homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   » Ship's Locker   » Limbo   » Hell: Back off Sydney (Page 5)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Hell: Back off Sydney
Cod
Shipmate
# 2643

 - Posted      Profile for Cod     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Dear Philo25,

Please concentrate REALLY hard.

The Jensens are just as 'fringe' as the liberals you decry. Both are taking liberties, so to speak, with traditional Anglican doctrine, but only the Jensens are behaving as if everyone else is on the broad path to destruction.

That the Jensens take views which they believe to be the One True Interpretation of Scripture might be warmly received in certain highly conservative churches is not the point. That they appear to be remaking their own patch to fit their own interpretation is entirely the point. If you want to argue against that POV then you need to show how they are not doing so, rather than simply complaining.

It's a pity you weren't round when the last debates on 'Bishop' Spong took place on SoF because he got a pretty rough ride also. However, while he might not believe in God, he does seem to believe in coexistence.

You are arguing against people who I imagine are of entirely the same theological position as yourself.

I hope Johann is having a good chuckle at this thread.

Posts: 4229 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Leprechaun

Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408

 - Posted      Profile for Leprechaun     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Arrietty Clock:
What Leprechaun actually wanted to say:

I Thought This Was a Christian Website

Believe me Arriety, if anything has become clear to me during my time on the Ship, it is that it is certainly NOT a Christian website.

[ 09. June 2004, 07:40: Message edited by: Leprechaun ]

Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Ham'n'Eggs

Ship's Pig
# 629

 - Posted      Profile for Ham'n'Eggs   Email Ham'n'Eggs   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
quote:
Originally posted by Arrietty Clock:
What Leprechaun actually wanted to say:

I Thought This Was a Christian Website

Believe me Arriety, if anything has become clear to me during my time on the Ship, it is that it is certainly NOT a Christian website.
[Killing me]

Speaks volumes about Lep's understanding of what "Christian" is!!!!!!!

Anything else you'd like to pass unequivocal judgement on, whilst you're here? [Devil]

--------------------
"...the heresies that men do leave / Are hated most of those they did deceive" - Will S


Posts: 3103 | From: Genghis Khan's sleep depot | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Left at the Altar

Ship's Siren
# 5077

 - Posted      Profile for Left at the Altar         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Yes, I think it is a heathen conspiracy to lure unsuspecting Christians in and then corrupt them. I have it on good authority that Simon's horns and almost as big as Erin's teeth.

Thank goodness the Lep has not fallen prey to this plot.

[ 09. June 2004, 07:57: Message edited by: Left at the Altar ]

--------------------
Still pretty Amazing, but no longer Mavis.

Posts: 9111 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged
Arrietty

Ship's borrower
# 45

 - Posted      Profile for Arrietty   Author's homepage   Email Arrietty   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Left at the Altar:
I have it on good authority that Simon's horns and almost as big as Erin's teeth.

[Killing me] [Killing me] [Killing me]

Oh dear, I think I have been spending too much time in the Church of Fools crypt......

I'll get me coat (again).

Edited on the basis it's probably only me that finds this hysterically funny and that's because I need to get out more.

[ 09. June 2004, 08:03: Message edited by: Arrietty Clock ]

--------------------
i-church

Online Mission and Ministry

Posts: 6634 | From: Coventry, UK | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Custard
Shipmate
# 5402

 - Posted      Profile for Custard   Author's homepage   Email Custard   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
Believe me Arriety, if anything has become clear to me during my time on the Ship, it is that it is certainly NOT a Christian website.

I'd have thought this was patently obvious.

Does the website have faith in Jesus (or however else you want to define "Christian")?
No, because it's a website, not a person.

Are there people who use this website who are Christians?
Yes

Are there people who use this website who are not Christians?
Yes

Is the standard of conversation on this website the kind of standard that is expected of Christians (allowing for the fact that we're only being made perfect and we're not there yet)?
Sometimes

Sometimes it isn't because there are people who are not Christians. Sometimes it isn't because we are all still sinful people and we sometimes do and say silly and selfish things.

Custard

[ 09. June 2004, 08:13: Message edited by: Custard123 ]

--------------------
blog
Adam's likeness, Lord, efface;
Stamp thine image in its place.


