On Thu, 31 Jul 2003 21:48:43 +1200, Alan Brennan wrote:
I think this point needs clarification because it seems a fundamental one in your (Alan's) position.
As can be seen below, Alan referred to "The One True, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic church, of course. ie. The only church there is." This church he refers to has great authority in matters of faith as it (whatever it is) is apparently the one true church. My question is: where do we find this "church"? Can I go to some place and find its pronouncements? Is there a way a poor Calvinist can get the one true holy and catholic doctrine taught him?
I wonder if Alan is referring to Rome? Are doctrines in the Roman tradition true? Doctrines such as purgatory, the immaculate conception of Mary, the Mass, the confession of sins to a priest, the merit of works as satisfaction for sins, and so on.
>> > This is not a problem for me. The precepts of God are mediated by the >> > Church (including, as one channel, the book written by the Church, The >> > Bible), and interpreted by tradition and reason. I am a traditional and >> > reasonable person. God's precepts come easy.
I asked >> By what authority does the Church do this? Who says we have to heed the >> Church?
> The church WROTE the Bible. The books of our Christian Canon were > written by members of the church, to members of the church. They were > saved and treasured by the church and selected, from amongst many other > contenders as part of the Canon by Bishops of the church, sitting in > solemn council under the chairmanship of a Roman Emperor of fairly > doubtful personal spirituality. Since then, the church has preserved, > studied and discussed the Bible, been nurtured by it and nurtured it. > The church and only the church has the right to interpretation.
>> The Reformation came about as a reaction against the indulgences >> and other abuses foisted upon the people by the Church; the crusades were >> carried out under the blessing of the papacy of the time.
> And what this has to do with the matter in hand is well beyond me....
>> Which Church do you mean? > The One True, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic church, of course. ie. The > only church there is. >> On what basis is the Church you nominate the one >> that God actually authorises to this role(assuming you are correct)? How >> do we know you have it right? There are literally thousands of >> denominations around - they obviously differ with one another or they >> wouldn't exist. So how are you going to justify your claim that your >> version of "Church" is actually the true one?
> I don't worry much about which of the various temporary and fragile > little factions which make up the Church is the true one. I'm sure God > can sort that out. But the church which wrote the scriptures has > continued its physical presence in the world from the time of the > apostles until now, and will continue to do so for the forseeable > future. The fact that bits of it have seen fit to fracture off from time > to time is regrettable, but of no great account in the long run.
> You seem to have a real thing about authority, btw. Odd.
Not really - history is replete with examples of corrupt abuse of claimed religious authority - human traditions elevated to the same level as God's precepts - Jesus rebuked the Pharisees for it in His day and it is still with us. The Reformers rightly called for Sola Scriptura as the basis of authority, not human tradition.
>> >> I merely raised the question of interpretation. What is my >> >> particular interpretation? What is yours or do you simply >> >> deny it has any authority?
>> > There must always be interpretation. You interpret by your lights and I >> > by mine. But any questions you have about the authority of a basis of >> > interpretation must first be levelled at yourself.
>> Why? Why not at you - after all as I have pointed out above you are >> referring to an undefined "Church" as being the mediator? Justify that >> position!
> Your question needs to be levelled first at yourself because you are the > one asking it. And you are the one who seems to abrogate for himself the > right to interpret the scriptures without stating any basis for that > interpretation, except the fatuous non answer "The Bible interprets the > Bible". (ie your interppretation of scripture provides the basis for > your interpretation of scripture).Fot me there is not even a question. > The Bible is the Church's book and is interpreted according to the > traditions of the Church which is its author and caretaker.
On Fri, 01 Aug 2003 19:54:13 +1200 Martin ( martin.ke...@paradise.net.nz ) Wrote
-snip
> The Reformers rightly called for Sola Scriptura as the basis of > authority, not human tradition.
But the scripture *IS* a human tradition!!!
And this is where the reformers have got themselves into trouble ever since. It is all very well to claim scripture as your authority, but the scripture still must be interpreted. And where people are deliberately dismissing the wisdom of centuries as "mere human tradition" they are prey to whatever vagaries their own unconscious prejudices place between them and the pages of the Bible. There are approximately 9,000 Christian denominations. Approximately 8,950 of these are Protestant. That says it all, I think.
> On Fri, 01 Aug 2003 19:54:13 +1200 > Martin ( martin.ke...@paradise.net.nz ) > Wrote
> -snip
> > The Reformers rightly called for Sola Scriptura as the basis of > > authority, not human tradition.
> But the scripture *IS* a human tradition!!!
> And this is where the reformers have got themselves into trouble ever > since. It is all very well to claim scripture as your authority, but the > scripture still must be interpreted. And where people are deliberately > dismissing the wisdom of centuries as "mere human tradition" they are > prey to whatever vagaries their own unconscious prejudices place between > them and the pages of the Bible. There are approximately 9,000 Christian > denominations. Approximately 8,950 of these are Protestant. That says it > all, I think.
I'm sorry to say I have my numbers wrong. I should have checked before posting. There are approximately 36,400 Christian denominations. Approximately 36,350 of these are Protestant.
On Fri, 01 Aug 2003 21:05:15 +1200, Alan Brennan wrote: > On Fri, 01 Aug 2003 19:54:13 +1200 > Martin ( martin.ke...@paradise.net.nz ) Wrote
> -snip
>> The Reformers rightly called for Sola Scriptura as the basis of >> authority, not human tradition.
> But the scripture *IS* a human tradition!!!
I am not sure what you mean by the term 'human tradition' but I presume it means that it is originated and derived from human initiative (ie the word of man) and has become authoritative by common use as opposed to being authoritative by virtue of divine origin (ie the Word of God) If the Scripture is only a human tradition, then it is not the authoritative Word of God, it is at the same level as the Iliad or the Aeneid. However this view is contradicted by the church as recorded and preserved in Scripture. For example, Paul in I Thess 2v13.
> And this is where the reformers have got themselves into trouble ever > since. It is all very well to claim scripture as your authority, but the > scripture still must be interpreted.
I agree with your point that Scripture has to be interpreted. However I trust you understand that because God is the author of all Scripture (both Old and New testaments) that there is an organic unity as well as a revelational development all of which centres around and explains the incarnation of God in the flesh in the person of the Lord Jesus Christ.
He is the interpreting principle, if you will, and we are o use our God-given reason to carry out this interpretive task.
>And where people are deliberately > dismissing the wisdom of centuries as "mere human tradition" they are > prey to whatever vagaries their own unconscious prejudices place between > them and the pages of the Bible. There are approximately 9,000 Christian > denominations. Approximately 8,950 of these are Protestant. That says it > all, I think.
What is called the "wisdom of centuries" needs to be examined against what God says. For example, the wisdom of centuries of Roman Catholicism had lead to the pronouncement of the immaculate conception of the virgin Mary in 1854, a piece of "wisdom" that is false according to Scripture. Other wisdom was published as the "Papal Syllabus of errors" in 1864 was one which states that a "principal error of our time" the view that "Divine revelation is imperfect, and, therefore, subject to a continual and indefinite progress, which corresponds with the progress of human reason". This condemnation is one I think agrees with Scripture. Another error according to the Roman See is the position that "The Church ought to be separated from the State, and the State from the Church".
