What constitutes the act of "Making up one's own Christianity"?

[fhansen]

The intro here is brief:

1) Everyone has to ponder over the essence of Christianity and attempt to make sense out of it.​

​

2) However, in the effort to understand the essentials of Christianity, some people have been cited by others as being "heretics."​

​

3) So, some people may be going off in directions that are too creative and too aloof from the essence of the Christian Faith.​

With the above in mind then: What constitutes the act of someone "Making Up His/Her Own Christianity"and how do we KNOW when this is actually the case?

If we’re going by scripture alone, then private interpretations are necessarily the result. And very often those interpretations will conflict with another person’s interpretations, and they can both be equally plausible in many cases. IOW, The doctrine of Sola Scriptura pretty much guarantees that we’re making up our own Christianity to one degree or another. Many people also include the input of historic beliefs and practices, however, which brings us closer to the original positions.

 

[timothyu]

Many people also include the input of historic beliefs and practices, however, which brings us closer to the original positions.

That is simply saying the early gentile church had it right and there is no need to question. Typical of an authoritarian institution. Jesus' words speak for themselves and there is no need to interpret what He said about the Kingdom, God's return to govern man instead of man governing man (especially while claiming to represent God), and doing the will of the Father instead of following our own which pretty well sums up everything He came to teach. Padding it just created another religion.

 

[fhansen]

That is simply saying the early gentile church had it right and there is no need to question. Typical of an authoritarian institution. Jesus' words speak for themselves and there is no need to interpret what He said about the Kingdom, God's return to govern man instead of man governing man (especially while claiming to represent God), and doing the will of the Father instead of following our own which pretty well sums up everything He came to teach. Padding it just created another religion.

And claiming to infallibly know the truth based on ones interpretation of Scripture alone is at least an equally authoritarian position. And the church that I’m familiar with teaches us that we must follow God’s will, not our own.

 

[timothyu]

And claiming to infallibly know the truth based on ones interpretation of Scripture alone is at least an equally authoritarian position.

Possibly so but as I said, there is no need to interpret what Jesus plainly spoke.

 

[fhansen]

Possibly so but as I said, there is no need to interpret what Jesus plainly spoke.

Sincere people claiming to be spirit-led disagree all day long over what Jesus spoke.

 

[timothyu]

Sincere people claiming to be spirit-led disagree all day long over what Jesus spoke.

Certainly because they won't let His words speak for themselves. It is amazing how they don't want something as simple as Thy Kingdom come, thy will be done in earth as it is in Heaven, to mean exactly what it says. They are more interested in hanging onto power and claiming kinship with God on their own terms.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I think that Christology and Soteriology are the most distinguishing features of the Christian tradition from other religions, wouldn't you agree? I am not comfortable saying that we can "be creative in how we think about our faith" for some reason.

Y'know, I'm not comfortable with the term "creative" either, but at the same time, isn't it difficult for us to cite a specific and authoritative source and/or method by which to construct our Christology and Soteriology?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

2PhiloVoid,

YOUR DIRECT QUOTE: "What constitutes the act of someone "Making Up His/Her Own Christianity"and how do we KNOW when this is actually the case?"

Simply put, it is the case with the ungodly religions of the Hell bound Jehovah Witnesses and Mormons, with their Satanic rewritten Bibles of the Book of Mormon and the New World Translation that go directly against the TRUE words of Jesus in the correct Bibles!

"I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book." (Revelation 22:18-19)

.

Well, I can maybe agree on some level with you. But, how do we know that a particular verse actually means that and only that which we might individually think it means? Take for instance the specific verses you've cited: how can we KNOW which of the interpretations and applications of it we should stick to? Does the bible itself tell us "how" to interpret it in some kind of step-by-step procedure?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Certainly because they won't let His words speak for themselves. It is amazing how they don't want something as simple as Thy Kingdom come, thy will be done in earth as it is in Heaven, to mean exactly what it says. They are more interested in hanging onto power and claiming kinship with God on their own terms.

But do Jesus' words always speak for themselves? I'm not sure they do. And neither do those of the New Testament writers or those of the Old Testament. So, what are we to do, timothyu?

 

[Jonaitis]

Y'know, I'm not comfortable with the term "creative" either, but at the same time, isn't it difficult for us to cite a specific and authoritative source and/or method by which to construct our Christology and Soteriology?

How is it difficult?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

If we’re going by scripture alone, then private interpretations are necessarily the result. And very often those interpretations will conflict with another person’s interpretations, and they can both be equally plausible in many cases. IOW, The doctrine of Sola Scriptura pretty much guarantees that we’re making up our own Christianity to one degree or another. Many people also include the input of historic beliefs and practices, however, which brings us closer to the original positions.

