tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post7328240322114529779..comments2024-03-28T22:29:52.666+13:00Comments on Anglican Down Under: Can the Bible tell me when I am wrong?Peter Carrellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comBlogger70125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-57980735096778812372014-02-14T02:35:21.933+13:002014-02-14T02:35:21.933+13:00Kurt, interesting perspective on Wilkes here: htt...Kurt, interesting perspective on Wilkes here: http://members.ozemail.com.au/~macinnis/ockhams/wilkes.htm. <br /><br />I don't know much about him, but its all interesting. Thanks for the reference. MichaelAnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-7645086352498031472014-02-12T22:18:14.066+13:002014-02-12T22:18:14.066+13:00"The Bible is actually a library of 50 Books...."The Bible is actually a library of 50 Books. Not each of them is the material known as 'Gospel' Truth."<br /><br />The Gospel Truth begins with Genesis and ends with Revelations. It is all God's Word. That has been the teaching of the Roman, Orthodox and Classical Protestant churches, even with the very slight variations in the canon. Only very recently have Liberals tried to dismember large parts of God's Word to try and make their sexual/political ideology fit. <br /><br />And please, no "then why do we eat shellfish" arguments. That has already been explained to you.<br /><br />Your well outside the catholic tradition on this.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-81794775796694537512014-02-12T21:58:47.055+13:002014-02-12T21:58:47.055+13:00The point you seek to deny Ron concerns what Jesus...The point you seek to deny Ron concerns what Jesus made of the rest of Scripture. The Word-made-flesh himself affirmed the Old Testament (albeit updating aspects of the law in the process, as touched on in this thread).<br /><br />I find it difficult to understand how your theological wisdom and experience permits you to take the scissors to Scripture in this kind of way.<br /><br />Whether the Bible is composed of one or 50 or 500 hundred books, so what?! What the church claims about Scripture is that it is one book of God, divine revelation to us.Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-88193337477272515882014-02-12T21:37:07.030+13:002014-02-12T21:37:07.030+13:00Reading down this blog I found this little gem:
&...Reading down this blog I found this little gem:<br /><br />"Thus to affirm the truth of Gospels, to affirm that Jesus speaks truthfully, we must also affirm the truth of all of Scripture, otherwise we make Jesus to be a liar." - S.H. -<br /><br />Firstly, the second part of this sentence is a real non-sequitur!<br /><br />The Bible is actually a library of 50 Books. Not each of them is the material known as 'Gospel' Truth.<br /><br />On the other hand, words about 'The Word-made-flesh' are convincing because of what they are; containing for all eternity 'The Eternal Word' - as opposed to legalistic requirements for a particular, unredeemed, society).<br />Father Ron Smithhttp://kiwianglo.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-81993465033225172622014-02-12T09:11:11.222+13:002014-02-12T09:11:11.222+13:00Kurt,
" I simply modified part of a humorous...Kurt,<br /><br />" I simply modified part of a humorous essay, well-known by theological liberals here(in America, anyway)to poke fun at the fundis a bit."<br /><br />It's a bit of humorless nonsense to poke fun at a non-existent strawman.<br /><br />Your attempt at a point has actually been answered and critiqued, but I notice you have not responded. Perhaps cannot?<br /><br />"Ain't that the truth, Father Ron! It's one reason why I can't take them too seriously."<br /><br />Ron's point was based on a falsehood, on something nobody here has said. Perhaps you could try actually responding to the arguments rather than engaging in avoiding them? <br /><br />Or do you realize that you have no theological leg to stand on in the first place, so poking fun at others may be a useful way of not engaging in an argument you have lost?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-79318478595596584002014-02-12T09:03:27.734+13:002014-02-12T09:03:27.734+13:00"Given that American Samoa is still American ..."Given that American Samoa is still American Samoa, I guess we might still be American New Zealand ... perhaps as the furtherest state from DC?"--Fr. Carrell<br /><br />Probably the 51st state. And, you wouldn't be speaking with that dreadful Australian accent...!<br /><br />Kurt Hill<br />Brooklyn, NYKurtnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-82290057634193267872014-02-12T07:32:18.268+13:002014-02-12T07:32:18.268+13:00Hi Kurt,