How about this statement from 1870 Vatican Ch II "If, then, any should deny that it is by the institution of Christ the Lord, or by divine right, that blessed Peter should have a perpetual line of successors in the Primacy over the universal Church, or that the Roman Pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy: let him be anathema". Well I do so deny it! Do you say I am anathema? Or are you selective of the "wisdom of the centuries" coming out of Rome?
Interesting to note that the Vatican statement uses the "institution of Christ" as its authority - IOW not human tradition is asserted but divine institution - how can they justify this without appeal to divine revelation (ie the Bible)?
Martin wrote: > On Fri, 01 Aug 2003 21:05:15 +1200, Alan Brennan wrote:
>>On Fri, 01 Aug 2003 19:54:13 +1200 >>Martin ( martin.ke...@paradise.net.nz ) Wrote
>>-snip
>>>The Reformers rightly called for Sola Scriptura as the basis of >>>authority, not human tradition.
>>But the scripture *IS* a human tradition!!!
> I am not sure what you mean by the term 'human tradition' but I presume it > means that it is originated and derived from human initiative (ie the word > of man) and has become authoritative by common use as opposed to being > authoritative by virtue of divine origin (ie the Word of God) If the > Scripture is only a human tradition, then it is not the authoritative Word > of God, it is at the same level as the Iliad or the Aeneid. However this > view is contradicted by the church as recorded and preserved in Scripture. > For example, Paul in I Thess 2v13.
You have it right. The Holy Bible contains the the Word of God, it is Divinely inspired, It is written by humnas for humans to read. It is not an absolute document standing upon its own. It was assembled by the One True Holy Catholic Church as containing the Deposit of Faith. It must be interpreted in the light if the tradition of the One True Holy Catholic Church. Members of that Church from time to time have made mistakes, but that in no way detracts from the importanc of the "handed down tradition of the Church.
>>And this is where the reformers have got themselves into trouble ever >>since. It is all very well to claim scripture as your authority, but the >>scripture still must be interpreted.
> I agree with your point that Scripture has to be interpreted. However I > trust you understand that because God is the author of all Scripture (both > Old and New testaments) that there is an organic unity as well as a > revelational development all of which centres around and explains the > incarnation of God in the flesh in the person of the Lord Jesus Christ.
> He is the interpreting principle, if you will, and we are o use our > God-given reason to carry out this interpretive task.
Certainly this is true, provided that you do not add to Holy Scripture things that are not there. While I accept that the faith is not a static frozen thing, it has developed over the years, and has been reinterpreted over time to make it relevant to our current times. Always however within the confines of the One True oly Catholic Church.
>>And where people are deliberately >>dismissing the wisdom of centuries as "mere human tradition" they are >>prey to whatever vagaries their own unconscious prejudices place between >>them and the pages of the Bible. There are approximately 9,000 Christian >>denominations. Approximately 8,950 of these are Protestant. That says it >>all, I think.
> What is called the "wisdom of centuries" needs to be examined against what > God says.
Here you seem to be saying "I will interpret the 'wisdom of centuries' as I see fit" by which you mean that you become the final arbiter of what is rught!
>For example, the wisdom of centuries of Roman Catholicism had > lead to the pronouncement of the immaculate conception of the virgin Mary > in 1854, a piece of "wisdom" that is false according to Scripture. Other > wisdom was published as the "Papal Syllabus of errors" in 1864 was one > which states that a "principal error of our time" the view that "Divine > revelation is imperfect, and, therefore, subject to a continual and > indefinite progress, which corresponds with the progress of human reason". > This condemnation is one I think agrees with Scripture. > Another error according to the Roman See is the position that "The Church > ought to be separated from the State, and the State from the Church".
Nobody has ever claimed that various members of the One True Holy and Catholic Church are spotless - they are human like the rest of us and have made some terrible mustakes, but the "Body of the Church" recovers from these without any problem - that is the point!
> How about this statement from 1870 Vatican Ch II "If, then, any should > deny that it is by the institution of Christ the Lord, or by divine right, > that blessed Peter should have a perpetual line of successors in the > Primacy over the universal Church, or that the Roman Pontiff is the > successor of blessed Peter in this primacy: let him be anathema". > Well I do so deny it! Do you say I am anathema? Or are you selective of > the "wisdom of the centuries" coming out of Rome?
Here Alan and I could perhaps differ slightly. I tend to the view that the statement about inallibility was an error made by a member of the Church, but that in no way invalidated the Church itself. This error was to some extent corrected by Vatican II, and has since had some problem, but that in now way invaliates the One True Holy and Catholic Church which is going through a very significant change. Where the final dust will settle I do not know, but I am sure that by the Grace of God it will be "the right place"!
> Interesting to note that the Vatican statement uses the "institution of > Christ" as its authority - IOW not human tradition is asserted but divine > institution - how can they justify this without appeal to divine > revelation (ie the Bible)?
How ever you view things, it is by "in the light of the tradition of the Church" that the Holy Bible is read and interpreted, and that any interpretation outside that tradition has little validity. Once we move outside the "tradition of the One True Holy and Catholic Church" we are on very dangerous ground indeed, by regarding our own interpretation as superior to that of the Church. The Holy Bible does contain the "Word of God", it does contain the "Deposit of Faith" it is not in itself "The Word of God" but is a document written by various people giving their experience of God in the context in which they lived. This is not the same as being an inerrent, literally true, scientifically accurate, historically accurate description of God's World.
> On Fri, 01 Aug 2003 21:05:15 +1200, Alan Brennan wrote:
> > On Fri, 01 Aug 2003 19:54:13 +1200 > > Martin ( martin.ke...@paradise.net.nz ) Wrote
> > -snip
> >> The Reformers rightly called for Sola Scriptura as the basis of > >> authority, not human tradition.
> > But the scripture *IS* a human tradition!!!
> I am not sure what you mean by the term 'human tradition' but I presume it > means that it is originated and derived from human initiative (ie the word > of man) and has become authoritative by common use as opposed to being > authoritative by virtue of divine origin (ie the Word of God)
These two are not mutually contradictory. Of course the Bible originated from human initiative. Paul sitting down to write the Epistle to the Romans didn't think "well, today I better sit down and write a bit of scripture". He sat down and wrote a letter to introduce himself to the church of Rome, and to lay out his gospel.And as the epistle was read and reread people gradually discerned in it the Word of God and treasured it as scripture.
> If the > Scripture is only a human tradition, then it is not the authoritative Word > of God,
This does not follow. We worship an incarnate God; one who has woven his presence into the very fabric of human history. This is seen pre- eminently in the incarnation of God in Jesus Christ, but is seen also in many other aspects of creation. Just as Jesus is both fully human and divine, so the scripture is a fully human book, produced by the vagaries of human intention and transmitted by fallible humans, but also a vehicle for the Word of God
> it is at the same level as the Iliad or the Aeneid. Balderdash > However this > view is contradicted by the church as recorded and preserved in Scripture. > For example, Paul in I Thess 2v13.
You continue to make this great error of equating the phrase "Word of God" with the bible. Why do you do this? In this passage in Thessalonians it clearly refers, not to the Bible, but to the saving Gospel which Paul had previously preached to them.
