By: doug

doug — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 17:08:06 +0000

You assume correctly: perhaps I should have spelt it out more fully, but when I spoke of the theologian the theologian who “teases out their implications for the whole corpus of Christian teaching, seeking out either coherence or inconsistency” I meant precisely that kind of question. Ditto for the exegete asking if its a good reading of scripture. I’m not entirely certain these boundaries are “objective”, however, in the sense that our perceptions of where they are and what they are may well shift. I would prefer to see the rule of faith more in terms of a given core to be worked with, rather than a full set of boundaries of an already clearly delimited playing field. Well, let me qualify that: something like the homoousion is a core, something like the various “without”s of the Chalcedonian definition are boundary markers.

By: Phil Sumpter

Phil Sumpter — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 16:30:14 +0000

I’m assuming that you understand this ongoing process to be taking place, or at least should be taking place, within certain constraints. As far as I understand, the ongoing struggle of the church to be a faithful witness takes place with the objective boundaries of a rule of faith. The canon as rule of faith is the arena within which the Holy Spirit works to quicken the witness of the apostles and prophets to enable their message, spoken once and for all, to be actualized afresh in new circumstances. I think issues of normativity and the Holy Spirit need to play a central role in the process.

Comments on: Once again, life more than Bible and theology

By: doug

By: Phil Sumpter