Ponder anew, what the Almighty can do

[Jason]

I was prompted to start this new thread in response to a comment I just
made in a different one (the context is about God being constrained to
only doing things compatible with the text of the Bible). I appreciate
this post will be a bit rambling :-)

I watched an on-line service the other day, which contained the hymn
which contains the magnificent line:

"Ponder anew, what the Almighty can do."

To be honest, I don't even know where to begin to ponder what the
Almighty can do: it is so above and beyond what we can ever conceive. I
don't think we as human beings can even begin to scratch the surface of
this. Even the things we know about the Bible, tradition, and our own
lived experiences as Christians, there is an infinite depth to be plumbed.

To link this back to my first paragraph, I was thinking about the verses
from the end of John:

"Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written
down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the
books that would be written."

Even if we simply keep to the discussions we've had here, there are many
many things where someone says "as it shows in X chapter Y verse Z" and
someone else retorts that "yes, but in P chapter Q verse R it says this
other thing" and so on. There are many points that are made or refuted
over one Biblical reference. Out of all the books, suppose one or other
didn't make it in to the Bible (say it was lost), how our view of God may
be slanted a different way. Likewise, if some of these "many other
books" of other things Jesus did mentioned by John had been written and
found there way in, we might see things in a completely different light
as we try to hold it all together.

As a result, while I believe that the Bible contains all things necessary
for our salvation, I don't believe (or even think it important to
believe) that the Bible is either complete or inerrant.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 26/09/2021 18:30, Jason wrote:

> Even if we simply keep to the discussions we've had here, there are many
> many things where someone says "as it shows in X chapter Y verse Z" and
> someone else retorts that "yes, but in P chapter Q verse R it says this
> other thing" and so on. There are many points that are made or refuted
> over one Biblical reference. Out of all the books, suppose one or other
> didn't make it in to the Bible (say it was lost), how our view of God may
> be slanted a different way. Likewise, if some of these "many other
> books" of other things Jesus did mentioned by John had been written and
> found there way in, we might see things in a completely different light
> as we try to hold it all together.

We might indeed - but the fact that God saw fit not to include those
things in His word is sufficient evidence that they are not right.

The corollary, of course, is that God has allowed certain things to slip
into His word because they are right. The Johanine Comma is, perhaps,
the most dramatic example of this. Other possible examples are Phillip's
words to the Ethiopian eunuch and the story of Jesus and the woman taken
in adultery.

> As a result, while I believe that the Bible contains all things necessary
> for our salvation, I don't believe (or even think it important to
> believe) that the Bible is either complete or inerrant.

The Bible is both those things as far as salvation is concerned. I agree
with your conclusion as far as secular history or geography or chemistry
are concerned.

God bless,
Kendall K. Down

[Timreason]

On 26/09/2021 18:30, Jason wrote:

100% agree, especially with this last paragraph!

It is not possible to force God into a box, not even a book-shaped one.
It's why I place emphasis on reason, as well as scripture and tradition.

When we consider things, IMHO it is not sufficient to consider just the
Bible alone. I've said before, that I believe the New Testament tells us
we are to be governed by principles, rather than endless lists of rules
and regulations, which can never properly cover all possible cases and
situations.

We need also to ask, "What is reasonable", taking into account
circumstances, knowledge and understanding, when considering our
response to things that are to be inline with the core principles as
commanded. That is, to love God and our neighbour as ourselves.

God gave us brains. I rather expect He did so because He intends us to
use them.

Tim.

[Mike Davis]

On 27/09/2021 08:04, Kendall K. Down wrote:
> On 26/09/2021 18:30, Jason wrote:
>
>> Even if we simply keep to the discussions we've had here, there are many
>> many things where someone says "as it shows in X chapter Y verse Z" and
>> someone else retorts that "yes, but in P chapter Q verse R it says this
>> other thing" and so on.  There are many points that are made or refuted
>> over one Biblical reference.  Out of all the books, suppose one or other
>> didn't make it in to the Bible (say it was lost), how our view of God may
>> be slanted a different way.  Likewise, if some of these "many other
>> books" of other things Jesus did mentioned by John had been written and
>> found there way in, we might see things in a completely different light
>> as we try to hold it all together.
>
> We might indeed - but the fact that God saw fit not to include those
> things in His word is sufficient evidence that they are not right.

.. and guided the Church to make the right decisions...

>
> The corollary, of course, is that God has allowed certain things to slip
> into His word because they are right. The Johanine Comma is, perhaps,
> the most dramatic example of this. Other possible examples are Phillip's
> words to the Ethiopian eunuch and the story of Jesus and the woman taken
> in adultery.
>
>> As a result, while I believe that the Bible contains all things necessary
>> for our salvation, I don't believe (or even think it important to
>> believe) that the Bible is either complete or inerrant.
>
> The Bible is both those things as far as salvation is concerned. I agree
> with your conclusion as far as secular history or geography or chemistry
> are concerned.

.. (as above)...


Mike
--
Mike Davis

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[Kendall K. Down]

On 27/09/2021 13:34, Mike Davis wrote:

>> We might indeed - but the fact that God saw fit not to include those
>> things in His word is sufficient evidence that they are not right.

> .. and guided the Church to make the right decisions...

Indeed - provided that by "church" you mean the entire body of
believers, not an hierarchy. The various councils which dealt with the
Canon of Scripture merely formalised what had already been agreed
tacitly by Christians in general.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 27/09/2021 08:25, Timreason wrote:

> When we consider things, IMHO it is not sufficient to consider just the
> Bible alone. I've said before, that I believe the New Testament tells us
> we are to be governed by principles, rather than endless lists of rules
> and regulations, which can never properly cover all possible cases and
> situations.

No, but such lists and regulations are necessary if you are intending to
govern a nation by them. Can you imagine the field day lawyers would
have if our laws were framed as "principles"?

> We need also to ask, "What is reasonable", taking into account
> circumstances, knowledge and understanding, when considering our
> response to things that are to be inline with the core principles as
> commanded. That is, to love God and our neighbour as ourselves.

Having spent the last couple of months arguing with an anti-vaxxer, I am
by no means as confident in the power of "reason" as you appear to be.
Human reason and logic must always take second-place to the clear dos
and don'ts of God's revelation to us.

> God gave us brains. I rather expect He did so because He intends us to
> use them.

He intends us to use them in harmony with His expressed will.

[Jason]

On Mon, 27 Sep 2021 13:34:00 +0100, Mike Davis wrote:

> On 27/09/2021 08:04, Kendall K. Down wrote:
>> On 26/09/2021 18:30, Jason wrote:
>>
>>> Even if we simply keep to the discussions we've had here, there are
>>> many many things where someone says "as it shows in X chapter Y verse
>>> Z" and someone else retorts that "yes, but in P chapter Q verse R it
>>> says this other thing" and so on.  There are many points that are made
>>> or refuted over one Biblical reference.  Out of all the books, suppose
>>> one or other didn't make it in to the Bible (say it was lost), how our
>>> view of God may be slanted a different way.  Likewise, if some of
>>> these "many other books" of other things Jesus did mentioned by John
>>> had been written and found there way in, we might see things in a
>>> completely different light as we try to hold it all together.
>>
>> We might indeed - but the fact that God saw fit not to include those
>> things in His word is sufficient evidence that they are not right.

I don't think that's really the point here, and I don't think it's
evidence of that at all. The verses at the end of John don't to me
suggest that the material he's referring to that did not make it in to
the Bible is wrong in any way, merely that there is so much of it that
you couldn't possibly fit it into one book.

> .. and guided the Church to make the right decisions...

And I have to admit that even this statement rings alarm bells with me.
I'm thinking here of the various church councils and similar. They came
to various conclusions over the centuries as to what was 'orthodox' and
what was 'heresy', and then included / excluded books on that basis (I'm
simplifying of course). It's hard to avoid a circular argument if you
rule books out on the basis of what you have decided is 'heresy'. Now of
course there is another issue here: as to how much the councils were
guided by God, and how much was 'their own' decision. I don't like going
too far down that road for the following reason: Many people think the
church nowadays has lost its way and no-one would say that just because
it is the church, that every decision is guided by God and is right and
correct. I don't really like the argument "ah, but back in those days,
because it's the Bible we're taking about, of course God's guidance was
stronger, whereas now it's just the church, he doesn't bother so much".

[Jason]

On Mon, 27 Sep 2021 08:25:40 +0100, Timreason wrote:

> On 26/09/2021 18:30, Jason wrote:
>>
>> As a result, while I believe that the Bible contains all things
>> necessary for our salvation, I don't believe (or even think it
>> important to believe) that the Bible is either complete or inerrant.
>>
>>
> 100% agree, especially with this last paragraph!
>
> It is not possible to force God into a box, not even a book-shaped one.
> It's why I place emphasis on reason, as well as scripture and tradition.

I agree. I think I mentioned elsewhere that you sometimes get the
impression that there is a Holy Square, with the Bible up there alongside
the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Or worse, where the Holy Spirit
is almost seen as 'lesser' than the Bible (The Holy Spirit can't possibly
do that, since it disagrees with my interpretation of what it says in 2
Thessalonians etc etc)

The Bible is of course a book of extreme importance - it is after all
God's word to us: 'word' though, not 'Word'.

> When we consider things, IMHO it is not sufficient to consider just the
> Bible alone. I've said before, that I believe the New Testament tells us
> we are to be governed by principles, rather than endless lists of rules
> and regulations, which can never properly cover all possible cases and
> situations.

I also agree, and in fact for me many of the 'mistaken' uses of the Bible
stem from trying to use the limited number of examples when we don't know
the exact thinking as to what was behind them (women wearing hats springs
to mind).

> We need also to ask, "What is reasonable", taking into account
> circumstances, knowledge and understanding, when considering our
> response to things that are to be inline with the core principles as
> commanded. That is, to love God and our neighbour as ourselves.
>
> God gave us brains. I rather expect He did so because He intends us to
> use them.

Agreed, and also of course we have the Holy Spirit too, to throw a bit
more into the mix....

[Kendall K. Down]

On 27/09/2021 21:41, Jason wrote:

> I don't think that's really the point here, and I don't think it's
> evidence of that at all. The verses at the end of John don't to me
> suggest that the material he's referring to that did not make it in to
> the Bible is wrong in any way, merely that there is so much of it that
> you couldn't possibly fit it into one book.

I agree, but you specified, in your original post, "if some of these ...
had been written ... we might see things in a completely different
light". You are now agreeing with me that the things omitted were not
significant to our understanding.