Posts: 4523 | From: Snot's Place | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Sean D
Cheery barman
# 2271

 - Posted      Profile for Sean D   Author's homepage   Email Sean D   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Saviour Tortoise:
And yet very, very many Christians read the bible and don't draw that conclusion.

Yes ST but that's because all of us read the Bible with our own preconceptions and prejudices and therefore we ignore the bits in the Bible which contradict what we think and just quote and believe the bits which fit in with our preconceived beliefs.

The only people who are immune from this, of course, are Jensenite evangelicals, because they have no agenda or preconceptions which they are pushing. This is why they are so objective, of course!

[ 09. June 2004, 08:22: Message edited by: Seán D ]

--------------------
postpostevangelical
http://www.stmellitus.org/

Posts: 2126 | From: North and South Kensington | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
Fish Fish
Shipmate
# 5448

 - Posted      Profile for Fish Fish     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Seán D:
quote:
Originally posted by Saviour Tortoise:
And yet very, very many Christians read the bible and don't draw that conclusion.

Yes ST but that's because all of us read the Bible with our own preconceptions and prejudices and therefore we ignore the bits in the Bible which contradict what we think and just quote and believe the bits which fit in with our preconceived beliefs.

The only people who are immune from this, of course, are Jensenite evangelicals, because they have no agenda or preconceptions which they are pushing. This is why they are so objective, of course!

Genuine question - which bits do Conservative Evangelicals choose to ignore? It seems to me that far from ignoring bits we don't like, we wrestle with the whole text, trying to ignore nothing, and understand it as a whole. We're not the ones who pick the bits we like and ignore that we don't. Unless you have passages in mind?

[ 09. June 2004, 08:35: Message edited by: Fish Fish ]

--------------------
Thought about changing my name - but it would be a shame to lose all the credibility and good will I have on the Ship...

Posts: 672 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Sean D
Cheery barman
# 2271

 - Posted      Profile for Sean D   Author's homepage   Email Sean D   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Yes, I do. Please visit this thread for starters. Obviously this isn't the right place if you want to discuss it properly, but if you want to start a new thread or reinvigorate one of the old ones on hell in purg or keryg I will happily join you there.

--------------------
postpostevangelical
http://www.stmellitus.org/

Posts: 2126 | From: North and South Kensington | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682

 - Posted      Profile for GreyFace   Email GreyFace   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by philo25:
I'm sorry but you mention that you will ask intelligent questions of the Bible and how things relate to what time period etc, that's again what I mean by 'Liberals' changing the majority-accepted interpretation of the Bible.

I've just got to pick up on this one.

The majority of those who agree with you? That's a weak argument.

The majority of Christians - that would be the Roman Catholic Church, then, who would disagree with you on sola scriptura, the Petrine ministry, transubstantiation, etc etc, all of which as interpretations of the Bible?

The majority of humans, the majority of whom don't believe that Jesus is the Son of God?

You can't have your cake and eat it.

Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged
Goldfish Stew
Shipmate
# 5512

 - Posted      Profile for Goldfish Stew   Email Goldfish Stew   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Custard123:
Does the website have faith in Jesus (or however else you want to define "Christian")?
No, because it's a website, not a person.

And the Bible therefore is not a Christian book.

--------------------
.

Posts: 2405 | From: Aotearoa/New Zealand | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
dyfrig
Blue Scarfed Menace
# 15

 - Posted      Profile for dyfrig   Email dyfrig   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
it is certainly NOT a Christian website.

I'm sure we can all sleep peacefully in our beds now that's been sorted.

--------------------
"He was wrong in the long run, but then, who isn't?" - Tony Judt

Posts: 6917 | From: pob dydd Iau, am hanner dydd | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Nunc Dimittis
Seamstress of Sound
# 848

 - Posted      Profile for Nunc Dimittis   Email Nunc Dimittis   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Cranmer's baggage:
Nunc, that's why we like our nice shiny(ish) new(ish) APBA - daily offices are short, sharp & helpful. You should try them some time. [Biased]

*huck*

*spit*

[Razz]

Yeah yeah, ok. If short and sweet is the trade off, maybe...