> > And this is where the reformers have got themselves into trouble ever > > since. It is all very well to claim scripture as your authority, but the > > scripture still must be interpreted.
> I agree with your point that Scripture has to be interpreted. However I > trust you understand that because God is the author of all Scripture (both > Old and New testaments) that there is an organic unity as well as a > revelational development all of which centres around and explains the > incarnation of God in the flesh in the person of the Lord Jesus Christ.
> He is the interpreting principle, if you will, and we are o use our > God-given reason to carry out this interpretive task.
And you apply this God given reason using exactly what presuppositions, precepts, expectations, assumptions, prejudices? In what cultural context? With what level of education and understanding? With what knowledge of the original Biblical languages and the circumstances under which each book was written? The task of interpretation is beyond any of us, which is why we are in serious trouble when we ditch the wisdom of the past. Which is why the reformation churches splinter and fragment and continue to do so.
> >And where people are deliberately > > dismissing the wisdom of centuries as "mere human tradition" they are > > prey to whatever vagaries their own unconscious prejudices place between > > them and the pages of the Bible. There are approximately 9,000 Christian > > denominations. Approximately 8,950 of these are Protestant. That says it > > all, I think.
> What is called the "wisdom of centuries" needs to be examined against what > God says.
The wisdom of centuries is, very often, what God says.
> For example, the wisdom of centuries of Roman Catholicism had > lead to the pronouncement of the immaculate conception of the virgin Mary > in 1854, a piece of "wisdom" that is false according to Scripture.
I personally have my doubts about Jesus' immaculate conception, never mind Mary's. Happily, my church is gracious enough to accept and love me despite my doubts. But I have no knowledge of the circumstances surrounding Mary's birth. I must have missed that bit in the Bible. Could you point me to the part where it specifically says she was not immaculately conceived? Or are you basing your objection to this point on "mere human tradition"?
> Other > wisdom was published as the "Papal Syllabus of errors" in 1864 was one > which states that a "principal error of our time" the view that "Divine > revelation is imperfect, and, therefore, subject to a continual and > indefinite progress, which corresponds with the progress of human reason". > This condemnation is one I think agrees with Scripture.
I'm sorry, your point eludes me here.
> Another error according to the Roman See is the position that "The Church > ought to be separated from the State, and the State from the Church".
> How about this statement from 1870 Vatican Ch II "If, then, any should > deny that it is by the institution of Christ the Lord, or by divine right, > that blessed Peter should have a perpetual line of successors in the > Primacy over the universal Church, or that the Roman Pontiff is the > successor of blessed Peter in this primacy: let him be anathema". > Well I do so deny it! Do you say I am anathema?
Of course you are. Anathaema means you are out of community with the Roman Church. You have several times proclaimed that fact and seem to be quite proud of it. ie. you seem to agree with the Vatican council on this point.
> Or are you selective of > the "wisdom of the centuries" coming out of Rome?
> Interesting to note that the Vatican statement uses the "institution of > Christ" as its authority - IOW not human tradition is asserted but divine > institution - how can they justify this without appeal to divine > revelation (ie the Bible)?
Divine institution is mediated to us through the traditions of the church, of which the Bible is part.
You have confused a number of things. Divine institution is not the same thing as "found in the Bible"
On Sat, 02 Aug 2003 10:46:56 +1200, Alan Brennan wrote: >> I am not sure what you mean by the term 'human tradition' but I presume >> it means that it is originated and derived from human initiative (ie >> the word of man) and has become authoritative by common use as opposed >> to being authoritative by virtue of divine origin (ie the Word of God) > These two are not mutually contradictory. Of course the Bible originated > from human initiative. Paul sitting down to write the Epistle to the > Romans didn't think "well, today I better sit down and write a bit of > scripture". He sat down and wrote a letter to introduce himself to the > church of Rome, and to lay out his gospel.And as the epistle was read > and reread people gradually discerned in it the Word of God and > treasured it as scripture.
I accept what you are saying here. However, the Holy Spirit was inspiring Paul and this was recognised by the people of God and Romans eventually became seen as part of the Word of God. IOW in hindsight we can see that the apostle, moved by the Holy Spirit, spoke from God and thus it ultimately was of divine origin though delievered through a man, the apostle Paul. They did not discern in it the Word of God (as if the inspiration were partial), instead they recognised that it was the Word of God (that is fully inspired as to all they wrote, whether doctrine or fact). This does nt, however, imply that they were imbued with all knowledge - in matters of science, philosophy, and history they stood on the same level as their contemporaries - but it does mean that they were infallible as teachers and when acting as spokesman for God. They may not have fully understood the truths they taught.
God presents truth to us objectively not by some intuitive subjective process as you seem to be implying.
>> If the >> Scripture is only a human tradition, then it is not the authoritative >> Word of God, > This does not follow. We worship an incarnate God; one who has woven his > presence into the very fabric of human history. This is seen pre- > eminently in the incarnation of God in Jesus Christ, but is seen also in > many other aspects of creation. Just as Jesus is both fully human and > divine, so the scripture is a fully human book, produced by the vagaries > of human intention and transmitted by fallible humans, but also a > vehicle for the Word of God >> it is at the same level as the Iliad or the Aeneid. > Balderdash >> However this >> view is contradicted by the church as recorded and preserved in >> Scripture. For example, Paul in I Thess 2v13.
> You continue to make this great error of equating the phrase "Word of > God" with the bible. Why do you do this? In this passage in > Thessalonians it clearly refers, not to the Bible, but to the saving > Gospel which Paul had previously preached to them.
Why do you make a distinction which is clearly not evident in the text. The statements in 2 Peter 3:15-6 refers to the writings of Paul (his epistles)not some subjectively extracted content. His writings (the epistles not the gospel content only) are equated with 'the rest of the Scriptures'.
[snip]
>> What is called the "wisdom of centuries" needs to be examined against >> what God says. > The wisdom of centuries is, very often, what God says. >> For example, the wisdom of centuries of Roman Catholicism had lead to >> the pronouncement of the immaculate conception of the virgin Mary in >> 1854, a piece of "wisdom" that is false according to Scripture. > I personally have my doubts about Jesus' immaculate conception, never > mind Mary's. Happily, my church is gracious enough to accept and love me > despite my doubts. > But I have no knowledge of the circumstances surrounding Mary's birth. I > must have missed that bit in the Bible. Could you point me to the part > where it specifically says she was not immaculately conceived? Or are > you basing your objection to this point on "mere human tradition"?
The argument is one of silence. All people are born sinful (Psalm 51 and many other places tells us this). Mary is a human being and therefore inherits the same nature the rest of us do. Therefore the doctrine of immaculate conception of Mary is without foundation and is a fantasy.
>> Other >> wisdom was published as the "Papal Syllabus of errors" in 1864 was one >> which states that a "principal error of our time" the view that "Divine >> revelation is imperfect, and, therefore, subject to a continual and >> indefinite progress, which corresponds with the progress of human >> reason". This condemnation is one I think agrees with Scripture.
> I'm sorry, your point eludes me here.
The Roman church regards it as an error to state that the divine revelation is imperfect (and thus evolving with human understanding).