But aren't there disagreements even within the leadership of variouis churches on ways in which the Bible and the Christian Life are to be understood and lived? Where are we to find the common ground for understanding the "original" [scare-quotes] gospel.

 

[fhansen]

Certainly because they won't let His words speak for themselves. It is amazing how they don't want something as simple as Thy Kingdom come, thy will be done in earth as it is in Heaven, to mean exactly what it says. They are more interested in hanging onto power and claiming kinship with God on their own terms.

IDK, the church has always taught that one must live righteously, according to God’s will and His judgment of us at the end of the day, in order to see Him at the end of the day. These words, for example, will never go out of style, for all humankind, believers and otherwise:

“He has shown you, O mortal, what is good.
And what does the Lord require of you?
To act justly and to love mercy
and to walk humbly with your God.” Micah 6:8

Let alone the greatest commandments- or the ten, for that matter.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

How is it difficult?

It's difficult in that we all have to sort through the myriads of church voices who clamor for our attention and our loyalty, our attendance at their specific congregation or diocese, and for our money. (Think of my comment as another form of "Which denomination should we follow?'

This is the difficulty I'm referring to. Then to, even if and when we do find a place in a particular congregation, we might find ourselves as having a different interpretation on some verse or passage than the leaders of our church, and we then have to walk on egg-shells and avoid expressing our alternative interpretation or face possible "disciplinary" confrontation. For instance, at the Southern Baptist church I used to attend when I was 17, I remember the pastor giving a sermon on the rapture. He referred to a specific passage for exegesis that he thought "clearly" illustrated his points. The problem is, even as new to the faith as I was at that time, something didn't quite sit well with me on how he interpreted his chosen verses. I couldn't say anything about my difference of understanding to anyone, and I even went a few years not knowing if I was onto something or not before I finally came across a theologian (eg. F.F. Bruce) who actually approximated an explanation like mine of the same passage, but offered a different interpretation than my former pastor.

This, again, is the kind of difficulty I'm referring to. And it can be the same with Christology and Soteriology, along with all of the other areas of theological study. We're going to differ, and I think we need to be careful to not make the accusation of heresy or other personal attacks as the first go to in our theological disagreements.

 

[Jonaitis]

It's difficult in that we all have to sort through the myriads of church voices who clamor for our attention and our loyalty, our attendance at their specific congregation or diocese, and for our money. (Think of my comment as another form of "Which denomination should we follow?'

This is the difficulty I'm referring to. Then to, even if and when we do find a place in a particular congregation, we might find ourselves as having a different interpretation on some verse or passage than the leaders of our church, and we then have to walk on egg-shells and avoid expressing our alternative interpretation or face possible "disciplinary" confrontation. For instance, at the Southern Baptist church I used to attend when I was 17, I remember the pastor giving a sermon on the rapture. He referred to a specific passage for exegesis that he thought "clearly" illustrated his points. The problem is, even as new to the faith as I was at that time, something didn't quite sit well with me on how he interpreted his chosen verses. I couldn't say anything about my difference of understanding to anyone, and I even went a few years not knowing if I was onto something or not before I finally came across a theologian (eg. F.F. Bruce) who actually approximated an explanation like mine of the same passage, but offered a different interpretation than my former pastor.

This, again, is the kind of difficulty I'm referring to. And it can be the same with Christology and Soteriology, along with all of the other areas of theological study. We're going to differ, and I think we need to be careful to not make the accusation of heresy or other personal attacks as the first go to in our theological disagreements.

I see, but when you say that it is difficult for us to "cite specific and authoritative and/or methods by which to construct our Christology and Soteriology", I have a feeling that this suggests we cannot truly agree on a basic understanding of our founder's identity and works, which constitutes the distinctive features of our religious tradition. A majority of us agree that Mormonism and the Jehovah Witness has no place in the Christian tradition precisely on account on these particular and distinctive features, because they center chiefly around doctrinal statements concerning its central figure.

I have a book by F.F. Bruce on the development of the canon, and I can't say that it hasn't made me reflect on the fragile nature of our traditional convictions concerning the very core principles we hold onto so deeply, namely those we defend from Holy Writ. However, I am convicted at the same time that there must be some common ground by which secondary issues can have no real concern for the churchmen looking for a place to fellowship with like-minded believers on primary issues. Our religious tradition is arguably the most divided, and yet we have forums like this where we can still see eye to eye because of one thing - Jesus Christ. If we draw close to the main strain of what constitutes what we all agree on, I believe it is plain for us to assume that we can know intuitively what steps outside of mere heterodoxy. Jesus' identity and works are not mere conjectures based on obscure notions in Scripture, but are quite evident enough that even an outsider will know plainly what we are claiming to believe concerning Christ, albeit roughly speaking. They may not mentally jot down every theological discourse upon Christology where Scripture itself does not warrant absolute certainty in, like whether Christ has two wills or if his person belongs to two natures, but they can come to a basic grasp that Christology is an important feature of our tradition. We we say about our founder and what significance he has left us is enough for us to say this is what we all believe.

