The one true holy catholic church (reposted)
Martin
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.
[snip]
>> > 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.
regards
Martin
>>
>>
>>
>> [snip]
>> >>
>> >> 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.
Alan Brennan
Martin ( martin...@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.
Alan Brennan
Alan Brennan ( n...@so.fast.buddy )
Wrote
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.
>
Martin
> On Fri, 01 Aug 2003 19:54:13 +1200
> Martin ( martin...@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)?
regards
Martin
John Fulton
> On Fri, 01 Aug 2003 21:05:15 +1200, Alan Brennan wrote:
>
>
>>On Fri, 01 Aug 2003 19:54:13 +1200
>>Martin ( martin...@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.
>
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.
>
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.
>
> regards
>
> Martin
regards to you all
John Fulton
Alan Brennan
> On Fri, 01 Aug 2003 21:05:15 +1200, Alan Brennan wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 01 Aug 2003 19:54:13 +1200
> > Martin ( martin...@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"
Martin
>> 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.
regards
Martin
Alan Brennan
> 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.
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 the Church.
I realise that if I relied on my own private beliefs in matters of
faith I would have sunk years ago.
> 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.
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.
> 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.
Then you are pursuing a pipe dream. 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.
KiwiBrian
"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.
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
Alan Brennan
KiwiBrian ( bria...@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
John Fulton
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!
Regards to you all
John Fulton
Martin
> 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???
regards
Martin
Alan Brennan
> 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.
Martin
>> 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?
regards
martin
John Fulton
> 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.
>
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"!
>
> regards
>
> martin
>
Blessings and regards to you all
John Fulton
Alan Brennan
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.
Martin
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?
regard
martin
Martin
>
> 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).
regards
Martin
Alan Brennan
> On Wed, 06 Aug 2003 07:33:55 +1200, Alan Brennan wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 22:11:00 +1200
> > Martin ( martin...@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?
See above
Alan Brennan
> On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 23:09:49 +1200, John Fulton wrote:
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."
-WB Yeats
Martin
> 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?
Alan Brennan
> 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.
Martin
> On Fri, 08 Aug 2003 05:41:20 +1200
> Martin ( martin...@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.
regards
Martin
John Fulton
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.
Regards to you all
John Fulton
Alan Brennan
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.
Speak for yourself.
Martin
>> 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.
>
This doesn't necessarily deny the plenary inspiration of the Bible. Why
cannot God have used the mechanism that you are familiar with to deliver
His infallible Word to His people? The Spirit works through people and
corporately they recognise the Word of their Father when they hear it.
> 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.
Okay. However, the problem is that you end up with nothing. Just another
human book with as much authority as you are prepared to give it.
Scripture doesn't speak of itself in that way. Christ speaks of Scripture
as authoritative to every jot and tittle.
>
> 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?
No. I think your interpretation and understanding of Paul's point is
flawed.
How do you justify the statement "No text can ever hope to contain the
actual Word of God."? If you mean exhaustively, I agree. If you mean that
it cannot be the Word of God, then I disagree because the Scripture
writers regarded it as the very Word of God.
>
> 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.
I agree that literal reading is not always appropriate with every part of
Scripture. However, I maintain that every part of the Scripture is
directly inspired, down to the jots and tittles.
regards
Martin
Martin
> 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.
But as I showed in Scripture quotes in a previous posting the Scripture
writers regarded faith as giving certainty, a "sure hope". Either they
have it wrong or your version of faith differs from that of the apostles.
Salvation is not by some act such as baptism; it is a gift of God given
out of grace to those whom He choses. He calls all of us to receive this
grace through faith and it is freely offered in the infallible
Scriptures. We are called to believe those Scriptures.
It is an objective salvation from an objective and richly deserved
condemnation from an objective hell and the wrath of God which is
certainly coming in due time. Only those in Christ will be saved from this
cup of wrath of which the Lord Jesus often spoke of.
Alan Brennan
-snip-
> I maintain that every part of the Scripture is
> directly inspired, down to the jots and tittles.
Yes, I know you do. And if that's what you need in order to function,
then so be it. Have a nice life.
John Fulton
> On Fri, 08 Aug 2003 21:12:20 +1200, John Fulton wrote:
>
>
>
>>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.
>
>
> But as I showed in Scripture quotes in a previous posting the Scripture
> writers regarded faith as giving certainty, a "sure hope". Either they
> have it wrong or your version of faith differs from that of the apostles.
Here we have a fundamental disagreement. I believe that I am right, and
that is as far as this discussion can go as you do not seem to have
anything more constructive to say that to reitterate your narrow position.
So be it.
>
> Salvation is not by some act such as baptism; it is a gift of God given
> out of grace to those whom He choses. He calls all of us to receive this
> grace through faith and it is freely offered in the infallible
> Scriptures. We are called to believe those Scriptures.
Salvation is certainly a gift from God. That is what we are taught. We
obtain it through Baptism, that is also what we are taught. There is
nothing in the teaching of the Church that required me to believe in
infallible Scripture. What we have is Scripture that is the writings of
human people giving their experience of God. Divinely inspired,
infallible no, containing the "Deposit of Faith" yes, to be taken
literally no.
Here you have a fundamental disagreement with the teaching of the
Church. It is by Baptism that we are made members of the Church (The
Body of Christ) and are thereby saved. This is fundamental to the
Christian Faith as I have been taught, This is part of the "Tradition of
the One True Holy and Catholic Church" which has equal standing with
Holy Scripture. It is perhaps one of the things that have divided the
Church from those who have left it.
In the words of Our Lord - "Go out into the whole world: Proclam the
Good News to all nations. He who believes and is Baptised is saved."
There is nothing that I can do about this to help you to see the light.
So be it.
>
> It is an objective salvation from an objective and richly deserved
> condemnation from an objective hell and the wrath of God which is
> certainly coming in due time. Only those in Christ will be saved from this
> cup of wrath of which the Lord Jesus often spoke of.
If you need to believe what you have written above then OK. It is not
part of the tradition of the Church, nor does it appear to me to be part
of the teaching of Our Lord.
My real question here is - How do we know we are "In Christ"? It cannot
be by anything that we ourselves do, as we are never perfect and any sin
no matter how small separates us from God. It is not a matter of the
"size of the sin" that determines our saved status, it is only the "Love
of Christ in His mercy!" This does not depend upon any action that we
can take! It is fundamental to the Sacrament of Holy Baptism which can
be administered by anybody! not just a priest or other person on Holy
Orders.
