technical question on capitalizing the "T"

[George Demetrion]

Good evening all,
 
When referring to the T/trinity in print, is the proper usage capital or lower case "t"?
 
Thanks,
 
George Demetrion

[Willis E. Elliott]

Capital, signifying identity; "trinity" signifies quantity.

 

Grace and peace--

Willis

---

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.425 / Virus Database: 270.14.81/2524 - Release Date: 11/24/09 19:37:00

[fcba%40comcast.net]

Here are some examples in Systematic Theologies:

 

T in Pannenberg III,  160

T in Jensen  II, 19

T in Fackre I, 59

T in Bloesch III, 36

 

All of these theologians used "T" and no "t." That would settle it for me.

 

Chris Anderson

[bct...@aol.com]

Dear George, Chris, Willis, and others,

 

Yes for the capital "T" in the word "Trinity," for the reasons Chris and Willis gave, among others. 

 

"Trinity" with the capital "T" is used when we are saying something about God or naming God as Christians understand God (e.g. the Triune God or the Christian Trinity), or when we write about the doctrine (e.g. the doctrine of the Trinity or Trinitarian doctrine), or in related instances.

 

The word "trinity" with a lower case "t" can refer to other "trinities," including those believed in by philosophers or theologians who believe that "trinities" exist in the world, in human nature, and in the divine.  I would say, in addition to what Willis said, that the usages I am describing here are not simply related to "quantity." They too are related to how people understand God, human beings, and creation.  Even Christian theologians and philosophers see multiple "trinities" even if there is only one Trinity.

 

I am in North Carolina for my annual week-long Thanksgiving visit, and I had a fascinating, and unexpected, discussion about the Trinity and other theological matters in a used bookstore yesterday.   A man observed me scouring the "religion" section and wanted to know whether I was studying for pleasure or other reasons, so I told him a bit about myself and my interest in the Trinity.  He had grown up in India, living among Hindus and Buddhists, and his name was Ali, and he seemed somewhat knowledgeable about things, but when I asked him about his religious affiliation, he said he didn't have one. 

 

He asked me about the Trinity, and said it was mysterious, and asked if I was going to "solve it," which I wasn't quite sure about.  But I did tell him about my interests and research, and at towards the end, he said, "don't make any enemies."  When I asked him what he meant, he said that people had been fighting, including going to war, about dogma and words for centuries, and some people like to impose their ideas on others, even by force.  I thought that was interesting, given that such tragic events have taken place in Christian history, including over Christological and Trinitarian doctrine.  So I assured him that my goal was not to create enemies.

 

At any rate, he and I had a long and interesting discussion, and we parted amicably.  I left him with the impression that when I "solve" the "mystery" of the Trinity, I am going to return to the bookshop to let him know.  Maybe the "same time next year." 

 

Blessings to you all in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit,

 

Jane

[Willis E. Elliott]

All true & well-said, Jane.  A blessed Thanksgiving (cap "T") with whomever in NC!

 

Grace and peace--

Willis

[fcba%40comcast.net]

Jane,

 

Your conversation reminds me of a conversation I had with an atheistic used book store owner in Amsterdam, Holland. He discovered my interest in the Heidelberg Catechism and he gave me this joke I put in my first volume of jokes.

 

Q. Does God believe in God?

A. No, God isn't that stupid.

 

Though the best insight comes from Barth's CD I 1 p. 245

"Man believes, not God."

 

Chris Anderson

----- Original Message -----
From: bct...@aol.com
To: confessi...@googlegroups.com

[Willis E. Elliott]

Jane 

 

Since your central theme is the Trinity, you are keenly aware of what Muslims do with this doctrine.

 

In "Muslim Followers of Jesus?" (pp34-37 Dec/09 Christianity Today), a Yale scholar (Joseph Cumming) details the current five forms of religion between Christianity & Islam.  "Messianic Muslims" consider themselves Muslims as much as "Messianic Jews" consider themselves Christians.

 

Grace and peace--

Willis

----- Original Message -----

From: Willis E. Elliott

To: confessi...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Wednesday, November 25, 2009 7:57 AM

Subject: Re: technical question on capitalizing the "T"

All true & well-said, Jane.  A blessed Thanksgiving (cap "T") with whomever in NC!

 

Grace and peace--

Willis

[herb.davis]

Sermon Note: Ded 6, Second Sunday in advent, Lu.3:1-6

St. Luke is setting the context for the advent of Jesus Christ.  This is no spiritual event but an invasion of history.  We are being prepared for the expansion of the faith not only to the poor, lame, blind but to city official, powerful woman, high priest, kings and finally the Emperor himself.  Luke is truly inclusive not only geographical but also social, political and economical. "In the fifteenth year of the reign of Emperor Tiberius, when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea, and Herod ruse ruler of Galilee, and..." 3:1

 

John's witness is a ministry of preparation. He is proclaiming a baptism of repentance.  He is calling Israel to prepare for the word to be written on their hearts.  John's ministry is not the church's ministry.  We should not wallow in repentance.  Our sacramental meal is not a table of repentance, our baptism is not a baptism of repentance.  We celebrate the new creation that John was announcing.  We celebrate our union with Christ.  We should not continue the ministry of John.

 

But John's ministry also remind us that the blinders have been wiped away.  We need to know that the barrier to receiving salvation have been removed.  The valleys are filled, the crooked way made straight, the rough ways made smooth, "so all flesh shall see the salvation of God." 3:6  

 

So with the bushes cut down, the way opened up and the obstacles removed it a great time to be preaching the Gospel.  

 

Any additions or correction?  Any liturgical resources? Peace, Herb  

 

[John Cedarleaf]

Herb:

John points to the one who is to come; getting people ready to receive
him. I'm curious though when you say that our ministry is different from
John's.Yes, it is, but when you comment on repentance, what about
confession, absolution, as preparation for the Eucharist; also what
about the old Reformed preparation service for Holy Communion?

John

[link...@aol.com]

Dear Herb,

In all humility and with great respect for you, I have to say that you
are absolutely wrong when you say that "our baptism is not a baptism
of repentance." If we follow Jesus Christ as His disciples into the
water, as He himself was baptized by John in repsonse to John's
preaching, then ours too is a baptism of repentance,and, coming out of
the water, we follow Jesus Christ Himself who, when John had completed
his work in being arrested, ""from that time Jesus began to proclaim,
"Repent, for the kingdom of heaven has come near." (Mt. 4:17) The "New
Creation" was Himself baptized in the waters, repenting! How shall we
be in Him a "new creation" without repentance, and how shall we repent
save by beginning with baptism in the waters, confessing our sins?
Repent, believing the good news!

God bless!

Jim Link

> > Any additions or correction?  Any liturgical resources? Peace, Herb  - Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[link...@aol.com]

Dear Herb, P.S. With respect to the Lord's Supper, in preaching about
repentance in sermons I have several times linked John's Isaiah-
fulfilling preaching such that "every valley shall be lifted" with
the sursum corde "Lift up your hearts!"

Jim

> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[herb.davis]

Dear Jim and John, I may have miss spoke but I think this is a critical
question. Is our ministry the same as John's, if not how is it different?
John's ministry was a ministry of repentance to the people of Israel this
certainly can't be our ministry. Is Christian baptism the same as John's
baptism, even he says it is different (I baptism with water but one come who
...).

I think for many the Lord's Supper is a penitential rite. It is hard to
sense great joy at the meal, there is seldom any dancing and I think this
maybe rooted in too much focus on repentance. Luther, it is said, use to
dash into the Eucharist at the last moment to receive the body and blood
missing the confessional rite so that he could make no claim to his
goodness.

I think we maybe missing something here. Is there any help out there?
Peace, Herb

--

[link...@aol.com]

Dear Herb,

Like John the Baptist, Jesus disciples, you and I "baptize with water"
do we not? He, Jesus Christ, baptizes with the Holy Spirit! That is
the difference between John (and our) baptism and that of Jesus Christ
Himself. The difference between John's baptizing and our own baptizing
is that he baptized with water in prospect of God's judgement, whereas
we baptize in retrospect to God's judgment, which awaits revelation to
the whole world at the final coming of Jesus Christ in glory. This
results in a change in tone and emphasis, but not in substance. I
think that you are right that the note of joy should sound now more
loudly and clearly, because we now live live this side of the cross,
our side and not John's side, revealed in the resurrection as Jesus
Christ's obedient judgment over sin. But to turn in joy to God remains
repentance. Indeed, even in John's preaching, how could repentance be
rooted in anything else than thankfulness for God's work among Israel,
harrrowing as it might be, in anticipation of his revelation not just
to the church as it comes forth from Israel, but to the entire
Universe?

I am on the same page with you regarding the Lord's Supper, it is to
be a glad celebration in the presence of our resurrected Lord. But, as
I said, "Lift up your heart!" is a call to repentance, as is the call
to bow before the majesty of God and receive Christ's body and blood
from His own hand with brothers and sisters around His table, "Every
mountain and hill shall be brought low!" The act of gathering together
at His Table is itself an act of repentance: head lifting, knee
bowing, truth acknowleging with open hands and mouth repentance. The
act speaks for itself, I don't think we need there "a confessional
rite." The act itself is confessional: thus doing, "we proclaim the
death of the Lord until he comes."

Jim Link

[John Cedarleaf]

Herb,

I may also have misspoken in my comments. My head was a bit foggy
yesterday. Indeed our ministry is different than John's because we are
post resurrection. You are also right re: repentance. Perhaps one of the
"down sides" of our Reformed heritage is this emphasis. I love the
Luther story. Maybe we should from time to time not do the confession of
sin in the morning service. I've noticed, as you have, that indeed it is
a penetential rite for many. In fact in past exepereinces, I've noticed
that on communion Sundays there is less attendance, rather than more.
Perhaps "I am not worthy I am not worthy....." is too much for some.

We do communion each Wed. at noon and use the BOW "Brief Order for the
Service of Word and Sacrament." The Confession of Sin begins with
"Jesus, I am not worthy to have you come under my roof." and the
response: "But only say the word and your servant will be healed." I do
like, though the ending of the Invitation: "Come to this table, then,
sisters and brothers as you are. Partake and share. It is spread for you
and me that we might again know that God has come to us, shared our
common lot and invited us to join the people of God's new age."

We're probably missing a lot.

John

[The Right Rev'd Richard Hammond Price, OCC, Abbot, Order of Corpus Christi]

John:

You have touched on one of the most powerful moments in the
eucharistic liturgy when at the point of the fraction of the host,
the celebrant elevates both the host and the cup, with words such as
"The gifts of God, for the people of God." The assembly responds,
"Lord, I am not worth to receive you, but only say the word and I
shall be healed." Then the Agnus Dei is sung. "Lamb of God, who
takes away the sin of the world, have mercy upon us." We come to the
feast confessing our sin and our need to be made new, and are made so
through the Body and Blood of our Lord.

Perhaps the reason that this is too much for some is that many
churches and clergy have historically and to this present day
marginalize the sacrament in life of congregations through a lack of
catechesis and infrequent celebrations.

+Richard

[Jean Easland]

Herb: Both John and Jesus are messengers. John shines the light on the path
to the Holy God and Jesus is the LIGHT who stands at the door inviting us to
open it and take on the spiritual struggle. He offers faith and freedom on
the journey. Thanks for your affirmation of the Apostles Creed as a source
for fundamental and orthodox faith.----------the prairie wind is howling
today blowing the doors off a great 3 weeks of gorgeous weather-------------
cranky old man winter is muscling in and eating up our heat!!---------- Such
rich voices on line -------thanks to all----roger

[herb.davis]

Dear Jim, I think we are miles apart on this issue. I see repentance as
Paul sees circumcise. It's a barrier to God's act in Jesus Christ. It is
an act I can point to so that I can claim my baptism or salvation. It leads
to subjective soul searching and never ending speculation on the character
of my repentance. Because my repentance does not stop me from sinning my
guilt is increased and my uncertainty of God's grace makes one anxious. So
there is little joy in our lives and a constant longing to do better.
John's ministry is a one of judgment and repentance. It is baptism of
repentance for those who are in the covenant. Our ministry is a baptism
into a dying with Christ and a resurrection in Christ through the Holy
Spirit. In our baptism we have an intimate union with Christ. Christ alone
is our righteousness. Paul cries out, "Who will rescue from the body of
death?" not repentance but Jesus Christ our Lord, because the judgment
directed not to us but on Jesus Christ.

Repentance takes on a more deadly effect in a church that is focused on
ethics and morality. It just hard for us to enjoy God. Peace, Herb
---> --

[link...@aol.com]

Dear Herb,

So, what do you make of Acts 2:37ff? and similar calls to repentance
in the NT, including Paul's letters, including the one to the "foolish
Galatians? "Now when they heard all this [Peter's sermon, the Word of
God preached] they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the
rest of the apostles. 'Brethren, what shall we do?' Peter said to
them, 'Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus
Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the
gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is to you and to your
children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God
calls to him.' And he testified with many other words and exhorted
them, saying, 'Save yourself from this crooked generation.'"

