RE: What are the Characteristics of a NT Christian?
April 5, 2017 at 10:04 am
(This post was last modified: April 5, 2017 at 10:23 am by Neo-Scholastic.)
SteveII, you have identified a helpful list of orthopraxy, but remain silent about orthodoxy. Is it not also true that these "fruits" are expected to follow from knowledge God's Grace, Christ's work on the Cross, and true repentance?
Nevertheless, it is true that many atheist biblical skeptics have an extremely rigid and myopic way of looking at the Word. They get very upset with and dismissive towards Christians who take a more nuanced approach. For example, I am reading a book about debt in the ancient world. It really illuminates many parts of scripture - from the Law of Jubilee to the 1st century perspective on God's role as redeemer. Meanwhile skeptics are fixated on rabbits chewing cud. They cannot fathom our unity on the plain, clear, and central teachings of the Word, like the historical truth of a physical Resurrection, while still retaining our ability to have civil ecumenical discussions about minor doctrines, like total depravity, annihilation, infant baptism, etc. For them it is "all or nothing."
On AF at least, I hear a lot of contempt towards less intellectual believers who, in the opinion of AF members, have not sufficiently examined their beliefs. That contempt so common among AF members rests on the irrational and unreasonable notion that any and all beliefs must be justified by classical foundationalism. My parents and many other very good people have never even heard of Hume or Locke, yet still manage to live the Gospel everyday of their lives with a degree of piety I wish I could share. Not everyone justifies their faith intellectually; but rather, by daily experience. And that seems to be your point, that a fair evaluation of Christianity must consider the behavior and actions of those who live most fervently apply the Gospel to their lives rather than build-up edifices of intellectual arguments.
Nevertheless, it is true that many atheist biblical skeptics have an extremely rigid and myopic way of looking at the Word. They get very upset with and dismissive towards Christians who take a more nuanced approach. For example, I am reading a book about debt in the ancient world. It really illuminates many parts of scripture - from the Law of Jubilee to the 1st century perspective on God's role as redeemer. Meanwhile skeptics are fixated on rabbits chewing cud. They cannot fathom our unity on the plain, clear, and central teachings of the Word, like the historical truth of a physical Resurrection, while still retaining our ability to have civil ecumenical discussions about minor doctrines, like total depravity, annihilation, infant baptism, etc. For them it is "all or nothing."
On AF at least, I hear a lot of contempt towards less intellectual believers who, in the opinion of AF members, have not sufficiently examined their beliefs. That contempt so common among AF members rests on the irrational and unreasonable notion that any and all beliefs must be justified by classical foundationalism. My parents and many other very good people have never even heard of Hume or Locke, yet still manage to live the Gospel everyday of their lives with a degree of piety I wish I could share. Not everyone justifies their faith intellectually; but rather, by daily experience. And that seems to be your point, that a fair evaluation of Christianity must consider the behavior and actions of those who live most fervently apply the Gospel to their lives rather than build-up edifices of intellectual arguments.
