fidesquaerens (marta_bee) wrote,

I was cruising a job posting board for philosophy professorships - I'm not on the job market yet, but close enough I like to follow what's out there - and came across one for King's College. At first I thought it was King's College, London, which is a very reputable school I'd love to teach at. It was actually for King's College New York (no affiliation), a Christian college that asks you to subscribe to a statement of faith - a set of doctrinal positions you have to accept or at least in practical terms not complain about too loudly. Which is fine, I guess - I signed one when I worked at Samaritan's Purse and interned at PFI for a while. But when it comes to philosophy postings, I do expect basic logic!

Here's their intro:

The sole basis of our beliefs is the Bible, God’s infallible written Word, the 66 books of the Old and New Testaments. We believe that it was uniquely, verbally and fully inspired by the Holy Spirit, and that it was written without error (inerrant) in the original manuscripts. It is the supreme and final authority in all matters on which it speaks.

We accept those areas of doctrinal teaching on which, historically, there has been general agreement among all true Christians. Because of the specialized calling of our movement, we desire to allow for freedom of conviction on other doctrinal matters, provided that any interpretation is based upon the Bible alone, and that no such interpretation shall become an issue which hinders the ministry to which God has called us. (emphasis mine)

Phrases like "true Christians" give me hives, but that's a side point. One wonders how you will know they are true except through a standard. And as I don't remember anything in Ephesians about the validity of the Council of Trent, I wonder just how they will separate one denomination out from the other. And if the historical agreement among all true Christians before Luther affirmed canonical books like the Maccabees, Canticles, and other books accepted by Catholics but not Protestants - to say nothing of the Eastern Orthodox churches - are we to affirm that the sole basis of our beliefs is not the 66 books? *rolls eyes*

  1. Man’s nature is corrupted, and he is thus totally unable to please God. Every man is in need of regeneration and renewal by the Holy Spirit: so much for Pelagianism (or Marta-farianism, for that matter).

  2. It is the privilege of all who are born again of the Spirit to be assured of their salvation from the very moment in which they trust Christ as their Savior. : There is historical consensus on this point? Many Christian traditions think you can reject or lose your salvation. (Philippians 2:12, anyone?)

  3. Every believer is called to live so in the power of the indwelling Spirit that he will not fulfill the lust of the flesh, but will bear fruit to the glory of God.: "I say to the unmarried and to widows that it is good for them if they remain even as I. But if they do not have self-control, let them marry; for it is better to marry than to burn with passion." (1 Corinthians 7:8-9)

To say nothing of the second coming, meaning of the Great Commission, etc. ... I'm not saying these positions are unassailable, or even true. But there is Christian tradition going against many, many of these vaunted traditions.

Sometimes the arrogance burns us, precious. *gollum*

This entry was originally posted at Please comment there using OpenID.
Tags: religion
  • Post a new comment


    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    default userpic

    Your IP address will be recorded