Posts: 9515 | From: Delta Quadrant | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Nunc Dimittis
Seamstress of Sound
# 848

 - Posted      Profile for Nunc Dimittis   Email Nunc Dimittis   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Faithful Sheepdog:
quote:
Originally posted by Ham'n'Eggs:
And if this occurred about three years ago, and she did seek help, what then?

If Nunc sought help three years' ago, then she did wisely. She may yet have a long and difficult road ahead, so I encourage her to keep working with her doctor/counsellor/therapist.

Peter and Phillip Jensen are no more responsible for Nunc's emotional health than Richard Holloway and John Spong are for mine. As mature adults we are all responsibile for our own emotions.

Neil

I am completely serious, Neil, as other people will witness.

Yes, there were probably extenuating circumstances, and I am keeping a careful eye on the depression (of the SAD form, so not really needing treatment with drugs).

And I accept that we are responsible for how we react and how we emote - to an extent. In my case, my head had been screwed with by choices - mine, and my parents' - in my upbringing, into all of which theological stuff was entertwined.

I think there is something wrong with a theology, that when you go into a church service looking for healing and light and a meeting with God, you come out feeling more depressed, less human, more evil and vile with no hope held out to you. The Word of God is supposed to be our food and drink, not the brick used to beat our heads...

Sydney Anglicanism has a very large and wide back door. There are alot of people who have been burnt, and continue to be burnt by the attitudes of some of those who espouse it.

For instance, "ministers" refuse to bury people not connected with their immediate congregation; funeral parlours often have to call around people who are willing to minister to those who are grieving - regardless of religious faith. I would have thought that, far from turning such people away, here is a golden opportunity for Christ to shine through one and "witness" the gospel in a unique way (albeit obliquely). But noooo. I have direct evidence from this in the experience of at least two people whom the funeral parlours contact to fill in. And this is not isolated to one or two individual ministers.* It seems to be something that is directly related to the mindset produced by the present day Moore College, and it is such that I am at a complete loss to explain it, completely flabbergasted by an approach that lacks a basic care for other vulnerable people.


* And it covers a wide geographic area, from the north of Sydney through to the mid-southern suburbs of Sydney.

Posts: 9515 | From: Delta Quadrant | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
Genuine question - which bits do Conservative Evangelicals choose to ignore? It seems to me that far from ignoring bits we don't like, we wrestle with the whole text, trying to ignore nothing, and understand it as a whole. We're not the ones who pick the bits we like and ignore that we don't. Unless you have passages in mind?

How often do you study the genealogies in Chronicles, or the details of the new temple in Ezekiel?

And what's your position on lending money at interest? A sin according to the Bible.

--------------------
Ken

L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
philo25
Shipmate
# 5725

 - Posted      Profile for philo25   Email philo25   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
By Nunc Dimittis .. For instance, "ministers" refuse to bury people not connected with their immediate congregation; funeral parlours often have to call around people who are willing to minister to those who are grieving - regardless of religious faith. I would have thought that, far from turning such people away, here is a golden opportunity for Christ to shine through one and "witness" the gospel in a unique way (albeit obliquely).
OK I'm starting to change my mind about Jensen, the more I hear about what's going on down there! I guess even within Conservative Evangelicalism there are differences then. I agree Nunc that funerals can be a good time to 'witness' especially given that relatives will be thinking about the afterlife etc. I also thought in an Anglican parish it was the vicars duty to perform such tasks for the entire local community, not just the Anglicans? Or is that the case just in England?

quote:
Sir George Grey says...

Dear Philo25,

Please concentrate REALLY hard.

OK then Georgey, just for you I'll wear my thinking cap [Biased]

quote:
By Sir George Grey .. It's a pity you weren't round when the last debates on 'Bishop' Spong took place on SoF because he got a pretty rough ride also. However, while he might not believe in God, he does seem to believe in coexistence.

You are arguing against people who I imagine are of entirely the same theological position as yourself.