And, in fact, you are self-contradictory in this matter, for you seem
to be calling the "moralistic" church to repent of its moralism!!!

I fully agree with Calvin that God's forgiveness precedes and is the
foundation of repentance, and I also agree with him that we are
forgiven in the sense that we may enter into newness of life, which,
in this age, always involves the "mortification of the flesh." As
Barth was fond of saying, because we may, we must, and that must, the
command rooted in the Gospel, the imperative rooted in the indicative,
is a call to turn from our false selves to our true God.

Jim

[herb.davis]

Dear John, Thanks for your comments on the confession. As you can see I am
confused on this issue since I love the confessional rite in the liturgy.
It simply reminds us who we are, and the "magnitude of my sin and
wretchedness" (Heidelberg question 2). The focus should be on the Word
said, "Grace and truth in Jesus Christ" we are welcome. But it is
interesting to me as I worship in different congregations I often see some
creative confessions, the seem to me to embellish our sin, often increasing
the guilt, rather than a simple statement of fact. Sometimes there even a
silent confession, pushing the congregation to a deeper examination of the
self. The sad part is there is little joy or excitement or awe in the
Assurance of Pardon. The confession takes center stage, we become the spot
light, it is our sin that is exciting rather that the unbelievable good news
of great Joy that unto us is born a Savior for sinners.

Just in passing it is interesting to note that the Saints did beat the
sinners on Monday night. Maybe that is a sign. Peace, Herb

[John Cedarleaf]

Dear Herb:
It is a dilemma isn't it? I remember someone saying to me a long time
ago that we should do the assurance of pardon first and then the
confession. Interesting! The thing I've found over the last forty years
in the three churches I've served is that a lot of people don't like the
confession because they don't think they need to confess anything.
Perhaps this is because they can't identify with the creative
confessions which sometimes give us a laundry list of how rotten we are.
How great to focus on the joy in the assurance of pardon.

Blessings,
John

[fcba%40comcast.net]

Dear Herb & Jim,

 

I am very interested in this conversation.I hate to bring this up but Calvin seems to be on Jim's side!!!!! (Oh I hate it when Jim is right!!!!)  ;-)

 

"By this also we are assured that John's ministry was exactly the same as that afterward committed to the apostles...John and the apostles agreed on one doctrine: both baptized to repentance...Therefore, let no one be troubled by the attempt of ancient writers to differentiate the one thing from the other." (Institutes IV xv 7)

 

"John did not mean to distinguish one sort of baptism from another, but he compared his person with that of Christ -- that he was a minister of water, but Christ the giver of the Holy Spirit..." (IV xv 8)

 

Though these quotes would side with Jim there is one qoute that sides with Herb.

 

"Therefore, there is not doubt that all pious folk throughout life, whenever they are troubled by a consciousness of their faults, may venture to remind themselves of their baptism, that from it they may be confirmed in assurance of that sole and perpetual cleansing wich we have in Christ's blood." (IV xv 4)

 

Jim wants to emphasis the connection to repentance...which is there.

 

Herb worries about works righteousness arising out of our subjectively trying to gage how good our repentance is.

 

They are both valid concerns but Herb's divorcing baptism from repentance goes too far. Though I do always remember what Pastor Stephen Brown says..."If you are really preaching justification by faith it will often sound like heresy."

 

Great conversation....keep it up!!!!

 

Chris Anderson

 

----- Original Message -----
From: link...@aol.com
To: "Confessing Christ Open Forum" <confessi...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 2, 2009 8:30:35 AM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: Re: Sermon Note: Dec. 6, Second Sunday in advent, Lu.3:1-6

[link...@aol.com]

Dear Chris, Herb and John,

I think the great faithfulness of Luther and Calvin to the NT was
their acknowlegment of God's forgiveness coming before, and indeed,
awakening, our repentance, repentance being our faithful response to
God's forgiveness in Jesus Christ. And when I first read Barth
recommending that the confession of sin come only after the sermon as
an assurance of the pardon of our sins revealed in the gospel, I
thought, "That's the Reformation right there!"

John's message as we hear it in Luke this week does have to be heard
in light of Jesus Christ having himself been baptized, the one alone
whose baptism, as the beginning of his public ministry completed upon
the cross, and revealed in the resurrection, is the source of
salvation for us all. There is a wide-spread moralistic mishearing of
John and the call to repentance that thinks we are forgiven because of
the worthiness or depth of our unhappiness over our sin: "Say you're
sorry!" Yet, there is a right preaching of the call to repentance, as
a faithful response to the forgiveness of sins. "What then shall we
do?" Perhaps Herb, you are right: "Stop being so very moralistic!"
And, yet, there are a lot of closets out there with far more than too
coats, and a lot of brothers and sisters out there with none!

Jim

On Dec 2, 9:36 am, "fcba%40comcast.net" <f...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Dear Herb & Jim,
>
> I am very interested in this conversation.I hate to bring this up but Calvin seems to be on Jim's side!!!!! (Oh I hate it when Jim is right!!!!)  ;-)
>
> "By this also we are assured that John's ministry was exactly the same as that afterward committed to the apostles...John and the apostles agreed on one doctrine: both baptized to repentance...Therefore, let no one be troubled by the attempt of ancient writers to differentiate the one thing from the other." (Institutes IV xv 7)
>

> "Jo hn did not mean to distinguish one sort of baptism from another, but he compared his person with that of Christ -- that he was a minister of water, but Christ the giver of the Holy Spirit..." (IV xv 8)
>
> Though these quotes would side with Ji m there is one qoute that sides with Herb.

> > ---> --- Hide quoted text -

[Jean Easland]

Herb: I agree with the substance of your post. The text says however that---
John was proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of
sins.NRSV so is he not shinning the light on the grace that follows him in
Jesus Christ who completes the work of salvation FOR US. We can not escape
the prevailing persistence of original sin wsocially and the reality of
volitional sin personally. Both are defeated in our baptism into Jesus
Christ and the sending of the Spirit of Life in regeneration, God the Holy
Spirit baptises us with the love of Jesus.. I' not so sure about the seal of
the Spirit but I am sure that we should dance at the Meal of Thanksgiving!
If we have overbalanced our ministry/preaching/teaching on moral
righteousness---soul sickness is sure to follow BUT the LITURGY should save
us along with the Spirits indwelling infilling. The temptation to cheap
grace however can throw us back to a shallow Jesus. Ahhhhh what do I know
I'm just a cow man. Peace Brother Herb and Love-----------Roger

[herb.davis]

Dear Jim, Chris, John, Roger and others,

I am trapped, surrounded by Calvin, Jim and Chris. Where oh where is Luther
when I need him. Where is the one who said "sin boldly". The evidence
seems solid I probably should repent but when you paint yourself into a
corner ask for clarification. What do you folks mean by repentance?

Jesus comes preaching, "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God has
come near, repent, and believe in the good news." Mk 1:15. What does
repent mean here in relationship to the kingdom and the good news?

Jim mentioned Peter's sermon to the Jews, which would be similar to John
preaching to the Jews and the response is, "Repent and be baptized... so
that your sins maybe forgiven." What sins is Peter talking about? Is it
the breaking of the 10 commandments? Is that what we repent or has the
power of SIN (SIN not as evil acts but as a power) been broken.

Now I want to suggest the repentance might be changing gangs. Changing from
the gang who are victims and righteous to the gang of sinners who need
grace. Changing from the gang who live by power and fear to the gang that
live by love and hope "For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor
uncircumcision counts for anything; the only thing that counts is faith
working through love." Gal. 5:21)

Just to hold off my defeat I am seeking clarification, hoping Luther will
come to my aid. I need to write another sermon note and I still think John
is moralist. Peace, Herb

-

[Bct...@aol.com]

Dear Herb,

 

I can't help much with this debate, but I will offer you something that suggests a two-way street. 

 

If the Greek word used for repentance in Mk 1:15 and other passages suggests both "changing one's mind" and "feeling remorse, repenting, and being converted," as described in a Greek lexicon, then one of its suggested meanings is for human beings to "turn around."  Or, better yet, for some of you out there, "to be turned around."  We can let Chris argue the Arminian vs. Calvinist perspectives on who does the turning!

 

I like the concept of "turning," and I wanted to share with you something from one of my favorite passages, one that is part of my regular devotionals.  I read Psalm 25:11-18 on most days, and I love this part:

 

"Turn to me and be gracious to me, for I am lonely and afflicted.  Relieve the troubles of my heart, and bring me out of my distress.  Consider my affliction and trouble, and forgive all my sins."

 

I love the idea that God turns to us. 

 

"Turn to me and be gracious to me..."

 

What a wonderful thought. 

 

Of course, you can argue that God has never turned away.  Or that God doesn't turn, because God is motionless and never changes. 

 

But I like the idea that God might turn to me and be gracious to me --- with all that follows this in the Psalm, including bringing me out of my distress, and forgiving all my sins.

 

So I offer this as part of a two-way street, in response to your postings about how you don't want people to wallow or dwell on their repentance or the negative side of things.  We can turn away from the things that take us away from God --- or we can ask God to help us turn away from them.  And we can pray that God will turn to us.  Maybe it's a mutual turning, as we turn and return to God.  Although, again, I like to think that God has never left us or turned away, even while I love to think of God turning to us and being gracious to us. 

 

So, it's not Luther, but these are just some early morning reflections.

 

And in response to your posting below, I am not sold on the "changing gangs" concept as you have described it, because it seems to me that you are describing gangs that we all are part of, simultaneously.  I guess, just as a thought, that I would say that we change gangs by joining Jesus' gang, or the gang of the Triune God.  Then we can try to live by faith in hope and love.  But even as we do, we are still part of the human gang, and we share the characteristics of the gangs that you describe below. 

 

Jane

[Bct...@aol.com]

Timing is everything!  After I wrote the attached posting, I then went on to read the lectionary readings for today, from the UCC's calendar of prayer. One of them is Malachi 3:5-12.  And guess what, it's about a two-way street of people returning to God, and God returning to people!  And yet, even with God returning to them, the passage still says that God does not change! 

 

Here is Malachi 3:6-7:

 

"For I the LORD do not change; therefore you, O children of Jacob, have not perished.  Ever since the days of your ancestors you have turned aside from my statutes and have not kept them.  Return to me, and I will return to you, says the LORD of hosts.  But you say, 'How shall we return?'"

 

Just thought I'd share this with the group. 

 

Jane

______________________________________________________

[Jean Easland]

Herb: I think what you were addressing was something about the quandary the
"liberal" church finds itself in. After years of having a solid and
prophetic voice to political institutions it now finds itself in deep
decline and it spokes persons marginalized as just partisans of culture war
issues. All pastors have been discredited by sexual scandals of various
kinds and secular pluralism has taken authority away from the Bible and the
Church. The attempt by the Religious Right to replace a central voice for
Christianity has mostly failed because of it's own fractured voice. The
Orthodox and Roman Church still has some weight at the global level places
of dialogue but humanism is still so strong in Europe and the USA that
agnosticism and atheism are now "legitimate" options of "faith". The failure
of the ecumenical movement of which Gabe Fackre was our Champion is reaping
the bitter fruit of divisions in Christianity persist. Our Reformed theology
of sovereignty and the authority of Scripture is our hope. I am using the
Luke text to preach/teach on the doctrine of original sin, a foundation of
all orthodoxy. We have a whole generation of church go-rs who have let this
doctrine go as naive. Johns' call for repentance is universal and time-less
save the Second Coming. The Liberal Church is not satisfied to let the STORY
tell itself and trust the results in the hearts of congregants and whole
communities of faith. Faith itself and Christian freedom based in the
Trinity still are the ONLY hope for the world. ----- -----I had a dream last
night that I still had a bunch of cow to calve out---------------then I
dreamed I was hauling a load of big corner posts and the hoist on the truck
came up and unloaded the whole load on the highway--------then I woke up
with the anxiety of UNFINISHED WORK! The fields are white for the harvest my
sisters and brothers in Christ. The Church needs some new corner posts in
its fences of sound doctrine-------and their are lots of souls that need to
be BORN OF THE SPIRIT!-------- this----- is------ not---------
rocket----------- science------------------------------- love roger

----- Original Message -----
From: "herb.davis" <herb....@mindspring.com>
To: <confessi...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2009 10:05 PM
Subject: RE: Sermon Note: Dec. 6, Second Sunday in advent, Lu.3:1-6

[link...@aol.com]

Dear Herb,

Not to be disrespectful, but I think that before we consider Jesus'
preaching in Mk 1:15 we need to consider John's preaching (Mk 1:4).
Indeed, all the Gospels place Jesus' preaching within the context of
John's! In other words, we will hear Mk 1:15 only if we take to heart
Mk 1:4, we will hear Jesus only as he is surrounded by John! John
baptized Jesus with water, Jesus who baptizes with the Holy Spirit!
This offended John, let it not offend us! This is the humility of
Christ the incarnate. And, indeed, if anyone perfectly answered John's
call to repentance, it was Jesus Christ Himself.