Regards and Blessings to you all
John Fulton
D J Maclean
"Martin" <martin...@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
news:pan.2003.08.11....@paradise.net.nz...
> On Fri, 08 Aug 2003 21:12:20 +1200, John Fulton wrote:
<snip>
> It is an objective salvation from an objective and richly deserved
> condemnation from an objective hell and the wrath of God which is
> certainly coming in due time. Only those in Christ will be saved from this
> cup of wrath of which the Lord Jesus often spoke of.
Just when is this going to happen ?
We must have missed it last time (as spoken of).
I want to program my VCR, so i can watch it on my SONY TV.
Love,
David.
Martin
>> Salvation is not by some act such as baptism; it is a gift of God given
>> out of grace to those whom He choses. He calls all of us to receive this
>> grace through faith and it is freely offered in the infallible
>> Scriptures. We are called to believe those Scriptures.
>
> Salvation is certainly a gift from God. That is what we are taught. We
> obtain it through Baptism, that is also what we are taught. There is
> nothing in the teaching of the Church that required me to believe in
> infallible Scripture. What we have is Scripture that is the writings of
> human people giving their experience of God. Divinely inspired,
> infallible no, containing the "Deposit of Faith" yes, to be taken
> literally no.
A gift cannot be earned, it is given. Do you believe baptism by water is
hwo we obtain salvation? IOW does someone who was baptised as a child and
does not claim to be a Christian nor attend worship have salvation because
they were baptised?
If you don't have an infallible Scripture, it does seem you have an
infallible Church or at least more authoritative that the written text of
the Bible. Isn't this elevating a human institution above God, or at least
equating the pronouncements of the Church to the same level as God's Word?
>
> Here you have a fundamental disagreement with the teaching of the
> Church. It is by Baptism that we are made members of the Church (The
> Body of Christ) and are thereby saved. This is fundamental to the
> Christian Faith as I have been taught, This is part of the "Tradition of
> the One True Holy and Catholic Church" which has equal standing with
> Holy Scripture. It is perhaps one of the things that have divided the
> Church from those who have left it.
>
> In the words of Our Lord - "Go out into the whole world: Proclam the
> Good News to all nations. He who believes and is Baptised is saved."
>
Your quote actually supports my position - belief is required as well as
baptism, not baptism alone.
> There is nothing that I can do about this to help you to see the light.
>
> So be it.
By 'light' do you mean the sure, infallible truth?
>>
>> It is an objective salvation from an objective and richly deserved
>> condemnation from an objective hell and the wrath of God which is
>> certainly coming in due time. Only those in Christ will be saved from this
>> cup of wrath of which the Lord Jesus often spoke of.
>
> If you need to believe what you have written above then OK. It is not
> part of the tradition of the Church, nor does it appear to me to be part
> of the teaching of Our Lord.
>
> My real question here is - How do we know we are "In Christ"? It cannot
> be by anything that we ourselves do, as we are never perfect and any sin
> no matter how small separates us from God. It is not a matter of the
> "size of the sin" that determines our saved status, it is only the "Love
> of Christ in His mercy!" This does not depend upon any action that we
> can take! It is fundamental to the Sacrament of Holy Baptism which can
> be administered by anybody! not just a priest or other person on Holy
> Orders.
Jesus chastised the pharisees for elevating the traditions of the church
of their day above the word of God. He says if we love Him, we will keep
His commandments. His commandments are the law of God (which was a topic
earlier on in our discussion) which we find recorded in the OT Scripture.
He warns about those who teach others to slight His commandments. It seems
to me that one way of doing this is to claim that the Scriptures are not
authoritative, that we can decide what is or is not a commandment of God
(the waxed nose approach to biblical interpretation).
regards
martin
Alan Brennan
-snip-
> Jesus chastised the pharisees for elevating the traditions of the church
> of their day above the word of God. He says if we love Him, we will keep
> His commandments. His commandments are the law of God (which was a topic
> earlier on in our discussion) which we find recorded in the OT Scripture.
> He warns about those who teach others to slight His commandments. It seems
> to me that one way of doing this is to claim that the Scriptures are not
> authoritative, that we can decide what is or is not a commandment of God
> (the waxed nose approach to biblical interpretation).
So, Martin, please answer the question that you have refused to answer
several times. Why do you not obey all the Law? Unless you obey every
single part, you too, are deciding which parts of the scripture are
authoritative and which ones are not.
Alan Brennan
-snip-
I'll say this for you Martin, you keep me interested. I resolve to
ignore you and then you go and say something so utterly preposterous, I
just cannot let it pass. I am staggered that anyone can spend as much
time as you do with the scripture and know so little about it!
> Jesus chastised the pharisees for elevating the traditions of the church
> of their day above the word of God.
You really don't know anything about the Pharisees do you?
The Pharisees were the fundamentalists of the day. They believed in the
divine inspiration of every jot and tittle of the scriptures. They
believed that Israel's future depended upon the promotion of the law and
set up the synagogue system and a national system of education in order
that all Jewish boys would know the scripture. They taught mainly by
making the little boys learn large chunks of the law, the prophets and
the writings by heart.At their advanced schools, the various
authoratative interpretations of the scholars were also taught
Jesus upbraided them for being scrupulous in scriptural knowledge and
for having all the outward appearances of sanctity but for missing by a
mile what the scripture was actually talking about.
There is a strongly held opinion that Jesus was taught by the Pharisees.
Certainly he attended the synagogues which were Pharisee institutions.He
would have been taught in a Pharisee school when young and he wore a
fringe on his cloak, after the style of a pharisee rabbi.
The religious party of the day that was guilty of elevating tradition
and common sense over the plain word of the Torah was the Sadducees, but
you need to be very very careful about bandying these terms about to
condemn people. Firstly, you level of ignorance shows you don't know
what on earth you are saying. Secondly, you need to remember Mtt 7:1,2
-snip-
Martin
1) No man can keep all the Law of God because of indwelling sin.
2) The moral law of God is binding upon all men as being the standard of
judgement by which all men shall be judged.
3) All Scripture is authoritative.
4) God's requirements for His Church are different from that imposed upon
Israel in the OT because the Christ has come while they lived in the times
of anticipation; we live in the 'last days'.
5) It is the prerogative of God, the Lawgiver, to interpret and clarify
the extent and specific nature of His Law.