Speaking from memory, one of the influenc...Hi Kurt,<br />Speaking from memory, one of the influences on the British making a formal move re relationship with Maori via the Treaty of Waitangi was concern that if such a thing did not happen then there would be an American takeover of our fair islands. (And if that hadn't happened, the French were lurking not far away).<br /><br />Given that American Samoa is still American Samoa, I guess we might still be American New Zealand ... perhaps as the furtherest state from DC?Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-67830857157254873372014-02-12T07:17:50.939+13:002014-02-12T07:17:50.939+13:00Good for you, MichaelA; you have, at least a sense...Good for you, MichaelA; you have, at least a sense of humor!<br /><br />"..the last time you fought the Canadians they reduced your capital to a smoking pile of ash"<br /><br />Actually, that was the British, not the Canadians. And the Brits claimed it was in retaliation for the USA reducing the Canadian capital (York, now called Toronto) to a smoking pile of ash...Or, at least the log cabin Parliament building thereof.<br /><br />Actually, in 1813/14 Australians were more worried that Commodore Porter and his Pacific squadron would pay Sydney a visit; though why on earth they thought he would bother to do that is beyond me. Captain Wilkes, USN would eventually surprize Sydneysiders one morning in 1839 with the unannounced arrival of a couple of warships off Circular Quay, their great guns trained upon Government House. Wilkes would later be on hand at Waitangi to witness the British takeover of NZ.)<br /><br />Kurt Hill<br />Brooklyn, NYKurtnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-52706906370280887972014-02-12T05:00:13.781+13:002014-02-12T05:00:13.781+13:00"I am not sure, though if he addresses the qu..."I am not sure, though if he addresses the question of plagiarism."--Martin<br /><br />Oh, Martin, get a sense of humor, will you!? I simply modified part of a humorous essay, well-known by theological liberals here(in America, anyway)to poke fun at the fundis a bit. (Besides, I don't complain when others "borrow" material for use on this site!) You do know it's an honored custom in America for comics to "steal" from each other, don't you? <br /><br />"But, Kurt. Didn't you realise that both MichaelA and Shaun have the classic Get-out clause - Old Testament Law has been 'overcome' by the theology of the N.T.! <br /><br />"However, when you and I plead that reality, we are told that every word of Scripture was 'God-breathed' and irrevocable. We just can't win!"--Fr. Ron<br /><br />Ain't that the truth, Father Ron! It's one reason why I can't take them too seriously.<br /><br />Kurt Hill<br />Brooklyn, NY<br /><br />Kurtnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-36704412722419905682014-02-12T01:26:28.226+13:002014-02-12T01:26:28.226+13:00“When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I...“When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord—Lev.1:9.”<br /><br />Do you? I suggest you need to sit down and re-think your confidence in your own knowledge. <br /><br />If you had done it in times B.C., I would agree with you. But why on earth would you expect it to please the Lord now, after Christ has come and sacrifice has been superseded?<br /><br />“The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them.” <br /><br />Yes, that’s the first thing I thought when reading your post – Kurt’s neighbours have a lot to answer for….<br /><br />“Should I smite them?”<br /><br />I wouldn’t want them to be smitten by you. <br /><br />“Also, a friend of mine would like to sell his daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7.”<br /><br />Which it isn’t, so he’s already got problems. However, I am intrigued by the unusual habits of your friends – did you meet them at the local Episcopal Church… :)<br /><br />“In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her? (Remembering, of course, the differences in the exchange rates between Australian and American dollars…)”<br /><br />I wouldn’t dare to guess. Each of my daughters’ weddings cost a great deal more than my own. It appears to be an appreciating market. <br /><br />“Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations.”<br /><br />You aren’t Jewish and aren’t living in Old Testament times. Sorry to break the news, but you are going to have to clean up after yourself. As my wife frequently tells all the men in the family...<br /><br />“A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?”<br /><br />Ummm, possibly because slaves are mostly acquired through conquest, and the last time you fought the Canadians they reduced your capital to a smoking pile of ash? ;)<br /><br />“Now, Michael, I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death.”<br /><br />No it doesn’t. Next question!<br /><br />“I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean…”<br /><br />No it doesn’t. Next question!<br /><br />“I know you have studied these things extensively”<br /><br />Come now, Kurt. One doesn’t need “extensive study” for this. My twelve year old niece would have little difficulty with these questions. MichaelAnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-72514384299874515602014-02-11T19:57:42.381+13:002014-02-11T19:57:42.381+13:00"We just can't win!"