>> How about this statement from 1870 Vatican Ch II "If, then, any should >> deny that it is by the institution of Christ the Lord, or by divine >> right, that blessed Peter should have a perpetual line of successors in >> the Primacy over the universal Church, or that the Roman Pontiff is the >> successor of blessed Peter in this primacy: let him be anathema". Well >> I do so deny it! Do you say I am anathema? > Of course you are. Anathaema means you are out of community with the > Roman Church. You have several times proclaimed that fact and seem to be > quite proud of it. ie. you seem to agree with the Vatican council on > this point.
Anathema means accursed. As the Vatican statements say about their doctrines, particularly "of unity of communion and of profession of the same faith with the Roman Pontiff. This is the teaching of Catholic truth, from which no one can deviate without loss of faith and salvation."
Your phrase "out of community" seems a little soft compared to the pronouncements from the one "true holy catholic church", does it not?
>> Or are you selective of >> the "wisdom of the centuries" coming out of Rome?
>> Interesting to note that the Vatican statement uses the "institution of >> Christ" as its authority - IOW not human tradition is asserted but >> divine institution - how can they justify this without appeal to divine >> revelation (ie the Bible)?
> Divine institution is mediated to us through the traditions of the > church, of which the Bible is part.
> You have confused a number of things. Divine institution is not the same > thing as "found in the Bible".
If you are right then we are going to be subject to the wims of every subjective interpretation going because, according to you, the Word of God is NOT the actual words of Scripture but contained therein ie subjectively rather objectively understood. Given that people do so differ from one another it is likely that your subjective religion is naturally going to lead to religious tyranny as individuals will seek to have their views of the "Word of God" imposed on others. All we orthodox Protestants want is for the Christian religion to be based on the objective revelation that God has given in the Bible so that we are free from the tyranny of those in religious authority - the modern day Pharisees.
> On Sat, 02 Aug 2003 10:46:56 +1200, Alan Brennan wrote:
> >> I am not sure what you mean by the term 'human tradition' but I presume > >> it means that it is originated and derived from human initiative (ie > >> the word of man) and has become authoritative by common use as opposed > >> to being authoritative by virtue of divine origin (ie the Word of God) > > These two are not mutually contradictory. Of course the Bible originated > > from human initiative. Paul sitting down to write the Epistle to the > > Romans didn't think "well, today I better sit down and write a bit of > > scripture". He sat down and wrote a letter to introduce himself to the > > church of Rome, and to lay out his gospel.And as the epistle was read > > and reread people gradually discerned in it the Word of God and > > treasured it as scripture.
> I accept what you are saying here. However, the Holy Spirit was inspiring > Paul and this was recognised by the people of God and Romans eventually > became seen as part of the Word of God. IOW in hindsight we can see that > the apostle, moved by the Holy Spirit, spoke from God and thus it > ultimately was of divine origin though delievered through a man, the > apostle Paul. They did not discern in it the Word of God (as if the > inspiration were partial), instead they recognised that it was the Word of > God (that is fully inspired as to all they wrote, whether doctrine or > fact)
How on earth can you possibly know that?
> . This does nt, however, imply that they were imbued with all > knowledge - in matters of science, philosophy, and history they stood on > the same level as their contemporaries - but it does mean that they were > infallible as teachers and when acting as spokesman for God. They may not > have fully understood the truths they taught.
If you believe this then you will be making womenfolk in your church cover their heads and not cut their hair, as Paul, the inerrant spokesman of God commands? They will of course, not speak in church but will meekly wait until they get home and ask their menfolk about the meaning of what they heard. You will be abstaining from the meat of any strangled creature as the council of Jerusalem ordered? You will have trouble with meat offered to idols though, as the inerrant spokesman of God, Luke, tells you to avoid it while the inerrant spokesman Paul tells you it's OK to eat the stuff.
> God presents truth to us objectively not by some intuitive subjective > process as you seem to be implying.
Why do you think that? I don't. The most important things in the universe, ie life and consciousness can only be apprehended subjectively. The same is true of the Word of God (by which I obviously do NOT mean the Bible)
> >> If the > >> Scripture is only a human tradition, then it is not the authoritative > >> Word of God, > > This does not follow. We worship an incarnate God; one who has woven his > > presence into the very fabric of human history. This is seen pre- > > eminently in the incarnation of God in Jesus Christ, but is seen also in > > many other aspects of creation. Just as Jesus is both fully human and > > divine, so the scripture is a fully human book, produced by the vagaries > > of human intention and transmitted by fallible humans, but also a > > vehicle for the Word of God > >> it is at the same level as the Iliad or the Aeneid. > > Balderdash > >> However this > >> view is contradicted by the church as recorded and preserved in > >> Scripture. For example, Paul in I Thess 2v13.
> > You continue to make this great error of equating the phrase "Word of > > God" with the bible. Why do you do this? In this passage in > > Thessalonians it clearly refers, not to the Bible, but to the saving > > Gospel which Paul had previously preached to them.
> Why do you make a distinction which is clearly not evident in the text.
In the text referred to (1Thess.2:13) Paul refers to the Word of God that he himself had delivered to them. As they already had the Bible (Pauls visit to Thessalonica is recorded in Acts 17 and he begins his missionary work in the synagogue)he is obviously not referring to the Bible, but to what he himself brought: his missionary message. Paul therefore makes a distinction between the Word Of God and the scriptures. In no other place in the Bible that I know of, does the phrase Word of God refer to the Bible itself.
> The statements in 2 Peter 3:15-6 refers to the writings of Paul (his > epistles)not some subjectively extracted content. His writings (the > epistles not the gospel content only) are equated with 'the rest of the > Scriptures'.
Which shows that when 2 Peter was written the writings of Paul were considered canonical which is, of course, a strong argument against Petrine authorship. According to the writer of this passage, Pauls' letters are to be treated in exactly the same way as other scripture, and I am happy to comply with that.
> >> What is called the "wisdom of centuries" needs to be examined against > >> what God says. > > The wisdom of centuries is, very often, what God says. > >> For example, the wisdom of centuries of Roman Catholicism had lead to > >> the pronouncement of the immaculate conception of the virgin Mary in > >> 1854, a piece of "wisdom" that is false according to Scripture. > > I personally have my doubts about Jesus' immaculate conception, never > > mind Mary's. Happily, my church is gracious enough to accept and love me > > despite my doubts. > > But I have no knowledge of the circumstances surrounding Mary's birth. I > > must have missed that bit in the Bible. Could you point me to the part > > where it specifically says she was not immaculately conceived? Or are > > you basing your objection to this point on "mere human tradition"?
> The argument is one of silence. All people are born sinful (Psalm 51 and > many other places tells us this). Mary is a human being and therefore > inherits the same nature the rest of us do. Therefore the doctrine of > immaculate conception of Mary is without foundation and is a fantasy.
> >> Other > >> wisdom was published as the "Papal Syllabus of errors" in 1864 was one > >> which states that a "principal error of our time" the view that "Divine > >> revelation is imperfect, and, therefore, subject to a continual and > >> indefinite progress, which corresponds with the progress of human > >> reason". This condemnation is one I think agrees with Scripture.
> > I'm sorry, your point eludes me here.
> The Roman church regards it as an error to state that the divine > revelation is imperfect (and thus evolving with human understanding).
And I am not saying divine revelation is imperfect. I am saying one of its mediums of transmission is imperfect.