>> .. and guided the Church to make the right decisions...

> And I have to admit that even this statement rings alarm bells with me.
> I'm thinking here of the various church councils and similar. They came
> to various conclusions over the centuries as to what was 'orthodox' and
> what was 'heresy', and then included / excluded books on that basis (I'm
> simplifying of course).

I agree with your alarm. Fortunately Mike is being economical with the
truth. The "Church" - in the sense of church councils and church
authorities - did not decide upon the canon of Scripture. Long before
any council ruled on the subject we have lists of accepted books (for
example Eusebius) which become more and more like the canon we now have.
Church councils merely formalised the conclusions already reached by the
church at large.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 27/09/2021 21:53, Jason wrote:

> I also agree, and in fact for me many of the 'mistaken' uses of the Bible
> stem from trying to use the limited number of examples when we don't know
> the exact thinking as to what was behind them (women wearing hats springs
> to mind).

Particularly when some things - such as women and hats - only crop up
once, leading to the almost certain conclusion that they were not
universal requirements but limited in scope by either time or place.

[Timreason]

On 27/09/2021 21:53, Jason wrote:

>

> Agreed, and also of course we have the Holy Spirit too, to throw a bit
> more into the mix....
>

Yes, and I believe the Spirit leads different people in different ways,
according to their own journey with God, and their own requirements on
that journey.

I think this has come up before, and I mentioned Aslan in the Narnia
Chronicles, who says (something like) we are only told about our own
journey, and not about other people's journeys.

Tim.

[Jason]

I guess that's the sort of thing I had in mind. Suppose 30% of all the
'books that could have been written' (I'm mixing the Gospels with Paul's
letters here but please bear with me) also mention women wearing hats?
That would throw a different light on it.

[Jason]

On Tue, 28 Sep 2021 04:29:00 +0100, Kendall K. Down wrote:

> On 27/09/2021 21:41, Jason wrote:
>
>> I don't think that's really the point here, and I don't think it's
>> evidence of that at all. The verses at the end of John don't to me
>> suggest that the material he's referring to that did not make it in to
>> the Bible is wrong in any way, merely that there is so much of it that
>> you couldn't possibly fit it into one book.
>
> I agree, but you specified, in your original post, "if some of these ...
> had been written ... we might see things in a completely different
> light". You are now agreeing with me that the things omitted were not
> significant to our understanding.

Uh?? The point I am (perhaps unclearly) trying to make is that we often
get hung up on this verse or that verse giving the OK/NOT OK to various
scenarios. I we had some other books of what Jesus got up to during his
life, it would almost certainly highlight other issues. Or are you
contending that even if we had a hundred more gospels it would all simply
be more-of-the-same with no new insight whatsoever?

>
>>> .. and guided the Church to make the right decisions...
>
>> And I have to admit that even this statement rings alarm bells with me.
>> I'm thinking here of the various church councils and similar. They
>> came to various conclusions over the centuries as to what was
>> 'orthodox' and what was 'heresy', and then included / excluded books on
>> that basis (I'm simplifying of course).
>
> I agree with your alarm. Fortunately Mike is being economical with the
> truth. The "Church" - in the sense of church councils and church
> authorities - did not decide upon the canon of Scripture. Long before
> any council ruled on the subject we have lists of accepted books (for
> example Eusebius) which become more and more like the canon we now have.
> Church councils merely formalised the conclusions already reached by the
> church at large.

This may well be true, but nevertheless I'm to some degree cautious about
proceeding here. I certainly am not comfortable with the idea that "God
onceover guided the church very carefully until the Bible was prepared,
but these days he's prepared to let it all fall apart".

[Jason]

On Mon, 27 Sep 2021 22:10:11 +0100, Kendall K. Down wrote:

> On 27/09/2021 08:25, Timreason wrote:
>
>> When we consider things, IMHO it is not sufficient to consider just the
>> Bible alone. I've said before, that I believe the New Testament tells
>> us we are to be governed by principles, rather than endless lists of
>> rules and regulations, which can never properly cover all possible
>> cases and situations.
>
> No, but such lists and regulations are necessary if you are intending to
> govern a nation by them. Can you imagine the field day lawyers would
> have if our laws were framed as "principles"?

Sadly, that's true, but only because the legal system has to be framed to
cover specific cases. I would argue that it is the 'principles' which are
the most important and if we could manage to frame a legal system on them
we would all be much better off.

> Having spent the last couple of months arguing with an anti-vaxxer, I am
> by no means as confident in the power of "reason" as you appear to be.

There will always be some people who for one reason or another do not
listen to reason, though sadly most people do most of the time.

> Human reason and logic must always take second-place to the clear dos
> and don'ts of God's revelation to us.

This would be true if the 'clear dos and don'ts' were as clear as you
make out. And of course many Christians believe God still reveals things
to us today through the Holy Spirit. And while discernment is needed in
such cases, some are far to swift in my opinion to say "That contradicts
2 Timothy XYZ so it can't be from God".

>> God gave us brains. I rather expect He did so because He intends us to
>> use them.
>
> He intends us to use them in harmony with His expressed will.

Agreed, provided that we are clear how his expressed will is to be
applied to the circumstances at hand.

[Mike Davis]

Sure - that's what I was saying! The reference to the Councils is the
form of 'rubber stamping' the conclusions that had been reached. (And
clarified a few heresies along the way, eg Gnosticism, etc.)

[Mike Davis]

Of course, I do! Don't forget that there were *many* books being
circulated that combined both myth and heresy. You may claim that the
Bible is 'obvious', but that's not how it was.

Please also recall that my calling is for Christian Unity (not uniformity!).

[Kendall K. Down]

On 28/09/2021 13:59, Jason wrote:

>> I agree, but you specified, in your original post, "if some of these ...
>> had been written ... we might see things in a completely different
>> light". You are now agreeing with me that the things omitted were not
>> significant to our understanding.

> Uh??

You can, like me, look back a couple of posts and see exactly what you
wrote.

> The point I am (perhaps unclearly) trying to make is that we often
> get hung up on this verse or that verse giving the OK/NOT OK to various
> scenarios. I we had some other books of what Jesus got up to during his
> life, it would almost certainly highlight other issues. Or are you
> contending that even if we had a hundred more gospels it would all simply
> be more-of-the-same with no new insight whatsoever?

God ensured that what was necessary for salvation was recorded for us.
Further information about Jesus' life might reveal how often He brushed
His teeth or details of a few more miracles on the Sabbath day, but I do
not believe that there would be anything that would change the practice
or doctrines of Christianity.

> This may well be true, but nevertheless I'm to some degree cautious about
> proceeding here. I certainly am not comfortable with the idea that "God
> onceover guided the church very carefully until the Bible was prepared,
> but these days he's prepared to let it all fall apart".

"onceover"?

It depends on what you mean by "let it all fall apart". On the whole,
the church decisions that we deplore have not come from the grass roots
but from trendy leaders who advocate homosexual rights or transgender
rights or whatever. So if we could get back to actually listening to
what God's people want we would be better off.

However if you are referring to the fall in church attendance, don't
forget that in the time of Noah church attendance was down to 8 in the
whole world. If God could allow that once, why not again?

[Kendall K. Down]

On 28/09/2021 22:45, Mike Davis wrote:

> Sure - that's what I was saying! The reference to the Councils is the
> form of 'rubber stamping' the conclusions that had been reached. (And
> clarified a few heresies along the way, eg Gnosticism, etc.)

Thanks for the clarification. Your original statement with its
capitalisation (in conjunction with previous statements you have made)
could be read as claiming that it was the church hierarchy which decided
upon the Canon.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 28/09/2021 22:50, Mike Davis wrote:

>> Indeed - provided that by "church" you mean the entire body of
>> believers, not an hierarchy. The various councils which dealt with the
>> Canon of Scripture merely formalised what had already been agreed
>> tacitly by Christians in general.

> Of course, I do!  Don't forget that there were *many* books being
> circulated that combined both myth and heresy. You may claim that the
> Bible is 'obvious', but that's not how it was.

No, I don't claim that the canon is "obvious", and I am well aware of
the extra-canonical books that were in circulation. Nevertheless, the
lists of "commonly accepted books" were published by men such as
Eusebius well before any church council pontificated on the subject.

> Please also recall that my calling is for Christian Unity (not
> uniformity!).

On that we are agreed.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 28/09/2021 14:03, Jason wrote:

> I guess that's the sort of thing I had in mind. Suppose 30% of all the
> 'books that could have been written' (I'm mixing the Gospels with Paul's
> letters here but please bear with me) also mention women wearing hats?
> That would throw a different light on it.

I don't think it need even be as high as 30%. If just two Bible authors
had stated that women must wear hats, it would be strong and persuasive
evidence. For example, St Peter makes certain comments about how women
should dress, a perfect opportunity to add "and they must wear hats" if
that had been official and universal church policy. He didn't, which to
me is strong evidence that hat wearing and head covering was *not*
universal policy in the early church.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 28/09/2021 09:03, Timreason wrote:

> Yes, and I believe the Spirit leads different people in different ways,
> according to their own journey with God, and their own requirements on
> that journey.

That is true - though, of course, the journeys have the same destination.

For example, SDAs used to be very much out on a limb with their belief
in soul-sleep and finite hell. I know of an increasing number of
Christians, including clergy, who adopt one or both of those beliefs. I
would see that as evidence that the Spirit is gradually leading towards
truth.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 28/09/2021 15:36, Jason wrote:

>> No, but such lists and regulations are necessary if you are intending to
>> govern a nation by them. Can you imagine the field day lawyers would
>> have if our laws were framed as "principles"?

> Sadly, that's true, but only because the legal system has to be framed to
> cover specific cases. I would argue that it is the 'principles' which are
> the most important and if we could manage to frame a legal system on them
> we would all be much better off.

Even God Himself, when laying down the laws for the nation of Israel,
had to resort to the sort of laws which you decry. I agree that
principles rather than specifics are to be preferred, but given human
fallibility in understanding and interpretation, I fear that specifics
are inevitable, even within the church.

> There will always be some people who for one reason or another do not
> listen to reason, though sadly most people do most of the time.

It is sad that most people listen to reason? You surprise me.

> This would be true if the 'clear dos and don'ts' were as clear as you
> make out. And of course many Christians believe God still reveals things
> to us today through the Holy Spirit. And while discernment is needed in
> such cases, some are far to swift in my opinion to say "That contradicts
> 2 Timothy XYZ so it can't be from God".