In order to understand "repentance" let me focus on Lk 3:3 from this
week's lesson: "He [John] went into the whole region around the
Jordan, preaching a baptism of repentance toward the forgiveness of
sins. Luke-Acts has it in common with Matthew and Mark that Jesus
public ministry began by his being baptized in response to John's
preaching. And John himself preached because of "the word of God"
coming to him in the midst of a very particular historical period of
orderly Roman rule and a priestly dynasty in power in Judea. This
preaching is a new thing, but bears an echo of the prophets of old and
was even foretold by Isaiah. The wilderness makes John an outsider,
but not to the Scriptures, for transition from bondage, though new, is
of old. Repentance comes about when the Word is preached, and it is a
new Word of the Word of old.

The content of Johns preaching is this: "a baptism of repentance
toward the forgiveness of sins." Notice that repentance, founded in
the forgiveness of sins, as we all agree, is to take a very concrete
form: baptism in water. Submitting to God's judgement, becoming a
servant rather than any enemy of God, paving the way for the coming of
God, repenting, is to take a very specific new form: baptism in
water. And this is the very thing Jesus Christ does: he submits
himself baptised in water by John.

Of course, there are other fruits of repentance, baptism is not to be
a hypocritical new religious observance: bear fruit that befits
repentance. Live a life that serves God, rather than blocks the way of
grace. (Calvin (!) wrote this in his Harmony: "The same voice sounds
daily in our ears, to prepare a way for the Lord, that is removing the
faults that stop the way of the Kingdom of God, we may make access for
His grace."

Repentance is thus to be, in your words, "God's gang" of His servants,
and the form in which this is to begin, in our following of Jesus
Christ, is in our being baptized in water, "praying" with him and a
the crowds he joined in the Jordan.

Note that Peter proclaimed the very same way of repentance to each and
to all in Acts 2: 38: "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the
name of Jesus Christ...

Repentance is to begin in water baptism, and it is the life of beging
God's servant rather than God's enemy, God who has forgiven our
enmity, our sins, God who baptizes us in the Holy Spirit in and
through His obedient Son, our Brother, Jesus Christ!

God bless!

Jim

[link...@aol.com]

Dear Herb,

P.S. Any "gang" that is God's is to be oriented amicably toward those
who are not yet visibly in the gang. Although John the Baptist and
Peter in Acts 2 seem to be addressing Judeans solely, the repentance
of the Judeans will have universal reach; this is made clear in the
ending of the Isaiah quote: "and all flesh shall see the salvation of
God" and in Peter's assurance (reflecting Acts' portrayal of the the
movement of the church beyond that time and place in Jerusalem out
into even the gentile world) that "the promise is for you, for your
children, and for all who are far away, everyone whom the Lord calls
to him." In other words, the baptized are to become baptizers,
repentantly making an open path, smoothed of racism, for Jesus Christ
into the whole wide world.

Jim

[Jean Easland]

Pastor Jim: Were you not the one who has a copy of the Orthodox Study Bible
which came up in some past discussion? Thanks for your excellent remarks on
baptism. I'm serving a small church that left the UCC. It is struggling to
define itself and so I am mostly standing along side to see if I can be any
help. I don't think I will last too long if it can't move out of
"independent" time will tell. Blessings Roger

----- Original Message -----
From: <link...@aol.com>
To: "Confessing Christ Open Forum" <confessi...@googlegroups.com>

[link...@aol.com]

Dear Roger,

I think it was Chris who had the Orthodox Study Bible.

I thought of you recently when I was volunteering picking grapes in
the vinyard of one of my members here--I can't rope cattle but I can
pick grapes!

The Lord is with you and your little flock, and me and my little flock
and all his flock, and he unites us, and he will define us, although
we seem so very divided right now, so very angry and fearful and left
to our own resources that we refuse to acknowledge one another as
members of the one holy catholic church. One thought of comfort to me
is that we can have this communication among ourselves, even though we
are spread far and wide over this land and this earth.

God bless!

Jim Link

[Jean Easland]

Brother: Thanks for the word of affirmation and fellowship, looks like we
have a lot in common in faith understanding! Are you inner city? Somebody
said you have a genuine ministry in Cleveland, true? Grape
harvest -----------wonderful--------the New Wine is always flowing for us
thirsty souls.------ No team roping for a while, frozen ground comes up to
meet you in a real hard way if you get bucked off.---------- Yup, the Master
will bring us all together sooner than we think. Love in Jesus Christ
always-----Roger

[Jean Easland]

Jim: What do you know about the Evangelical Congregational Church? None out
here.--------Roger

[Willis E. Elliott]

Yes, Herb, Jn.Baptist was "moralist." 

That's no criticism of him: he was pre-gospel.  But his heart was right; & if he had read Gal.5.21, I think he'd have repented or his repentance (i.e., his "moralism").  /  There are traces of his followers even in the early 2nd century: not all of his followers converted to Jesus (i.e., the gospel).

 

Grace and peace--

Willis

 

----- Original Message -----

From: "herb.davis" <herb....@mindspring.com>

To: <confessi...@googlegroups.com>

Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2009 10:05 PM

---

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 9.0.709 / Virus Database: 270.14.91/2541 - Release Date: 12/02/09 13:43:00

[Willis E. Elliott]

Jane

 

Thanks for the solid observations on "turning."  This note is on its Hebrew-language origin.

 

An open secret of Hebrew thinking is that the fundamental terms are BODILY METAPHORS.

Behavior/morals/ethics/rules is "halacha," which you do with your FEET: "walking."

Inner changes of feeling/attitude/thought are represented by the corresponding physical word: the WHOLE BODY changes when it "turns."  /  The Latin parallel preserves the Hebrew metaphor: *conversio* (conversion) is total turning.  /  The Greek *metanoia* is less accurate: it means (literally) only an inner turning, a mind-change.

 

And YES, this physical base of human existence Hebrew uses also of GOD who "turns" both to & away from us.  It seemed "foolishness" to the Greeks, but to the Hebrews/Israelites/Jews God was PERSONAL on the human model of feelings/attitudes/thoughts/actions (the human being our only model of the personal: note "PERSON" in sec.10 of "Attach").  /  At lunch today, a retired university biologist argued for creationism on the basis of God's immutability, which is a philosophical marker of deity - in contrast to the (biblical) narrative markers (including God's changes of mind & [supremely, the incarnation] of plans).  And since supper I've replied to two critics of my current online column, who rightly argue that some of God's behavior in the Bible is simply shocking, outrageous, unacceptable (e.g., he decides to drown everybody, & then "repents" only to the extent of exempting a single family).  (Realism: in the case of our nearest relatives, the Neanderthals, God did not exempt even one family from extraction.)  /  The conviction that God "loves" makes no sense unless God is PERSONAL in the full sense of his full role in the biblical narrative, in which he's not always "good" in the moralistic sense: the sovereignty of God transcends our judgments, the mystery of God surpasses our understanding, the narrative of God requires our translating in the light of Christ.

 

Grace and peace--

Willis

[herb.davis]

Dear Jim and others, Thanks for your excellent insight on John. Also for
the good conversation the text. Now we are off to John and the soldiers,
tax collectors and others.
By the way you can stop disrespecting me by agreeing with me, but then that
would be boring and I would be tempted to think I know more than I do.
Peace, Herb

---


> -

[link...@aol.com]

Dear Herb and Willis,

In accusing John the Baptist of being a "moralist" we are neglecting
that he was a prophet, not a king. None of us would dare call him a
false prophet (although he stood on the verge of this at his initial
refusal to baptize Jesus) ! And I think that this is reflected in our
misdiagnosis of the UCC as being moralistic rather than being,
perhaps, falsely prophetic. I am reading Barth's CD this morning in IV
on the doctrine of justification and found something very interesting.
"The office of Jesus Christ is that of the priest who sacrifices
himself and the king who rules, but also that of the prophet. And the
reconciling grace of God has the dimension and form which cannot
simply be equated with justifcation or sanctification, the form and
dimension of the calling of man, his teleological setting in the
kingdom of God which comes and is present in Jesus Christ, the form of
mission in relation to the community and in relation to the individual
Christian the form of hope. There are many things that we can say
against the theology of the last few centuries but they were not
saecula obscura in this respect, that they brought out this aspect of
the Christian message with a much greater clarity than it had for the
great Christians of the 16th century. This was the time when the great
world-wide mission of the Church was taken up in earnest, the time of
a new vision and expectation of the kingdom of God as coming and
already come, the time of a new awakening of Christianity to its
responsibility to state and society, the time of a new consciousness
of its ecumenical existence and mission." (527)

Just a thought. Notice that the UCC does not view itself as "royal" or
"sanctified" but as "prophetic" and "sent."

Jim Link

> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------­-----

>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG -www.avg.com

> Version: 9.0.709 / Virus Database: 270.14.91/2541 - Release Date: 12/02/09 13:43:00- Hide quoted text -

[Jean Easland]

Willis: God carefully allows his self "revealing"  and it is only partial. The I AM that I AM retains "unknowablility" as a choice. Our doctrine of God often seems to avoid this because we don't like God to be "unreasonable". We can only approach God in awe and humility as a mystery and we can never know His essence. We can have a relationship with Him but he holds the parameters, control, and depth. We can know the divine energies however---peace, justice, love and the fruits and gifts of the Spirit. Faith is our only meeting place. Rather than use the term sanctification Orthodox call our participation in the divine theosis(deification). The wonderful analogy of the forge and the red hot iron is one we discussed earlier as I saw you as some one who tends the forge knowing how much to compress the billows and when to work the magic of near liquid metal  welding it together with hammer and anvil. I have found Eastern Orthodoxy helpful in the release of my futile attempts to intellectually know or understand God in essence. I don't think this makes Jesus Christ any less to us only more. My failure to surrender and trust comes from  strident demand and an arrogant need for control. I can see how our cultural conditioning affects our theology and how readily we impose moral values on to the Deity.----- Tare these understandings apart for me-------------what a great friend I have in you---------- think how important it is to have trusted teachers and elders in these days of suspicion and alienation                  Roger

[Jean Easland]

Jim: I had to go back and re-read this post. It is very dense and wonderful.
It would make a great essay for a news letter or for some other venue. If
you would put in an essay form I would love to give to our Church.----------
My son and I took our young dogs out and had a fabulous pheasant and grouse
hunt today a gorgeous cold day---------the abundance and beauty of
creation------------WOW. ------------ Bless your worship and your sermon on
Sunday----------Roger

----- Original Message -----
From: <link...@aol.com>

To: "Confessing Christ Open Forum" <confessi...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, December 03, 2009 10:37 AM
Subject: Re: Sermon Note: Dec. 6, Second Sunday in advent, Lu.3:1-6

[Richard Floyd]

Well, I agree with Jim that the UCC is often falsely prophetic, but in some very real sense that is the fruit of being moralistic.

Peace,

Rick

[Willis E. Elliott]

Jim

 

1

The Jn.Baptist movement claimed that Jesus was a Jn.Baptist disciple.  You sound like one of "them."

2

You didn't respond to my statement that Jn.Baptist & his baptism were "pre-gospel."  Pre-gospel Judaism qualifies as "moralistic" (as Herb & I believe).

 

Grace and peace--

Willis

 

----- Original Message -----

From: <link...@aol.com>

To: "Confessing Christ Open Forum" <confessi...@googlegroups.com>

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com

Version: 9.0.709 / Virus Database: 270.14.93/2544 - Release Date: 12/04/09 01:32:00

[herb.davis]

Sermon Note: Dec. 13, Third Sunday in Advent, Luke 3:7-18

However we might understand John's ministry there is no doubt any sort of
religious feelings, or ritual purity or belonging to the right family is
utter foolishness if "one does not care for the least of these my brothers
and sisters." Every tree that does not bear fruit is cut down. There is no
escape from the fire in the wheat field which sets the vipers on a hopeless
pursuit of a hiding place. If you come to John, you maybe fleeing the
wrath. If you ask, "What should we do?" It is not repent and be baptized
but love the neighbor.

John has clean and practical answers for those who seek help. To those with
a full closet and pantry he replies, "Share your extra coat and frozen
foods." To fearful tax collectors he says, "Collect no more than the amount
prescribed for you." For the military he says, "get off the back of the
peasant." When I hear the Baptist speak I think of Bill and Melinda Gates
and Warren Buffet and all the honest, caring capitalist who really work for
the good of the commonwealth and to ease world suffering. This is a great
gift to the world and it has always been part of the church's ministry. But
woe to us that hangs onto that extra coat and who has a full freezer! Who
will save us from the wrath to come? Maybe we are rightly doomed who do not
do the right we will.

Finally John's ministry points to another. John is not the one who is to
come. He is a witness to the real one, the one who baptizes with the Holy
Spirit, with the intimate presence of God in the people life. He is the one
who is concerned about saving the wheat rather than burning the chaff.