No, you can..."We just can't win!"<br /><br />No, you can't. But not for the reason you claim. As my previous post shows, we are not remotely saying the same thing about the difference between the Old Covenant and the New. Only you and Kurt seem to be advocating antinomianism. <br /><br />No, the reason you can't win is because your arguments are self-contradictory and self-defeating, and based not on trying to read Scripture fairly, but on trying to diminish and dismiss Scripture solely because the moral force of the Law is opposed to Liberal notions of morality.<br /><br />This argument is not really about different ways of reading Scripture, but about those of us who place the authority of Scripture, and thus of God, first, and those who place Western Liberal politics first.<br /><br />And that approach is always going to lose the debate.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-90796913301905469972014-02-11T16:43:45.155+13:002014-02-11T16:43:45.155+13:00The transformation of the OT law from civil law to...The transformation of the OT law from civil law to moral law was necessary because of the change from God's people being a theocratic geo-political state to a stateless universal community/Church, and because of the change in the New Covenant from an external Law to an internal moral law of the heart.<br /><br />That is totally different to the argument used by some (and it is only some) Liberals, including on this thread, which is that the Law does not even have moral force anymore. That is a radical notion that has never been taught by the Church, only a few fringe sects. The theological term for this idea is antinomianism, meaning, without law.<br /><br />If the OT moral Law has no moral force, why are the Ten Commandments in the Anglican prayer book and catechism, as well as the catechisms of every major branch of the Church? Just to fill up space? Or as an example of a historical curiosity with no relevance to people?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-15301099733421187582014-02-11T16:32:06.730+13:002014-02-11T16:32:06.730+13:00"But, Kurt. Didn't you realise that both ..."But, Kurt. Didn't you realise that both MichaelA and Shaun have the classic Get-out clause - Old Testament Law has been 'overcome' by the theology of the N.T.!"<br /><br />Not "overcome" Ron, transformed from civil Law to moral Law. That's not the same argument you and Kurt are using at all. And, our view is the one that has been held by the universal Church since the apostles. The view you and Kurt are espousing is a twentieth century novelty.<br /><br />I can only assume that Kurt has not actually read many of the posts above as his claims have already been answered.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-91620415112900801632014-02-11T12:15:58.689+13:002014-02-11T12:15:58.689+13:00But, Kurt. Didn't you realise that both Michae...But, Kurt. Didn't you realise that both MichaelA and Shaun have the classic Get-out clause - Old Testament Law has been 'overcome' by the theology of the N.T.! <br /><br />However, when you and I plead that reality, we are told that every word of Scripture was 'God-breathed' and irrevocable. We just can't win!Father Ron Smithhttp://kiwianglo.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-50901092335374932382014-02-11T09:11:19.200+13:002014-02-11T09:11:19.200+13:00Kurt, these are obviously pressing questions for y...Kurt, these are obviously pressing questions for you, and you will find the Caroline Divines have answered most of these questions quite thoughtfully. See the sermons of Lancelot Andrewes in particular. I am not sure, though if he addresses the question of plagiarism.<br /><br />MartinAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-84495823463813953982014-02-11T03:21:14.547+13:002014-02-11T03:21:14.547+13:00Thank you, MichaelA, for doing so much to educate ...Thank you, MichaelA, for doing so much to educate people regarding the inerrancy of Scripture. I have learned a great deal from you. <br /><br />When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord—Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them? <br /><br />Also, a friend of mine would like to sell his daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her? (Remembering, of course, the differences in the exchange rates between Australian and American dollars…)<br /><br />Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians? <br /><br />Now, Michael, I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or can I hire someone to do it?<br /><br />I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play American-style football if I wear gloves?<br /><br />I know you have studied these things extensively (no doubt at Moore Theological College), so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is inerrant, even though it is transmitted through errant human beings.<br /><br />Kurt Hill<br />Brooklyn, NY<br />Kurtnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-6721622624349328502014-02-11T00:57:29.021+13:002014-02-11T00:57:29.021+13:00Father Ron wrote:
"So does that mean that if...Father Ron wrote:<br /><br />"So does that mean that if society had only the four gospels to learn about Jesus Christ, this would somehow be a defective message of God's power to redeem? Curious!"<br /><br />Why would it mean that? Shawn's post dealt with the issue of those who *choose* to accept only part of the Bible (an issue in Christendom since at least as early as the 2nd century AD). <br /><br />I was curious as to how you were going to respond to that, Fr Ron, but was rather bemused when you simply declined to respond. Instead, you came up with a hypothetical: the situation where a person through no fault of their own only has part of the bible. Quite a different situation, and I am still not sure why you haven't answered the question that was actually asked. MichaelAnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-25547951627318430472014-02-10T21:08:36.322+13:002014-02-10T21:08:36.322+13:00Hi Martin,
I will accept your encouraging comment ...Hi Martin,<br />I will accept your encouraging comment to Shawn; but the rest veers into ad hominem faster than the speediest slalom skier at Sochi.<br /><br />"Shawn, I admire your patience in debate, ...<br /><br />Martin <br />"Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-45441837941797130622014-02-10T19:16:54.548+13:002014-02-10T19:16:54.548+13:00"ALL Scripture is God-breathed and is useful ..."ALL Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness." 2 Timothy 3:16Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-91062250641917348442014-02-10T18:39:13.590+13:002014-02-10T18:39:13.590+13:00"And who is the Author of 'The Whole Stor..."And who is the Author of 'The Whole Story'? No less than another Person of the Most Holy Trinity - The Spirit, Who gives life - in all its fullness."<br /><br />Yes, which is exactly why, because the Lord IS the Author of the Bible, all of Scripture is His revelation, His Story.<br /><br />"It is the Holy Spirit who convicts, not the Bible. "<br /><br />Wow. The Bible "does not convict"???<br /><br />Millions of Christians over the last two thousand years who were convicted by Scripture were wrong???<br /><br />The teaching of the whole Church that the Bible does convict is wrong???<br /><br />Seriously Ron, statements like this are so far away from any notion of Christian orthodoxy and practice, in ANY branch of the Church catholic, that they cannot be taken seriously.<br /><br />It is the Holy Spirit through the Bible who convicts. Every word os Scripture is the word of the Holy Spirit.<br /><br />"What more do you need for salvation?"<br /><br />ALL of God's revelation of Himself in BOTH the Word written and the Word made flesh, which are the one and same Word. We need all of it, not just the bits the do not offend Liberals.<br /><br />"The Bible informs of The Christ who is accessible in the sacraments"<br /><br />Not if the Bible can be mistaken. And Christ is accesible in ALL His means of grace, both Bible AND Sacraments.<br /><br />Trying to cut out part's of God's revelation of Himself because they offend Liberals is placing ourselves above God.<br /><br />We do not, as disciples, tell God what He is allowed to reveal, nor do we take only one part and not another. God is Lord and King. Not us.<br /><br />How did we fall in the first place? We decided to place ourselves above God and choose for ourselves what is right and wrong.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-31624959311829665162014-02-10T16:55:51.257+13:002014-02-10T16:55:51.257+13:00And who is the Author of 'The Whole Story'...And who is the Author of 'The Whole Story'? No less than another Person of the Most Holy Trinity - The Spirit, Who gives life - in all its fullness.<br /><br />Christ Himself is revealed in the gospels, which give adequate information about his role in Creation; e.g. (John 1.1) "In the beginning was The Word....etc".<br /><br />Potential believer is Jesus as that Word - made flesh - have adequate evidence in the 4 Gospels to be open to the Holy Spirit's further revelation. After all, Jesus is shown therein to have fulfilled 'The Law and The Prophets'. What more do you need for salvation? It is the Holy Spirit who convicts, not the Bible. The Bible informs of The Christ who is accessible in the sacraments: "Do this......."Father Ron Smithhttp://kiwianglo.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-86025854325560603972014-02-10T14:00:09.704+13:002014-02-10T14:00:09.704+13:00Hi Ron,
