I think that it is entirely possible for two churches to be entirely biblical (that is, the church practices follow the letter of the bible to a "T") and yet also for both of these churches to have significantly different beliefs and practices. How is this possible? Because each body can interpret scripture differently.
IF Scripture is the issue - then I agree, there still can be valid, honest differences as that Scripture is interpreted and applied. Perhaps this is reason to embrace humility....
But if Scripture isn't the issue (at least primarily) but rather the views of self (typically called "tradition") then the range of what might be embraced grows enormously. For example, perfectly within that rubric would be the INFALLIBILITY of the papacy, Jesus visiting the Americas and founding His Church here and a plethora of other concepts not taught in Scripture (nor contradicted by such) but supported by "tradition" as that self so chooses, defines and interprets. And if Scirpture is place UNDER Tradition (must be interpreted IN LIGHT OF or "though the lens of" as my Catholic teaches put it) then, well - anything and everything "goes." And if self determines that self is exempt from the issue of whether what self proclaims is true - then even the very issue is rendered moot.
Further I think it goes deeper than this. I believe that in order for a person to get a fully developed, accurate picture of what "biblical" Christianity is like, that person must also delve into early Church History, and early Christian writings. To me, the NT picture does not provide a 'fully-orbed' picture of what Christianity was like during the 1st century. It seems much of the letters of Paul etc. were written for specific reason towards specific churches at the time.
Perhaps.... although since even the LDS determines that it's views are those of the apostles, MUCH depends on WHO is regarded as a "Father," WHAT they wrote is regarded as normative and WHO then interprets that. And we've simply made the chosen views of men equal to the inspired words of God. I think that Tradition (Protestant definition!) is very, very important - I just don't place it on a par with God. Thus, I don't place Tradition (even in the Protestant sense) on a par with Scripture. IMO, it is the responsibility of man to agree with God - not the other way around.
So that is what I contend, in order for a church to be truly "biblical", that is following the letter of the bible, as well as the spirit, it must defer to these other sources to 'fill in the gaps', so to speak.
I disagree. I don't think God gave us the Scriptures and then commanded one denomination with this task: "Now, in My wisdom, I've left a lot of blanks here - you fill them in and I'll just go along with whatever you come up with."
IMO, as we look at the defining, definitive, distictive dogmas of the RCC and LDS (both taking this: I appoint ME to fill in the blanks mentality) - these things that come from the invisible words God never inspired but self put there - we simply find a disregard for what is THERE and a laser focus on what they put there.
For example, early church history gives us more details on the practice of baptism, eucharist, etc and how they were conducted. The early christian writings show us how the early church's understood such practices, as well as scripture itself.
Yes, there is a Tradition.... And in HERMENEUTICS, such is very important. And if this thread were about hermeneutics or tradition, I'd like to discuss that - but I think it's a rule violation here.
.