John never seems to be sure about Jesus. He doesn't seem to fit the image
of the Messiah who will clear the threshing floor, cast the chaff into the
fire and save the wheat. John want a clear cut answer, "Are you the one?"
In response to John's question Jesus doesn't talk about burning the chaff
but the signs of the Kingdom. (Lu 7:18ff) As we prepare to celebrate the
Festival of the Incarnation who are we pointing to?

Any additions or corrections? Any liturgical resources? Peace, Herb

[Willis E. Elliott]

Good addition, Jane.

1

As I said yesterday, God's IMMUTABILITY is a philosophical rather than narratological divine attribute.  In the OT narrative, God frequently threatens to destroy his chosen people, & the threat is as honest as the promise: God promised Abraham descendants, but not that he'd never destroy them all: their security depended on the "merit" of trusting the Lord (Gn.15.6 Tanakh).

2

'Tanakh' is the acrostic for the Hebrew Scriptures' threefoldness.  The first (Torah) & last (Kerthuvim) end in re-writes (viz., Deuteronomy & 2 Chronicles).  The middle ends with the last of the prophets, from whose last chapter you quote what appears thus in Tanakh JPS/85: "For I am the LORD  -  I have not changed; and your are the children of Jacob  -  you have not ceased to be."  Christian translations (KJV "I change not"; & all others I've checked, including NRSV, which you quote)

propositionalize what Tanakh takes to be an historical reference: God hasn't changed is changed to God doesn't change.  (I prefer to translate symmetrically: "I haven't changed, and neither have you: you're still the children of Jacob."  The specific pertinence is that it's not too late to return to God.)  The false faith of believing that your ethnos is automatically secure because your deity is changeless is denied by Tanakh's chapter-end (which ends also Nevi'im [the Prophets]): the threat of "utter destruction."  (God - unlike Aesop's boy falsely/truly calling "Wolf!" - does not issue empty threats.)

3

The top floor of Lehman Bros. didn't listen to warnings from the lower floors: the top floor believed LB was in the "too big to fail" category: the USG could be trusted for a bail-out.  Israel so came to overbelieve in God that they could no longer hear his threats: they came to believe that his election of & love for them was unconditional, & that the Davidic dynasty would rule in Jerusalem "forever" (but it ended in 586 BC/BCE).  Their OVERbelief was actually UNDERbelief: they (like present-day "progressive" Christinity) believed in the promise but not the threats.  /   Even Paul made use of the Jews' ethnic overbelief in their ultimate security in God: Ro.8.29 (though this security does not apply to Gentile Christians, who may be "cut off" by God's "sternness" if they don't "continue in his kindness," i.e., to please him - vs.22; but contrast, in Gal.3.28-29 NIV, Paul's TRANSethnic "default" faith: "If you belong to Christ [by being, vs.27, "baptized into Christ"]. then you are Abraham's seed" - which could mean ethnic EXPANSION [as some have expanded the word "marriage" to included homosexuals] if Paul had no specified [e,g., in Ro.2.21-30] the REPLACEMENT of ethnicity by radical monotheistic peshering {reinterpretation}: "no difference" between Jew & Gentile vis-a-vis Christ.)

4

Biblically, "immutability" is more often RELATIONAL than ontological: God is "entirely reliable" (Bonhoeffer's "gang gewiss"), faithful to his promises to those who rely on him, trust him.  As I wrote this, the name A.A.Luther popped into mind.

I remember a conversation I had with him in '34, a conversation I initiated because I wanted to know how he came to write the words & music of the gospel song "Jesus never fails; Jesus never fails; heaven and earth may pass away, but Jesus never fails."  It came to him while he was meditating on Mt.24.35: "Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away."  /   The OT base for this logion is Ps.102.26-27 Tanakh: "earth" & "the heavens" "shall perish, but You shall endure....You change them...But You are the same" forever.  This is ONTOLOGICAL: the Creator's being abides when our universe disappears, as the Creator's being preceded creation's being.  But the Psalmist is using ontology as the base for relationality: mysteriously (though somewhat less mysteriously, in light of modern physics), in the absence of the universe (Gn.1.1), God's faithful servants "will live in your presence."

4.1

Now notice how, in the Bible's wisdom literature (in contrast to the prophetic literature), comforting immutability has a physical basis: the universe is unchanging (Eccl.1.4-7).  Ironically, in light of modern cosmology, the Bible's prophetic literature is wiser than its wisdom literature.  (In Jas.1.17, the Father's stability is set off over against the heavens' variableness.)

4.2

Notice, too, how  -  in Ps.102.26-27 > Mt.24.35  -  an attribute of God (viz., time-transcending sameness) becomes an attribute of Christ (cp.Heb.13.8: "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever").

5

Jane, the existential-contextual meaning of Mal.3.6-7 is that the LORD's offer of forgiveness is still open (God has not changed, not withdrawn the offer): turn to me & I'll turn to you.  The theological-ethical meaning is God's patience.  A possible theological-ontological projection is immutability, the idea that God doesn't change (an Idea which, in early Christianity, was intellectualized by Greek philosophy), though our perceptions of God do change as we go through this life (& as we Christians are taught to read the OT through the lens of the NT).

 

Grace and peace--

Willis

----- Original Message -----

From: Bct...@aol.com

To: confessi...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Thursday, December 03, 2009 5:58 AM

Subject: Re: Sermon Note: Dec. 6, Second Sunday in advent, Lu.3:1-6

[link...@aol.com]

Dear Willis,

Given John the Baptizer's close relationship with Jesus (John the
Baptizer with water of Jesus Christ, the One who baptizes with the
Holy Spirit!) I don't think "pre-gospel" is quite so well put as "the
beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God." (Mk1:1) "The
beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God" does not
qualify John as moralistic, but rather "prophetic." "Though the
narrative we have followed so far in Matthew and Luke [in Calvin's
Harmony of the Gospels] is part of the Gospel, yet there is something
in Mark's decision to begin his Gospel at the preaching of John the
Baptist." ( John Calvin, on Mark 1.1-6)

Jesus was not John's disciple, John himself had to learn from Jesus,
who submitted to his water baptism.

Jim Link

> Version: 9.0.709 / Virus Database: 270.14.93/2544 - Release Date: 12/04/09 01:32:00- Hide quoted text -

[link...@aol.com]

Dear Rick,

You are right, but something in what Barth wrote about the church
since the 16th century made me consider that ours is not the sort of
moralism that circles the wagons or stays at home. Indeed, we parade
as our biggest virtue, not the we are transformed, but that we are a
transformative community, agents of change. Our works righteousness
seems to have taken the form of hyper-propheticism, a distorted form
of the wonderful prophetic awakening that Barth commented on.

It is interesting that since last year we have been encouraged to
engage in a "sacred conversation on race." Notice that is the language
of sanctification, of house building. In retrospect, I am surprised
that it is not being called a "prophetic conversation on race" ("God
is still speaking!") but perhaps someone has grasped that perhaps we
need to put our own house in order before we go telling our neighbors
in need what do! Indeed, our churches are threated with chaos even as
we make our pronouncements to other's houses.

Jim

On Dec 4, 5:41 pm, Richard Floyd <rfl...@berkshire.rr.com> wrote:
> Well, I agree with Jim that the UCC is often falsely prophetic, but in some very real sense that is the fruit of being moralistic.
>
> Peace,
>
> Rick
>

> >> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Richard Floyd]

Jim,

Yes, I agree.  The church is rightly prophetic, but the flaw in much of what passes for the prophetic in the mainline is that it is too much about us and not about God;  too much about what we do and not enough about what God has already done in Jesus Christ.  It is as if we need to bring about the kingdom by ourselves.  Here is a excerpt from a paper I did on Forsyth years ago that touches on this issue:

“In 1905 P.T. Forsyth wrote, "The Kingdom as a reality exists outside of us since Christ finished His work of establishing it.  What we have to do is not to produce it but to introduce it.  It works in us mightily."   (Forsyth, The Church, the Gospel and Society p. 12)  And, " . . . it must make a vast difference to the action of the Church whether it is creating a Kingdom of God as we go on, or introducing one finished and foregone, whether it is laying the track or uncovering it."  (Forsyth, The Church, the Gospel and Society,  p. 12)

 

“The actual church Forsyth was addressing in his day:  an undogmatic Christianity identified with culture, infected with ideas of immanence and pantheism, evolution and inevitable progress, and convinced that the ills of society could be addressed adequately by moral uplift and social amelioration.” (“The Cross and the Church: The Soteriology and Ecclesiology of P. T. Forsyth.” Andover Newton Review, Volume 3, Number 1,1992.)

That is what I meant my moralism, basically an ameliorist ethic.  I think Christians can hope for much more:  a new heaven and a new earth, not just this one “better oiled.” (the phrase is Forsyth's)  Perhaps if our Advent eschatology was less over-realized we might have more hope for that.

And yes,  it is good that the “sacred conversation on race” was not named the “prophetic pronouncement on race.”  Would that the conversation on race might focus on how Christ makes all  such human distinctions irrelevant.

Peace,

Rick

[Eric Brown]

Richard,

 

My goodness!!!!  For the past month I have been working on a way to articulate this truth and to find that you have already done so and with such clarity!  The Commonwealth of God exists in the now.  It is not up to us to create it because it has already been created by God in the beginning of time and the incarnation of God as Christ has brought us (humanity) back into it.  Our job to proclaim is merely the job to extend the invitation that Christ has given to participate in that Commonwealth.  Through the resurrection we are living in paradise restored, although we fail to see it because the empire of humanity is still so close to us, sharing the same space, as it will be until the final day.

 

Regards,

Eric

 

 

---

[Richard Floyd]

Eric,

I'm glad you liked my musings.  I like how you put it, but with one caveat: I would want to make any articulation about the kingdom to keep a certain tension between “the already” and “the not yet.”  The work of Christ is a finished work, as Forsyth says and you and I agree, but it's appropriation remains to be fully realized until the Day, as you imply.

I do so like Forsyth's phrase about the kingdom:  “What we have to do is not to produce it but to introduce it.  It works in us mightily.”  That last part shows that we are not passive bystanders before the power of it, but that it “works in us.”

Best,

Rick

[Willis E. Elliott]

Jim

1

Jn.Baptist was prophetic-moralistic.

2

While M. uses *euaggelion* 8x, Jn.Baptist is never said to preach this "good news," "gospel": he was (as I said) "pre-)gospel."  M. says (1.14) Jn.Baptist was in prison when the "gospel" was (in M.) first preached.  In early Christian literature, this noun is used only of the Good News Jesus preached of "the kingdom of God" (M.1.15) & enjoined his disciples to preach.

3

The interactions of the two movements, Jn.Baptist & Jesus, are difficult for historians to parse.  On the left is Morton Scott Enslin (who, I think, was still teaching at Crozer when King Jr arrived there for seminary) taught that the two men never met, but their disciples told stories aimed to capture the rival leader for "the cause."  (Mort was a warm-hearted soul whom I loved to talk with.)  My opinion is that Jn.Baptist & Jesus were not as far apart as Enslin thought, but farther apart than you think.

[link...@aol.com]

Dear Willis,

All I know is that according to the Gospel according to John it was
John the Baptist who said, "Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the
sin of the world!" and that following my sermon tomorrow, during
communion, we will sing, "O Christ you are the Lamb of God,who takes
away the sin of the world!" Seems like the Gospel to me!

Jim

On Dec 5, 4:38 pm, "Willis E. Elliott" <elliot...@charter.net> wrote:
> Jim
> 1

> > Willis- Hide quoted text -

[herb.davis]

Dear Jim and Rick, I am in total agreement. You are right on target. Jim
the note of hyper-propheticism is classic. Forsyth, Barth, Bonhoeffer, even
Neibuhr and little know Haroutanian all saw the issue but we can't change.
Rich has been making this claim for 20 years and no one can hear. We live
with the illusion we are pioneers but we are really stuck in an old fashion
liberalism that doesn't have much power anymore. It is not that we are a
bad church or an unfaithful church, but simply can't think too well. So we
keep saying great things while nobody listens. What happened to the
conversation on race? Jim I am almost ready to say that in the UCC context,
John the Baptist maybe a false prophet. Opps I better be careful. Peace,
Herb

[Richard Floyd]

Herb,

I've been saying it for thirty years, but who's counting? You should know, you were at my ordination examination in 1975. I recall you voted to ordain me, a rare exception for which I am grateful.