There are some things which, I agree, as not as clear as might be wished
and on which the Spirit's guidance might be needed. There are, however,
other things which are crystal clear and I don't believe that in those
cases God is going to give anyone a special revelation by the Spirit.

For example, if I fast and pray, no matter how earnestly, for guidance
as to whether I should commit adultery with my next door neighbour's
wife, I don't believe that heaven is going to open and a supernatural
voice instruct me - certainly not to say that I'm allowed to, but not
even to reiterate that I'm not allowed to.

> Agreed, provided that we are clear how his expressed will is to be
> applied to the circumstances at hand.

I can see that circumstances might alter some things; there are other
things, however, that cannot alter no matter what the circumstances. For
example, it would normally be wrong to carry a heavy bit of wood on the
Sabbath, but if you are doing so to reach out to someone drowning,
carrying is a commendable act. On the other hand, I cannot think of any
circumstances which would justify regular trading in stocks and shares
on the Sabbath.

[Mike Davis]

On 27/09/2021 22:05, Kendall K. Down wrote:

See my post to your reply above this one...

Blessings

[Mike Davis]

The point (and I don't expect you to agree!) is that various people
(then the 'Church Fathers') spoke and at some point an end was needed to
the arguments & discussions and an 'ecumenical' (i.e. 'whole church')
council was the place to bring those debates to an end - under the
guidance of God, of course.

The real issue, sadly, was the schism between Eastern & Western Church
over the Filioque (= 'and the Son'; whether the Holy Spirit emanates
'from the Father' alone, or the Father and the Son together.) There's
more to it than that, and the good news is that the Eastern Orthodox and
the RCC are now discussing it seriously. (Though I understand that the
Russian Orthodox have opted out, but that may be more political than
theological.) There's a lot more to it than that, but the wiki article:
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East%E2%80%93West_Schism) seems to be
quite well informed on all the issues.

(You might like to read the paragraph on original sin in connection with
another discussion you are having concerning sin & sinfulness.)

The fact is that we (Churches) will all continue to argue (politely, I
hope) on theological matters. But what *does* matter is that we agree
that Jesus Christ is the third member of the Trinity who became man and
died to redeem us - and that, in the power of the Holy Spirit, we work
together to share that Good News to save those who would otherwise be
lost. While we argue amongst ourselves we are failing to show the world
that our Unity is in Christ.

[Mike Davis]

"Love one another as I have loved you."

Michael
(Just remembered it's my name day! - The feast of Archangels Michael,
Gabriel & Raphael.)

[steve hague]

>
> The fact is that we (Churches) will all continue to argue (politely, I
> hope) on theological matters. But what *does* matter is that we agree
> that Jesus Christ is the third member of the Trinity who became man and
> died to redeem us - and that, in the power of the Holy Spirit, we work
> together to share that Good News to save those who would otherwise be
> lost.  While we argue amongst ourselves we are failing to show the world
> that our Unity is in Christ.
>
> Mike

Jesus is the Second Person of the Trinity. DIE, HERETIC! 😁
Steve Hague

[steve hague]

I didn't know your middle names were Gabriel and Raphael, Mike. My
parents were a good deal less imaginitive.

Steven Raymond Hague.

[Adam Funk]

"A heretic is someone who shares ALMOST all your beliefs. Kill him."
(Ivan Stang)



--
When a man tells you that he got rich through hard work, ask him
whose? --- Don Marquis

[Mike Davis]

LOL! ... It depends where you start counting ...

Michael --

[Mike Davis]

As you well know, it's only my first name... but I expect you
Protestants don't even know where Raphael gets a look in...! ;-)

Michael

[Jason]

I was referring to the notion that some people posit the idea that God
took great pains to ensure that at the time the Bible was composed, God
prevented errors creeping in, and ensured it was all recorded just right,
and that the various church councils all did the right thing etc etc.
But evidently the same is not true today, where I would argue that strong
guidance from God is needed more than ever in the church.

To put the question more succinctly, what is the Biblical evidence that
God took great pains to keep them on the straight-and-narrow back then
but now takes a more laissez-faire approach?

[Jason]

On Wed, 29 Sep 2021 08:55:59 +0100, Kendall K. Down wrote:

> On 28/09/2021 15:36, Jason wrote:
>
>>> No, but such lists and regulations are necessary if you are intending
>>> to govern a nation by them. Can you imagine the field day lawyers
>>> would have if our laws were framed as "principles"?
>
>> Sadly, that's true, but only because the legal system has to be framed
>> to cover specific cases. I would argue that it is the 'principles'
>> which are the most important and if we could manage to frame a legal
>> system on them we would all be much better off.
>
> Even God Himself, when laying down the laws for the nation of Israel,
> had to resort to the sort of laws which you decry. I agree that
> principles rather than specifics are to be preferred, but given human
> fallibility in understanding and interpretation, I fear that specifics
> are inevitable, even within the church.

Agreed, but this is a practical reality rather than an ideal. For me, an
ideal would be to start and end with "love God and love thy neighbour"
and nothing more would need to be written down.

>> There will always be some people who for one reason or another do not
>> listen to reason, though sadly most people do most of the time.
>
> It is sad that most people listen to reason? You surprise me.

Again, sorry, my mistake (I must have been particularly rushed
yesterday!) I changed my mind how I was phrasing that sentence, it
should have read "thankfully".

>> This would be true if the 'clear dos and don'ts' were as clear as you
>> make out. And of course many Christians believe God still reveals
>> things to us today through the Holy Spirit. And while discernment is
>> needed in such cases, some are far to swift in my opinion to say "That
>> contradicts 2 Timothy XYZ so it can't be from God".
>
> There are some things which, I agree, as not as clear as might be wished
> and on which the Spirit's guidance might be needed. There are, however,
> other things which are crystal clear and I don't believe that in those
> cases God is going to give anyone a special revelation by the Spirit.
>
> For example, if I fast and pray, no matter how earnestly, for guidance
> as to whether I should commit adultery with my next door neighbour's
> wife, I don't believe that heaven is going to open and a supernatural
> voice instruct me - certainly not to say that I'm allowed to, but not
> even to reiterate that I'm not allowed to.

God didn't get bored with Gideon laying out fleeces, even when He'd
already given a clear and 'special revelation' answer. God doesn't
always give us answers(or at least ones we in our busy lives recognise)
and I'm sure the reasons are manifold and unfathomable to us mere
humans. I agree some are clear-cut, and some are clear to our own
consciences even if they appear vague in the Bible as God has already
clarified it for us.

In any case, the more 'difficult to understand' passages, or ones where
Christians hold strong but sincere different opinions, are all for me
secondary issues. I feel that if God had wanted us to have crystal clear
understanding of a particular thing he would either make it clear in his
word, or via the Spirit, or both.

>> Agreed, provided that we are clear how his expressed will is to be
>> applied to the circumstances at hand.
>
> I can see that circumstances might alter some things; there are other
> things, however, that cannot alter no matter what the circumstances. For
> example, it would normally be wrong to carry a heavy bit of wood on the
> Sabbath, but if you are doing so to reach out to someone drowning,
> carrying is a commendable act. On the other hand, I cannot think of any
> circumstances which would justify regular trading in stocks and shares
> on the Sabbath.

Agreed.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 29/09/2021 13:44, Jason wrote:

> I was referring to the notion that some people posit the idea that God
> took great pains to ensure that at the time the Bible was composed, God
> prevented errors creeping in, and ensured it was all recorded just right,
> and that the various church councils all did the right thing etc etc.
> But evidently the same is not true today, where I would argue that strong
> guidance from God is needed more than ever in the church.

No, not all the church councils did the right thing. I have previously
posted about the 7th council (2nd of Nicea) which did very much the
wrong thing!

However there is an analogy for the situation of which you complain. God
sent Samuel to Saul to tell him to resign the throne. Saul refused.
Later, when faced with a crisis, Saul sought counsel from God and
received no answer - and the reason is that until Saul accepted God's
former message, God had nothing further to say to him. How could God
advise him on leading Israel when he wasn't supposed to be leading Israel?

I suspect there is something similar going on today. God has given clear
guidance in His word and people reject that and go their own way. When
they then seek guidance from God, His only message can be, "Do what I
have already told you; after that we can talk."

> To put the question more succinctly, what is the Biblical evidence that
> God took great pains to keep them on the straight-and-narrow back then
> but now takes a more laissez-faire approach?

I don't know that laissez-faire is the mote juste; I think it is more
abandoning them to their evils. Hosea 4:17 is not without relevance, in
my opinion.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 29/09/2021 13:57, Jason wrote:

> Agreed, but this is a practical reality rather than an ideal. For me, an
> ideal would be to start and end with "love God and love thy neighbour"
> and nothing more would need to be written down.

I wouldn't disagree. I do think it is important, however, to understand
why God gave such detailed laws in the Old Testament rather than
contenting Himself with principles. He was establishing the Jews as a
sovereign nation. Once the Jews ceased to be a theocracy, the laws were
no longer relevant.

That said, they do give useful guidance into how the principles should
be interpreted, at least in some cases.

> God didn't get bored with Gideon laying out fleeces, even when He'd
> already given a clear and 'special revelation' answer.

True - though given the magnitude of what Gideon was about to attempt I
don't blame him for wanting to be absolutely certain that he wasn't just
following his own imagination.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 29/09/2021 13:07, Mike Davis wrote:

> The point (and I don't expect you to agree!) is that various people
> (then the 'Church Fathers') spoke and at some point an end was needed to
> the arguments & discussions and an 'ecumenical' (i.e. 'whole church')
> council was the place to bring those debates to an end - under the
> guidance of God, of course.

As I said, the councils formalised what has already been decided.

> The real issue, sadly, was the schism between Eastern & Western Church
> over the Filioque

I don't believe that had any bearing on the Canon.

> There's
> more to it than that, and the good news is that the Eastern Orthodox and
> the RCC are now discussing it seriously.

I'm glad to hear it. I believe that the Western position is based on the
fact that Jesus said that He would send the Holy Spirit and that
expression is taken as justifying the assertion that the Spirit
"proceedeth" from both Father and Son.

Personally I think that they are trying to define the indefinable and it
would be better if neither side made any pronouncement on the issue.

> (You might like to read the paragraph on original sin in connection with
> another discussion you are having concerning sin & sinfulness.)

Thanks.

> The fact is that we (Churches) will all continue to argue (politely, I
> hope) on theological matters. But what *does* matter is that we agree
> that Jesus Christ is the third member of the Trinity

The usual expression is "second member of the Trinity"; have you any
particular reason for "third"? In any case, as numbers carry the
implication of order or rank or importance, it might be better to just
say, "that Jesus is one of the members of the Trinity">

> While we argue amongst ourselves we are failing to show the world
> that our Unity is in Christ.

