del.icio.us · Digg · Facebook · Stumble · Technorati
Posted in: Darrin Brooker · Horatius Bonar · Michael Haykin
Permalink · 4 Comments · 0 TrackBacks
← Previous · Home · Next →
4 Comments:
rob
To what tenets of Christianity, do you reckon, is Bonar referring when he writes of dogma? Is it the Nicene Creed? Is it scripture in general? Is he, and you through this post, saying that scripture is any and everything there is to believe?
I would agree that a Christian life would have to begin as a dogma before it could possibly become a lifestyle; at least in terms of being a truly faithful Christian. If you don't make the dogma, the framework of a belief system, the foundation of your faith, then what you believe is not so much a religion as it is a whimsical philosophy. I get that.
I don't get, however, how people can say that the only thing that there is to believe, if that is what Bonar and, by association, you are saying, is in the Bible. Given the paradoxical and, sometimes, hypocritical nature of scripture, how can anyone believe that the Bible has the answers to everything?
Taking it one step further: How can anyone even have faith in it?
rob
I just re-read my comment up there and even I thought it came off as a scoche confrontational. Please know that that was not my intention at all.
However, I think the questions are still valid, if anyone would care to chime in with their buck-O-five.
cheers...
David
Rob, I didn’t take it as confrontational. I try not to judge “tone” too closely, anyway. I hope others will be as gracious with me, as I often come across abrasively. I will respond soon, when I get a little time.
David
OK, I’m back.
Bonar is referring to scripture, and by extension, that systematic theology that is legitimately derived from scripture.
Is scripture any and everything there is to believe? Well, of course, you won’t find the theory of relativity or the Pythagorean theorem, or how to build a boat or bake a pie in the Bible. I’m going to assume you don’t mean “everything” in that sense. However, we do believe that God has given us “everything pertaining to life and godliness, through the true knowledge of Him who called us” (2 Peter 1:3). That “true knowledge” is found in Scripture alone. Yes, that’s a dogmatic statement; the nature of the Bible is that you must believe it, all of it, and nothing more, or reject it entirely. It claims absolute exclusivity.
Does the Bible have the specific answers to every ethical question? Well, no. It will not tell you who to marry or which job to take; but it will give you the ethical principles by which to make those choices. (I treated that subject quite a while ago here.) Most importantly, it tells us who God is, who we are, what kind of a mess we’re in, and how to get out of it. No other religion’s “scriptures” do that. They are, at best, collections of weird stories and lists of laws. None of them reveal a God who seeks and saves his people. None offer any real hope — just do this, don’t do that, and if you stick well enough to the rules, maybe you’ll be alright.
Concerning the apparent paradoxes and contradictions of scripture: there really aren’t any. If you take individual passages out of their contexts, and disregard literary genres, you will find contradictions. Indeed, many passages are difficult to understand; but an understanding of correct hermeneutics and dedication to diligent study almost does away with any difficulties. I say almost, because at our best, we are fallible mortals; the most seasoned theologians must admit to incomplete understanding. There are, and always will be, things that serious, Bible-believing theologians disagree on.
Before going any further, I’d like to know more specifically what some of your objections are (I ask with some trepidation, knowing that I don’t even have all the answers to my own questions).