M
mackbrislawn
Guest
The reason some truths were dogmatically defined is because of some challenge to them, and the truth and the challenge must be serious enough to require the controversy to be settled one way or the other.
The canon of the bible is a defined truth and it was necessary to define it because of rival claimants that were thought to be inspired scripture. A decision was necessary for the benefit of the faithful.
The resurrection of Christ has been mentioned on this thread. Christians, Catholic and Protestant alike, believe in the truth of the physical resurrection of Christ. I think we all agree this is a very important truth. Paul: “For if Christ has not been raised, our faith is in vain.”
However, the physical resurrection has been challenged, by the Jehovah’s Witnesses and even by those within the protestant evangelical community itself. A member of the NIV translation committee has written a book, From Grave to Glory, which questions the resurrection. Was it a faith happening? Or real? This is a very important question, and if the crisis becomes great enough, a dogmatic definition may become necessary.
Notice that the Fundamentalists, with their list of the Fundamentals, which were drawn up in response to the modern liberals, have attempted to do this very thing, but theirs is a rear-guard action, since it is without authority.
This shows how an authority is necessary to preserve the truth from challenge. For after all, Jesus said, “You shall know the truth…” and “I shall always be with you…”