Only if we argue without love.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 29/09/2021 13:16, Mike Davis wrote:

> Michael
> (Just remembered it's my name day! - The feast of Archangels Michael,
> Gabriel & Raphael.)

And if you were a Hungarian (and possibly other Central European) it
would be more important than your birthday and friends and colleagues
would wish you and give you gifts to make the occasion.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 29/09/2021 16:34, Mike Davis wrote:

> As you well know, it's only my first name... but I expect you
> Protestants don't even know where Raphael gets a look in...! ;-)

He's something to do with creating bad smells out of burning fish
livers, isn't he?

[steve hague]

>>>
>>> Michael
>>> (Just remembered it's my name day! - The feast of Archangels Michael,
>>> Gabriel & Raphael.)
>>
>> I didn't know your middle names were Gabriel and Raphael, Mike. My
>> parents were a good deal less imaginitive.
>>
>> Steven Raymond Hague.
>
> As you well know, it's only my first name... but I expect you
> Protestants don't even know where Raphael gets a look in...! ;-)
>
> Michael

Wasn't he one of the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles?

[Mike Davis]

On 29/09/2021 21:44, Kendall K. Down wrote:
> On 29/09/2021 13:07, Mike Davis wrote:
>
>> The point (and I don't expect you to agree!) is that various people
>> (then the 'Church Fathers') spoke and at some point an end was needed
>> to the arguments & discussions and an 'ecumenical' (i.e. 'whole
>> church') council was the place to bring those debates to an end -
>> under the guidance of God, of course.
>
> As I said, the councils formalised what has already been decided.
>
>> The real issue, sadly, was the schism between Eastern & Western Church
>> over the Filioque
>
> I don't believe that had any bearing on the Canon.

Sorry, I've been a bit sloppy in that post! :-(
I meant that in terms of major differences, the lack of unity between
East & West has harmed our progress (after the earlier Ccouncils).

>> There's more to it than that, and the good news is that the Eastern
>> Orthodox and the RCC are now discussing it seriously.
>
> I'm glad to hear it. I believe that the Western position is based on the
> fact that Jesus said that He would send the Holy Spirit and that
> expression is taken as justifying the assertion that the Spirit
> "proceedeth" from both Father and Son.

Pretty well that, AIUI.

> Personally I think that they are trying to define the indefinable and it
> would be better if neither side made any pronouncement on the issue.
>
>> (You might like to read the paragraph on original sin in connection
>> with another discussion you are having concerning sin & sinfulness.)
>
> Thanks.
>
>> The fact is that we (Churches) will all continue to argue (politely, I
>> hope) on theological matters. But what *does* matter is that we agree
>> that Jesus Christ is the third member of the Trinity
>
> The usual expression is "second member of the Trinity"; have you any
> particular reason for "third"? In any case, as numbers carry the
> implication of order or rank or importance, it might be better to just
> say, "that Jesus is one of the members of the Trinity">

No, it was a typo!! I was thinking 'three' and that got written! But
yes, you are right, we need to abandon the concept of rank/importance
inherent in that.

>> While we argue amongst ourselves we are failing to show the world that
>> our Unity is in Christ.
>
> Only if we argue without love.

Agreed! (That's nice - I agreed throughout...!!)

[Mike Davis]

On 29/09/2021 21:51, Kendall K. Down wrote:
> On 29/09/2021 16:34, Mike Davis wrote:
>
>> As you well know, it's only my first name... but I expect you
>> Protestants don't even know where Raphael gets a look in...! ;-)
>
> He's something to do with creating bad smells out of burning fish
> livers, isn't he?

;-) It's a great story*! I can't recall 'burning' but 'fish gall' comes
into it...

Raphael said to Tobiah before he reached his father, “I am sure that his
eyes will be opened. Smear the fish gall on them. This medicine will
cause the white patches to shrink and to peel away from his eyes. Then
your father will recover his sight, and once again he will be able to
see the light of day.” (Tobit 11:7-8)

And the message* is "Don't let sparrows shit into your eyes!" ;-)

Jerome (whose feast day we celebrate today) did not consider it
canonical, but nonetheless translated it; Augustine & Ambrose did
consider it canonical, it was accepted by the Council of Hippo** and
later included by Trent.

*It's not regarded as historical but the "message" is that God is just
and free, while suffering is not a punishment but a test and that, in
the long run rewards the just and punishes the wicked. So we should
mirror the justice, mercy and freedom of God.

**AD393 but not an ecumenical Council (IIRC)

Mike

[Mike Davis]

I did drop a hint...!

Mike

[Jason]

On Wed, 29 Sep 2021 21:44:47 +0100, Kendall K. Down wrote:

> I'm glad to hear it. I believe that the Western position is based on the
> fact that Jesus said that He would send the Holy Spirit and that
> expression is taken as justifying the assertion that the Spirit
> "proceedeth" from both Father and Son.
>
> Personally I think that they are trying to define the indefinable and it
> would be better if neither side made any pronouncement on the issue.

That's pretty much where I stand on these sort of issues: we don't know
and while it might be fun to pontificate on them, ultimately it should
not matter.

[Jason]

Yes, I sadly missed St Jason's Day this year - the date of 12th July is
generally much more convenient for celebrations than my birthday which is
inconveniently close to Christmas.....

[Kendall K. Down]

On 30/09/2021 11:38, Jason wrote:

> That's pretty much where I stand on these sort of issues: we don't know
> and while it might be fun to pontificate on them, ultimately it should
> not matter.

It's fun and harmless to speculate; it is when people pontificate that
troubles start.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 30/09/2021 13:14, Mike Davis wrote:

> I meant that in terms of major differences, the lack of unity between
> East & West has harmed our progress (after the earlier Ccouncils).

I agree with that - and both sides are to blame, I fear.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 30/09/2021 13:39, Mike Davis wrote:

> ;-)  It's a great story*! I can't recall 'burning' but 'fish gall' comes
> into it...

Tobit 6:8, 17, 18

Don't tell me I know the apocryphal books better than you do?

> Jerome (whose feast day we celebrate today) did not consider it
> canonical, but nonetheless translated it; Augustine & Ambrose did
> consider it canonical, it was accepted by the Council of Hippo** and
> later included by Trent.

Which just shows that councils cannot be trusted.

[Mike Davis]

On 30/09/2021 21:23, Kendall K. Down wrote:
> On 30/09/2021 13:39, Mike Davis wrote:
>
>> ;-)  It's a great story*! I can't recall 'burning' but 'fish gall'
>> comes into it...
>
> Tobit 6:8, 17, 18
>
> Don't tell me I know the apocryphal books better than you do?

Why not? ;-)

I confess to having read that as 'smoked' (as in kipper), but you are
right it says 'on the incense coals'!

>> Jerome (whose feast day we celebrate today) did not consider it
>> canonical, but nonetheless translated it; Augustine & Ambrose did
>> consider it canonical, it was accepted by the Council of Hippo** and
>> later included by Trent.
>
> Which just shows that councils cannot be trusted.

Umm. At least these things get discussed now and then...!

[Mike Davis]

I'll try to remember it next year!

Mike

[Jason]

:-)

[Jason]

On Fri, 01 Oct 2021 12:06:02 +0100, Mike Davis wrote:

> On 30/09/2021 16:43, Jason wrote:
>> On Wed, 29 Sep 2021 21:50:37 +0100, Kendall K. Down wrote:
>>
>>> On 29/09/2021 13:16, Mike Davis wrote:
>>>
>>>> Michael (Just remembered it's my name day! - The feast of Archangels
>>>> Michael,
>>>> Gabriel & Raphael.)
>>>
>>> And if you were a Hungarian (and possibly other Central European) it
>>> would be more important than your birthday and friends and colleagues
>>> would wish you and give you gifts to make the occasion.
>>
>> Yes, I sadly missed St Jason's Day this year - the date of 12th July is
>> generally much more convenient for celebrations than my birthday which
>> is inconveniently close to Christmas.....
>
> I'll try to remember it next year!

You mean it's not already a huge festival in your Church Calendar?? :-)

[Jason]

On Wed, 29 Sep 2021 21:38:24 +0100, Kendall K. Down wrote:

> On 29/09/2021 13:44, Jason wrote:
>
>> I was referring to the notion that some people posit the idea that God
>> took great pains to ensure that at the time the Bible was composed, God
>> prevented errors creeping in, and ensured it was all recorded just
>> right,
>> and that the various church councils all did the right thing etc etc.
>> But evidently the same is not true today, where I would argue that
>> strong guidance from God is needed more than ever in the church.
>
> No, not all the church councils did the right thing. I have previously
> posted about the 7th council (2nd of Nicea) which did very much the
> wrong thing!

And for me herein lies the difficulty: at what point did God stop
ensuring 'inerrant' interactions via direct revelation, the church
councils and so on? After the Torah was completed? The Old Testament?
The Gospels? The Pauline letters? At what point do you think that God
said to himself, "right, that's enough, they know anything now, I've told
them all they need to know so I'll let them start drifting astray now".

[Kendall K. Down]

On 01/10/2021 13:35, Jason wrote:

>> No, not all the church councils did the right thing. I have previously
>> posted about the 7th council (2nd of Nicea) which did very much the
>> wrong thing!

> And for me herein lies the difficulty: at what point did God stop
> ensuring 'inerrant' interactions via direct revelation, the church
> councils and so on? After the Torah was completed? The Old Testament?
> The Gospels? The Pauline letters? At what point do you think that God
> said to himself, "right, that's enough, they know anything now, I've told
> them all they need to know so I'll let them start drifting astray now".

Well, one answer would be that when councils and hierarchies diverted
from the clear teaching of Scripture, they were left to flounder in
darkness. The 7th council is a very clear example of how political
interference, blatant twisting of Scripture, intimidation and so on can
be used to pervert true doctrine.

I would say that God never over-ruled human foolishness. The choice of a
replacement for Judas is a prime example. The disciples gave God the
choice of A or B, but not of "none of the above", which I believe was
God's real choice and Paul was God's pick as the replacement for Judas.

However over time, as with the canon, the entire body of God's people
were guided into truth, often against the will and teaching of the
hierarchy (which was responsible for delaying the arrival at all truth.)
Martin Luther, for example, was merely the catalyst for a long-desired
reformation which God's people glady embraced.