Yep I'm starting to realise that now Sir George as I find out more about Jensen's style from these posts [Disappointed] Nonetheless I still stand by the fact that (imo) 'Liberal' theology is a greater problem for the church than Jensen. I beleive it's Liberal theology that picks and chooses what scripture to accept and then that's how most of the arguments within Anglicanism and the wider Church arise, making the whole Church look quite unholy, and giving the impression we're rearranging the deck chairs on the titanic to many secular observers.

Regarding Spong though, I'm not sure I understand what you mean, are you saying he was right since he put 'coexistance' above beleiving in God?

The main problem in the Church today must be the Christians, all of us. We are sinners and therefore stick to our guns alot of the time out of pride, and I'm just as guilty of this as anyone.

At the same time though, has the Western Church ever been in more difficulties than it has now, barring perhaps the theological fight against gnosticism/arianism in the early centuries AD? I mean these days I think few Christians of any hue would agree with the gnostics/arianists etc, and yet I feel with the 'Liberal' position these days, these guys might well be accepted as just another branch of the Church. I'm sure someone would say 'live and let live' and find some random bits of scripture to back it up.

OK so Spong's positions are probably beyond the pale for even most 'Liberals' but this refusal to accept the word of God in its entirety (imho) is the biggest problem in the Church today. Just as when divided political parties tend to lose elections, I'm worried divisions created by Liberals (OK and Sydney when they refuse to alow evensong and give up Daily Office etc) are making it harder and harder to witness to the outside world.

quote:
By Linzc ...Secondly, there is a rather large difference between believing God is honour bound to roast n' toast the large majority of his children for all eternity, and believing that he's unconcerned with our choices and actions and anything goes. There's a vast range of views in between these two and I'm somewhere there. It's not that difficult to grasp, really.
By the way apologies for spelling your name wrong Linzc, I type too fast!

OK I see what you're saying. But, I feel your thinking raises many issues. What happens to the people who aren't Christian but lead 'good' lives? Do you think they'll go to heaven? I'm sure you'll disagree but I find Christianity to be pretty much of an either/or religion. I don't see in scripture any acceptance being made in Heaven for those who do not believe and trust God. Jesus says that the only way to the Father is through him, so presumably one would have to 'know' Jesus in order to do this. Of course that poses problems too, like what happens to those who haven't even heard of Jesus? Paul says that the nature of God has been made plain to people via his Creation. I don't know what the answer to this is, but I trust God has a just answer. I feel if we were assured that all non-Christians were saved too then the impetus for evangelism would be curtailed somewhat. Would Paul and the apostles really have gone through all that suffering if the consequences of people not believing and trusting in Jesus weren't so severe?

quote:


Originally posted by philo25:
IMO, it's pretty difficult to read the Bible and not understand from it that people who have not accepted Jesus as their Lord and Saviour will go to Hell, (or that prior to Jesus's coming to Earth, those who rejected God's word and did not trust that their messiah would come)

Tostoise's reply..

And yet very, very many Christians read the bible and don't draw that conclusion. How odd. Maybe it isn't that difficult after all...

OK, that's enough coming over all 'purgotorial' now I'll be 'hellish' - You appear to be reading it wrong then Tortoise! Presumably you've read about Hell in the Bible. From your viewpoint, what is it there for? It it simply nothing more than Satan and his evil cohorts of fallen angel's house, No 4 Hell House, Hell Street, Hell? [Biased] Or is a place of punishment for unbelievers?

John 12:48 (Jesus said..)"There is a judge for the one who rejects me and does not accept my words; that very word which I spoke will condemn him at the last day."

Luke 16 The Rich Man and Lazarus

19"There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and lived in luxury every day. 20At his gate was laid a beggar named Lazarus, covered with sores 21and longing to eat what fell from the rich man's table. Even the dogs came and licked his sores.
22"The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham's side. The rich man also died and was buried. 23In hell,[3] where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. 24So he called to him, 'Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.'
25"But Abraham replied, 'Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony. 26And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.'
27"He answered, 'Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my father's house, 28for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.'
29"Abraham replied, 'They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.'
30" 'No, father Abraham,' he said, 'but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.'
31"He said to him, 'If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.' "

quote:
By philo25 ..Hugs to all brothers and sisters in Christ, yes even the swearing non-con-evo's [Biased] philo

[Keep your filthy hands off me, you UBB-abusing bastard.]