Peace,

Rick

[Jean Easland]

Rick: The course you authored continues to engender great study and
renewal!!!! Some are asking where do go from there??? I am open to
suggerstios. The congregation is experiencing wonderful renewal. Advent
thanks givings-----Roger----------

----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Floyd" <rfl...@berkshire.rr.com>
To: <confessi...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, December 05, 2009 6:53 PM
Subject: Re: Sermon Note: Dec. 6, Second Sunday in advent, Lu.3:1-6

[Willis E. Elliott]

Jim

1

In the Gospels, Jn.Baptist is continuity, the personal-symbolic Jewish BRIDGE to the gospel, which his ministry precedes (in one word, he is "pre-gospel").  The fact that his movement continued at least into the early 2nd c. would indicates that he never became a follower of Jesus, though the Gospels variously portray him as welcoming Jesus as a superior.  And Jesus, who never became a water-baptizer (Jn.4.2, which says also that his disciples did), was not a follower of Jn.Baptist. (As I said, their relationship is, historically, ambiguous-murky.  Such is the nature of scholarship: some things, upon more assiduous examination, become clearer & clearer [tempting scholars to arrogance], & other things become murkier and murkier [nudging scholars to humility].)

2

Your latest note on subject moves the interchange from M. to Jn. (the only Gospel never calling Jn.Baptist, Baptist; & the only Gospel not saying that Jn.[Baptist] water-baptized Jesus).  In the Fourth Gospel, Jn.(Baptist) denies being Messiah or Elijah Returned or "the prophet" (1.21); & Jn. the Evangelist says (1.7-8) that Jn.(Baptist) is not the Light that came but only a "witness" to it, as he was when he first saw Jesus and said (1.29 NIV) "Look!  The Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!" (in vs.31, he says his water-baptism movement was toward the Messiah's being "revealed to Israel" [i.e., it was specifically pre-gospel]).  (A humble parallel: for some decades, my close friend Bob Ferm was pre-Graham, the messenger who went before to prepare the way for Billy's [oops!] "crusades.")

3

I hope your sermon went well this morning!  We canonical Christians are to believe & preach the text, not our historical investigations+speculations thereon.  But frequently, scholarly work delivers us from literalism to deeper-wider-higher truth, in this case the truth that Jesus, as the TRUE Messiah, fulfills (though nonpolitically) the longing of all the some-50 messianic movements from the beginning of the Roman occupation of Palestine (63 BC/BCE) to AD135 CE (the last messianic figure, Bar-Kochba, whose letter confessing defeat I got to read in the original [in NYC's Jewish Museum]).  In the Fourth Gospel, Jn.(Baptist) speaks for the whole messianic movement, of which he here is the personal symbol: "Behold!  The Lamb of God...!"  Preach it!  But note the probability that if the "historical" Jn.Baptist, had preached it, he & his followers would have become followers of Jesus, & his movement would have ended (which we know it did not do).

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com

Version: 9.0.709 / Virus Database: 270.14.95/2546 - Release Date: 12/05/09 02:13:00

[Jean Easland]

Willis: The purpose of the text as heard by even the "uneducated" is to reveal the truth of God unto salvation. Even thought the Word is shrouded in some levels of mystery, any respected, time tested interpretation is adequate for the reception of faith unto liberating love. If scholars uncover "murky/ambiguous--ness" in the relationships spoken is  God  in His revealing proved an inadequate revealor? I think not, as I believe Jesus provided a sufficient at-one-ment for even the simple of mind and heart as mine  ---------- the Spirit is perfectly capable of bringing to God those he calls, elects, chooses or however he does what he does-------I'll take it with tearful thanksgiving. Today at Children sermon a 10 year old spoke a testimony unto "knowledge" of hope and faith for all to hear while sitting on my lap. I have no higher knowledge than she and less pure no doubt. She just heard the story in all it's pure and beautiful truth. ----------God at Advent-----OUT OF THIS WORLD AND IN IT! Blessings wonderful teacher for helping us move forward on this pilgrimage-------------love Roger

----- Original Message -----

From: Willis E. Elliott

To: confessi...@googlegroups.com

[Willis E. Elliott]

Yes, Roger, as I said: "We canonical Christians are to believe and preach the text...."  Why?  Because, as you also said (in substance), the text is "adequate" through the Spirit to "reveal" the Word of God.

 

And thanks for your children's-sermon story!  And the good news of church renewal!

 

Grace and peace--

Willis

Version: 9.0.709 / Virus Database: 270.14.96/2548 - Release Date: 12/06/09 01:30:00

[link...@aol.com]

Dear Willis,

According the the Gospel According to St. John at least one of John
the Baptist's disciples did become a disciple of Jesus: Andrew, Simon
Peter's brother. (Jn 1:35 and 40). And John the Baptist himself
confesses the end of his movement: "He must increase, but I must
decrease."

Jim

On Dec 6, 6:23 pm, "Willis E. Elliott" <elliot...@charter.net> wrote:
> Jim
> 1

> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------­-----

>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG -www.avg.com

> Version: 9.0.709 / Virus Database: 270.14.95/2546 - Release Date: 12/05/09 02:13:00- Hide quoted text -

[link...@aol.com]

Dear Willis,

PS.

You rightly contrast the Gospels of Mark and John, but may I say that
whereas Mark marks the " a beginning (arCHE) of the Gospel of Jesus
Christ, the Son of God" (1.1) with John the Baptist in fulfillment of
the prophet Isaiah, John's Gospel puts "a beginning" (arCHE) in the
eternal being of the Word with God." Thus the word comes "before" John
the Baptist (1:15) .

> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[link...@aol.com]

Dear Willis,

PPS

I got cut off.

As for Jesus being "a disciple" of John, notice that John the Baptist
in Mt, Mk and Jn uses of Jesus the phase: "he who is coming behind
me" (ho oPIso mou erCHOmenos Mt 3:4) This is one very concrete way of
expressing the intimacy of discipleship! For example, Mt 4:19, notice
the echo in Jesus' call to Simon Peter and Andrew: "Come behind
me...! (DEUte oPIso mou...!). Moroever, in the Gospels, the arrest
and execution of John the Baptist mark the path that Jesus follows as
he begins his public ministry on the way to the cross.

Jim Link

[Jean Easland]

Father Willis: Thanks, you know what an impatient blerrter I am but you remain as kind as always -----the devine energies always build community-----------we ARE ONE in the Lord Jesus Christ!  Advent Love--------Roger

[Willis E. Elliott]

Jim

1

In the Fourth Gospel, Jn.(Baptist) doesn't baptize Jesus, denies that he's Messiah / Elijah Returned / the prophet / the Light, declares that he's only a "voice" heralding "the way of the Lord" (1.23, quoting Is.40), & identifies Jesus as "the Son of God."  Hope ends when the hoped for arrives: Jn.(Baptist) has done his job, so (as Jn. sees it) Jn.(Baptist) fades ("Exit," as drama text would put it; you rightly say, "John the Baptist confesses the end of his movement"). 

2

In Jn., Jn.(Baptist) is indeed a "voice" voicing what we Christians believe about our Lord Jesus Christ.  While he denies he's Elijah Returned, in another Gospel (Mt.) Jesus says he is (11.14; 17.12-13).

3

Tatian's "Diatessaron" (mid 2nd c.) harmonizes the Gospels which, a score of years later, Irenaeus takes as canonical.  To harmonize, he created a time-sequence necessarily different from the Synoptic & the Johannine: those two can't be reconciled.  By the 5th c., this merger "according to the four" (Greek, *diatessaron*) was considered heretical: EACH OF THE FOUR GOSPELS WAS TO STAND ON ITS OWN, a principle I respect more than you do.  /  The difference appears in publications: "harmonies" have been largely replaced by "parallels."

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com

Version: 9.0.709 / Virus Database: 270.14.97/2550 - Release Date: 12/07/09 01:33:00

[link...@aol.com]

Dear Willis,

All preachers of the Gospel will similiarly "fade away", like the best
man when the groom and bride are joined.

I cannot take it as a priniciple that each Gospel is to stand on its
own, for none of the Gospels indicates that it stands on its own, and
the church itself in the canon indicates that each belongs beside the
other, with the rest of Holy Scripture! All modern forms of criticism
call us to examine every portion of scripure in light of the whole.

I think there is a difference between a "harmony" and attempts to
"harmonize." Calvin's Harmony of Matthew, Mark and Luke is more of a
"parallel" with notes of redaction criticism. On the other hand, his
treatment of the Pentateuch is a theological harmonization, and
somewhat of a mess, if you ask me, althought still very insightful.

God bless!

Jim

On Dec 7, 6:20 pm, "Willis E. Elliott" <elliot...@charter.net> wrote:
> Jim
> 1

> Version: 9.0.709 / Virus Database: 270.14.97/2550 - Release Date: 12/07/09 01:33:00- Hide quoted text -

[Willis E. Elliott]

Jim

1

"Examining every portion of scripture in light of the whole" is the canonical principle, which rightly parallels

examining every portion of scripture in light of its genre, which is the literary principle, &

examining every portion of scripture in light of its origin, which is the historical principle.

2

What these hermeneutic principles rule out is LITERALISM.  The case in point: if Jn.Baptist is said to have said something, he DID say it exactly as he's said to have said it.  Literalism is not a form of hermeneutics (interpretation) but a substitute: instead of interpreting the text, one first believes it word-for-word (which, logically, is inerrantism).

3

Biblical authors/redactors simply did not operate on this modern perfectionist principle (which was developed in tension with natural science).  Each of the four Evangelists (Gospelers) made creative use of the Jesus materials at hand (in ministry to specific Christian communities), & their extensive overlapping is impressive for both the believer & the historian: comparatively, their differences are minor (though they help us fill in the picture of early Christian life & thought). 

4

As does Jesus himself, Jn.Baptist speaks through each of the four Gospels distinctly, personally: the Evangelists were human beings, not mere megaphones.  Our concern for exactitude in quotation is satisfied by quote marks (" ' ' "), which the biblical authors did not have.  A classic case: in Jn.3.10-21, where does Jesus stop speaking & Jn. continue?  But the fact that the Bible does not satisfy our modern appetite for EXACTITUDE OF QUOTATION is not negative only: need I spell out the positives?

5

Consider, also, that the Bible does not satisfy our modern appetite for ACCURACY OF SEQUENCE.  The Gn. creation stories provide two irreconcilable sequences, as do the Gospels in their placement of Jesus' "cleansing of the temple."  In the Synoptics, Jesus gets killed soon after he cleanses the temple; but in Jn., he cleanses the temple near the beginning of his ministry (viz., in chap.2) & (highly improbably) doesn't get killed until toward the end (17 chapters later).  Now, let's apply Jn.'s indifference to time-sequence to his use of Jn.(Baptist) - whom I parenthesize when speaking of this character in Jn., who never calls him "Baptist."

5.1

The Jn.(Baptist) & Jesus movements were competitors, & Jesus' disciples were out-baptizing John's (4.1-2 - though Jesus himself was not a water-baptizer: 1.33 said he'd be a Spirit-baptizer).  Now, in 1.29 & 36, Jn.(Baptist) announces Jesus as "the Lamb of God": why, at that point, didn't all John's disciple follow Jesus (as, you rightly say, at least one did), instead of continuing (3 chapters later) to baptize?  Or did they so continue?  And why did Jesus' disciples use water-baptism when he himself did not do so? is that being "followers"?  And how did water-baptism seep into the Jesus movement?

5.2

Now let's look at ACTS.  In 10.37, John "heralds" (preaches) baptism.  In 19.47, water-baptism follows Spirit-baptism.   But in 18.24-26, Apollos had been preaching the gospel in an Ephesus synagogue on the basis of John's baptism, & - next verse - Pricilla & Aquila advance his Christian education; but no mention of no re-baptism.  But in 19.1-7, Paul in Ephesus asked some believers if they'd received the Holy Spirit when they believed, & their response was "we haven't even heard that there is a Holy Spirit."  When Paul enquired as to what baptism they'd experienced, they said "The baptism of John."  Paul said that isn't good enough, so they were rebaptized (the Bible's only mention of anabaptism) "in the name of the Lord Jesus" - after which "Paul laid his hands on them," and "the Holy Spirit came on them" (NLT).  /  (Theologically, what's most distinctive of Luke-Acts is the activities of the Holy Spirit.)

6

In the NT, what Jn.Baptist DID is clear: with water-baptism, he heralded the coming of the kingdom of God.  He was then (in your figure, as "best man") permanently off-stage.  What he SAID is scripted in four narrative contexts, & everything he said is "revealed" (i.e., true to the Christian revelation).  But all else is OPEN to historical-sequential reconstruction using the materials available: the Jesus / Jn.Baptist relationship; the Holy Spirit; water baptism; Spirit baptism; relations between Jn.Baptist's & Jesus' disciples.

7

What is NOT open to us Christians is what OUR LORD at the end of what I consider the Last Gospel (viz., Mt.) COMMANDS US to do & in whose *onoma* (28.19 NRSV): "make disciples of all nations" & water-immerse (well, "baptize") converts in the name of the Holy Trinity (Father/Son/HolySpirit; nothing less, e.g. "in the name of the Lord Jesus" [Ac.19.5], will do).  Our Lord (Jesus Resurrectus) commands us (through "Mt.," in "Mt.").