> >> How about this statement from 1870 Vatican Ch II "If, then, any should > >> deny that it is by the institution of Christ the Lord, or by divine > >> right, that blessed Peter should have a perpetual line of successors in > >> the Primacy over the universal Church, or that the Roman Pontiff is the > >> successor of blessed Peter in this primacy: let him be anathema". Well > >> I do so deny it! Do you say I am anathema? > > Of course you are. Anathaema means you are out of community with the > > Roman Church. You have several times proclaimed that fact and seem to be > > quite proud of it. ie. you seem to agree with the Vatican council on > > this point.
> Anathema means accursed.
Anathaema means exclusion from the society of the faithful, nothing more, nothing less: ie exactly what I said it does. I refer you to the Catholic Encyclopaedia http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01455e.htm for a full explanation. If you are going to quote Catholic sources you should take the trouble to learn what Catholics mean by the terms they are using.
> As the Vatican statements say about their > doctrines, particularly "of unity of communion and of profession of the > same faith with the Roman Pontiff. This is the teaching of Catholic truth, > from which no one can deviate without loss of faith and salvation."
> Your phrase "out of community" seems a little soft compared to the > pronouncements from the one "true holy catholic church", does it not?
No. My phrase "out of community" is exactly right.
> >> Or are you selective of > >> the "wisdom of the centuries" coming out of Rome?
> >> Interesting to note that the Vatican statement uses the "institution of > >> Christ" as its authority - IOW not human tradition is asserted but > >> divine institution - how can they justify this without appeal to divine > >> revelation (ie the Bible)?
> > Divine institution is mediated to us through the traditions of the > > church, of which the Bible is part.
> > You have confused a number of things. Divine institution is not the same > > thing as "found in the Bible".
> If you are right then we are going to be subject to the wims of every > subjective interpretation going because,
Look at the excess of 36,000 Protestant denominations. This is *exactly* what you Protestants have ended up with, ironically in the name of relying on scripture as your sole source of authority. I worked in an American University for a while, and had three colleagues who belonged to the Church of Christ. But all of them belonged to different denominations! There were more Churches of Christ than I could keep track of, all split from the same root denomination, over miniscule points of doctrine. And oddly enough, all argued for the objective truth of scripture in much the same terms as you do.
> according to you, the Word of God > is NOT the actual words of Scripture but contained therein ie subjectively > rather objectively understood.
No not subjectively, as in subject to my own whims and fancies.But rather as understood and agreed upon by
...
> No not subjectively, as in subject to my own whims and fancies.But > rather as understood and agreed upon by the Church. > I realise that if I relied on my own private beliefs in matters of > faith I would have sunk years ago. > And this is why all interpretations must be subject to the church and > its traditions: a safeguard the Protestants arrogantly threw away at the > Reformation, to their very great cost.
Alan, I am very interested in how you view the RCC "belief" and "interpretation" regarding birth control. How does this fit with your "own private belief in matters of faith"? Do you think that the current oficial interpretation will eventually change? Do you think that it currently represents God's view on the subject?
On Mon, 4 Aug 2003 02:53:03 +1200 KiwiBrian ( brian...@ihug.co.nz ) Wrote
> "Alan Brennan" wrote
> > No not subjectively, as in subject to my own whims and fancies.But > > rather as understood and agreed upon by the Church. > > I realise that if I relied on my own private beliefs in matters of > > faith I would have sunk years ago.
> > And this is why all interpretations must be subject to the church and > > its traditions: a safeguard the Protestants arrogantly threw away at the > > Reformation, to their very great cost.
> Alan, I am very interested in how you view the RCC "belief" and > "interpretation" regarding birth control.
The church's *official* position on birth control is one which I personally disagree with. Eventually the church will change its mind on the matter, as it will on several other issues, eg women priests, married clergy, intercommunion with denominations such as the Lutherans and Anglicans, where I am hanging out for the day where our ponderous processes will catch up with common sense.
> How does this fit with your "own private belief in matters of faith"? > Do you think that the current oficial interpretation will eventually change? Yes. > Do you think that it currently represents God's view on the subject?
Who knows? God doesn't share his views on these matters directly with me. The church pronounces one thing, and I believe another. God knows which of us is right
>>No not subjectively, as in subject to my own whims and fancies.But >>rather as understood and agreed upon by the Church. >> I realise that if I relied on my own private beliefs in matters of >>faith I would have sunk years ago.
>>And this is why all interpretations must be subject to the church and >>its traditions: a safeguard the Protestants arrogantly threw away at the >>Reformation, to their very great cost.
> Alan, I am very interested in how you view the RCC "belief" and > "interpretation" regarding birth control. > How does this fit with your "own private belief in matters of faith"? > Do you think that the current oficial interpretation will eventually change? > Do you think that it currently represents God's view on the subject?
> Brian Tozer
I must make a comment here. I suspect that my belief is very similar to that of Alan, we do of course belong to difering denominations. I would regard myself as part of the Catholic tradition and subject to the requirements of the One True Catholic and Apostolic Church, although Alan and myself do belong to differing parts!
For me the Pope is the senior bishop of the Western Church, but has made an error in some of the the "infallible" pronouncements. I notice that Alan also has doubts about at east one of these!
In the final analysis one has to live with one's own conscience bearing in mind wnat Holy Mother Church teaches. One trusts implicitly in the Mercy of God and the Church, and if Our Lord's prom,ises mean anything at all we will have no problem with forgivness!
As to the "Church's attempts to control" us, those who whish to control us will have to answer at the last day for their actions. They will however be forgiven like the rest of us. We are all human after all, but none the less Holy Mother Church will survive and be led in the "right direction" by God.
I suspect that you still will want certainty, where none is to be found, I am afraid that I cannot help you with that one at all. Faith is the order of the day and following to our best endeavour Our Lord's command to love God and our neighour ... If we get this half right the world will be a much better place indeed!
On Sun, 03 Aug 2003 21:57:34 +1200, Alan Brennan wrote: > There is no objective revelation in > the scriptures. What you claim as the "objective revelation" of the > scripture is not discernible except through the particular prejudices of > each individual reader. Get 100 readers of scripture in a room and > you'll have 100 opinions on what a text means. Tell them that they are > all free of "the tyranny of religious authority" and all readers will be > claiming that their little version is "The Word Of God", and no doubt > backing up their claim by many convincing (to them) Biblical proofs. > Think of the 36,000 Protestant denominations, and tell me I am not > right.
Alan, reflecting on what you have written, I am puzzled. In one statement you seem to be implying that there is an authoritative tradition mediated through the Church but in another statement you seem to reserve the right for yourself to reject that tradition whenever it suits, eg the immaculate conception of Mary (and there seemed some hint that you had problems with the conception by the Holy Spirit of Christ though you were vague). My puzzlement is that while you reject objective revelation in Scripture you object to my saying it becomes subjective yet you illustrate my point, it seems, by being subjective unless I am missing somehting. Is there some standard of measure that you use because it seems the traditions of the church are not actually regarded as authoritative in reality???