[ 08. June 2004, 18:20: Message edited by: RooK ]

How do you know I don't wash my hands Rook?! [Biased]

[ 09. June 2004, 16:36: Message edited by: philo25 ]

Posts: 246 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
RooK

1 of 6
# 1852

 - Posted      Profile for RooK   Author's homepage   Email RooK   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Washing won't get the proof-texting metaphysical filth off of you, oh mollusc-brained one.
Posts: 15274 | From: Portland, Oregon, USA, Earth | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Custard
Shipmate
# 5402

 - Posted      Profile for Custard   Author's homepage   Email Custard   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
How often do you study the genealogies in Chronicles

It took me quite a while to get into genealogies. They are a bit of an acquired taste, but there's some good stuff in them....

quote:

or the details of the new temple in Ezekiel?

read several times but not studied yet (done Jeremiah in detail but not Ezekiel). I will however endeavour to do so when I get there.

quote:

And what's your position on lending money at interest? A sin according to the Bible.

The folks at the Jubilee centre have done some interesting work on this.

Here and here are some thought provoking discussions on it from theological conservatives.

Custard

--------------------
blog
Adam's likeness, Lord, efface;
Stamp thine image in its place.


Posts: 4523 | From: Snot's Place | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Custard
Shipmate
# 5402

 - Posted      Profile for Custard   Author's homepage   Email Custard   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
Washing won't get the proof-texting metaphysical filth off of you, oh mollusc-brained one.

Isn't it good that the blood of Jesus does though!

Custard

--------------------
blog
Adam's likeness, Lord, efface;
Stamp thine image in its place.


Posts: 4523 | From: Snot's Place | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by philo25:
OK I'm starting to change my mind about Jensen, the more I hear about what's going on down there!

Show some spine, man! Don't give up now! The whole thing is a canard got up by some mentally unstable gay tat-merchants with minimal if any historic Christian belief in an attempt to sell off the property that rightfully should be used to advance the Gospel in the Diocese to fund Lesbian-friendly Community Centres for their politically-correct middle-class pseudo-intellectual cronies. Resist assimilation!

quote:

I guess even within Conservative Evangelicalism there are differences then.

Are there? Gosh. I never noticed.

--------------------
Ken

L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
RooK

1 of 6
# 1852

 - Posted      Profile for RooK   Author's homepage   Email RooK   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Custard123:
Isn't it good that the blood of Jesus does though!

If I were christian, would this be less amusingly gory sounding?

Buy new Soul-Kleen™, now with 25% real blood of Jesus!

Posts: 15274 | From: Portland, Oregon, USA, Earth | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Cod
Shipmate
# 2643

 - Posted      Profile for Cod     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Greetings Mr. Philo [Smile]

quote:
Originally posted by philo25:

]OK then Georgey, just for you I'll wear my thinking cap [Biased]

<snip>

Nonetheless I still stand by the fact that (imo) 'Liberal' theology is a greater problem for the church than Jensen. I believe it's Liberal theology that picks and chooses what scripture to accept and then that's how most of the arguments within Anglicanism and the wider Church arise, making the whole Church look quite unholy, and giving the impression we're rearranging the deck chairs on the titanic to many secular observers.


Liberal theology often gives the impression of picking and choosing and there's no question that some liberal theologians do. However 'liberal' theology in itself covers a broad range of flavours and therefore cannot be dismissed so quickly.

As for picking and choosing - what do you do when the overall scope of Scripture lends support to one view, but an individual text refutes this? The classic example is the problem of a God of love toasting people for eternity. A conservative evangelical will read on the level of the words only (and by doing so put a great deal of faith in whatever translation s/he uses). Others will do differently.

It has been pointed out that conservative evangelicals also pick and choose. Ken mentioned interest. Attitudes to divorce - long conceded as OK by many, contradicts Scripture. No approach to Scriptural application is without its problems.

quote:
Regarding Spong though, I'm not sure I understand what you mean, are you saying he was right since he put 'coexistance' above beleiving in God?


He is happy to coexist, although he certainly wants to make 'converts'. However he is not throwing his weight around as an Archbishop, neither, as I am aware, did he ban anyone from pulpits in his diocese. He is, by the way, banned from Sydney pulpits.