Your question is loaded in that, from previous postings, it is quite clear
you have a wrong view of the nature of the Law of God as it applies to
Christian living in the "last days" - you have to distinguish between our
situation and that of the OT Israelites living in Canaan prior to the
Incarnation of the Messiah.
regards,
Martin
Martin
> On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 19:01:59 +1200
> Martin ( martin...@paradise.net.nz )
> Wrote
>
> -snip-
> I'll say this for you Martin, you keep me interested. I resolve to
> ignore you and then you go and say something so utterly preposterous, I
> just cannot let it pass. I am staggered that anyone can spend as much
> time as you do with the scripture and know so little about it!
>
>> Jesus chastised the pharisees for elevating the traditions of the church
>> of their day above the word of God.
>
> You really don't know anything about the Pharisees do you?
> The Pharisees were the fundamentalists of the day.
[snip]
> The religious party of the day that was guilty of elevating tradition
> and common sense over the plain word of the Torah was the Sadducees, but
> you need to be very very careful about bandying these terms about to
> condemn people. Firstly, you level of ignorance shows you don't know
> what on earth you are saying. Secondly, you need to remember Mtt 7:1,2
My comment was made on the basis of Matthew 15:1-9 where the Lord Jesus
clearly indicts the Pharisees for this, not the Sadducees as you assert. I
don't think your rebuke on this point is justified.
>
> -snip-
Alan Brennan
I wonder then if you would answer these questions for me:
1. Do you eat the meat of strangled creatures? (ie nearly all the meat
you would buy in an ordinary New Zealand supermarket)
2. Are women in your church forbidden to cut their hair?
3. Are men in your church permitted to have long hair?
4. Do you encourage the many unfortunate people in the world subject to
the state of slavery to obey their masters?
5. Are women permitted forbidden to speak in your church? (and I don't
mean preach. I mean chit chat)
6. Do the women in your church wear veils during worship?
7. Do you stop women in your church from doing any teaching, as for
example in a Sunday School or homegroup?
If your answer to any of the above is no, then you are not obeying the
plain and clearly stated commands of the *New* Testament and are
therefore engaged in some sort of decision as to which bits you obey and
which you don't, and your nose is starting to look decidedly waxy.
Martin
Before I do that, I would like you to provide for each point the New
Testament stipulation upon which you have based each question. You need to
justify the extent of application of your question because I wonder if you
haven't stretched the requirement far beyond what God requires.
Also youcould perhaps deal with the NT phrasing 'for conscience' sake'
used by
Paul in I Corinthians 10 verses 25, 27, and 28. (relevant to your Q1).
> If your answer to any of the above is no, then you are not obeying the
> plain and clearly stated commands of the *New* Testament and are
> therefore engaged in some sort of decision as to which bits you obey and
> which you don't, and your nose is starting to look decidedly waxy.
No, I don't think you can justly state this without justification of the
phrasing of your questions.
regards
Martin
Alan Brennan
> On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 20:10:13 +1200, Alan Brennan wrote:
The texts are all fairly straightforward, and you know it. You can't
weasel out of it that easiloy.
Martin
>> No, I don't think you can justly state this without justification of the
>> phrasing of your questions.
> The texts are all fairly straightforward, and you know it. You can't
> weasel out of it that easiloy.
What texts? I think it is a reasonable request as I think your earlier set
of questions are, in the main, loaded as they assume a certain
interpretation (yours)which is not one held by the majority of
Bible-believing Christians.
Why should I not ask you in Berean spirit to help me examine the
Scriptures to see if these things are so. After all you were earlier
accusing me of not understanding much of the Bible, now you take the
opposite tack when I ask for clarification/source for your questions.
regards
Martin
Alan Brennan
> On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 09:15:20 +1200, Alan Brennan wrote:
Well, let's take them one at a time them shall we?
Do you allow women to speak in your church?
For by your light, Paul speaking the infallible word of God says in 1
Corinthians 14:34ff
"As in all the churches of God's holy people, women are to remain quiet
in the assemblies, since they have no permission to speak. Theirs is a
subordinate part, as the Law itself says. If there is anything they want
to know, they should ask their husbands at home. It is shameful for a
woman to speak in the assembly.
Do you really think that you are the source of the Word of God? Or that
you are the only people to whom it has come? Anyone who claims to be a
prophet or to have any spiritual powers must recognise that what I am
writing to you is a commandment from the Lord."
As you can see, Paul doesn't leave much room for maneuvre on this one.
Martin
We do not allow women to be elders or ministers. The issue in this verse
is the role of women as subordinate - to be the teacher in the church, the
one that 'speaks' is to be in a position of authority over men in the
church which is clearly forbidden. So, no, we do not allow women to speak
in church.
The next verse and your question.
regards
Martin
Alan Brennan
> On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 22:58:50 +1200, Alan Brennan wrote:
Decidedly waxy nosed answer Martin. This is not referring to teaching,
or holding the office of elder or minister. This is about talking.
"ai gunaikes en tais ekklesias ton hagion sigatosan"
The women are to be SILENT.
"ou gar epitpepetai lalein"
"for they are not permitted to speak"
The word is the general word for talking, not the word Paul generally
uses for teaching or giving instruction. They are to keep their traps
shut until they get home when they can ask their husbands anything they
want to know. The Greek is quite clear and unequivocal.
KiwiBrian
> This is not referring to teaching,
> or holding the office of elder or minister. This is about talking.
> "ai gunaikes en tais ekklesias ton hagion sigatosan"
> The women are to be SILENT.
> "ou gar epitpepetai lalein"
> "for they are not permitted to speak"
> The word is the general word for talking, not the word Paul generally
> uses for teaching or giving instruction. They are to keep their traps
> shut until they get home when they can ask their husbands anything they
> want to know. The Greek is quite clear and unequivocal.
For some time we have had David B. who can speak authoritively on matters
Jewish etc, our two Academics who can speak intelligently and instructively
on broader matters from a religious perspective, but I have long awaited
someone who can speak from the position of knowledge that it is now evident
that you hold.
I am delighted at this turn of events, and hope that the discussion of
specifics as opposed to semantics will be both enlightening and
entertaining.
However I expect it to be a bit like watching someone shoot fish in a
barrel.
Brian Tozer
Martin
I agree. However, the context of the word lalein is speaking in the church
in a public setting - you can see the same word (lalei) used in vs 27.