7.1

Thus the Great Commission assumes Jesus' resurrection, which his earliest disciples experienced both "in the flesh" & beyond the flesh.  Death had not silenced Jesus' tongue.

7.2

As at the beginning of the OT the later creation-story precedes the early, in the beginning of the NT the latest Gospel precedes the three earlier.  Why do I think Mt. is the latest Gospel?  The two main reasons are that both its ecclesiology & its theology are more developed than in the earlier Gospels.  And what is "development" or "evolution" when viewed from BELOW, is "revelation" when seen from ABOVE.

8

Jim, in section 1 I listed three hermeneutical principles.  Now we have arrived at a fourth, viz. BINOCULARITY, the skill of seeing Scripture simultaneously from below (as if there were no revelation) & from above (as though nothing were of any importance except revelation).  Compare christology's paradox, which is most radically (& heretically) stated as that" Jesus" is so much man as not to be God, & "Christ" is so much God as not to be man.

9

The principle of binocularity provides the Bible-reader with a FREEDOM otherwise unattainable.  I'll add that it also increases the believer's freedom (1) to worship God as the Lord of both nature & history, & (2) to defend the Faith against those who teach that science & religion are either/or rather than both/and.

 

Grace and peace--

Willis

 

----- Original Message -----

From: <link...@aol.com>

To: "Confessing Christ Open Forum" <confessi...@googlegroups.com>

Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2009 7:13 AM

Subject: Re: (Re: Sermon Note: Dec. 6, Second Sunday in advent, Lu.3:1-6) JN.BAPTIST & JESUS

Dear Willis,

All preachers of the Gospel will similiarly "fade away", like the best
man when the groom and bride are joined.

I cannot take it as a priniciple that each Gospel is to stand on its
own, for none of the Gospels indicates that it stands on its own, and
the church itself in the canon indicates that each belongs beside the
other, with the rest of Holy Scripture! All modern forms of criticism
call us to examine every portion of scripure in light of the whole.

I think there is a difference between a "harmony" and attempts to
"harmonize." Calvin's Harmony of Matthew, Mark and Luke is more of a
"parallel" with notes of redaction criticism. On the other hand, his
treatment of the Pentateuch is a theological harmonization, and
somewhat of a mess, if you ask me, althought still very insightful.

God bless!

Jim

On Dec 7, 6:20 pm, "Willis E. Elliott" <

elliot...@charter.net> wrote:

[Jean Easland]

Elder Willis: Such a blessing on a cold morning!!!! Since my duck hunting spot is now froze over I have this post to feast upon, a feast much longer lasting and nourishing to soul. THIS POST WILL NOW BE FIRST IN THE THINK SHEET FILE!     Warmest and most festive love in Advent, Elder, Father, Brother, Teacher, Friend, Fellow Traveler--------Willis

 

p.s. Rick said, "movement" about CC-------true?

[link...@aol.com]

Dear Willis,

On points 1-5 you are preaching to the choir, although I would say
that it is the Holy Spirit that alone "delivers us from literalism",
not priniciples of interpretation.

5.1 Not everyone at that point in Jesus' ministry was called to be a
follower of Jesus; this is as true of the disciples of John as it is
of all the others who heard Jesus preaching and yet were not called to
be his disciples.

.2 Notice that they were not re-baptized, immersed again in water, but
that they were baptized in "hearing", hearing this: the name of Jesus,
whom John baptized in expectation of Him as the coming one.

6-9 I think you have come up with a choice piece of pseudo-scientific
speculative religoius history regarding John [the Baptist] that
contradicts the witness to him we find in Holy Scripture. Your pseudo-
scientific speculative history consists in this, to quote your earlier
post: "But frequently, scholarly work delivers us from literalism to
deeper-wider highter truth, in this case that Jesus as the TRUE
Messiah, fulfills (though nonpoliticallly) the longing of all the some

-50 messianic movements from the beginning of the Roman occupation of

Palestine (63BC/BCE) to AD 135 CE .In the Fourth Gospel, Jn. (Baptist)
speaks for the whole messianic movement, of which he is the personal
symbol: ecclesiaology & its theology are more developed than in the
earlier Gospels." Willis! If anything the Gospels in their witness to
John [the Baptist] are trying to nip such speculation in the bud! John
[the Baptist] alone has born witess to the true messiah, the one who
was baptized by him, the one who submitted to God's judgment and thus
is the "Lamb of God!" There is no other messiah than he who was
baptized by John in the river Jordan, Jesus Christ the Lord! The
longings of the other movements were wrong! Wrong, wrong, wrong! So
very wrong that John called for a unique baptism of repentance toward
the forgiveness of sins.

Jim

On Dec 8, 11:11 pm, "Willis E. Elliott" <elliot...@charter.net> wrote:
> Jim
> 1

[Willis E. Elliott]

Sorry, Jim, but I don't see you as having been delivered from literalism,

except in your tendency to metaphorize in order to align Scripture with your beliefs - e.g., in the case of "baptism" in Ac.19.5.

 

I said Jesus is "the TRUE messiah," but surely you're not denying the other "messianic movements" during the Roman occupation.  I mentioned the last, which ended in AD 135 CE: even the great rabbi Akiva considered, for a time, that its leader, who was given the messianic title "Son of the Star" (Bar Kochba), was probably the messiah.  And messianic movements continue to this day in both Judaism & Islam.

 

You do not seem to grasp the fourth hermeneutical principle I described in my section 8, viz. binocularity.  If you did, & accepted it, it would deliver you into freedom from your literalism.

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com

Version: 9.0.709 / Virus Database: 270.14.99/2553 - Release Date: 12/08/09 13:54:00

[link...@aol.com]

Dear Willis,

Bar Kochba was a manifestation of the antichrist, as is Islam, as were
the "messianic movements" of the Roman occupation, and all messianic
movements insofar as they were and are "messianic movements" and not a
turning to the one who "will baptize with Holy Spirit, fire indeed."
Scripture's witness to Jesus Christ points us to the true Messiah, and
warns us against the antichrist.

As far as your "principle of binocularity", Holy Scripture is not
Jesus Christ, it is written words. It can be like Jesus Christ, you
are right, but Jesus Christ is and remains the Word of God, true God
and true Man, the Word of God revealed, whereas Scripture is Witness
to the Word of God revealed and thus the Word of God written, not in
virtue of some alien law or principle but by virtue of its witness to
the Word of God, which witness being confirmed when and where the
Holy Spirit blesses with eyes to see, ears to hear, minds to
understand. I like Barth on this. But you are right, I am unwilling to
see Scripture from "above" and "below" at the same time, i.e. "as if
there were no revelation" and "as though nothing were of any
importance except revelation." Willis, I have no desire to speculate
in either of these matters: there is revelation in Jesus Christ,
(whether I apprehend it or not) and nothing is of any importance
except revelation (God grant that I would apprehend it!)

Jim

> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -

[link...@aol.com]

Dear WIllis,

P.S. Rather than say your "seeing Scripture.. as if there were no
revelation" and "as though nothing were of any importance except for
revelation" I would say something like "seeing scripture as the
witness of revelation of the Word of God in Jesus Christ, in which
alone Scripture, as with all things, have their true importance."

God bless!

Jim (Link)

[herb.davis]

 Sermon Note: Dec  20, Fourth Sunday in Advent, Luke 1:35-55[  

 

The  Visitation recorded in Luke 1: 39-55 has three primary parts.

 

First John, in the womb, heaps for joy as a witness of Jesus as the "one who is to come." The prenatal activity, the jumping in the womb, because it precedes all merit or work, witnesses to the sovereign of God.  Like the struggle between Esau and Jacob in Rebekeh's womb the message is clear, "The elder shall serve the younger." (Gen 25:21-23)  This is the Lord's plan.

 

Second we have the speech of Elizabeth,  filled with the Holy Spirit, who blessed Mary for two reasons.  She has been chosen to be the mother of the Lord and she believe the word of God. (1:43 & 45)

 

Finally we have the Magnificate, Mary's praise for the favor God has bestowed on her and for what God will do for the powerless, oppressed and poor of the world.  It is interesting to note that God's actions are all in the past. "He has scattered the proud...He has brought down the mighty..."  Such language expresses a confidence and certainty in God's promises as if they already happened.  The old civil rights song, "We Shall Overcomes" was not as confident as Mary but had the same sense that the future justice could not be denied.  This might define the Christian witness for justice as a confidence and certainty that the Lord prevails.

 

I suspect many preachers in our tradition will focus  on the grand justice witness of Mary.  It might be interesting to focus on the source of that witness in the words of Elizabeth,"And blessed is she who believed that there would be a fulfillment of what was spoken to her by the Lord." .45.

 

Any additions or corrections?  Any liturgical resources.  Peace, Herb

[fcba%40comcast.net]

Herb,

 

In our Wednesday Praise Service I spoke with only brief notes in my paperback NT on Mary as she is portrayed quite positively in Luke 1 & 2. In touching on the Magnificat I used my right hand to show that the proud were brought down and I used my left hand to show that the humlbe were brought up. In the working out of this the two hands reached the same level.

 

I am not sure of the interpretation of the text but it intrigued me that God was not destroying the proud but only taking them down to where they sholud be and God was not bring the humble up to the place where the arrogant had been but only bringing them up so that they could be at the same level as those who had come down.

 

The question is:

Am I merely uncritically stuck in "egalitarianism" or does this make some sense?

 

Chris Anderson

[herb.davis]

Dear Chris,  I really love the image of hands at an equal level.  But I assume the sense of where we are has something to do with context.  When the might fall a little they maybe believe they have been dethroned and have been dismissed.  When the humbled are respected and honored a little it may feel like they are sitting on top of the world.  I wonder if the mighty would accept even the equal status?  But agree God does not seek to destroy the might just to humble them.  Peace, Herb

Herb,

[link...@aol.com]

Dear Chris,

I like the image of the hands. A few weeks ago as I was reading
through Barth'sCD III2 on "Jesus Man For God" I came across some
wonderful insights on Luke 1, which Barth addresses as he makes the
point that though there is division at the coming of Jesus Christ as
Judge, "the real purpose of His coming is not attained with this
division....it is a temporary though necessary transition. Human roles
are radically reversed when he comes....But this is not the essential
aim of His coming...that Jesus comes to bring the ruin of any man is
a thought which is wholly foreign to the New Testament...Salvation and
life is what Jesus effects by fulfilling the Law and giving His life
for many. It is as He does this that He becomes the Judge; for His
intervention on behalf of all [the right hand and the left!!!!!!!!]
exalts the lowly and humbles the proud." (60-61)

Jim [the Link]

>   Any additions or corrections?  Any liturgical resources.  Peace, Herb- Hide quoted text -

[herb.davis]

Dear Jim, Thanks for the words from Barth. this is helpful to be in my
problem with John the Baptist. I sense John real focus is division, it is
judgment without grace and truth. He wants the mighty to lose. Jesus
Christ becomes the judgment but for redemption. The judgment falls on Him
as your quote not just (the right or the left). Very helpful. Peace, Herb

-----Original Message-----
From: confessi...@googlegroups.com
[mailto:confessi...@googlegroups.com]On Behalf Of link...@aol.com
Sent: Friday, December 11, 2009 9:28 AM
To: Confessing Christ Open Forum

[fcba%40comcast.net]

Jim,

 

Thanks. The quote is wonderful.

 

Chris

[Willis E. Elliott]

Jim

 

Your statement that "nothing is of any importance except revelation" is heretical (specifically, scribistic).  It demeans nature (& thus science) & history (& thus the human effort to make sense of past/present/future).  (Scribism & docetism are fellow-prisoners, but that's for another time.)

 

Our Lord failed to convince his clergy listeners of binocularity (seeing simultaneously from above & from below).  To them, only "revelation" (inscripted, as they understood it) mattered  -  not revelation as it was exfoliating before their eyes.

 

Your responses to me strike me as having that scribistic quality  -  familiar theo-jargon only tangential (if that) to my points.  You make pronouncements & refuse to "speculate" binocularly.  But speculation is a necessary dimension of theologizing (which Paul/Luther/Calvin/Barth  -  to name only four  -  had the courage to do).

 

This morning, I was talking with the principal of a Christian K-12.  He knows we need, in our strange new time, to have the courage to rethink, to think again, to think afresh.  Sorry, but I can't see you as taking this task seriously; rather, theo-jargon trips easily off your tongue.  I'm tempted to illustrate in detail from your responses to my (Dec.8) four hermeneutical principles, but I'm afraid I'd be wasting my time.

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com

Version: 9.0.709 / Virus Database: 270.14.101/2555 - Release Date: 12/09/09 13:41:00

[link...@aol.com]

Dear Willis,

I don't see what is "heretical" in my statement. "In your light we see
light!" You want to find the meaning and nature of things apart from
the revelation of God, or at least speculate on some nature and
meaning apart from the revelation of God. Nothing has any meaning
apart from the revelation of God, or, rather, it perhaps has false
meaning, the idolatrous meaning that comes about when humanity in self-
worship seeks to be the measure of all things.