> On Sun, 03 Aug 2003 21:57:34 +1200, Alan Brennan wrote:
> > There is no objective revelation in > > the scriptures. What you claim as the "objective revelation" of the > > scripture is not discernible except through the particular prejudices of > > each individual reader. Get 100 readers of scripture in a room and > > you'll have 100 opinions on what a text means. Tell them that they are > > all free of "the tyranny of religious authority" and all readers will be > > claiming that their little version is "The Word Of God", and no doubt > > backing up their claim by many convincing (to them) Biblical proofs. > > Think of the 36,000 Protestant denominations, and tell me I am not > > right.
> Alan, > reflecting on what you have written, I am puzzled. In one statement you > seem to be implying that there is an authoritative tradition mediated > through the Church but in another statement you seem to reserve the right > for yourself to reject that tradition whenever it suits, eg the immaculate > conception of Mary (and there seemed some hint that you had problems with > the conception by the Holy Spirit of Christ though you were vague).
There is a difference between accepting the church's decision on a matter and believing it. I see this as similar to the way in which for example the cabinet works in government. Within the cabinet the ministers may disagree about a course of action, but after discussion, come to a common mind, and all abide by that common decision.
> My puzzlement is that while you reject objective revelation
I'm not even sure what you mean by the term objective revelation. I think the phrase may be an oxymoron.
> in Scripture > you object to my saying it becomes subjective yet you illustrate my point, > it seems, by being subjective unless I am missing somehting. Is there some > standard of measure that you use because it seems the traditions of the > church are not actually regarded as authoritative in reality???
Authoritative for what reality? I suspect you have two things confused here: faith and belief. People often confuse them but they are quite separate and distinct behaviours. I have plenty of doubts in matters of belief, but generally, my faith in God is constant.
For some of the things around which my doubts in matters of belief congregate: for example the immaculate conception of Mary, I don't really see my doubts as important. The meaning of Mary's immaculate conception is far more significant than the mechanics of what may or may not have happened in her mother's womb.
On Sat, 02 Aug 2003 10:43:27 +1200, John Fulton wrote: >> What is called the "wisdom of centuries" needs to be examined against what >> God says.
> Here you seem to be saying "I will interpret the 'wisdom of centuries' > as I see fit" by which you mean that you become the final arbiter of > what is rught!
I do not see how you draw this conclusion from what I have said! Any claimed interpretation of Scripture can be examined against that which it claims to interpret because Scripture is an objective and true in every part revelation from God. If you deny that aspect of Scripture, you are then very much the one who effectively does what you are accusing me of.
> Here Alan and I could perhaps differ slightly. I tend to the view that > the statement about inallibility was an error made by a member of the > Church, but that in no way invalidated the Church itself. This error > was to some extent corrected by Vatican II, and has since had some > problem, but that in now way invaliates the One True Holy and Catholic > Church which is going through a very significant change. Where the > final dust will settle I do not know, but I am sure that by the Grace of > God it will be "the right place"!
So are you saying the Bible is fallible but that the Church alone has the possibility of being eventually infallible? Or are you really saying that there is no such thing as absolute truth, that all is relative and conditional?
Martin wrote: > On Sat, 02 Aug 2003 10:43:27 +1200, John Fulton wrote:
>>>What is called the "wisdom of centuries" needs to be examined against what >>>God says.
>>Here you seem to be saying "I will interpret the 'wisdom of centuries' >>as I see fit" by which you mean that you become the final arbiter of >>what is rught!
> I do not see how you draw this conclusion from what I have said! > Any claimed interpretation of Scripture can be examined against that which > it claims to interpret because Scripture is an objective and true in every > part revelation from God. If you deny that aspect of Scripture, you are > then very much the one who effectively does what you are accusing me of.
There is your problem. You insist upon talking about objective and true as a description of the Holy Bible. You seem to insist upon the Holy Bible being called the Word of God.
For me the Holy Bible contains the Deposit of faith and it contains "The Word of God", it is not "The Word of God" nor is it the "Deposit of Faith" Holy Scripture must as Alan has already very eloquently explained be interpreted with in the "Tradition of the One, True, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church" It is a document written by the Church for the use of the Church. It is a document written by humans, but is Divinely Inspired. It is a document that contains descriptions of the experience of God by real human people, and is written in terms of the world in which they lived and experienced.
When you say objective what do you really mean? It seems to me that you mean that by objective, you are impressing on the Holy Bible all of your own attitudes, beliefs, prejudices, all independently from the Tradition of the body that wrote it! You ignore an essential part of its interpretation.
>>Here Alan and I could perhaps differ slightly. I tend to the view that >>the statement about infallibility was an error made by a member of the >>Church, but that in no way invalidated the Church itself. This error >>was to some extent corrected by Vatican II, and has since had some >>problem, but that in now way invalidates the One True Holy and Catholic >>Church which is going through a very significant change. Where the >>final dust will settle I do not know, but I am sure that by the Grace of >>God it will be "the right place"!
> So are you saying the Bible is fallible but that the Church alone has the > possibility of being eventually infallible? Or are you really saying that > there is no such thing as absolute truth, that all is relative and > conditional?
In the section above you have taken by section of reply out of context - I was referring to the 1870 pronouncement of the Pope about infallibility, not the infallibility of the Church - the Body of Christ - nor the infallibility of the Holy Bible which contains the Divinely Inspired Word of God, and the Deposit of faith.
No I am not saying that the Bible is fallible nor am I saying that the Church is fallible, I am saying that there is little if any infallibility to be found anywhere, and that from time to time members of the Church have erred, but that the Church remains the Body of Christ. I am saying that all humans make mistakes and errors, and that in spite of these we are forgiven and loved by the Church - the Body of Christ.
If you are looking for certainty you will not find it, that is really what faith is all about, that is what Christian Hope is all about - the paradox encompassed by the phrase in our burial service "the sure and certain hope"!
On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 22:11:00 +1200 Martin ( martin.ke...@paradise.net.nz ) Wrote
> On Sat, 02 Aug 2003 10:43:27 +1200, John Fulton wrote:
> Or are you really saying that > there is no such thing as absolute truth, that all is relative and > conditional?
There is absolute truth. But our perception of it can never be perfect. Our perceptions of the truth are always conditional, and must constantly be tested and revised.
On Wed, 06 Aug 2003 07:33:55 +1200, Alan Brennan wrote: > On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 22:11:00 +1200 > Martin ( martin.ke...@paradise.net.nz ) > Wrote
>> On Sat, 02 Aug 2003 10:43:27 +1200, John Fulton wrote:
>> Or are you really saying that >> there is no such thing as absolute truth, that all is relative and >> conditional?
> There is absolute truth. But our perception of it can never be perfect. > Our perceptions of the truth are always conditional, and must constantly > be tested and revised.
Okay.
The question then arises how are we to test our perceptions?
Does God, who is all-knowing and thus ultimately the source of standard of truth, reveal truth to man? Is it done directly, perhaps in written form as we believe the Bible to be, or in some other way? Or has God simply left us to grope around as best we can? How do we know that God has NOT directly revealed the truth which you seem to be adamant on?
On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 23:09:49 +1200, John Fulton wrote:
> No I am not saying that the Bible is fallible nor am I saying that the > Church is fallible, I am saying that there is little if any > infallibility to be found anywhere, and that from time to time members > of the Church have erred, but that the Church remains the Body of > Christ. I am saying that all humans make mistakes and errors, and that > in spite of these we are forgiven and loved by the Church - the Body of > Christ.