TThe phrasing 'keep quiet in the church' is used in vs 28 with reference
to public speaking of a word of teaching, a tongue, a revelation as can be
seen in vs 26.
Commonsense tells us that in a public gathering for worship, public
speaking is going to be the obvious focus and that regulation of who gets
to speak is necessary as in any public gathering - 'speaking rights' are
extended or denied at parts of a meeting without meaning that those
without speaking rights are not allowed to whisper quietly - why force an
unusual restriction on the text? Or do you believe that a person without
speaking rights in a public meeting is not permitted to utter even a word
to their neighbour?
regards,
Martin
Alan Brennan
This is rubbish. The word used and the context means ordinary
conversation. Why else do the women need to ask their menfolk what is
going on? They are obviously and plainly meant to avoid all talking in
church.
> Commonsense
And here is the key. Commonsense. You are applying some standard by
which to interpret the Bible, in order to make the teaching fit a
context other than the one in which it arose. So you are doing what you
condemn me for: placing some standard (whatever you mean by
"commonsense") above the plain meaning of the text.
> tells us that in a public gathering for worship, public
> speaking is going to be the obvious focus and that regulation of who gets
> to speak is necessary as in any public gathering - 'speaking rights' are
> extended or denied at parts of a meeting without meaning that those
> without speaking rights are not allowed to whisper quietly - why force an
> unusual restriction on the text? Or do you believe that a person without
> speaking rights in a public meeting is not permitted to utter even a word
> to their neighbour?
So why are the women told to save their questions until they get home if
they are allowed to whisper quietly?
All of your paragraph above is pure speculation, which you have added to
the text in order to make sense of a very unpalatable passage. I believe
Paul meant exactly as he said, and as there is no evidence of editorial
tampering with this passage, his thoughts are accurately recorded. He
meant that women were to be silent in church, to refrain from joining
the discussion and they were to talk to their husbands later about what
was going on in the meeting.
Now, of course I have to deal with this passage also. I believe it is
inspired, although I might use that term in a somewhat different way
than you, and I believe that to try and apply the plain words of the
text to the 21st century is just plain silly. Probably it is silly to
apply them to a first century church other than Corinth.
My starting point in interpretation is to ask, "Why would Paul be saying
this to the Corinthians? I have my own ideas on this, which I believe
are fairly accurate and which I won't bore you with here, but to fully
answer the question I need to know as much as I can learn about the
church in Corinth, Paul, and the relationship between the two. Then I
need to ask, "If Paul was saying this very specific thing to that
particular church 1,955 years or so ago, what implications does that
have for me and my church?
I don't believe, btw, that the implications of this passage mean that
women in my fellowship have to be quiet, or that I should refrain from
having them share their wisdom with me, either in public or privately.
If you think that your balls are going to drop off because a woman
teaches you, then they are not stuck on very firmly, are they?
KiwiBrian
> I don't believe, btw, that the implications of this passage mean that
> women in my fellowship have to be quiet, or that I should refrain from
> having them share their wisdom with me, either in public or privately.
I am hoping that this thread will encompass the reasons that Paul gives for
women needing to cover their heads, "for the angels" and the context, that
it is to indicate that their husband is their head, just as God is Christ's
head.
I see it all as relating to Paul's attitude towards womenkind.
N'est ce pas?
Brian Tozer
Martin
>>
>> I agree. However, the context of the word lalein is speaking in the church
>> in a public setting - you can see the same word (lalei) used in vs 27.
>> TThe phrasing 'keep quiet in the church' is used in vs 28 with reference
>> to public speaking of a word of teaching, a tongue, a revelation as can be
>> seen in vs 26.
>
> This is rubbish. The word used and the context means ordinary
> conversation. Why else do the women need to ask their menfolk what is
> going on? They are obviously and plainly meant to avoid all talking in
> church.
>
>> Commonsense
> And here is the key. Commonsense. You are applying some standard by
> which to interpret the Bible, in order to make the teaching fit a
> context other than the one in which it arose. So you are doing what you
> condemn me for: placing some standard (whatever you mean by
> "commonsense") above the plain meaning of the text.
No, not a standard. God does not require to check our brains in the foyer
at church. His Word is written as a reasonable rule of faith and practice.
Absurd interpretations can be rejected because they are absurd.
>
>> tells us that in a public gathering for worship, public
>> speaking is going to be the obvious focus and that regulation of who gets
>> to speak is necessary as in any public gathering - 'speaking rights' are
>> extended or denied at parts of a meeting without meaning that those
>> without speaking rights are not allowed to whisper quietly - why force an
>> unusual restriction on the text? Or do you believe that a person without
>> speaking rights in a public meeting is not permitted to utter even a word
>> to their neighbour?
>
> So why are the women told to save their questions until they get home if
> they are allowed to whisper quietly?
Because, in a church service, there is not the place for anyone male or
female to have a discussion while those that have official speaking rights
are addressing the meeting. As I pointed out the context is Paul
addressing the issue of speaking rights in the worship - earlier he was
placing some regulation on those who bring prophetic utterances, tongues
etc.
> All of your paragraph above is pure speculation, which you have added to
> the text in order to make sense of a very unpalatable passage. I believe
> Paul meant exactly as he said, and as there is no evidence of editorial
> tampering with this passage, his thoughts are accurately recorded. He
> meant that women were to be silent in church, to refrain from joining
> the discussion and they were to talk to their husbands later about what
> was going on in the meeting.
I agree, but I don't think it is meant as a restriction of such degree as
to forbid them even opening their mouths to whisper something to their
husbands as I read your initial question. But the context is a public
worship service which was restricted for all under the leadership of the
elders. Once worship is completed then both men and women would be freely
conversing with one another, say over a cup of whatever they drank in
those days as coffee, in fellowship before going home. You can see an
example of this with Aquila (a man) and his wife Priscilla together, after
worship while still apparently at the place of worship, were speaking of
the things of the Word to Apollos in Acts 18v26.
Women are restricted as a general principle from speaking to the public
gathering of the worshipping church; some men were in 1st century Corinth
granted that privelege if they 'had a psalm, a teaching, a
revelation...'(vs 6) but there were restrictions. The Corinthian church
seemed to have a problem with unregulated worship and Paul is giving the
general principles that should apply such as 'let all things be done for
edification' and 'the women in the church let be silent but let them be
subject as also the law says' (vs 34) and 'all things and becomingly and
according to order let be done' (vs 40).