If you take the present time as another example, I see God's people
joining with one another in worship and witness while the hierarchies
sit on the sidelines and bleat about the "difficulties" of recognising
the ministry of those not in denomination X.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 01/10/2021 11:59, Mike Davis wrote:

>> Don't tell me I know the apocryphal books better than you do?

> Why not? ;-)

Because you believe them - I don't.

[Timreason]

Even St Timothy's Day barely seems to get a mention! It's January 26th
(or 22nd in East Orthodoxy).

Doesn't help me much, since it's only a few days after my Birthday, so
it's all a bit close to Christmas for me!

Tim.

[Timreason]

Does that mean that the Adventist position on this differs from the
Church of England position?

In the CofE they are accepted as useful for understanding and
instruction, but not considered sufficient for supporting doctrine.

So, they are 'scripture', but of a lower status. Readings from them do
appear in the lectionary on some days, although I think there are always
alternatives offered from the main canon.

Tim.

[steve hague]

Mine is on the 26th of December, when good king Wenceslas looked out. My
birthday is about three weeks later.
Steve Hague

[Mike Davis]

On 01/10/2021 20:10, Kendall K. Down wrote:

> On 01/10/2021 11:59, Mike Davis wrote:
>
>>> Don't tell me I know the apocryphal books better than you do?
>
>> Why not? ;-)
>
> Because you believe them - I don't.

'Believe them'? If you mean 'take them literally' then NO.
If you mean discern what God may be saying, then 'Certainly!'

But I also rely on the direct help of the Holy Spirit to recognise what
God is saying *to me*!

Blessings

[Mike Davis]

On 01/10/2021 13:37, Jason wrote:

I'll see what I can do next year!! ;-)

[Kendall K. Down]

On 02/10/2021 08:32, Timreason wrote:

> Does that mean that the Adventist position on this differs from the
> Church of England position?

I think you will find that the general Protestant/Evangelical position
is that the Apocrypha have no place in Scripture. In fact, the manager
of the local Christian Book shop, himself a Baptist but with links to
various other denominations for whom he worked at different times, would
not even stock Bibles with the Apocrypha, which I felt was a bit hard.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 02/10/2021 17:45, Mike Davis wrote:

> 'Believe them'? If you mean 'take them literally' then NO.
> If you mean discern what God may be saying, then 'Certainly!'

Whereas I believe that you might as well seek to discern what God is
saying in Winnie ther Pooh or The Scarlet Pimpernel.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 02/10/2021 08:12, Timreason wrote:

> Doesn't help me much, since it's only a few days after my Birthday, so
> it's all a bit close to Christmas for me!

What's your second name?

[Timreason]

On 02/10/2021 20:21, Kendall K. Down wrote:
> On 02/10/2021 08:32, Timreason wrote:
>
>> Does that mean that the Adventist position on this differs from the
>> Church of England position?
>
> I think you will find that the general Protestant/Evangelical position
> is that the Apocrypha have no place in Scripture.

Maybe. But even then, that's a minority of Christians world-wide. Most
Christians accept them as being useful for understanding and
instruction, even though they are generally not taken very literally.

Tim.

[Timreason]

Peter. 29th of June. That's better!

I've no wish to be crucified upside-down, though...

Tim.

[Mike Davis]

On 02/10/2021 20:21, Kendall K. Down wrote:

I should have corrected you earlier.

It is essential that you distinguish between 'Deutero-Canonical' and
'apocryphal' books, otherwise we will get into the mess that you
describe above.

In overall theology, the 'apocryphal books' contain heresies and other
spurious data. However, the (few) Deutero-Canonical books have been
regarded by various Church Councils (of Eastern & Western Churches) as
contributing to the Word of God, but adding nothing theologically
significant to the Canon. However, they DO add and expand our
understanding in various ways.

It may be worth noting that the word 'canon' classically meant "straight
rod" or "bat" and referred to a tool made for measuring, and
metaphorically meant a 'rule' or standard (of excellence), but
occasionally was used to mean 'series' or 'list'.
(I quote Raymond E Brown).
Athanasius (367AD) referred to, and contrasted, 'books included in the
canon and handed down and credited as divine, with 'books termed
'apocryphal' which the heretics mixed up with the books of divinely
inspired scripture' referring to Eusebius' (ca 303AD) contrast of
testamentary books: the homologoumena (accepted by all), antilegomena
(disputed works) and the notha (clearly spurious works).

The use of these terms varied slightly in the first 6 Centuries, but it
is clear that 'protocanonical' referred to books approved by the Church,
'deuterocanonical' about which there had been some debate and
'apocryphal' referred to books that heretics promoted.

It was this distinction that I referred to in an earlier post in Michael
Green's excellent book.

Unfortunately the term 'Apocrypha' was used by early Protestantism to
support Luther's claim of salvation by faith alone, when he rejected the
works which were known by their Greek origins. (Incidentally, I
understand that the Dead Sea Scrolls have revealed the Hebrew origins of
a number of the Deutero-Canonical books.)

The whole point here is that some Protestants link what the RCC and
Eastern Church refers to as 'Deutero-Canonical' with the heretical
rubbish that those Churches are agreed as 'Apocrypha'.

For the record the 7 books that the RCC calls 'deutero-canonical' are:
Tobit, Judith, 1-2 Maccabees, Wisdom, Sirac, Baruch, & parts of Esther &
Daniel. (I'm always interested to see the CoE using the song of the
young men in the fiery furnace in their liturgy!)

(IIUC The Eastern Churches also have 3&4 Maccabees and 3&4 Esdras (we
know 1&2 Esdras as Ezra & Nehemiah)

These (d-c) the RCC see as confirming the theology of the Canonic books,
and do not contribute conflicting ideas. But I do recognise that some
things (eg the Jewish custom of praying for the dead) are not accepted
by all Protestants.

My point is that I would wish that the better informed members of this
group, would not lump their ignorant understanding of their term
'Apocrypha' by including the deutero-canonical works listed above.

[Timreason]

On 03/10/2021 15:51, Mike Davis wrote:

>
> It is essential that you distinguish between 'Deutero-Canonical' and
> 'apocryphal' books,

Yes, thanks for the excellent clarification, Mike.

The books I refer to in reply to KKD are of course, the
deutero-canonical literature, and not the nonsense rejected by all the
churches.

Many Bible translations, however, are subtitled, "With apocrypha", which
muddies the waters somewhat...

Tim.

[Mike Davis]

On 03/10/2021 17:57, Timreason wrote:
> On 03/10/2021 15:51, Mike Davis wrote:
>
>>
>> It is essential that you distinguish between 'Deutero-Canonical' and
>> 'apocryphal' books,
> Yes, thanks for the excellent clarification, Mike.

You are welcome.

>
> The books I refer to in reply to KKD are of course, the
> deutero-canonical literature, and not the nonsense rejected by all the
> churches.
>
> Many Bible translations, however, are subtitled, "With apocrypha", which
> muddies the waters somewhat...

Indeed, that's why I recommended "The Books the Church Suppressed" by
Michael Green a couple of months ago.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 03/10/2021 08:07, Timreason wrote:

> Maybe. But even then, that's a minority of Christians world-wide. Most
> Christians accept them as being useful for understanding and
> instruction, even though they are generally not taken very literally.

Ah, but the difference is that we are *right*!

God bless,
Kendall K. Down

(smilely implicit)

[Kendall K. Down]

On 03/10/2021 15:51, Mike Davis wrote:

> It is essential that you distinguish between 'Deutero-Canonical' and
> 'apocryphal' books, otherwise we will get into the mess that you
> describe above.

Your point is valid, but I think you are on the losing side. If you go
into a Christian book shop and ask for a Bible with Apocrypha, you are
going to get the books you call "Deutero-canonical". Generally those who
wish to be precise will speak of the "Old Testament Apocrypha" (as
opposed to the New Testament Apocrypha).

I'm not sure which heretical works you have in mind. Based on date of
composition (which can only be guessed at) books like Enoch are, I
think, classed with New Testament Apocrypha.

[John]

Kendall K. Down wrote:

> I'm not sure which heretical works you have in mind. Based on date of
> composition (which can only be guessed at) books like Enoch are, I
> think, classed with New Testament Apocrypha.

Yet Jude quotes from it. Does that mean Jude shouldn't be in the NT?

[Mark Goodge]

Paul quotes from the writings of Epimenides. But nobody suggests that
those should be in the NT. The fact that the New Testament writers
didn't live in a bubble, and were familiar with non-Scriptural as well
as Scriptural texts, doesn't imply that they considered all their
sources equally authoritative.

Mark

[Adam Funk]

On 2021-10-07, Mark Goodge wrote:

> On Thu, 7 Oct 2021 11:06:12 +0100, John <mega...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Kendall K. Down wrote:
>>
>>> I'm not sure which heretical works you have in mind. Based on date of
>>> composition (which can only be guessed at) books like Enoch are, I
>>> think, classed with New Testament Apocrypha.
>>
>>Yet Jude quotes from it. Does that mean Jude shouldn't be in the NT?

Luther didn't like Jude & would have removed it from the canon if he'd
been able to find enough justification. (Pun not intended, but I'll
let it stand.)

> Paul quotes from the writings of Epimenides. But nobody suggests that
> those should be in the NT. The fact that the New Testament writers
> didn't live in a bubble, and were familiar with non-Scriptural as well
> as Scriptural texts, doesn't imply that they considered all their
> sources equally authoritative.

Good point. There are some places in the NT where it is obvious that
someone is quoting something *as scripture*, & probably a lot where
the intent is less clear.


--
Thinking about her this morning, lying in bed, and trying to get my
thoughts on the right track, I reached into the drawer of the bedstand,
and found the Gideons' Bible, and I was going for the Psalms, friend, honest
I was, but I found the Song of Solomon instead. --- Garrison Keillor

[Kendall K. Down]

On 07/10/2021 11:06, John wrote:

> Yet Jude quotes from it.  Does that mean Jude shouldn't be in the NT?

Yes, he does, in - I think - two places: "Enoch also, the seventh from
Adam..." and "disputing about the body of Moses ...". I would say that
he was guided by inspiration to quote the only two reliable verses
(though it is possible that he regarded the whole work as reliable).

Certainly if he had quoted from later on in Enoch, all that rubbish
about where the wind comes from, we would have to call his inspiration
into question.