> If you are looking for certainty you will not find it, that is really > what faith is all about, that is what Christian Hope is all about - the > paradox encompassed by the phrase in our burial service "the sure and > certain hope"!
But the Bible abounds with the language of certainty!
The apostles write of a sure hope, of an inheritance that will surely come, of promises that will not be broken, of the sure mercies of God - yet you say there is no certainty. If so, then what is faith?
The biblical writers indicate that faith is placed in the truth of God, His sure promises which will be kept - those promises are recorded in Scripture.
Your 'faith' seems to be some sort of 'cross fingers, close our eyes, and just hope hope hope'. In what? Seems rather hopeless and uncertain to me; certainly not the faith expressed in language such as we find in Titus 1:2
"In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began"
or "Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen" Hebrews 11:1
"Which hope we have as an anchor ot the soul, both sure and steadfast.." Heb 6:19
An anchor that slips and is not sure to hold the ship in place is lethal, no hope at all in fact. No, the biblical writers speak of certainty, certainty of a sure and steadfast hope based on the revealed promises of God in Scripture "that we through patience and comfort of the Scriptures might have hope" (Rom 15:4).
> On Wed, 06 Aug 2003 07:33:55 +1200, Alan Brennan wrote:
> > On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 22:11:00 +1200 > > Martin ( martin.ke...@paradise.net.nz ) > > Wrote
> >> On Sat, 02 Aug 2003 10:43:27 +1200, John Fulton wrote:
> >> Or are you really saying that > >> there is no such thing as absolute truth, that all is relative and > >> conditional?
> > There is absolute truth. But our perception of it can never be perfect. > > Our perceptions of the truth are always conditional, and must constantly > > be tested and revised.
> Okay.
> The question then arises how are we to test our perceptions?
> Does God, who is all-knowing and thus ultimately the source of standard of > truth, reveal truth to man?
The truth is constantly and everywhere around us.
> Is it done directly, perhaps in written form > as we believe the Bible to be, or in some other way? Or has God simply > left us to grope around as best we can?
The uncovering of the truth seems to me to be the single most wonderful thing about life, and one of the principal reasons we are on the planet. Why would God want to circumvent that?
> How do we know that God has NOT > directly revealed the truth which you seem to be adamant on?
> On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 23:09:49 +1200, John Fulton wrote:
> > No I am not saying that the Bible is fallible nor am I saying that the > > Church is fallible, I am saying that there is little if any > > infallibility to be found anywhere, and that from time to time members > > of the Church have erred, but that the Church remains the Body of > > Christ. I am saying that all humans make mistakes and errors, and that > > in spite of these we are forgiven and loved by the Church - the Body of > > Christ.
> > If you are looking for certainty you will not find it, that is really > > what faith is all about, that is what Christian Hope is all about - the > > paradox encompassed by the phrase in our burial service "the sure and > > certain hope"!
> But the Bible abounds with the language of certainty!
> The apostles write of a sure hope, of an inheritance that will surely > come, of promises that will not be broken, of the sure mercies of God - > yet you say there is no certainty. If so, then what is faith?
> The biblical writers indicate that faith is placed in the truth of God, > His sure promises which will be kept - those promises are recorded in > Scripture.
> Your 'faith' seems to be some sort of 'cross fingers, close our eyes, and > just hope hope hope'. In what? Seems rather hopeless and uncertain to me; > certainly not the faith expressed in language such as we find in Titus 1:2
> "In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the > world began"
> or > "Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not > seen" Hebrews 11:1
> "Which hope we have as an anchor ot the soul, both sure and steadfast.." > Heb 6:19
> An anchor that slips and is not sure to hold the ship in place is lethal, > no hope at all in fact. No, the biblical writers speak of certainty, > certainty of a sure and steadfast hope based on the revealed promises of > God in Scripture "that we through patience and comfort of the Scriptures > might have hope" (Rom 15:4).
I don't like to butt in on your conversation with John, Martin but you do seem to be rather obsessed with the need for certainty. Personally I feel no such need for certainty, and the older I get the more ambiguous and paradoxical life seems. One question is only ever answered by asking two others.
I do wonder at this need for certainty. Why do you need it? Yeats, in his poem "The Second Coming" saw the craving for such certainty as a symptom of a sick and dying civilisation, and sometimes I think he is right. I couldn't be certain about it, mind you :-)
"Turning and turning in the widening gyre The falcon cannot hear the falconer; Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold; Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world, The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere The ceremony of innocense is drowned: The best lack all conviction, while the worst Are full of passionate intensity."
On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 20:54:02 +1200, Alan Brennan wrote: > On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 18:53:45 +1200 >> The question then arises how are we to test our perceptions?
>> Does God, who is all-knowing and thus ultimately the source of standard of >> truth, reveal truth to man? > The truth is constantly and everywhere around us. >> Is it done directly, perhaps in written form >> as we believe the Bible to be, or in some other way? Or has God simply >> left us to grope around as best we can? > The uncovering of the truth seems to me to be the single most wonderful > thing about life, and one of the principal reasons we are on the planet. > Why would God want to circumvent that? >> How do we know that God has NOT >> directly revealed the truth which you seem to be adamant on? > See above
You haven't really answered the question. Why cannot have God directly revealed Himself and His actions and purposes to some extent to man?
> On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 20:54:02 +1200, Alan Brennan wrote:
> > On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 18:53:45 +1200
> >> The question then arises how are we to test our perceptions?
> >> Does God, who is all-knowing and thus ultimately the source of standard of > >> truth, reveal truth to man? > > The truth is constantly and everywhere around us. > >> Is it done directly, perhaps in written form > >> as we believe the Bible to be, or in some other way? Or has God simply > >> left us to grope around as best we can? > > The uncovering of the truth seems to me to be the single most wonderful > > thing about life, and one of the principal reasons we are on the planet. > > Why would God want to circumvent that? > >> How do we know that God has NOT > >> directly revealed the truth which you seem to be adamant on? > > See above
> You haven't really answered the question.
Indeed I have, although perhaps not in a way you recognise.
> Why cannot have God directly > revealed Himself and His actions and purposes to some extent to man?
God has directly revealed himself not "to some extent" but to a very great extent. All of creation everywhere and always reveals the truth and God is truth. More clearly, God has revealed himself in the history and traditions of the people of Israel, and in the life and work of Jesus of Nazareth. Note: the Word of God comes to us 1) Firstly and most importantly, as WHAT IS 2) as the history and gathered wisdom of a nation 3)as a person. But *NOT* directly as written words. We are not Muslims, no matter how hard you try to turn the Bible into the Q'uran. As far as numberss 2) and 3) go, being twenty first century people we were not there at the time, so the revelation of Israel's history comes to us through the Hebrew Bible (although the Christian church uses it in a very different way than the Jews do) and the revelation in Jesus Christ comes to us through the fragile and very human medium of the Church and its traditions. Part of the tradition of the church is the Bible.
The process of finding the truth is not the same as looking something up in a book, which you seem to want to reduce it to.