The problem with your interpretation is that Paul adds 'as also the law
says' meaning that this teaching rests on other parts of Scripture which
you then effectively undermine as well. Women were not permitted to serve
as priests in the OT worship ie they were not permitted to speak in the
public assemblies then either.
> Now, of course I have to deal with this passage also. I believe it is
> inspired, although I might use that term in a somewhat different way
> than you, and I believe that to try and apply the plain words of the
> text to the 21st century is just plain silly. Probably it is silly to
> apply them to a first century church other than Corinth.
Plain silly or contrary to the modern feminist/egalitarian ideologies?
Paul states that this principle is applied in all churches not just those
in Corinth when he states 'as in all the congregations of the saints' in
vs 33.
>
> My starting point in interpretation is to ask, "Why would Paul be saying
> this to the Corinthians? I have my own ideas on this, which I believe
> are fairly accurate and which I won't bore you with here, but to fully
> answer the question I need to know as much as I can learn about the
> church in Corinth, Paul, and the relationship between the two. Then I
> need to ask, "If Paul was saying this very specific thing to that
> particular church 1,955 years or so ago, what implications does that
> have for me and my church?
>
> I don't believe, btw, that the implications of this passage mean that
> women in my fellowship have to be quiet, or that I should refrain from
> having them share their wisdom with me, either in public or privately.
>
> If you think that your balls are going to drop off because a woman
> teaches you, then they are not stuck on very firmly, are they?
That is not the issue and the comment is beneath you.
Alan Brennan
> On Fri, 15 Aug 2003 23:00:16 +1200, Alan Brennan wrote:
-snip-
> No, not a standard. God does not require to check our brains in the foyer
> at church. His Word is written as a reasonable rule of faith and practice.
> Absurd interpretations can be rejected because they are absurd.
And how do you decide what is an absurd interpretation? You have two
choices: a) take the exact literal meaning of the text as authoratative
(as do the Muslims with their scripture and the as the Pharisees did
with theirs)or interpret the text according to your own lights. It seems
the difference between you and me is the extent to which interpretation
is allowed, and the basis on which it is made.
> >> tells us that in a public gathering for worship, public
> >> speaking is going to be the obvious focus and that regulation of who gets
> >> to speak is necessary as in any public gathering - 'speaking rights' are
> >> extended or denied at parts of a meeting without meaning that those
> >> without speaking rights are not allowed to whisper quietly - why force an
> >> unusual restriction on the text? Or do you believe that a person without
> >> speaking rights in a public meeting is not permitted to utter even a word
> >> to their neighbour?
> >
> > So why are the women told to save their questions until they get home if
> > they are allowed to whisper quietly?
>
> Because, in a church service, there is not the place for anyone male or
> female to have a discussion while those that have official speaking rights
> are addressing the meeting.
So why are the men also not enjoined to save their questions until they
get home? Paul is not talking to 'anyone, male or female' but to the
women.
> As I pointed out the context is Paul
> addressing the issue of speaking rights in the worship
No, the issue is Paul addressing the right of women and women only to
speak in the church. The whole thing about speaking rights is your 21st
Century spin on a difficult passage.
> - earlier he was
> placing some regulation on those who bring prophetic utterances, tongues
> etc.
>
> > All of your paragraph above is pure speculation, which you have added to
> > the text in order to make sense of a very unpalatable passage. I believe
> > Paul meant exactly as he said, and as there is no evidence of editorial
> > tampering with this passage, his thoughts are accurately recorded. He
> > meant that women were to be silent in church, to refrain from joining
> > the discussion and they were to talk to their husbands later about what
> > was going on in the meeting.
>
> I agree, but I don't think it is meant as a restriction of such degree as
> to forbid them even opening their mouths to whisper something to their
> husbands as I read your initial question.
Even though the plain meaning of the text is exactly that? He doesn't
say 'whisper quietly to your husband' or even 'wait until the speaker
has finished' he says 'women are to be silent in the assembly of the
saints'.
> But the context is a public
> worship service which was restricted for all under the leadership of the
> elders. Once worship is completed then both men and women would be freely
> conversing with one another, say over a cup of whatever they drank in
> those days as coffee, in fellowship before going home.
Once again, your argument might hold water if Paul was speaking to
everybody. But he is not. He is speaking to the women.
> You can see an
> example of this with Aquila (a man) and his wife Priscilla together, after
> worship while still apparently at the place of worship, were speaking of
> the things of the Word to Apollos in Acts 18v26.
Yes, and this is an example of why taking the plain word of scripture as
the basis for far reaching doctrines such as the role of women in the
church is foolish.
>
> Women are restricted as a general principle from speaking to the public
> gathering of the worshipping church;
You may or may not be right on that point. There is evidence both ways.
> some men were in 1st century Corinth
> granted that privelege if they 'had a psalm, a teaching, a
> revelation...'(vs 6) but there were restrictions. The Corinthian church
> seemed to have a problem with unregulated worship and Paul is giving the
> general principles that should apply such as 'let all things be done for
> edification' and 'the women in the church let be silent but let them be
> subject as also the law says' (vs 34) and 'all things and becomingly and
> according to order let be done' (vs 40).
I agree. The state of disorder in the Corinthian church, is the context,
and the lens through which this passage must be read, when trying to
decide how to apply it's lessons to your presumably, quite well ordered
church.
>
> The problem with your interpretation is that Paul adds 'as also the law
> says' meaning that this teaching rests on other parts of Scripture which
> you then effectively undermine as well. Women were not permitted to serve
> as priests in the OT worship ie they were not permitted to speak in the
> public assemblies then either.
Crucial information. So why was there a problem at Corinth, and in other
Christian assemblies in this regard?
>
> > Now, of course I have to deal with this passage also. I believe it is
> > inspired, although I might use that term in a somewhat different way
> > than you, and I believe that to try and apply the plain words of the
> > text to the 21st century is just plain silly. Probably it is silly to
> > apply them to a first century church other than Corinth.
>
>
> Plain silly or contrary to the modern feminist/egalitarian ideologies?
Plain silly.
> Paul states that this principle is applied in all churches not just those
> in Corinth when he states 'as in all the congregations of the saints' in
> vs
>
> >
> > My starting point in interpretation is to ask, "Why would Paul be saying
> > this to the Corinthians? I have my own ideas on this, which I believe
> > are fairly accurate and which I won't bore you with here, but to fully
> > answer the question I need to know as much as I can learn about the
> > church in Corinth, Paul, and the relationship between the two. Then I
> > need to ask, "If Paul was saying this very specific thing to that
> > particular church 1,955 years or so ago, what implications does that
> > have for me and my church?