[Madhu]

* "Kendall K. Down" <sjngpt$u64$1...@dont-email.me> :
Wrote on Thu, 7 Oct 2021 20:11:57 +0100:

> On 07/10/2021 11:06, John wrote:
>
>> Yet Jude quotes from it.  Does that mean Jude shouldn't be in the NT?
>
> Yes, he does, in - I think - two places: "Enoch also, the seventh from
> Adam..." and "disputing about the body of Moses ...". I would say that
> he was guided by inspiration to quote the only two reliable verses
> (though it is possible that he regarded the whole work as reliable).

There is no basic requirement to attribute inerrancy to the quoted work
or even the truth of the inherent "facts" being quoted. The instruction
which is being given in Jude (and 2Peter) through these examples does
not rely on the the truth of the extrabiblical understandings of the 1st
centuries that Jude (and 2Peter) are appealing to, for its validity.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 08/10/2021 02:41, Madhu wrote:

> There is no basic requirement to attribute inerrancy to the quoted work
> or even the truth of the inherent "facts" being quoted. The instruction
> which is being given in Jude (and 2Peter) through these examples does
> not rely on the the truth of the extrabiblical understandings of the 1st
> centuries that Jude (and 2Peter) are appealing to, for its validity.

That is true, but on the other hand, he isn't quoting those passages
merely as illustrations (particularly the "seventh from Adam" bit) but
as authorities, which, I think, makes it rather more necessary that they
be substantially true. (For example, I don't think it matters whether
Enoch uttered those precise words, but there should be a tradition that
he said something with that meaning.)

[Jason]

Herein I think lies the heart of the matter. So often, whether something
is deemed "inspired" seems more often than not to come down to, "Does it
agree with how I (or those in my church circle) interpret the Bible?".
The answer can then simply be read from the table below:

Does it agree with my view?
Yes: the passage is inspired.
No: the passage is not inspired.

The Holy Spirit is therefore constrained to abide by this too.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 10/10/2021 12:11, Jason wrote:

>> Certainly if he had quoted from later on in Enoch, all that rubbish
>> about where the wind comes from, we would have to call his inspiration
>> into question.

> Herein I think lies the heart of the matter. So often, whether something
> is deemed "inspired" seems more often than not to come down to, "Does it
> agree with how I (or those in my church circle) interpret the Bible?".

I suggest you read the book of Enoch and you'll see the reason for my
comment, which has nothing to do with how my or any church interprets
things.

[Madhu]

* Jason <FOOdndETHvvqV__8...@brightview.co.uk> :
Wrote on Sun, 10 Oct 2021 06:11:51 -0500:

> On Thu, 07 Oct 2021 20:11:57 +0100, Kendall K. Down wrote:
>> Yes, he does, in - I think - two places: "Enoch also, the seventh
>> from Adam..." and "disputing about the body of Moses ...". I would
>> say that he was guided by inspiration to quote the only two reliable
>> verses (though it is possible that he regarded the whole work as
>> reliable).

[I still think Jude/2Peter are not quoting Enoch as a call to its
authority]

>> Certainly if he had quoted from later on in Enoch, all that rubbish
>> about where the wind comes from, we would have to call his
>> inspiration into question.
>
> Herein I think lies the heart of the matter. So often, whether
> something is deemed "inspired" seems more often than not to come down
> to, "Does it agree with how I (or those in my church circle) interpret
> the Bible?". The answer can then simply be read from the table below:
>
> Does it agree with my view?
> Yes: the passage is inspired.
> No: the passage is not inspired.

Yes! Absolutely!

> The Holy Spirit is therefore constrained to abide by this too.

No! Not if your view is in light of the understanding given by the Holy
Spirit.

Which is the only way you can be sure!

(note the exclamation marks)

[Kendall K. Down]

On 11/10/2021 04:05, Madhu wrote:

> [I still think Jude/2Peter are not quoting Enoch as a call to its
> authority]

Jude was quoting Enoch as an authority, but so far as we know, the
apocryphal "Book of Enoch" is the only source for what Jude thought
Enoch said, ergo he was quoting the Book of Enoch as an authority.

Suppose we were having a discussion on things Jewish and I said, "Well,
as the Jewish leader Shlomo ben Aleichem said, 'xxxxx'" and then it
turns out that the only source for this Shlomo ben Aleichem was "The
Protocols of the Elders of Zion". Even though I have not mentioned the
Protocols, you would be justified in claiming that I was using them as
my authority.

[Jason]

I confess that I have never read the book of Enoch, though you've piqued
my interest so will hopefully get to it in the near future. I note from
Wikipedia that the Ethiopian Orthodox church regards it as canonical so
someone somewhere at some time must have considered it "inspired".....

[Jason]

:-) I agree with the idea that you need to tread very carefully before
claiming that the Holy Spirit is acting in a new way or doing a new
thing, and it's very easy to try and mould the Holy Spirit into saying
what you want him to say if you're not careful.

On the other hand, I'm sure who would claim (for example) that after
prayerfully listening to the Holy Spirit on XYZ (replace your favourite
hot topic here) we have come to the understanding PQR. Others, having
listened equally carefully, come to a contradictory conclusion. So
either one of the groups is misled, or the Holy Spirit is emphasising
different things to different people. Again, I'd say to tread carefully
here before invoking the Holy Spirit to support your argument.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 11/10/2021 17:06, Jason wrote:

> I confess that I have never read the book of Enoch, though you've piqued
> my interest so will hopefully get to it in the near future.

The first couple of chapters are fine, but then it starts to go haywire.
I would certainly encourage everyone to read a few of the apocryphal
books - it will give you renewed appreciation for the canonical ones!

> I note from
> Wikipedia that the Ethiopian Orthodox church regards it as canonical so
> someone somewhere at some time must have considered it "inspired".....

In fact, I have a feeling that our text of Enoch comes from the
Ethiopians as it had been lost in the West and the rest of the East.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 11/10/2021 17:14, Jason wrote:

> On the other hand, I'm sure who would claim (for example) that after
> prayerfully listening to the Holy Spirit on XYZ (replace your favourite
> hot topic here) we have come to the understanding PQR. Others, having
> listened equally carefully, come to a contradictory conclusion. So
> either one of the groups is misled, or the Holy Spirit is emphasising
> different things to different people. Again, I'd say to tread carefully
> here before invoking the Holy Spirit to support your argument.

Quite so. I've known some clergy and church administrators claim
guidance by the Holy Spirit for some very dodgy decisions and the claim
was advanced as a way of riding roughshod over opposition - how can you
argue against a priest who states categorically that the Holy Spirit has
told him to XYZ?

This is why Protestants generally place so much emphasis on Scripture.
It's there, it's in writing, it can't be altered, it's available to
everyone.

As a general rule, however, I would say that the Holy Spirit will give
guidance in day-to-day running of affairs, but doctrine should be based
solely on Scripture. Any new understanding of Scripture will come
through the whole church (not its leaders) gradually moving to that new
understanding.

For example, I am finding more and more Christians, lay and clerical,
who accept a finite hell, frequently allied to soul sleep. I believe
that is the working of the Holy Spirit, leading the church to a better
understanding of what Scripture actually teaches.

[Madhu]

* "Kendall K. Down" <sk22qj$707$1...@dont-email.me> :
Wrote on Mon, 11 Oct 2021 20:20:51 +0100:

In my post upthread I only addressed the work of the holy spirit in the
*personal* understanding of scripture in the face of contradictory
interpretations. I was not addressing any other aspect.

The contradictions remain in the world, but from a personal standpoint
they can be resovled.

If I can read a canonical text and a non-canonical text and distinguish
one from the other, I would say it is because of the understanding given
by the spirit. If others have the same understanding their understanding
should be prompted by the same spirit.

My suggestion is The contradictions and disputes do not have to
invalidate the personal experience.

[Jason]

On Tue, 12 Oct 2021 08:11:47 +0530, Madhu wrote:

> * "Kendall K. Down" <sk22qj$707$1...@dont-email.me> :
> Wrote on Mon, 11 Oct 2021 20:20:51 +0100:
>> On 11/10/2021 17:14, Jason wrote:
>>> On the other hand, I'm sure who would claim (for example) that after
>>> prayerfully listening to the Holy Spirit on XYZ (replace your
>>> favourite hot topic here) we have come to the understanding PQR.
>>> Others, having listened equally carefully, come to a contradictory
>>> conclusion. So either one of the groups is misled, or the Holy Spirit
>>> is emphasising different things to different people. Again, I'd say
>>> to tread carefully here before invoking the Holy Spirit to support
>>> your argument.
>>
>> Quite so. I've known some clergy and church administrators claim
>> guidance by the Holy Spirit for some very dodgy decisions and the claim
>> was advanced as a way of riding roughshod over opposition - how can you
>> argue against a priest who states categorically that the Holy Spirit
>> has told him to XYZ?

Absolutely agree.

>> This is why Protestants generally place so much emphasis on Scripture.
>> It's there, it's in writing, it can't be altered, it's available to
>> everyone.

Though given that Canon was compiled by the Church in some way, is there
any reason to not treat other long-established but extra-Biblical
traditions of the Church?

I know what you're saying, but at the same time I'm not completely happy
with the idea that a sovereign God should be constrained to the known-to-
be-small selection of things set down in the Bible.

>> As a general rule, however, I would say that the Holy Spirit will give
>> guidance in day-to-day running of affairs, but doctrine should be based
>> solely on Scripture. Any new understanding of Scripture will come
>> through the whole church (not its leaders) gradually moving to that new
>> understanding.
>>
>> For example, I am finding more and more Christians, lay and clerical,
>> who accept a finite hell, frequently allied to soul sleep. I believe
>> that is the working of the Holy Spirit, leading the church to a better
>> understanding of what Scripture actually teaches.
>
> In my post upthread I only addressed the work of the holy spirit in the
> *personal* understanding of scripture in the face of contradictory
> interpretations. I was not addressing any other aspect.
>
> The contradictions remain in the world, but from a personal standpoint
> they can be resovled.
>
> If I can read a canonical text and a non-canonical text and distinguish
> one from the other, I would say it is because of the understanding given
> by the spirit. If others have the same understanding their understanding
> should be prompted by the same spirit.
>
> My suggestion is The contradictions and disputes do not have to
> invalidate the personal experience.

I agree, but I also think that the contradictions need to be addressed
somehow. I guess one solution is to say that differing opinions are
"true" to individuals, but perhaps not equally true for all individuals.
I know I'm not expressing myself very clearly, I don't mean to imply that
"you have your truth and I have a different truth"; merely that the
emphasis may be different for different people. For example, there's the
passage which says that a certain "Rich Man" should go and give all he
has to the poor. I don't believe that the takeaway message is that we
should *all* go and give everything we have to the poor as a point of
principle, but rather that for that individual, his wealth was causing an
issue so it's something that needed emphasising *for him*.