Jesus Christ's own life history as a human being has no meaning save
as he is the one from above, incarnate, and there is none other from
above, no other Word, save for he who was below born of the virgin
Mary, by the power of the Holy Spirit. If confessing Jesus Christ as
"true God and true man," or God as "Creator of Heaven and Earth" is
that is what you mean by "binocularity" then I am all for it. But you
seem to what something else i.e to speculate on a gogor a man, and a
god or a heaven and earth, that have some meaning apart from one
another. Well, God has not willed this, what God has joined, let no
one separate!

Jim [the Link]

On Dec 18, 4:55 pm, "Willis E. Elliott" <elliot...@charter.net> wrote:
> Jim
>

[Willis E. Elliott]

Jim

 

Your PS is clarifying. 

1

I agree with the theology of your CONFLATION of the two assertions your quote from me.  Our basic hermeneutical difference is perceptual.  We agree with George that "the canonical text...grounds the [evangelical] truth claims."

2

I disagree with your rejection of BINOCULARITY (rejection, even though God gave you two eyes).

2.1

You reduce binocularity to monocularity (a parallel, in George's terms, is evangelicalism's temptation to "conflate" epistemology & ontology).  Metaphorically, you need a stereopticon (by double slides, to separate your eyes for 3-D convergence - which, now, you must do by 3-D glasses to see the just-released $270 million "Avatar").  (Remember?  The stereo-cameras had two lenses, to take two images for 3-D triangulation.)  /  Physically, you can experience the two images by steadying your head against a wall or door, then blocking first one eye & then the other.  (Euclid knew it!)

2.2

As you know, the computer's "mind" is BINARY.  So are our brains/eyes/ears/hands/feet.  While our brain is nature's most complex entity, & neurscience warns us against simplistic generalizations about it, we do know that its hemispheres function both independently & (through the corpus callosum) together.  While the functions-distribution varies somewhat (e.g., language vis-a-vis handedness), it continues to be possible to generalize that one hemisphere is (let's say, metaphorically) "cool" (linear/abstract/philosophical/objective/impersonal) & the other "warm" (circular/concrete/religious/subjective/personal).

2.3

Now to my two statements, which in your PS you rejected:

2.3.1

The "cool" or "left" hemisphere sees "Scripture...as if there were no revelation."  The historical-critical method as practiced in the Western biblical societies (the hubris of which is historicism: "nothing ever happened that isn't happening").  This is A GOD-GIVEN HUMAN POWER of knowing. with atheism as an option.

2.3.2

The "warm" or "right" hemisphere sees Scripture "as though nothing were of any importance except for revelation."  This is, in praxis, radical personalism & theocentrism.   Pray as though all depends on God: it does.  Intimacy ("every hair of your head is numbered") without denial of ultimacy (including physical & biological evolution).  This is A GOD-GIVEN HUMAN POWER of knowing, with theism as an option.

2.4

In this binary epistemology (for which I use the metaphor of binocularity), truth is paradoxical: each of my two statements, while false in independence of the other, is simultaneously true in partnership with the other.  In my analogy to stereoscopes/stereopticons/stereo-cameras/3-D films, each of the two images is false to 3-D reality while true in itself.

3

Jim, please re-read section 1.  I have done my present-best to help you expand your awareness of reality & shrink to its proper functioning your religious language, which has seemed to me to this point to operate, in our conversation, more as ear-plugs than as hearing-aids.

4

During three courses under him, I argued with H.N.Wieman that God is more than (his definition) "the increase of appreciable awareness."  But I think it irreligious, indeed blasphemous, to resist the increase of knowledge, which is the distinctive of our species. 

[link...@aol.com]

Dear Willis,

Per you request I re-read point one. Again, I do use and have used
various forms of historical-literary-canonical critical methods in
reading the Bible.

I am not opposed to binocularity (although it is helpful to focus on
but one eye when looking through a telescope, aiming a rifle or as a
metaphor for intimate concern as in the song: "His eye is on the
sparrow!") Yours is an interesting metaphor, but I don't think it
applies very well to the way we are to view scripture. To switch
organs a bit, Scripture wants to be heard as human witness to God, and
we hear it correctly only when we hear it as human witness to God. In
this regard, the Scripture does present us with various binaries all
right, binaries of opposition: hearing vs. deafness, sight vs.
blindness, faith vs. faithlessness, light vs. darkness!

Your metaphor does help me think a bit about "the testimony of two or
three witnesses."

Merry Christmas, my friend!

Jim [the Link]

> Jim (Link)- Hide quoted text -

[Tom Kirkham]

I would agree with Herb that the baptism of John was a work
proclaiming repentence to Israel in preparation for the coming of
Messiah. But, Baptism for the Christian believer is not one of
repentance but a baptism that proclaims the union between one's soul
and Christ. A sign to those around us. Each Baptism is a symbol of re-
birth. For Israel, John's baptism prepared them for the Lord's
proclamation of the Law and Prophets' fulfillment. While Christian,
whether Jew or Gentile use baptism after receiving salvation, not in
preparation but rather in fullfillment of the Lord's promise that
through him we are re-born.

Tom (the one from Maine- I believe there may be multiple Toms?)

On Nov 30, 11:35 am, "linkc...@aol.com" <linkc...@aol.com> wrote:
> Dear Herb,
>
> In all humility and with great respect for you, I have to say that you
> are absolutely wrong when you say that "our baptism is not a baptism
> of repentance." If we follow Jesus Christ as His disciples into the
> water, as He himself was baptized by John in repsonse to John's
> preaching, then ours too is a baptism of repentance,and, coming out of
> the water, we follow Jesus Christ Himself who, when John had completed
> his work in being arrested, ""from that time Jesus began to proclaim,
> "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven has come near." (Mt. 4:17) The "New
> Creation" was Himself baptized in the waters, repenting! How shall we
> be in Him a "new creation" without repentance, and how shall we repent
> save by beginning with baptism in the waters, confessing our sins?
> Repent, believing the good news!
>
> God bless!
>
> Jim Link
>
> On Nov 30, 9:25 am, John Cedarleaf <j...@choiceonemail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Herb:
>
> > John points to the one who is to come; getting people ready to receive
> > him. I'm curious though when you say that our ministry is different from
> > John's.Yes, it is, but when you comment on repentance, what about
> > confession, absolution, as preparation for the Eucharist; also what
> > about the old Reformed preparation service for Holy Communion?
>
> > John
>
> > > Sermon Note: Ded 6, Second Sunday in advent, Lu.3:1-6
> > > St. Luke is setting the context for the advent of Jesus Christ.  This
> > > is no spiritual event but an invasion of history.  We are being
> > > prepared for the expansion of the faith not only to the poor, lame,
> > > blind but to city official, powerful woman, high priest, kings and
> > > finally the Emperor himself.  Luke is truly inclusive not only
> > > geographical but also social, political and economical. "In the
> > > fifteenth year of the reign of Emperor Tiberius, when Pontius Pilate
> > > was governor of Judea, and Herod ruse ruler of Galilee, and..." 3:1
>
> > > John's witness is a ministry of preparation. He is proclaiming a
> > > baptism of repentance.  He is calling Israel to prepare for the word
> > > to be written on their hearts.  John's ministry is not the church's
> > > ministry.  We should not wallow in repentance.  Our sacramental meal
> > > is not a table of repentance, our baptism is not a baptism of
> > > repentance.  We celebrate the new creation that John was announcing.  
> > > We celebrate our union with Christ.  We should not continue the
> > > ministry of John.
>
> > > But John's ministry also remind us that the blinders have been wiped
> > > away.  We need to know that the barrier to receiving salvation have
> > > been removed.  The valleys are filled, the crooked way made straight,
> > > the rough ways made smooth, "so all flesh shall see the salvation of
> > > God." 3:6  
>
> > > So with the bushes cut down, the way opened up and the obstacles
> > > removed it a great time to be preaching the Gospel.  
>
> > > Any additions or correction?  Any liturgical resources? Peace, Herb  - Hide quoted text -

[Jean Easland]

Tom: Dying to self is symbolized when we go "under" the water of baptism,
"coming out" to new life in Christ. Repentance is a life long part of the
joyful Christian journey "in" Christ. Both are events and processes in
encountering the Mystery every day in liturgy, worship and the good works
called forth by the Spirit. This life is not righteousness but movement
toward it(Luther). Eastern Orthodox call this "joyful sorrow". The Lord is
our Shepherd, all we like sheep have gone astray(Calvin).
Sanctification/deification is an ongoing gift of God the Holy Spirit. We
participate in the divine energies but never the divine essence. Bless your
journey---------Roger

----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom Kirkham" <t...@glen-na-gael.com>
To: "Confessing Christ Open Forum" <confessi...@googlegroups.com>

[bct...@aol.com]

Dear Roger,

 

How are things on the prairie?  We have snow here in Connecticut, but not like the huge snowfalls recorded in other parts of the East Coast. 

 

Just for the sake of dialogue, what does it mean to you when you say:

 

"We participate in the divine energies but never the divine essence."

 

Looking forward to hearing more.

 

Blessings,

Jane

[herb.davis]

Sermon Note: Dec. 27, First Sunday After Advent, Lu, 2:41-51

St. Luke is making sure we know who Jesus is. He takes us by the hand and
uses old stories of Samuel, Moses, David, Elijah to introduce the "new
news." We have been told by the Angel, Mary, Elizabeth, Zechariah, Simeon
and Anna who Jesus is. Now in the story of the Boy Jesus in the temple
Jesus affirms his special relationship to the Father. "Did you not know I
must be in my Father's house?" (2:49)

St Luke makes sure we know that the "new news" has continuity with the story
of Abraham. Jesus is a Jew. At every significant period of his life he is
in continuity with Judaism. Born of the House of David, circumcision on the
eight day, dedicated or presented to God when his mother was purified, bar
mitzvah at age twelve and celebrating the Passover in Jerusalem. Jesus is a
true Israelite born and brought up in the moral and ritual life of Judaism.
Luke is not interested in the extra biblical miracles of Jesus as a boy. He
wants us to know Jesus is a Son of the torah.

This story also confirms the tension in the family as Jesus grows in
awareness of his ministry. Mary's question , "Child why have you treated us
like this?" (2:28) is a familiar parental question. Jesus answer conveys
affirmation of his ministry but his action in returning to his family
indicates that family love and loyalties are not destroyed by our love for
God..

Any additions or corrections? Any liturgical resources? Peace, Herb

[Jean Easland]

Sweet Sister: Looks like the East Coast is getting pounded with a real blizzard, we have just had cold nothing like what yal are getting. ------------It is an Eastern Orthodox teaching that goes back to the Church Fathers and Mothers. They teach that  God's "essence" is unknowable and totally transcendent but that the divine "energies" are the gifts that manifest on earth to humankind. In our classical systematic it would be the doctrine of God. They contend that God is unknowable by human reason----and look "down" the rest of the Church as it attempts to explain the Divine Essence. You will notice how careful they are in the Nicene Creed to make sure that each member of the Trinity is recognized to be of the same "essence". I think the Greek is oosia but others like Willis or Gabe know the right Greek meanings. In stead of "sanctification" as is found paricularly in the holiness tradition and "Spirit Filled" Pentecostal traditions, they use the word "divination" to name  the mystical experience of being a real participant in the work and presence of the Holy Spirit. So they also see the opposite pole of          totally transcendent as God's total immanence .  Ask Willis to describe the ancient analogy of metal and fire in the forge welding process. They consider Liturgy as one of the places where the encounter of the Great Mystery takes place alone with the sacraments and the disciplines of prayer, fasting etc. Their anthropology is more positive than Calvinism although if your read their doctrine of sin it is a description of "total depravity". Because of their use of icons they see humankind as made in the "Image" of God and are much less harsh and more "universal" concerning judgment without leaving the sense of particularity in Jesus Christ. They have a wonderful high Christology and doctrine of the Word. This is extremely sketchy and most of it comes from the recent book by Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholowmew, "Encountering the Mystery". They have a wonder short booklet for youth simply entitled "Who is Jesus" written by one of their lay women, she wrote it for her own kids and I recommend it for use as part of good a confirmation teaching and experience. I have been using the Orthodox Study Bible for a daily office for several years. In it you will find some of the teaching of the Church and a good explanation of their hermeneutic. I was raised and confirmed a Methodist, graduated from an ELCA College, had a mid-life awakening, went to a German Baptist Seminary and have served only UCC C until recently. I am pastor a church that left the denomination---------trying to heal the wound but don't expect them to return to that covenant. I believe all traditions have an obligation in the Spirit to be an effective witness of edification to all other parts of the Body of Christ, not a very popular position in today's American Church. I once served on the Steering Committee, I not sure why but it brought me close to Gabe, Willis, Herb and others. We ranched for 17 years so I have fun throwing a few cowboy culture barbs at the mostly urban group. My favorite theologians are Stan Grenz(now deceased) who was my personal teacher, Gabe and Donald Bloesch. I don't know Calvin that well and Luther mostly by osmosis as my wife and I were ELCA for 17 years. So I hope you will forgive my crudeness and boasting, it is just a poor cove for my insecurities and sin. You sound like you have a brilliant start and a distinctive role in God's wonderful and "mysterious" plan of salvation. Blessings on your ministry and studies--the wonderful work in never finished. I tried retirement after some exhaustion serving one Church for 14 years here in Pierre----but God made me even more miserable when I tried to quit. Have a wonderful Epiphany and keep all the CC folk on their toes----iron sharpens iron-----------Blessings from the wonderful prairie-------I have a funeral for a wonderful pioneer saint tomorrow age 96---------better get cracking on something to say--------God have mercy-------------Roger

----- Original Message -----

From: bct...@aol.com

To: confessi...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Sunday, December 20, 2009 11:06 AM

Subject: Re: Sermon Note: Dec. 6, Second Sunday in advent, Lu.3:1-6

[fcba%40comcast.net]

Herb,

 

The issue of God as "Father" comes up in this text. Recently I heard a devotional given where the pastor, Mark Rothermel said:

 

 "I am convinced that Jesus did not sit down one day and say , 'I need a bold, fresh metaphor for God.' Jesus' use of Father comes from His own awareness that while he has a human mother, his real Father is God. He is aware that he is the incarnate Son of God."