> >
> > I don't believe, btw, that the implications of this passage mean that
> > women in my fellowship have to be quiet, or that I should refrain from
> > having them share their wisdom with me, either in public or privately.
> >
> > If you think that your balls are going to drop off because a woman
> > teaches you, then they are not stuck on very firmly, are they?
>
> That is not the issue and the comment is beneath you.
In many cases where men are keen to apply this particular teaching of
Paul's, it is exactly the issue.
>
Martin
[snip]
>> some men were in 1st century Corinth
>> granted that privelege if they 'had a psalm, a teaching, a
>> revelation...'(vs 6) but there were restrictions. The Corinthian church
>> seemed to have a problem with unregulated worship and Paul is giving the
>> general principles that should apply such as 'let all things be done for
>> edification' and 'the women in the church let be silent but let them be
>> subject as also the law says' (vs 34) and 'all things and becomingly and
>> according to order let be done' (vs 40).
>
> I agree. The state of disorder in the Corinthian church, is the context,
> and the lens through which this passage must be read, when trying to
> decide how to apply it's lessons to your presumably, quite well ordered
> church.
>>
>> The problem with your interpretation is that Paul adds 'as also the law
>> says' meaning that this teaching rests on other parts of Scripture which
>> you then effectively undermine as well. Women were not permitted to serve
>> as priests in the OT worship ie they were not permitted to speak in the
>> public assemblies then either.
> Crucial information. So why was there a problem at Corinth, and in other
> Christian assemblies in this regard?
Probably because in Corinth there were a larger proportion of Gentile
converts from paganism who were not experienced in the ways of Jehovah as
the Jewish converts were. The early church modelled a lot of its worship
on the synagogue.
Weak leadership from the elders there would have been a contributing
factor, I imagine.
>>
>> > Now, of course I have to deal with this passage also. I believe it is
>> > inspired, although I might use that term in a somewhat different way
>> > than you, and I believe that to try and apply the plain words of the
>> > text to the 21st century is just plain silly. Probably it is silly to
>> > apply them to a first century church other than Corinth.
>>
>>
>> Plain silly or contrary to the modern feminist/egalitarian ideologies?
> Plain silly.
A good test is the admonition of Romans 12verses 1 & 2. A lot of the
modern women in the church practices esp in the mainline churches seems
more conformed to this world rather than being the product of a renewed
mind. How do we know what the will of God is? Through Scripture! Including
the writings of the beloved Paul. :-)
regards,
Martin
John Fulton
Why stop there? Why not continue down to Romans 13 versws 8 to 10.
There is some very good stuff in there that is not at all comfortable is
there not?
>
> regards,
>
> Martin
>
Regards to you all
John Fulton
KiwiBrian
> > A good test is the admonition of Romans 12verses 1 & 2. A lot of the
> > modern women in the church practices esp in the mainline churches seems
> > more conformed to this world rather than being the product of a renewed
> > mind. How do we know what the will of God is? Through Scripture!
Including
> > the writings of the beloved Paul. :-)
> Why stop there? Why not continue down to Romans 13 versws 8 to 10.
> There is some very good stuff in there that is not at all comfortable is
> there not?
How about:-
Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head
of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. 1 Corinthians 11:3
Brian Tozer
Martin
> Why stop there? Why not continue down to Romans 13 versws 8 to 10.
> There is some very good stuff in there that is not at all comfortable is
> there not?
Amen. Particularly the beautiful phrase that love is the fulfillment of
the Law. We don't see a denial of the validity or appropriateness of the
law of God; on the contrary, we see Paul rejoicing in the fact that the
true end of God's law is love.
So those that oppose God's law in the name of "love" have confused some
sentiment with the true definition of love as we find it in Scripture. It
is not, if you love me, you will tolerate and let me wallow in sin but if
you love God, you will keep His commandments.
regards
Martin
John Fulton
Newsgroups: nz.soc.religion
Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2003 7:01 PM
Subject: Re: The one true holy catholic church (reposted)
> > On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 22:13:50 +1200, John Fulton wrote:
> >
> >
>>> > >> Salvation is not by some act such as baptism; it is a gift of
God given
>>> > >> out of grace to those whom He choses. He calls all of us to
receive this
>>> > >> grace through faith and it is freely offered in the infallible
>>> > >> Scriptures. We are called to believe those Scriptures.
>
>> > >
>> > > Salvation is certainly a gift from God. That is what we are
taught. We
>> > > obtain it through Baptism, that is also what we are taught.
There is
>> > > nothing in the teaching of the Church that required me to believe in
>> > > infallible Scripture. What we have is Scripture that is the
writings of
>> > > human people giving their experience of God. Divinely
inspired,From: "Martin" <martin...@paradise.net.nz>
Newsgroups: nz.soc.religion
Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2003 7:01 PM
Subject: Re: The one true holy catholic church (reposted)
> > On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 22:13:50 +1200, John Fulton wrote:
> >
> >
>>> > >> Salvation is not by some act such as baptism; it is a gift of
God given
>>> > >> out of grace to those whom He choses. He calls all of us to
receive this
>>> > >> grace through faith and it is freely offered in the infallible
>>> > >> Scriptures. We are called to believe those Scriptures.
>
>> > >
>> > > Salvation is certainly a gift from God. That is what we are
taught. We
>> > > obtain it through Baptism, that is also what we are taught.
There is
>> > > nothing in the teaching of the Church that required me to believe in
>> > > infallible Scripture. What we have is Scripture that is the
writings of
>> > > human people giving their experience of God. Divinely inspired,
>> > > infallible no, containing the "Deposit of Faith" yes, to be taken
>> > > literally no.
> >
> > A gift cannot be earned, it is given. Do you believe baptism by
water is
> > hwo we obtain salvation? IOW does someone who was baptised as a
child and
> > does not claim to be a Christian nor attend worship have salvation
because
> > they were baptised?
I have been re-reading your reply here and feel that I need to comment
further. The gift of the "saving grace" is certainly not earned. None of
us are good enough to earn this. However "The Body of Christ" - The
Church teaches that it is through Baptism that we become members of The
Church - "The Body of Christ" and as members of "The Body of Christ" we
are saved. It is not be our actions but be the action of Our Lord
Himself that we are saved!