>> For example, I am finding more and more Christians, lay and clerical,
>> who accept a finite hell, frequently allied to soul sleep. I believe
>> that is the working of the Holy Spirit, leading the church to a better
>> understanding of what Scripture actually teaches.

I think that's a good example. [As I think I said elsewhere it's a view
that I've increasingly held, though thought that I was in a (heretical?)
minority on this....] To stick to this topic, if two groups, both
thinking they are following and inspired by the Holy Spirit, come to
differing conclusions, it's difficult to know how to reconcile this,
especially if one view is the long-term established view of the bulk of
the Church. Are both views inspired by the Spirit? One of them?
Neither? Over the centuries, churches have split over far more
(seemingly) trivial or esoteric things....

[Kendall K. Down]

On 12/10/2021 03:41, Madhu wrote:

> If I can read a canonical text and a non-canonical text and distinguish
> one from the other, I would say it is because of the understanding given
> by the spirit. If others have the same understanding their understanding
> should be prompted by the same spirit.

Well, I wouldn't deny the Holy Spirit, but in some books the fact that
they are talking nonsense is patently obvious, whether or not you are
led of the Spirit!

> My suggestion is The contradictions and disputes do not have to
> invalidate the personal experience.

Hmmmm. If you have a "personal experience" that is based on a lie, I
would suggest that that is not a good foundation - and hardly one that
God would use.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 12/10/2021 17:36, Jason wrote:

> Though given that Canon was compiled by the Church in some way, is there
> any reason to not treat other long-established but extra-Biblical
> traditions of the Church?

The canon came about because Christians recognised certain books as
having apostolic origin and the evidence for their choice predates any
church councils on the subject - I've made this point before. That
evidence is written down in church historians and early church fathers.

I'm not sure what "extra-Biblical traditions" you have in mind, but
unless there is documentary evidence, I am not willing to accept that
doctrine X is good because some modern church authority says so. I would
certainly not accept doctrine X if it is, in fact, contradicted by
Scripture.

> I know what you're saying, but at the same time I'm not completely happy
> with the idea that a sovereign God should be constrained to the known-to-
> be-small selection of things set down in the Bible.

Why is it such a problem for you? God inspired certain people to write
books and letters, He guided the church to accept those books - those
and none other. If those books say all that is necessary for salvation,
why would God need to add to them?

> I agree, but I also think that the contradictions need to be addressed
> somehow. I guess one solution is to say that differing opinions are
> "true" to individuals, but perhaps not equally true for all individuals.

There are several factors here. The first is the concept of Truth. If
God is Triune, then that is true for everyone, whether or not they
recognise or accept that fact.

The second is individual duty. You have highlighted one instance - the
rich young ruler - but others can be adduced or imagined. God may call
you to be a medical missionary in Africa and me to be a preacher in
Wales and someone else to run a Christian website.

The third is related to the above and that is individual importance. For
example, if you are troubled with sexual lust, it is likely that God
will be more concerned about dealing with that in your life than He will
be about guiding you into some obscure doctrinal truth.

> I think that's a good example. [As I think I said elsewhere it's a view
> that I've increasingly held, though thought that I was in a (heretical?)
> minority on this....] To stick to this topic, if two groups, both
> thinking they are following and inspired by the Holy Spirit, come to
> differing conclusions, it's difficult to know how to reconcile this,
> especially if one view is the long-term established view of the bulk of
> the Church. Are both views inspired by the Spirit? One of them?
> Neither? Over the centuries, churches have split over far more
> (seemingly) trivial or esoteric things....

I think that on the whole we can trust God to look after His church.
Churches have split, but then one side of the split has gradually
withered away - or rejoined the "right" side. It is important that we
should copy the Bereans and "study to see whether these things are so"
and once we have established a doctrine on the basis of Scripture, stick
with it until and unless Scripture leads us to a new understanding.

Someone wrote to me recently to say that on the basis of Scripture he
had come to the conclusion that hell is finite and how he now sees God
in a new light. Praise the Lord! You may be in a minority, but it is a
growing minority.

[Stuart]

In article <sk4p4j$n3b$1...@dont-email.me>,

Kendall K. Down <kendal...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Someone wrote to me recently to say that on the basis of Scripture he
> had come to the conclusion that hell is finite

Nah, it has to be infinite (at least in size) to accommodate all those who
have denied or turned away from God, especially in this century :-)

--
Stuart Winsor

Tools With A Mission
sending tools across the world
http://www.twam.co.uk/

[Kendall K. Down]

On 12/10/2021 21:16, Stuart wrote:

> Nah, it has to be infinite (at least in size) to accommodate all those who
> have denied or turned away from God, especially in this century :-)

Alright, finite in duration.

Mind you, even given the godlessness of the present generation, I doubt
that an infinite (in size) hell will be required. Not even if there are
individual fiery suites with en suite furnaces.

[Madhu]

* "Kendall K. Down" <sk5uhf$g44$1...@dont-email.me> :
Wrote on Wed, 13 Oct 2021 07:32:15 +0100:

The number of incarnated souls are presumably enumerable. I don't see
how the "finite" can fit this category at all for any mathematical (or
physical) sense in which I understand the word.

On the other hand if you agree evil is "finite", then I can agree to (in
whatever sense you talk of it) a finite hell. But I think evil is not
finite or even countably infinite though I believe it will be separated
out by God and contained in the lake of fire, which will be as
everlasting as your eternal life.

I agree that there are times when God makes his will through the holy
spirit to a large number - for example at the time of the reformation, I
believe the fact that God did not desire slavery anymore entered into
the human consciousness. But the nature of the lake of fire is not of
that category. I believe Scripture unambigously affirms everlasting
punishment in the lake of fire, so if the spirit is leading you away
from this fact, it is in fact contrary to scripture and is based on
other factors. (The usual arguments that make God to be unmeriful or
sadistic just do not apply)

[Madhu]

* "Kendall K. Down" <sk4o56$4p5$1...@dont-email.me> :
Wrote on Tue, 12 Oct 2021 20:37:09 +0100:

I don't think I'm using "personal experience" in that sense. I meant
invalidate the conviction of the spirit.

My "personal experience" would incline me to a view of annihilation but
if anything is stronger than my conviction that god's justice will be
expressed in an everlasting lake of fire it is my that of my own
damnableness.

Maybe that didn't come out right

[Mike Davis]

On 12/10/2021 03:41, Madhu wrote:

> * "Kendall K. Down" <sk22qj$707$1...@dont-email.me> :
> Wrote on Mon, 11 Oct 2021 20:20:51 +0100:

>> This is why Protestants generally place so much emphasis on
>> Scripture. It's there, it's in writing, it can't be altered, it's
>> available to everyone.
>>
>> As a general rule, however, I would say that the Holy Spirit will give
>> guidance in day-to-day running of affairs, but doctrine should be
>> based solely on Scripture. Any new understanding of Scripture will
>> come through the whole church (not its leaders) gradually moving to
>> that new understanding.
>>
>> For example, I am finding more and more Christians, lay and clerical,
>> who accept a finite hell, frequently allied to soul sleep. I believe
>> that is the working of the Holy Spirit, leading the church to a better
>> understanding of what Scripture actually teaches.
>
> In my post upthread I only addressed the work of the holy spirit in the
> *personal* understanding of scripture in the face of contradictory
> interpretations. I was not addressing any other aspect.
>
> The contradictions remain in the world, but from a personal standpoint
> they can be resovled.
>
> If I can read a canonical text and a non-canonical text and distinguish
> one from the other, I would say it is because of the understanding given
> by the spirit. If others have the same understanding their understanding
> should be prompted by the same spirit.
>
> My suggestion is The contradictions and disputes do not have to
> invalidate the personal experience.

'Personal experience' has to be tested against something, if we are not
to be confused by the evil one. (I recommend "The Screwtape Letters" as
an amusing guide to this!)

Usually I would say test against Scripture and traditional Church
teaching for this. My tradition recommends a Spiritual counsellor, or
pastor to help.

[Jason]

Taking the "present generation" as the current Earth's population, do you
think that "godlessness", as a percentage of the Earth's total population
is vastly worse now than it has ever been in the past? Do you have some
statistics for this? Presumably when Adam and Eve first roamed the
Earth, "godlessness" was 0%, so I would agree that it has certainly got
worse since then....

[Jason]

On Tue, 12 Oct 2021 20:53:50 +0100, Kendall K. Down wrote:

> On 12/10/2021 17:36, Jason wrote:
>
>> Though given that Canon was compiled by the Church in some way, is
>> there any reason to not treat other long-established but extra-Biblical
>> traditions of the Church?
>
> The canon came about because Christians recognised certain books as
> having apostolic origin and the evidence for their choice predates any
> church councils on the subject - I've made this point before. That
> evidence is written down in church historians and early church fathers.

Yes, I would imagine that this is true, that the Church Councils were to
some extent giving a seal of approval to already established customs, but
nevertheless presumably the canon was set by "The Church" in the broader
sense of the Christian community.

> I'm not sure what "extra-Biblical traditions" you have in mind, but
> unless there is documentary evidence, I am not willing to accept that
> doctrine X is good because some modern church authority says so. I would
> certainly not accept doctrine X if it is, in fact, contradicted by
> Scripture.

Well, I'm sure that there are numerous traditions within the church that
have built up over the centuries ("from whom does the Holy Spirit
proceed"?? to mention a recently mentioned example). And by "modern
church authorities" do you mean anything later than the 4th Century?? :-)

And of course many of the more "problematic" areas are those where it is
difficult to say that they are "contradicted by scripture" as opposed to
"contradicted by my interpretation of scripture".

>> I know what you're saying, but at the same time I'm not completely
>> happy with the idea that a sovereign God should be constrained to the
>> known-to-
>> be-small selection of things set down in the Bible.
>
> Why is it such a problem for you? God inspired certain people to write
> books and letters, He guided the church to accept those books - those
> and none other. If those books say all that is necessary for salvation,
> why would God need to add to them?

It's a problem for me because God is sovereign: I can't even begin to
contemplate what God can or cannot do. I am simply too cautious to say,
"God can't possibly do XYZ because it would contradict something that
Paul wrote once to a church congregation in Thessalonica." And I do
believe that "the Bible contains all that is necessary for salvation" but
that is not the point. I might have a book entitled, "All you need host
a dinner party" but that's not the same as saying there's nothing else to
be said about the world's cuisine.....

