Are You a Biblical Christian or a Doctrinal Christian?

I was thinking today that there seems to be two different types of Christians, Biblical and Doctrinal.

A Doctrinal Christian is one who when there seems to be a difference between what he believes and what the Bible says doubts the Bible first.

A Biblical Christian is one who when there seems to be a difference between what he believes and what the Bible says doubts his beliefs first.

And for those who think that what they believe and what the bible says always is the same, so this would never come up, assume this is a hypothetical and it did happen, in that case, which do you think would be more likely to be wrong the Bible or your beliefs?


Myself, I think that I’m a Biblical Christian, because almost everyday I make slight adjustments to my beliefs, to bring what I believe into closer harmony with the Bible.

 

I'm a doctrinal christian, if you want to call it that. God is far too huge to fit into a finite book.

 

So how did you become a Christian and how does the Bible fit into your being a Christian, if you don't mind me asking? Just wondering.

 

Well as a Catholic I believe that any dogma taught by the Church is infallible, just as Jesus taught his Church would be. All Catholic doctrine has basis in the Bible and Sacred Tradition (the fullness of revelation, second to Jesus Christ).

 

So are you saying that you are more of a Doctrinal Christian?

 

No.

All dogma is rooted in the Bible or in Sacred Tradition (2 Thess 2:15). Therefore I am a Biblical Christian, as are all faithful Catholics.

 

Hmm, interesting scripture, then do you also follow the scripture in Acts 17:11 when you are being taught your Sacred Oral Tradition or do you just accept it because it is Sacred Tradition?

 

Yes, but this still does not disprove Sacred Oral Tradition that is apart from Sacred Written Tradition.

"Scripture" here refers to the LXX mos likely (and not the Hebrew text), and not the books of the New Testament which were no written yet at the time Paul was preaching.

Also, how was Written Tradition decided? It was decided through revelation an Sacred Tradition. Why was "Thomas'" Gospel not included, well because it did not fit with what god revealed, not wrote, to the members of the Council. If we apply what John writes at the end of his book to the rest of the Bible, not everything that we must believe is in Scripture, but things are written so we come to believe.

James 4:5 appeals to writings not in Biblical canon as authoritative. 2 Peter 3:16 indicated that we cannot solely rely on the Holy Spirit to interpret canonical writings. If we use the Bible o help us interpret, then we mus use something to interpret the helping passage. Then we must find another to help interpret this passage---to infinity. The correct way to interpret comes from the traditions of the successors from the apostles.

 

Still the question in the poll would come down to, if push came to shove would you accept Sacred Oral Tradition over Sacred Written Tradition or vice versa?

So the books of the Bible written after Paul are not scripture?

I’ve always felt God had a hand in deciding what should be kept as Written “Tradition”.

As for what John said, it seems to me that he is saying that Jesus did a lot of other things but it’s not necessary to know it all but that what is necessary has been written down.

The scriptures you use here seem to be stretched a little thin to cover your point.

Successors from the apostles, now who would that be?
If you are talking about the line of Popes, personally I would apply what Jesus said: “By their fruits you will recognize them” and even you would have to admit some of the Popes have indeed produced some bad fruitage.

 

I generally meant all the bishops. Timothy and the others. Peters successors are Popes, but the others are other bishops

It is all interpretation OWB. I choose to follow the interpretation that has not changed in 2000 years.

 

It's not whether it has changed or not but whose interpretation it is, where it has lead in the past and where it's taking you now.

 

my beliefs are drugs, sex and Rock n Roll but the bible is against that.....

 

If anything, the Bible is FOR Rock n roll. And the God of the Bible just thinks that there are higher levels of love that would be more beneficial for us than the lower forms.

 

I accept evolution. Does that make me doctrinal?

 

At least in that you would be more doctrinal than Biblical.

 

I am a Biblical Christian. Why follow the ways of man when man is fallible and may lead us to our fall, when we can go straight to the source and follow the direct words of the Lord, who can never cause us to fall?

 

:cheers2:

 

Do not put YOUR trust in nobles, Nor in the son of earthling man, to whom no salvation belongs. His spirit goes out, he goes back to his ground; In that day his thoughts do perish. (Psalm 146:3-4)

 

But the "Oral Traditions" were the JEWISH Traditions ~ no Church while Paul was preaching and teaching, right? Not to mention the fact that Jesus, Himself, was born into Judiasm.

Do you honestly believe that Catholocism hasn't changed it's precepts in 2K years?

Where:

???

 

Biblical, for sure!

God IS Truth,

His Word contains only the truth,

He can make it say whatever He wants it to say,

to each and every person that reads/hears it,

and just because i don't personally understand ALL about it,

yet,

doesn't make it false.