> >
> > If you don't have an infallible Scripture, it does seem you have an
> > infallible Church or at least more authoritative that the written
text of
> > the Bible. Isn't this elevating a human institution above God, or
at least
> > equating the pronouncements of the Church to the same level as
God's Word?
> >
Snip a lot of stuff that is going nowhere.
Your reasoning about "infallible scripture" is false. You are looking
for certainty where none is to be found, and have raised scripture to
the "infallible status" in order to provide your certainlty. This is a
very
20/21st Century thing to be doing. It is certainly not part of the
"Tradition of the Church" as I have been taught.
I do not have an infallible Church, nor do I have infallible Scripture.
Both are run by humans and have errors from time to time, but the Light
of the Holy Spirit and Our Lord shine through in the end. If you look
at any of the Christian denominations - both Catholic and Protestant you
will find events happening that one would be ashamed to call Christian,
but in spite of these the "Love of God" wins through in the end. Having
"free will' means that we are able to make mistakes, and also that God
Himself does not "prevent us" from making them. This is an important
attribute of God and Our Lord, we are free to accept Him or reject Him.
If we accept Him and become members of "The Church" - The Body of
Christ" we are saved. We all continue to sin, but in spite of this we
are saved through the everlasting mercy of God. This is what the
teaching of Our Lord is all about, it is what His whole purpose of
living on this earth was about. Over the years people have tried to
dilute this message. I suspect that this is done in order to persuade
others to follow their teaching and not that of Our Lord. Faith and not
certainty is what is required. This comes both from the Church and Holy
Scripture.
Regards and Blessings to you all
John Fulton
John Fulton
Newsgroups: nz.soc.religion
Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2003 7:01 PM
Subject: Re: The one true holy catholic church (reposted)
> On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 22:13:50 +1200, John Fulton wrote:
>
>
>> > >> Salvation is not by some act such as baptism; it is a gift of God given
>> > >> out of grace to those whom He choses. He calls all of us to receive
this
>> > >> grace through faith and it is freely offered in the infallible
>> > >> Scriptures. We are called to believe those Scriptures.
> >
> > Salvation is certainly a gift from God. That is what we are taught. We
> > > obtain it through Baptism, that is also what we are taught. There is
> > nothing in the teaching of the Church that required me to believe in
> > > infallible Scripture. What we have is Scripture that is the writings of
Faith and not certainty is what is required. This comes both from the
Church and Holy Scripture.
Regards and Blessings to you all
John Fulton
>
>>but I am certain that they have lost the plot when "they find it"!
>>
>>We are all at the mercy of God, and are saved by His gift of unconditional
>>forgivness, and not by actions that we take! If we are dependent upon our
>>own actions then we are lost indeed! This is why any forgivness to be
>>effective must indeed by unconditional! It is the unconditional nature of
>>God's loving Grace that makes the difference and this is a fundamental
>
> part
>
>>of the Church's Teaching - though at times when I look at some of the
>
> people
>
>>who make up "The Body of Christ" at present I sometimes wonder! However I
>>believe that the "Body of Christ" - The Church will survive anything that
>
> we
>
>>are capable of at present!
>>
>>Regards to you allRe: The one true holy catholic church (reposted)
>>
>>John Fulton
>>
>>
>
>
Martin
> I have been re-reading your reply here and feel that I need to comment
> further. The gift of the "saving grace" is certainly not earned. None of
> us are good enough to earn this. However "The Body of Christ" - The
> Church teaches that it is through Baptism that we become members of The
> Church - "The Body of Christ" and as members of "The Body of Christ" we
> are saved. It is not be our actions but be the action of Our Lord
> Himself that we are saved!
Your proof for this statement? Are you saying everybody who claims to be a
Christian is 'saved'?
>
> > >
> > > If you don't have an infallible Scripture, it does seem you have an
> > > infallible Church or at least more authoritative that the written
> text of
> > > the Bible. Isn't this elevating a human institution above God, or
> at least
> > > equating the pronouncements of the Church to the same level as
> God's Word?
> > >
>
> Snip a lot of stuff that is going nowhere.
>
> Your reasoning about "infallible scripture" is false. You are looking
> for certainty where none is to be found, and have raised scripture to
> the "infallible status" in order to provide your certainlty. This is a
> very
> 20/21st Century thing to be doing. It is certainly not part of the
> "Tradition of the Church" as I have been taught.
Interesting. You are quoting the 'Tradition of the Church' as you have
been taught as being authoritative. Why is this more certain than the
words of Scripture which says that the writing of Paul and others are the
Word of God?
>
> I do not have an infallible Church, nor do I have infallible Scripture.
Then how do you set one (the 'Traditions of the Church' over another?
Especially when there is a conflict?
> Both are run by humans and have errors from time to time, but the Light
> of the Holy Spirit and Our Lord shine through in the end. If you look
> at any of the Christian denominations - both Catholic and Protestant you
> will find events happening that one would be ashamed to call Christian,
> but in spite of these the "Love of God" wins through in the end. Having
> "free will' means that we are able to make mistakes, and also that God
> Himself does not "prevent us" from making them. This is an important
> attribute of God and Our Lord, we are free to accept Him or reject Him.
How do you know it is an attribute of God unless He tells us?
> If we accept Him and become members of "The Church" - The Body of
> Christ" we are saved. We all continue to sin, but in spite of this we
> are saved through the everlasting mercy of God. This is what the
> teaching of Our Lord is all about, it is what His whole purpose of
> living on this earth was about. Over the years people have tried to
> dilute this message. I suspect that this is done in order to persuade
> others to follow their teaching and not that of Our Lord. Faith and not
> certainty is what is required. This comes both from the Church and Holy
> Scripture.
What about the certainty of faith that the Scriptures talk of? Maybe your
version of faith does not equate to that of the writers of Scripture?
regards
Martin
John Fulton
"Martin" <martin...@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
news:pan.2003.08.18....@paradise.net.nz...
> On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 21:07:05 +1200, John Fulton wrote:
>
>
> > I have been re-reading your reply here and feel that I need to comment
> > further. The gift of the "saving grace" is certainly not earned. None
of
> > us are good enough to earn this. However "The Body of Christ" - The
> > Church teaches that it is through Baptism that we become members of The
> > Church - "The Body of Christ" and as members of "The Body of Christ" we
> > are saved. It is not be our actions but be the action of Our Lord
> > Himself that we are saved!