>> I agree, but I also think that the contradictions need to be addressed
>> somehow. I guess one solution is to say that differing opinions are
>> "true" to individuals, but perhaps not equally true for all
>> individuals.
>
> There are several factors here. The first is the concept of Truth. If
> God is Triune, then that is true for everyone, whether or not they
> recognise or accept that fact.

I would agree with your principle here, but I don't (personally) think
you've picked a good example. Obviously the *nature* of God is a hard
fact, a truth that is true whether anyone likes it or not. However, for
something as complex as God, clearly the concept of a Trinity has taken a
great deal of thought, reasoning and revelation over the decades and many
heresies exist in this area. I suspect that the "Trinity" is in some
ways still an approximation of the nature of God, because I suspect it is
beyond human comprehension.

> The second is individual duty. You have highlighted one instance - the
> rich young ruler - but others can be adduced or imagined. God may call
> you to be a medical missionary in Africa and me to be a preacher in
> Wales and someone else to run a Christian website.

Yes indeed, but I think the rich young ruler is somewhat different to
differences in one's "calling", because there isn't really a moral
dimension to me doing one job and you doing another, or you exercising
one gift of the spirit and me another. I'd say that is different from
how we (for example) handle our wealth and possessions. I think you
would agree that if Jesus caught someone in adultery and told them to "go
and sin no more" that this is not the same as a calling to different
professions.

> The third is related to the above and that is individual importance. For
> example, if you are troubled with sexual lust, it is likely that God
> will be more concerned about dealing with that in your life than He will
> be about guiding you into some obscure doctrinal truth.

Agreed.

>> I think that's a good example. [As I think I said elsewhere it's a view
>> that I've increasingly held, though thought that I was in a
>> (heretical?) minority on this....] To stick to this topic, if two
>> groups, both thinking they are following and inspired by the Holy
>> Spirit, come to differing conclusions, it's difficult to know how to
>> reconcile this, especially if one view is the long-term established
>> view of the bulk of the Church. Are both views inspired by the Spirit?
>> One of them? Neither? Over the centuries, churches have split over
>> far more (seemingly) trivial or esoteric things....
>
> I think that on the whole we can trust God to look after His church.
> Churches have split, but then one side of the split has gradually
> withered away - or rejoined the "right" side.

I don't think this is true. If you look at any chart of church
denominations (e.g this high-level one):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_denomination

it is always an ever-branching tree structure, with very little folding
back in.

> It is important that we
> should copy the Bereans and "study to see whether these things are so"
> and once we have established a doctrine on the basis of Scripture, stick
> with it until and unless Scripture leads us to a new understanding.
>
> Someone wrote to me recently to say that on the basis of Scripture he
> had come to the conclusion that hell is finite and how he now sees God
> in a new light. Praise the Lord! You may be in a minority, but it is a
> growing minority.

But if that is true, then this is precisely the sort of thing where a
"new understanding" is replacing well-established doctrine (which may
well at one time have been denounced as 'heretical'). If this "new"
understanding is true, then what of the past? Were people not listening
closely enough to God? Were the scriptures open-to-interpretation and
people misheard the Holy Spirit and were guided into wrong conclusions?
Has God changed his mind about how hell manifests? [Unlikely I'd say!] If
under the "guidance of the Holy Spirit" the earlier church came to a
different conclusion to today, where does that leave everything else?

[Jason]

On Wed, 13 Oct 2021 14:40:08 +0530, Madhu wrote:

> I believe Scripture unambigously affirms everlasting
> punishment in the lake of fire, so if the spirit is leading you away
> from this fact, it is in fact contrary to scripture and is based on
> other factors. (The usual arguments that make God to be unmeriful or
> sadistic just do not apply)

I'm not sure that Scripture *does* unambiguously affirm everlasting
punishment in the lake of fire.

In fact, the only verse I can think of just now is the bit about "where
their worm dieth not" and I'm not too sure what even this means.

There is talk about an eternal fire that doesn't go out, but that is a
far cry from eternal punishment. You could imagine (say) a volcano
erupting continuously, but that would not be the same as someone thrown
into it as being in eternal torment. As I understand it, the Lake of
Fire was prepared for the likes of the Devil, and Revelation 20:10 says
that such beings will be tormented day and night forever, but I'm not
sure of a similar verse talking of human fate.

> (The usual arguments that make God to be unmeriful or
> sadistic just do not apply)

I would agree that while these sort of arguments mean nothing on their
own (other than perhaps our own wishful thinking), they need to be held
in mind in just the same way that other seemingly contradictory verses of
Scripture need to be held together.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 13/10/2021 10:10, Madhu wrote:

> The number of incarnated souls are presumably enumerable. I don't see
> how the "finite" can fit this category at all for any mathematical (or
> physical) sense in which I understand the word.

An infinite number of souls would, I presume, not be enumerable.
Therefore the number of souls is, by your definition, finite. As only a
subset of souls end up in hell, hell must be finite (in extent).

> On the other hand if you agree evil is "finite", then I can agree to (in
> whatever sense you talk of it) a finite hell. But I think evil is not
> finite or even countably infinite though I believe it will be separated
> out by God and contained in the lake of fire, which will be as
> everlasting as your eternal life.

Evilness may well be infinite, but the number of those affected by it,
even if you count the devil and all his angels as well as the humans, is
finite.

> I believe Scripture unambigously affirms everlasting
> punishment in the lake of fire, so if the spirit is leading you away
> from this fact, it is in fact contrary to scripture and is based on
> other factors. (The usual arguments that make God to be unmeriful or
> sadistic just do not apply)

Everyone I know agrees that hell is everlasting punishment. However I do
not believe that hell is everlasting punishing.

The difference is this: person A is extremely wicked. He will end up in
hell and will suffer for a very long time, but eventually he will have
expiated all his sins, at which point his punishing will stop and he
will cease to exist. From that non-existence there is no return and
therefore the punishment for his sin is never-ending.

As God says in Obadiah, "they shall be as though they have not been."

[Kendall K. Down]

On 14/10/2021 18:12, Jason wrote:

> There is talk about an eternal fire that doesn't go out, but that is a
> far cry from eternal punishment.

I have previously quoted William Barclay on the meaning of the Greek
word "aionios", which is perfectly illustrated by what Jude says about
Sodom and its inhabitants.

Jude 1:7  Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like
manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange
flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal
(aionios) fire.

Having travelled numerous times to the area of Sodom, I can confirm that
there is no fire there now.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 14/10/2021 17:59, Jason wrote:

> Taking the "present generation" as the current Earth's population, do you
> think that "godlessness", as a percentage of the Earth's total population
> is vastly worse now than it has ever been in the past? Do you have some
> statistics for this? Presumably when Adam and Eve first roamed the
> Earth, "godlessness" was 0%, so I would agree that it has certainly got
> worse since then....

Yes, I do think that. 200 years ago virtually everybody believed in God
or god - Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, Muslims, Christians, Shintoists and so
on. Now, thanks to the spread of atheist ideas - chief among them
Darwinian evolution which removed the need for a divinity to create the
world - there are atheists wherever you go and in many places,
particularly in the West, they are a majority of the population.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 14/10/2021 17:54, Jason wrote:

> Well, I'm sure that there are numerous traditions within the church that
> have built up over the centuries ("from whom does the Holy Spirit
> proceed"?? to mention a recently mentioned example).

Indeed.

> And by "modern
> church authorities" do you mean anything later than the 4th Century?? :-)

No, I mean contemporary church authorities. The pope may tell me that
Mary was immaculately conceived, but if I don't find that in the Bible
or in the early church fathers, I regard it as a dangerous innovation.

> It's a problem for me because God is sovereign: I can't even begin to
> contemplate what God can or cannot do. I am simply too cautious to say,
> "God can't possibly do XYZ because it would contradict something that
> Paul wrote once to a church congregation in Thessalonica."

Try saying, "God can't possibly do XYZ because it would contradict what
He told Paul to write to the church in Thessalonica".

> I would agree with your principle here, but I don't (personally) think
> you've picked a good example.

That's fine. Pick something else that is universally true - gravity?

> Yes indeed, but I think the rich young ruler is somewhat different to
> differences in one's "calling"

Fine. Pick a different example.

>> I think that on the whole we can trust God to look after His church.
>> Churches have split, but then one side of the split has gradually
>> withered away - or rejoined the "right" side.

> I don't think this is true. If you look at any chart of church
> denominations (e.g this high-level one):
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_denomination
> it is always an ever-branching tree structure, with very little folding
> back in.

I think you are looking on too short a time scale!

> But if that is true, then this is precisely the sort of thing where a
> "new understanding" is replacing well-established doctrine (which may
> well at one time have been denounced as 'heretical'). If this "new"
> understanding is true, then what of the past? Were people not listening
> closely enough to God? Were the scriptures open-to-interpretation and
> people misheard the Holy Spirit and were guided into wrong conclusions?
> Has God changed his mind about how hell manifests? [Unlikely I'd say!] If
> under the "guidance of the Holy Spirit" the earlier church came to a
> different conclusion to today, where does that leave everything else?

The idea of immortal souls and ever-burning hells come, ultimately, from
Greek philosophy. Back when such doctrines were being formulated people
accept Greek philosophy as unquestioningly as people today accept
science and they incorporated it into their understandings of Scripture.

Today we are free from that constraint (we may be subject to others, of
course) and therefore we are free to see what the Bible actually says
rather than what the Bible-and-Greek-philosopy say.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 13/10/2021 10:12, Madhu wrote:

> My "personal experience" would incline me to a view of annihilation but
> if anything is stronger than my conviction that god's justice will be
> expressed in an everlasting lake of fire it is my that of my own
> damnableness.

You may be infinitely damnable, but God is infinitely merciful - and I
think that His infinity is bigger than the devil's.

[Madhu]

* "Kendall K. Down" <ska1bq$otc$1...@dont-email.me> :
Wrote on Thu, 14 Oct 2021 20:44:57 +0100:

But it is NOT the end of the Sodom story. Sodom will be resurrected
again to face the final judgment.

11:24 But I say unto you, That it shall be more tolerable for the land
of Sodom in the day of judgment, than for thee.

The lake of fire has been prepared from the beginning of time. It's
status is somewhat like Jesus. At present there is no one in the lake
of fire. It is empty. Occupancy begins at the coming of the messiah:
the first two occupants are the beast and the false prophet. And even
then those two are only occupants for a thousand years.

After a thousand years satan joins them. And then his angels and
votaries.

25:41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me,
ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: