Is the New Testament normative for Christianity?

[Jermyn Davidson]

Sure it is.
Why wouldn't it be?

[seekerman]

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

Sure it is.
Why wouldn't it be?

The question is, who's 'normative'? The Pentecostal's (oneness) 'normative'? The Pentecostal's (trinitarian) 'normative'? The Baptist's 'normative'? The Roman Catholic's 'normative'?

The bible is far from a 'normative' book.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by seekerman

The question is, who's 'normative'? The Pentecostal's (oneness) 'normative'? The Pentecostal's (trinitarian) 'normative'? The Baptist's 'normative'? The Roman Catholic's 'normative'?

The bible is far from a 'normative' book.

The Roman Catholics do not hold the New testament to be 'normative' for Christianity, they maintain Holy Tradition as 'normative'. Doesn't mean they don't use the NT, just that it is not the 'standard' by which faith and practice is determined. In fact, they would argue that Holy Tradition must be normative, because without Tradition there wouldn't be a NT to begin with. So they say, anyway.

By 'normative' I mean 'expressing the rule or standard by which something is measured'. That something is 'faith and practice', ie what we believe and how we serve God.

For the NT to be considered 'normative' one would basically be saying 'the NT tells us what we must believe and how we must believe it, and what we must do to serve God and how we must do it'. Thus one's beliefs and practices as a Christian would be 'authorised' by the NT either by direct statement, necessary inference (stress on 'necessary'), or 'approved example'.

For the NT to simply 'teach general principles but not be normative' this would be saying something like 'the NT teaches various principles, moral, ethical, spiritual, etc, which are put forward as examples of 'truths', but we must find our own way to approach and handle and express those principles if we find them relevant to our time and situation'.

And of course for the NT to 'not be normative' means we believe and practice what we do based upon some other source of information. This and the previous above stated position (general principles) may be closely related (as in the case of catholicism), or may be utterly seperable (as in the case of paganism or certain strains of Judaism, for example).

A person who believes the NT is normative says for example, 'How do I pray? Let me see what the NT says about prayer, and then let me conform myself to what it says and teaches.'

A person who believes the NT expresses general principles says for example, 'How do I pray? Let me see what the NT says about prayer, and then let me adapt that teaching to and combine that teaching with additional sources and resources, traditions, or my own investigative and contemplative reason to determine a course of action.' Or even 'let me see if the NT expresses similar principles or expressions of faith that I have, but if it does not it does not mean I must change.'

Again, I realise it may be a difficult question, likely due to my inability to articulate properly and clearly.

[Esaias]

I guess what I am asking is 'how do we determine our faith and practice'?

[Jermyn Davidson]

Originally Posted by Esaias

I guess what I am asking is 'how do we determine our faith and practice'?

Oh, in that case, the korahn.

[mizpeh]

I choose this option, " A person who believes the NT is normative says for example, 'How do I pray? Let me see what the NT says about prayer, and then let me conform myself to what it says and teaches.'" because...

1) by personal experience I have found that God is real and Jesus is his name.
2) by following the actions and teachings of the NT authors, I have had the similar experience of speaking in other tongues and other experiences of God's presence that convince me of its veracity.

because of these types of things, I believe that the Bible portrays truth/reality and is the inspired word of God.

I know that my personal experiences are subjective but that does not discount their realness to me. The faith of others in the bible is reliant upon the resurrection of Jesus Christ. It's historicity. They make brilliant arguments for the faith of Christ and then for the inspiration of the Bible based on the resurrection but, for me, personal experiences with the Spirit are and have been more influential in guiding me to believe in Christ and that the Bible is the word of God and guides my faith and practice.

[seekerman]

Originally Posted by Esaias

The Roman Catholics do not hold the New testament to be 'normative' for Christianity, they maintain Holy Tradition as 'normative'. Doesn't mean they don't use the NT, just that it is not the 'standard' by which faith and practice is determined. In fact, they would argue that Holy Tradition must be normative, because without Tradition there wouldn't be a NT to begin with. So they say, anyway.

By 'normative' I mean 'expressing the rule or standard by which something is measured'. That something is 'faith and practice', ie what we believe and how we serve God.

For the NT to be considered 'normative' one would basically be saying 'the NT tells us what we must believe and how we must believe it, and what we must do to serve God and how we must do it'. Thus one's beliefs and practices as a Christian would be 'authorised' by the NT either by direct statement, necessary inference (stress on 'necessary'), or 'approved example'.

For the NT to simply 'teach general principles but not be normative' this would be saying something like 'the NT teaches various principles, moral, ethical, spiritual, etc, which are put forward as examples of 'truths', but we must find our own way to approach and handle and express those principles if we find them relevant to our time and situation'.

And of course for the NT to 'not be normative' means we believe and practice what we do based upon some other source of information. This and the previous above stated position (general principles) may be closely related (as in the case of catholicism), or may be utterly seperable (as in the case of paganism or certain strains of Judaism, for example).

A person who believes the NT is normative says for example, 'How do I pray? Let me see what the NT says about prayer, and then let me conform myself to what it says and teaches.'

A person who believes the NT expresses general principles says for example, 'How do I pray? Let me see what the NT says about prayer, and then let me adapt that teaching to and combine that teaching with additional sources and resources, traditions, or my own investigative and contemplative reason to determine a course of action.' Or even 'let me see if the NT expresses similar principles or expressions of faith that I have, but if it does not it does not mean I must change.'

Again, I realise it may be a difficult question, likely due to my inability to articulate properly and clearly.

I think the question is what each Christian sect considers normative. You mentioned prayer. Which prayer, now to pray, ect. Some Christian sects discourage their members to pray vocally during service, others encourage it. Which is normal? What does the bible teach? Are we to repeat the Lord's prayer, how often. Do we pray openly or in our closet. What's normative.

Same thing with baptism. Must it be total immersion or sprinkling. What must the baptzor and baptizee do during the baptismal process. What's normative.

It depends on one's view of scripture, their understanding of scripture. I believe normative is virtually unknown in the entirety of the Christian movement.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by seekerman

I think the question is what each Christian sect considers normative. You mentioned prayer. Which prayer, now to pray, ect. Some Christian sects discourage their members to pray vocally during service, others encourage it. Which is normal? What does the bible teach? Are we to repeat the Lord's prayer, how often. Do we pray openly or in our closet. What's normative.

Same thing with baptism. Must it be total immersion or sprinkling. What must the baptzor and baptizee do during the baptismal process. What's normative.

It depends on one's view of scripture, their understanding of scripture. I believe normative is virtually unknown in the entirety of the Christian movement.

I think you are confusing 'normal' with 'normative'.

In all the cases you cited, *if* each group believes the NT instructs them to do things the way they do, then the NT is normative. Normative does not imply 'correct understanding of the NT's actual standard', rather that the NT is the authoritative standard for faith and practice.

For example, the constitution is considered 'normative' to many Americans, who nevertheless differ in their interpretation of what that normative document actually requires.

[seekerman]

Originally Posted by Esaias

I think you are confusing 'normal' with 'normative'.

In all the cases you cited, *if* each group believes the NT instructs them to do things the way they do, then the NT is normative. Normative does not imply 'correct understanding of the NT's actual standard', rather that the NT is the authoritative standard for faith and practice.

For example, the constitution is considered 'normative' to many Americans, who nevertheless differ in their interpretation of what that normative document actually requires.

I was just attempting to point out that normative is subjective.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by seekerman

I was just attempting to point out that normative is subjective.

Not in relation to this poll, however.



What I mean is, I am using 'normative' in the sense I have tried to describe, as meaning a 'standard or rule of faith and practice', the 'touch-stone' by which faith and practice is to be measured.

How people interpret the actual statements of that 'standard' is another question, insofar as their understanding of what the NT is actually teaching.