This is of extreme importance. We should not assume infallibility - we must always remain open to correction so that we may be able to gain a fuller understanding of whatever it is that we are trying to understand.

quote:
The main problem in the Church today must be the Christians, all of us. We are sinners and therefore stick to our guns alot of the time out of pride, and I'm just as guilty of this as anyone.


Totally agree (although I don't know you personally [Biased] )

quote:
At the same time though, has the Western Church ever been in more difficulties than it has now, barring perhaps the theological fight against gnosticism/arianism in the early centuries AD? I mean these days I think few Christians of any hue would agree with the gnostics/arianists etc, and yet I feel with the 'Liberal' position these days, these guys might well be accepted as just another branch of the Church. I'm sure someone would say 'live and let live' and find some random bits of scripture to back it up.


But such controversies were not resolved at the Ecumenical Councils simply by recourse to the Bible. The canon of Scripture itself was ratified at one of those Councils. Church tradition - itself influenced by more than a dab of Greek philosophy also played its part.

And I don't know that the Western Church is in its worst difficulties. It was, arguably, in worse shape 150 years ago when the pews were full.

We all take something to Scripture. This goes for you and I, the preacher in the pulpit, the bishop, the panel of translators. And we need some framework within which to understand Scripture if we are to make sense of it. The Printed Word is not God.

quote:
OK so Spong's positions are probably beyond the pale for even most 'Liberals' but this refusal to accept the word of God in its entirety (imho) is the biggest problem in the Church today. Just as when divided political parties tend to lose elections, I'm worried divisions created by Liberals (OK and Sydney when they refuse to alow evensong and give up Daily Office etc) are making it harder and harder to witness to the outside world.


Well, firstly, I think 'word of God' is the most misunderstood concept in Christian theology. Perhaps we should have a 'word of God Sunday' after Trinity Sunday! It does not refer to the New International Version. Or even the King James.

I agree that divisions hurt the Body of Christ and have a negative effect on our witness. But this cannot mean that vital questions must not be asked. The day the church believes that it has the Right Answer for All Time is the day the church is ruined. Such an attitude is unsustainable.
And I'd argue that the biggest turn-off for people from the Church is not that it lacks a unified voice - but that some of the myriad voices say the most absurd things - and a large proportion of them are from particular backgrounds. The solution is debate, discussion, exploration.. all sorts of things.

--------------------
"I fart in your general direction."
M Barnier

Posts: 4229 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Goldfish Stew
Shipmate
# 5512

 - Posted      Profile for Goldfish Stew   Email Goldfish Stew   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
How often do you study the genealogies in Chronicles...

Oh please don't. That's where we got The Prayer of Jabez from.

--------------------
.

Posts: 2405 | From: Aotearoa/New Zealand | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357

 - Posted      Profile for Justinian   Email Justinian   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Thanks Sir George Grey for saying what I was unable to without being excessively hellish even for hell. [Overused]

The only thing I would add is that by claiming they are the only ones taking all of scripture, certain conservatives are willfully blinding themselves (and how many of them worship and have their day of rest on the real Sabbath - i.e. Saturday?), which has the twin effects of proving themselves to be highly hypocritical and of putting the non-Christians off by such silly utterances (there are even two accounts of the Creation in Genesis- which do such people take?)

--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.

Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.

Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Ham'n'Eggs

Ship's Pig
# 629

 - Posted      Profile for Ham'n'Eggs   Email Ham'n'Eggs   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I am curious to know how many of those who allege that others are selective in their interpretation of Holy Scripture are rigorous in their observation of the book of Leviticus?

(Not to mention Deuteronomy 23 vs 12-13. Oh, and v.1, but that's only applicable to Pyx_e. )

--------------------
"...the heresies that men do leave / Are hated most of those they did deceive" - Will S


Posts: 3103 | From: Genghis Khan's sleep depot | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Sarkycow
La belle Dame sans merci
# 1012

 - Posted      Profile for Sarkycow   Email Sarkycow   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
quote:
Originally posted by Custard123:
Isn't it good that the blood of Jesus does though!