 

He went further but the basic idea is that the use of the term Father comes most strongly from Jesus. It does so because he was the incarnate Son of God and he knew that he had a human mother. Therefore the use of the word "Father," as the term Jesus used for God is tied to a strong incarnational Christianity. If the father of Jesus was Joseph this whole story of the temple would not make much sense.

 

Chris Anderson

----- Original Message -----
From: "herb.davis" <herb....@mindspring.com>
To: confessi...@googlegroups.com

[Augustana Vince]

On Dec 20, 5:22 pm, "fcba%40comcast.net" <f...@comcast.net> wrote:
> "I am convinced that Jesus did not sit down one day and say , 'I need a bold, fresh metaphor for God.'

Thus we may conclude that Jesus was not UCC.

:-)

Vince

PS Maybe Jesus did have bold, fresh metaphors for God and it is us who
do not hear them.

[Jean Easland]

Jane: I used the word divination instead of deification in my off the cuff remarks about Eastern Orthodoxy. The conditioning of my western mind makes some of their spirituality nearly impossible to understand. Check out the definition of apothatic theology for further exploration if you are still interested. The use of Icons and aesthetics is foreign to us but powerful to them. They seem quite angry about both Christian and Islamic fundamentalism. They do not consider themselves evangelical and have lived for centuries along side Islam in peace. The Ecumenical Patriarch resides in Istanbul Turkey----. What propositionalists don't like is "experience" but the EO fills the worship environment with the sights (Icons), sounds--- ancient liturgy(canting etc.), smells and Word that draw the attention of the senses and mind to the Great Mystery which is God. They believe that the Church IS the Kingdom of God on earth and that all theology begins with "experience", Herb sure does not dig that! I don't think we are that impoverished or that the Spirit is not present for us------------nobody does it right-------we are all just practicing for now--------Joy to your studies.     Roger

[The Right Rev'd Richard Hammond Price, OCC, Abbot, Order of Corpus Christi]

A request:  Roger, could you enlarge font in your postings. There are a significant number of old eyes in this group, including mine, who would be grateful.

+Richard

[fcba%40comcast.net]

Vince,

 

I can tell immediately that I am going to like you.

 

Chris

[Jean Easland]

Richard: Sorry, thanks for your deep love for the Church! Blessings----------Roger

[herb.davis]

Dear Chris,  I am not sure one would get Mark's Rothermel's comment from the text.  I am not sure Jesus was convinced he had a human mother but no human father.  I would have to study OT texts more careful, but Luke is using the Samuel story as a model for Jesus in the temple.  I don't know how that relates to Mark's comments.

 

The Gospel that seems to define a very tight relationship between Father - Son is John which doesn't even mention virgin birth except in a negative way.

 

What did you make of Mark's comments Christ?  This might be an interesting discussion.  Peace, Herb

[herb.davis] 

 

 -----Original Message-----
From: confessi...@googlegroups.com [mailto:confessi...@googlegroups.com]On Behalf Of fcba%40comcast.net
Sent: Sunday, December 20, 2009 5:22 PM
To: confessi...@googlegroups.com; Rothermel, Mark
Subject: Re: Sermon Note: Dec. 27, First Sunday After Advent, Lu, 2:41-51

[Willis E. Elliott]

Jim

 

My post centered in GOD, who has given us two powers we are to use.

Your response centers in SCRIPTURE, which is what "scribes" do.

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com

Version: 9.0.717 / Virus Database: 270.14.115/2576 - Release Date: 12/19/09 13:40:00

[link...@aol.com]

Dear Willis,

Our posts center on the God who is attested in Scripture, who has sent
us his servants the prophets and the apostles.

Jim [the Link]

On Dec 21, 4:35 pm, "Willis E. Elliott" <elliot...@charter.net> wrote:
> Jim
>

> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------­-----

>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG -www.avg.com

> Version: 9.0.717 / Virus Database: 270.14.115/2576 - Release Date: 12/19/09 13:40:00- Hide quoted text -

[herb.davis]

wllis,  I don't want to get in the middle of you and Jim, but  are you saying you have a direct relationship with God outside of scripture?  I don't think you mean that, just what do you mean?  Herb

[fcba%40comcast.net]

Herb,

 

I had a wonderful New Testament professor At GCTS named Ramsey Michaels. He had a very interesting theory that I have liked for almost 40 years. He pointed out that Jesus said things like 'I have only told you what the Father has told me' etc. Such texts always freaked me out because it made it seem that Jesus was merely a scribe transmitting messages that the Father had for the disciples instead of The Son of God with His own powerful message.

 

The way I understood Michaels was that Jesus learned who he was through the Father telling him stories. Many of these stories or parables include fathers and sons. Michaels combined the parables with the words of Jesus that he only told the disciples what the Father had told him to mean that these parables came from the Father to him and they defined his message. One of the great examples off the top of my head is when the King sets up leadrs to take care of his property and then sends people to collect rent etc and they are killed and finally the Son is killed.

 

Combining the parables with the teaching of Jesus that he only taught the disiples what the Father taught him give us an insight into how the human/divine Jesus came to understand who he was. He understood that he was Son to a Father.

 

My Christology says that at some point Jesus know that Joseph was not his father but he know that Mary was his mother. Therefore for him God was Father and not mother. (By this I am not discounting Gen. 1:28 or the fact that God is beyond gender.)

 

Combining the idea of the parables, teaching only what the Father taught him and the Virgin Birth (to me) gives us a picture of why Jesus used almost exclusively the word "Father" for God. In the 12 year old at the temple story Jesus seemed to already distinguish between Joseph and his "Father." And he did not say "Did you not know that I must be about my Mother's business?"

 

My point is (Mark Rothermel's as well.) is that the idea of Father therefore has a strong connection to the teaching of the incarnation. If Jesus had come through a man (Barth explicitly points out that the male human had nothing to do with the incarnation) then Jesus would have had a human father and maybe called God "Mother" but instead he had a human mother and knew that he had a divine "Father."

 

The 12 year old temple story tells me that Jesus was aware of quite a bit concerning the teaching of the Apostles' Creed even at that early age.

 

Chris Anderson

----- Original Message -----
From: "herb.davis" <herb....@mindspring.com>
To: confessi...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Monday, December 21, 2009 1:46:13 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: RE: Sermon Note: Dec. 27, First Sunday After Advent, Lu, 2:41-51



[herb.davis]

Dear Chris,  I am not sure why this is important.  I don't see any scriptural evidence that this was on the minds of the writers.  I am uncomfortable with this theory  making Jesus subordinate to the Father, rather than co-equal, co-eternal.  It sounds Arian to me.  I remember Michaels as a excellent NT scholar who was dismiss from GCTS for waving on inerrancy so I am reluctant to dismiss his theory.  I just don't like where it seems to be leading.  I think this theory would not help in restoring Father language to liberal churches.  I am not even sure it is helpful in understanding the identity of Jesus.    I wonder what others think.  Herb 

-----Original Message-----
From: confessi...@googlegroups.com [mailto:confessi...@googlegroups.com]On Behalf Of fcba%40comcast.net
Sent: Monday, December 21, 2009 10:13 PM
To: confessi...@googlegroups.com; Rothermel, Mark
Subject: Re: Sermon Note: Dec. 27, First Sunday After Advent, Lu, 2:41-51

Herb,

 

I had a wonderful New Testament professor At GCTS named Ramsey Michaels. He had a very interesting theory that I have liked for almost 40 years. He pointed out that Jesus said things like 'I have only told you what the Father has told me' etc. Such texts always freaked me out because it made it seem that Jesus was merely a scribe transmitting messages that the Father had for the disciples instead of The Son of God with His own powerful message.

[fcba%40comcast.net]

Herb,

 

Don't blame Michaels for what is only part of the discussion. Michaels' taught that jesus learned of his Sonship through the Father teaching him the parables. I like this theory though I can see people having trouble with it.

 

You worry about this making for an Arian Jesus. I think you miss the fact that Jesus is both human & divine. When Jesus was on earth he was not the equal to the Father in intellect etc. If he was he would not be human. One heresy was Appollinarianism. In it the divine logos took over the human. It seems to me that is what you are defending. The hsitoric Jesus at one time did not know he was the Son of God and at another time he did. How did he get to know this? My understanding of Michaels' theory is that it says this understanidng came through these discussions and the use of parables that later Jeus taught to the disciples.

 

The beauty of it is the simple biblical picture it paints.

1)Jesus taught in parables.

2)Jesus said that he only taught what the Father taught him.

3) The parables have a lot to say about the Father and the Son.

4) Therefore Jesus learn that he was the Son of God through these times when the father taught him the parables.

 

I still cannot see you problem with this, atleast so far. Admittedly it is somewhat speculative but it makes sense.

 

The next part is that Jesus used the word "Father" because of these times with the Father who taught him these parables.

5) And why did Jesus call God "Father" and not "Mother?" Because he had a human mother but not a human father. Maybe I am too coservative here but wouldn't Joseph have been insulted when he said "I must be about my Father's business?" To me it gives me evidence that Jeus already (at the age of confirmation) had some knowledge that atleast God was his Father. And why was this important? Because he had a human mother and not a human father.

 

I do not mean to belabor this but it makes sense to me.

 

Chris Anderson

 

 

----- Original Message -----
From: "herb.davis" <herb....@mindspring.com>
To: confessi...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Monday, December 21, 2009 10:48:30 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: RE: Sermon Note: Dec. 27, First Sunday After Advent, Lu, 2:41-51



[link...@aol.com]

Dear Friends,

I wrote a little something on this text in "Sermon Helps" Just a start
for me.

Merry Christmas!

Jim [The Link]

[Tom Kirkham]

Hi Roger,

I do agree with you, but I was focusing on the baptism of Jesus by
John the Baptist. I believe this a baptism which pointed to Israel and
not the same essence of Christian Baptism. I think John's baptism was
one for Israel as a preparation for the imminent appearance of
Messiah. Christian Baptism, I agree, is symbolic of the dying to self
as is necessary in order to receive the gift of forgiveness and
salvation from God.

Thanks for the note of enrichment and blessings to you this Christmas!
Tom from Maine

[Willis E. Elliott]

Jim

 

Scribism (or scribalism, or bibliolatry) is the heresy of seeing only through a particular holybook.

Please re-read my first two paragraphs, & consider our Lord's encounters with the scribes.

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com

Version: 9.0.717 / Virus Database: 270.14.114/2574 - Release Date: 12/18/09 13:38:00

[Willis E. Elliott]

Jim

 

I note that you did not respond to "the two [God-given] powers we are to use."  That is where our difference lies, not in religious language.

 

Francis Bacon (father of natural science through his development of the inductive method for gaining knowledge - Novum Organum, 1620) taught the TWO ways of knowing, viz. by "God's word" & by "God's works" (in the quotation Darwin used to face his title-page of "...Origin....").  Bacon, Darwin, & I appeal that (to use my metaphor) we human beings use both our eyes (ways of knowing).  You seem to me to persist in being one-eyed, as the scribes.

 

In 1900, the Biblical Theological Seminary of New York was founded with its distinctive purpose being the applying of Francis Bacon to the Bible ("inductive Bible study").  In another seminary in 1937, I became convinced of the method (in a course by H.T.Kuist of BSNY - the greatest course I ever had).  And during the decade of the '70s I taught at the Francis Bacon seminary (called, then & now, NYTheological Seminary).

 

The difference between us is deep, though not irreconcilable.  But your mouthing of religious platitudes cannot bridge it.

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com

Version: 9.0.717 / Virus Database: 270.14.116/2579 - Release Date: 12/21/09 01:36:00