"So does that mean that if society h...Hi Ron,<br /><br />"So does that mean that if society had only the four gospels to learn about Jesus Christ, this would somehow be a defective message of God's power to redeem? Curious!"<br /><br />I did not say anything about the "power to redeem" but the power to reveal, and indeed, while if we had only the four Gospels a person could still learn enough to be saved, nevertheless some of what they read would make no sense to them, because they would not have the back story so to speak. They would not know what Jesus was talking about when he mentions the Law and the Prophets or many of the prophecies about Himself. I could probably get some idea of what the Lord of the Rings was about by reading the last four chapters, but much would make no sense, and I would miss the richness of the whole. <br /><br />So to know the fullness of God's revelation, the fullness of God's Story, we need the whole story!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-70834985880902478762014-02-10T13:19:27.989+13:002014-02-10T13:19:27.989+13:00Hi Ron
There is fair comment in the comment below,...Hi Ron<br />There is fair comment in the comment below, but an implication of 'putdown' in the sentence I am not publishing.<br /><br />""The problem is that if you choose the Gospel narratives alone then we are back to subjective selection, and this does not hold up to logic.'<br />- S.H. -<br /><br />So does that mean that if society had only the four gospels to learn about Jesus Christ, this would somehow be a defective message of God's power to redeem? Curious!<br /><br />[]<br /><br />I guess if theological colleges (Christian) had the choice of only 4 books of the Bible from which to teach about the life and teaching of Jesus, the Gospels might just have priority over all others. I know some teachers might prefer the Pauline Epistles (or even Leviticus) but not many. <br />"Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-80817906562312174632014-02-09T22:46:10.058+13:002014-02-09T22:46:10.058+13:00Kurt wrote:
"My understanding is that the Ca...Kurt wrote:<br /><br />"My understanding is that the Carolines believed that the Holy Scriptures “containeth all things necessary to salvation”."<br /><br />Indeed they did, as do orthodox Anglicans today. But if scripture is not both reliable and authoritative, then it does not contain those things because we cannot rely on it. <br /> <br />"I, too, believe this. Nevertheless, that does not mean I believe in the inerrancy or infallibility of a book—even one that is genuinely inspired by God."<br /><br />If the scriptures are "genuinely inspired by God", i.e. the all-powerful and all-knowing God that we meet in Scripture, then they don't make mistakes. Of course WE humans may make mistakes reading them, but that is another matter.<br /><br />""If I did, I would also have to assent to the Scriptural statement that the See of Peter is the rock on which the Church Catholic is built."<br /><br />No you wouldn't because scripture makes no such statement. <br /><br />"But even if you are correct, Martin, the Carolines also believed in slavery, that women were the property of their husbands, in the divine right of kings, in the subservience of the colonies, etc."<br /><br />Which simply proves that the Carolines were human, like you and me, and therefore they were fallible, like you and me. I wouldn't go looking down on the Carolines if I were you - history may well judge you just as harshly as it has judged them, in certain areas!<br /><br />"All of these viewpoints were derived from passages of Holy Scripture."<br /><br />No they weren't. People *attempt* all the time to base their beliefs on scripture - modern liberals do it too. But that is quite a different thing to whether scripture actually support their beliefs. MichaelAnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-56375397920131701822014-02-09T22:00:09.975+13:002014-02-09T22:00:09.975+13:00Kurt, I know all these things. I have even taught ...Kurt, I know all these things. I have even taught them to high school students. Newton, Wilberforce, Venn, Glanville Sharpe etc etc - fine Evangelical Anglicans. I said "IN Great Britain" - not provincia Britannia. GB was constituted in 1707. A famous court case established that escaped slaves IN Great Britain were free. Same in Canada - think underground railroad. Mother knows best.<br />MartinAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com