If I were christian, would this be less amusingly gory sounding?

Buy new Soul-Kleen™, now with 25% real blood of Jesus!

I'm wondering if it has to be Jesus' blood, or if it can be the blood of anyone with a messiah complex? See, I work with this woman, who regularly gets up on her cross, and I was thinking of a better use for her...

[Biased]

--------------------
“Just because your voice reaches halfway around the world doesn't mean you are wiser than when it reached only to the end of the bar.”

Posts: 10787 | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Louise
Shipmate
# 30

 - Posted      Profile for Louise   Email Louise   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ham'n'Eggs:
I am curious to know how many of those who allege that others are selective in their interpretation of Holy Scripture are rigorous in their observation of the book of Leviticus?

(Not to mention Deuteronomy 23 vs 12-13. Oh, and v.1, but that's only applicable to Pyx_e. )

I want to know how many war captives they've raped recently and if not, why not?

--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.

Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
FatMac

Ship's Macintosh
# 2914

 - Posted      Profile for FatMac   Author's homepage   Email FatMac   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by philo25:
I think few Christians of any hue would agree with the gnostics/arianists etc, and yet I feel with the 'Liberal' position these days, these guys might well be accepted as just another branch of the Church.

*Sigh* It's true. Deep down, I do want to accept Sydney Anglicans, even though they're Arian...


quote:
I feel your thinking raises many issues. What happens to the people who aren't Christian but lead 'good' lives? Do you think they'll go to heaven? I'm sure you'll disagree but I find Christianity to be pretty much of an either/or religion.
I'd be happt to continue this discussion with you, but perhaps it would be better on one of the 'Hell' threads in Purgatory or Dead Horses. (Or better still, if you read those threads you'll probably find that I or others have already laid out my view and you can just ask any clarifying questions.)

--------------------
Do not beware the slippery slope - it is where faith resides.
Do not avoid the grey areas - they are where God works.

Posts: 1706 | From: Sydney | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Custard
Shipmate
# 5402

 - Posted      Profile for Custard   Author's homepage   Email Custard   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ham'n'Eggs:
I am curious to know how many of those who allege that others are selective in their interpretation of Holy Scripture are rigorous in their observation of the book of Leviticus?

(Not to mention Deuteronomy 23 vs 12-13. Oh, and v.1, but that's only applicable to Pyx_e. )

Interpret Scripture in the light of Scripture. That includes where something appears in the scheme of Biblical theology.

So, for example, a lot of the OT laws are referring to a time when God's people were a nation and were being taught the value of such categories as clean, unclean, etc, which then help us understand better what Jesus did, how holy God is and how little he tolerates sin among his people, etc.

All the sacrifices (as explained in Hebrews) are eseentially acted out pictures to help us understand what Jesus was going to do. Pretty similar with the genealogies actually.

Custard

--------------------
blog
Adam's likeness, Lord, efface;
Stamp thine image in its place.


Posts: 4523 | From: Snot's Place | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Charles Read
Shipmate
# 3963

 - Posted      Profile for Charles Read   Author's homepage   Email Charles Read   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Congratulations Custard. You win the Olga Korbut prize for hermeneutical gynmastics.

--------------------
"I am a sinful human being - why do you expect me to be consistent?" George Bebawi

"This is just unfocussed wittering." Ian McIntosh

Posts: 701 | From: Norwich | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Ham'n'Eggs

Ship's Pig
# 629

 - Posted      Profile for Ham'n'Eggs   Email Ham'n'Eggs   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Custard123:
quote:
Originally posted by Ham'n'Eggs:
I am curious to know how many of those who allege that others are selective in their interpretation of Holy Scripture are rigorous in their observation of the book of Leviticus?

(Not to mention Deuteronomy 23 vs 12-13. Oh, and v.1, but that's only applicable to Pyx_e. )

Interpret Scripture in the light of Scripture.
In other words, select what bits of the Bible you feel to be applicable on the basis of your particular interpretation of another part of Scripture. How is this different from what those of a more liberal persuasion stand accused of?

quote:
That includes where something appears in the scheme of Biblical theology.

ROTFLMAO!

Please point me to an authoritive definition of "the scheme of Biblical theology".