On Fri, 08 Aug 2003 09:11:23 +1200, Alan Brennan wrote: > On Fri, 08 Aug 2003 05:41:20 +1200 > Martin ( martin.ke...@paradise.net.nz ) > Wrote
>> On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 20:54:02 +1200, Alan Brennan wrote:
>> > On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 18:53:45 +1200
>> >> The question then arises how are we to test our perceptions?
>> >> Does God, who is all-knowing and thus ultimately the source of standard of >> >> truth, reveal truth to man? >> > The truth is constantly and everywhere around us. >> >> Is it done directly, perhaps in written form >> >> as we believe the Bible to be, or in some other way? Or has God simply >> >> left us to grope around as best we can? >> > The uncovering of the truth seems to me to be the single most wonderful >> > thing about life, and one of the principal reasons we are on the planet. >> > Why would God want to circumvent that? >> >> How do we know that God has NOT >> >> directly revealed the truth which you seem to be adamant on? >> > See above
>> You haven't really answered the question. > Indeed I have, although perhaps not in a way you recognise. >> Why cannot have God directly >> revealed Himself and His actions and purposes to some extent to man?
> Note: the Word of God comes to us 1) Firstly and > most importantly, as WHAT IS 2) as the history and gathered wisdom of a > nation 3)as a person. But *NOT* directly as written words.
[snip]
But why are you so ADAMANT on this point? How do you know? Why cannot the written words of the Bible be the actual Word of God?
Is this just some way of avoiding the force of the actual words and commandments of Scriptue, of rejecting and rationalising away as not being "the Word of God" the parts of the Scripture that don't fit with your twenty-first century outlook? It seems convenient, a 'waxed nose' that you can push whichever way suits.
>>>On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 20:54:02 +1200, Alan Brennan wrote:
>>>>On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 18:53:45 +1200
>>>>>The question then arises how are we to test our perceptions?
>>>>>Does God, who is all-knowing and thus ultimately the source of standard of >>>>>truth, reveal truth to man?
>>>>The truth is constantly and everywhere around us.
>>>>>Is it done directly, perhaps in written form >>>>>as we believe the Bible to be, or in some other way? Or has God simply >>>>>left us to grope around as best we can?
>>>>The uncovering of the truth seems to me to be the single most wonderful >>>>thing about life, and one of the principal reasons we are on the planet. >>>>Why would God want to circumvent that?
>>>>>How do we know that God has NOT >>>>>directly revealed the truth which you seem to be adamant on?
>>>>See above
>>>You haven't really answered the question.
>>Indeed I have, although perhaps not in a way you recognise.
>>>Why cannot have God directly >>>revealed Himself and His actions and purposes to some extent to man?
>>Note: the Word of God comes to us 1) Firstly and >>most importantly, as WHAT IS 2) as the history and gathered wisdom of a >>nation 3)as a person. But *NOT* directly as written words.
> [snip]
> But why are you so ADAMANT on this point? How do you know? Why cannot the > written words of the Bible be the actual Word of God?
> Is this just some way of avoiding the force of the actual words and > commandments of Scriptue, of rejecting and rationalising away as not being > "the Word of God" the parts of the Scripture that don't fit with your > twenty-first century outlook? It seems convenient, a 'waxed nose' that you > can push whichever way suits.
> regards
> Martin
>>The process of finding the truth is not the same as looking something up >>in a book, which you seem to want to reduce it to.
Both Alan and I are as certain as it is possible to be that the "Deposit of Faith" as handed down by "Tradition in the Body of Christ" has as much authority as does the "Deposit of Faith" as handed down by "Holy Scripture". There is no real divergence between these two sources when they are interpreted in the manner the "The Body of Christ" does.
I don't see why you have such a problem with this, or why you are looking for certainty where none is to be found. Our whole experience of life is subjective and to talk too much about objectivity begs the question as to what is meant by objectivity. I am a product of my upbringing, and the Christian environment in which I live serves me very well. I am human and sin like the rest of us, and on my own I can never be "saved". I am saved by being baptised and made a member of "The Body of Christ" and "an Inheritor of the Kingdom of Heaven". On my own I can never be saved, but as part of the "Body of Christ" this becomes a non-issue. It is a matter of Faith not of certainty.
I am sure that Alan would say something similar, but based upon a differing upbringing which has no less or greater validity that mine or yours! You however seem to be going off on a tangent by disregarding one of the most important sources of Christian Teaching - "The Body of Christ" the One True Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.
> On Fri, 08 Aug 2003 09:11:23 +1200, Alan Brennan wrote:
> > On Fri, 08 Aug 2003 05:41:20 +1200 > > Martin ( martin.ke...@paradise.net.nz ) > > Wrote
> >> On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 20:54:02 +1200, Alan Brennan wrote:
> >> > On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 18:53:45 +1200
> >> >> The question then arises how are we to test our perceptions?
> >> >> Does God, who is all-knowing and thus ultimately the source of standard of > >> >> truth, reveal truth to man? > >> > The truth is constantly and everywhere around us. > >> >> Is it done directly, perhaps in written form > >> >> as we believe the Bible to be, or in some other way? Or has God simply > >> >> left us to grope around as best we can? > >> > The uncovering of the truth seems to me to be the single most wonderful > >> > thing about life, and one of the principal reasons we are on the planet. > >> > Why would God want to circumvent that? > >> >> How do we know that God has NOT > >> >> directly revealed the truth which you seem to be adamant on? > >> > See above
> >> You haven't really answered the question. > > Indeed I have, although perhaps not in a way you recognise. > >> Why cannot have God directly > >> revealed Himself and His actions and purposes to some extent to man?
> > Note: the Word of God comes to us 1) Firstly and > > most importantly, as WHAT IS 2) as the history and gathered wisdom of a > > nation 3)as a person. But *NOT* directly as written words. > [snip]
> But why are you so ADAMANT on this point? > How do you know? Why cannot the > written words of the Bible be the actual Word of God?
Because I know the history of the writing of the Bible, the history of the texts chosen to be part of the Bible, and how and why they were chosen, and who chose them. I am familiar with the development of the Greek Testament, and the history of many of the major variants. And I know that it is all one with the rest of the traditions of the church.
Because I read the Bible in the original languages and have the benefit of critical editions of both Testaments, and therefore know both the strength and the fragility of the texts. I am aware of the hundreds of contradictions and errors in the text. I am aware of the major theories on the editorial history of the text, and find them plausible.
Because I know that language is at times a very blunt instrument, and within the set of language, written language is often bluntest of all. No text can ever hope to contain the actual Word of God. The Word of God may shine through it, but Paul's assessment that we see as through a glass, darkly, always holds. Unless, you are saying Paul was mistaken on this point?
Because I know that the literal truth of texts is only one way in which texts can be true, and a very limited one at that. I know that a literal reading of many Biblical texts gives a poorer, more limited sense of the truth than a poetic, mythic or parabolic reading.
> Is this just some way of avoiding the force of the actual words and > commandments of Scriptue,
No. I think my approach to the Bible increases its force and power.
> of rejecting and rationalising away as not being > "the Word of God" the parts of the Scripture that don't fit with your > twenty-first century outlook?
As I have pointed out, on more occasions than I care to repeat, this is something that you do every bit as much as me. It is something that *all* readers of the Bible do. The only question is, to what extent?
> It seems convenient, a 'waxed nose' that you > can push whichever way suits.