This is what I am aiming at in my comments. There is something left for us that we can say with affirmation: this is what it is, anything more is secondary and not as significant as to this; step outside of this, and you no longer follow our tradition, regardless of what sub-group you claim to belong to.

 

[timothyu]

Where is it said we are to defend our denominations, let alone a religion, rather than the Gospel of the Kingdom?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I see, but when you say that it is difficult for us to "cite specific and authoritative and/or methods by which to construct our Christology and Soteriology", I have a feeling that this suggests we cannot truly agree on a basic understanding of our founder's identity and works, which constitutes the distinctive features of our religious tradition. A majority of us agree that Mormonism and the Jehovah Witness has no place in the Christian tradition precisely on account on these particular and distinctive features, because they center chiefly around doctrinal statements concerning its central figure.

No, I think many of us can find at least some minimal, common agreement on the person of Jesus Christ and on some basic traits of the "moral" Christian life, if we work at it.

But for some folks, that's not enough by which to be considered as being in the main of the Christian faith.

I have a book by F.F. Bruce on the development of the canon, and I can't say that it hasn't made me reflect on the fragile nature of our traditional convictions concerning the very core principles we hold onto so deeply, namely those we defend from Holy Writ. However, I am convicted at the same time that there must be some common ground by which secondary issues can have no real concern for the churchmen looking for a place to fellowship with like-minded believers on primary issues. Our religious tradition is arguably the most divided, and yet we have forums like this where we can still see eye to eye because of one thing - Jesus Christ. If we draw close to the main strain of what constitutes what we all agree on, I believe it is plain for us to assume that we can know intuitively what steps outside of mere heterodoxy. Jesus' identity and works are not mere conjectures based on obscure notions in Scripture, but are quite evident enough that even an outsider will know plainly what we are claiming to believe concerning Christ, albeit roughly speaking. They may not mentally jot down every theological discourse upon Christology where Scripture itself does not warrant absolute certainty in, like whether Christ has two wills or if his person belongs to two natures, but they can come to a basic grasp that Christology is an important feature of our tradition. We we say about our founder and what significance he has left us is enough for us to say this is what we all believe.

This is what I am aiming at in my comments. There is something left for us that we can say with affirmation: this is what it is, anything more is secondary and not as significant as to this; step outside of this, and you no longer follow our tradition, regardless of what sub-group you claim to belong to.

I think I agree with you, but there are a number of Christians who will look at either you or me and say, "Gee, guys, we can see you like Jesus, BUT you just don't seem to really be with the program. We think you're making up your own individualized Christianity.............which, uh, which isn't really any real Christianity at all."

THIS is what I'm getting at in my thread. So for instance, if I engage theologians and/or philosophers [even Christian philosophers] whom other Christians have never heard of and with whom they'll very likely have some differences of opinion, then all too often they point the shady finger of heterodoxy and exclaim, "You're making up your own Christianity!!! Repent!!"

Yeah. THIS is what I'm getting at. You see, I don't do this to other Christians with whom I generally disagree with over a whole host of things, depending on which denomination they're in. Yeah, I'll harp on hermeneutics as a discipline that I think can help us engage the Bible on a thoughtful level, but this is by no means me pointing out some kind of heterodox beliefs of others.

But they sure do like to do like to exclude each other and berate each other between denomination, and me. It gets kind of tiresome after a while.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Where is it said we are to defend our denominations, let alone a religion, rather than the Gospel of the Kingdom?

That's a useful question, but what happens if we interpolate it just a little:

"Where is it said we are to defend our own personal interpretation, let alone our definitions of the Christian faith, rather than the Gospel of the Kingdom"? ... do you see how your question becomes a self-referential problem?

If I were to ask your question and pose it to others, are they supposed to assume the implication that what I think the Gospel of the Kingdom is, is what it actually is?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Any teaching regardless where it comes from needs to be compared with His Written word (Thy Word is Truth) .... we look for overall consistency within the entirety of His written Word and also pay attention to the context within it was written.

Wouldn't the quality of this comparison be contingent upon how well we understand the Word as well as whether or not what we think is 'the Word' is the Word?

 

[timothyu]

are they supposed to assume the implication that what I think the Gospel of the Kingdom is, is what it actually is?

"Thy Kingdom come, Thy will be done in earth as it is in Heaven". Good news. How many ways does that need be interpreted?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

"Thy Kingdom come, Thy will be done in earth as it is in Heaven". Good news. How many ways does that need be interpreted?

You're question is a form of red-herring here, Tim. You understand why, don't you?