>
> Your proof for this statement? Are you saying everybody who claims to be a
> Christian is 'saved'?
No!
Every baptised person is! The "claim" is not necessary! That is the
teaching of the Church. You see the Church is the Body of Christ, Holy
Baptism is the way one becomes a member of "The Body of Christ".
To go down any other track leads you into the business of saying that some
sins attract eternal damnation while others do not! Surely that is what
Luther and Calvin were on about in their day! The Church today seems to
have come to gripps with this at last.
What God does about those who are not baptised is not discussed anywhere, I
am sure that He will act mercifully!
Again none of this is certain, it is a matter of Faith as is the whole of
Christianity! The sure and certain hope! This is the point that I suspect
that you do not like.
Regards to you all
John Fulton
Martin
>
> "Martin" <martin...@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
> news:pan.2003.08.18....@paradise.net.nz...
>> On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 21:07:05 +1200, John Fulton wrote:
>>
>>
>> > I have been re-reading your reply here and feel that I need to comment
>> > further. The gift of the "saving grace" is certainly not earned. None
> of
>> > us are good enough to earn this. However "The Body of Christ" - The
>> > Church teaches that it is through Baptism that we become members of The
>> > Church - "The Body of Christ" and as members of "The Body of Christ" we
>> > are saved. It is not be our actions but be the action of Our Lord
>> > Himself that we are saved!
>>
>> Your proof for this statement? Are you saying everybody who claims to be a
>> Christian is 'saved'?
>
> No!
>
> Every baptised person is! The "claim" is not necessary! That is the
> teaching of the Church. You see the Church is the Body of Christ, Holy
> Baptism is the way one becomes a member of "The Body of Christ".
By baptised do you mean the subject of the outward ceremony of washing
with water in the Name of the Triune God or do you mean something else?
What is your proof to this statement.
>
> To go down any other track leads you into the business of saying that some
> sins attract eternal damnation while others do not! Surely that is what
> Luther and Calvin were on about in their day! The Church today seems to
> have come to gripps with this at last.
The Bible teaches that all sins are worthy of damnation and that we live
by His mercy and forbearance every day. Clavin and Luther certainly taught
this. The issue was not which attract damnation but how God's grace comes
to you as they lived in a day of many baptised people including the Pope,
the inquisitioners, etc. and it was quite clear that these people's fruits
condemned them. ie they were baptised but not saved. Also how do you
explain Christ's warnings about the sin leading to death?
>
> What God does about those who are not baptised is not discussed anywhere, I
> am sure that He will act mercifully!
Why are you sure? How do you know Because it feels right or because the
Bible says or what?
>
> Again none of this is certain, it is a matter of Faith as is the whole of
> Christianity! The sure and certain hope! This is the point that I suspect
> that you do not like.
Faith is a sure hope if it is rooted in the sure promises of God who never
lies.
John Fulton
We are talking at cross purposes as I do not accept your initial assumptions
about Holy Scripture. I have explained a number of times how I regard Holy
Scripture and the Tradition of The One True Holy Catholic and Apostolic
Church - The Body of Christ. The Church teaches that Holy Baptism is an
outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual truth, and that Baptism
is one of the two Sacaments of the Church that was instituted by Our Lord
Himself. That is sufficient for me. I do not intend to argue the rightness
or wrongness of this. For me it is "the way that it is."
I do not accept your implied attributes for God as being a strict school
master. You seem to have a God who is not loving and merciful, which as far
as I am concerned is contrary to the truths that shine through Holy
Scripture, and is contrary to the teaching of "The Body of Christ".
1> >
> > To go down any other track leads you into the business of saying that
some
> > sins attract eternal damnation while others do not! Surely that is what
> > Luther and Calvin were on about in their day! The Church today seems to
> > have come to gripps with this at last.
>
> The Bible teaches that all sins are worthy of damnation and that we live
> by His mercy and forbearance every day. Clavin and Luther certainly taught
> this. The issue was not which attract damnation but how God's grace comes
> to you as they lived in a day of many baptised people including the Pope,
> the inquisitioners, etc. and it was quite clear that these people's fruits
> condemned them. ie they were baptised but not saved. Also how do you
> explain Christ's warnings about the sin leading to death?
>
Our Lord has promised forgivness to all that believe in Him. This is a
unconditional gift from Our Lord. We are not saved through any action that
we make to try to attone for our sins. You really are operating ourside the
teaching of The One True Holy Cotholic and Apostolic Chirch. I fail to see
how you arrive at you conclusions about "it was quite clear that these
people's fruits condemned them"! Here you are interpreting their actions
and making God's judgement for Him - which will not do at all! As I have
already said - I do not accept you initial assumptions about Holy Scripture.
>
> >
> > What God does about those who are not baptised is not discussed
anywhere, I
> > am sure that He will act mercifully!
>
> Why are you sure? How do you know Because it feels right or because the
> Bible says or what?
Because I believe God to be merciful and I make no assumptions about what
God may do about things we have no knowledge of. I am sure that a merciful
and loving God would not out of hand condemn people who have ni knowledge of
His saving grace!
>
> >
> > Again none of this is certain, it is a matter of Faith as is the whole
of
> > Christianity! The sure and certain hope! This is the point that I
suspect
> > that you do not like.
>
> Faith is a sure hope if it is rooted in the sure promises of God who never
> lies.
Good one indeed, these are revealed through Holy Scripture and The One True
Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. I do not believe that Christianity
became frozen in its teachings when Our Lord was crucified, and rose at the
first Easter Time. Taking Holy Scripture as infallible, and literally true
is I believe an untennable position as it seems to me that it assumes Gods
purpose for us all is no longer being more fully understood as time goes on.
Why should or understanding of God be frozen at the time wgen Our Lord
Ascended to Heaven? For me it is simple - The Body of Christ is here in the
world and very much alive and rteinterpreting Holy Scripture in the light of
our current state of knowledge. It seems to me that it is behaving like an
ostrich putting its head in the sand to use Holy Scripture in the manner of
an infallible and literal security blanket. "Holy Scripture" on its own is
not adequate, nor is the "Tradition of the Church" on its own, both are in
agreement, and both must be interpreted in a consistent manner. The Body of
Christ put Holy Scripture together and its interpretation is required in
order to prevent us all going off at tangents with out own individual
interpretations.