--------------------
"...the heresies that men do leave / Are hated most of those they did deceive" - Will S


Posts: 3103 | From: Genghis Khan's sleep depot | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Wood
The Milkman of Human Kindness
# 7

 - Posted      Profile for Wood   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Hands up everyone who uses Romans 1-13 as their hermeneutical urtext?

--------------------
Narcissism.

Posts: 7842 | From: Wood Towers | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Custard
Shipmate
# 5402

 - Posted      Profile for Custard   Author's homepage   Email Custard   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ham'n'Eggs:
In other words, select what bits of the Bible you feel to be applicable on the basis of your particular interpretation of another part of Scripture. How is this different from what those of a more liberal persuasion stand accused of?

The fact that we claim that scripture as a whole has a meaning, which can be reached.

The Bible is pretty good at setting the parameters for understanding a passage. For example, every use of the word "sacrifice" carries with it the weight of all the other uses of it. So when you are studying a passage which uses that word, you need to understand the other passages.

Of course that's circular, though spiral would be a better way of putting it. So from studying one passage, I gain more insight into the other passages, and then by studying the other passages again I come to a better understanding of the first. What we try hard not to do (with varying degrees of success) is to introduce our own prejudices into understanding the passage.

So if there are a lot of passages saying, for example, that people who reject Jesus go to hell, then we'd incorporate that into our understanding of the Bible as a whole rather than saying "I don't believe God would do that because he is love." Instead, we'd be more likely to say "OK, so God is love and he sends people to hell. How does that work then?"

quote:
ROTFLMAO!

Please point me to an authoritive definition of "the scheme of Biblical theology".

Ooh - pork rump...

Perhaps "salvation history" or "general context" would have been a better phrase. i.e.

* Had Jesus come by the time this was written (and hence is the passage anticipating him or not)?
* What was the status of the Jews at the time? (were they in exile, just in the promised land)
* How is the larger context pointing to Jesus (e.g. prophets / priests / kings, etc)

Custard

--------------------
blog
Adam's likeness, Lord, efface;
Stamp thine image in its place.


Posts: 4523 | From: Snot's Place | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Saviour Tortoise
Shipmate
# 4660

 - Posted      Profile for Saviour Tortoise   Author's homepage   Email Saviour Tortoise   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by philo25:

Originally posted by philo25:
IMO, it's pretty difficult to read the Bible and not understand from it that people who have not accepted Jesus as their Lord and Saviour will go to Hell, (or that prior to Jesus's coming to Earth, those who rejected God's word and did not trust that their messiah would come)

Tostoise's reply..

And yet very, very many Christians read the bible and don't draw that conclusion. How odd. Maybe it isn't that difficult after all...

quote:

OK, that's enough coming over all 'purgotorial' now I'll be 'hellish' - You appear to be reading it wrong then Tortoise!


Well, I'm in good company with my "wrong" reading so I'll not worry about it too much if it's all the same to you.

To be clear: I'm not saying Hell is empty. I believe in judgement. I believe some people will spend an eternity separated from God. I feel the utmost pity and compassion for those people.

I'm saying that the infinite love and mercy of our God may mean that there are people in heaven who you will be very surprised to meet. I , however, shall be expecting the unexpected. You seem to believe you have the ability to discern who gets in and who doesn't though some poor half-arsed understanding of God derived from a literal reading of some specific bits of the bible. That, it seems to me to be arrogant, self righteous bullshit. I at least acknowledge that my understanding of the mysterious ways of the ever-loving, ever-living God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, may be a little bit more complicated than my tiny human brain can cope with.

--------------------
Baptised not Lobotomised

Posts: 745 | From: Bath, UK | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76

 - Posted      Profile for Karl: Liberal Backslider   Author's homepage   Email Karl: Liberal Backslider   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
So if there are a lot of passages saying, for example, that people who reject Jesus go to hell, then we'd incorporate that into our understanding of the Bible as a whole rather than saying "I don't believe God would do that because he is love." Instead, we'd be more likely to say "OK, so God is love and he sends people to hell. How does that work then?
It doesn't. Hence the two Purg "What if I'm right?" threads.

--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.

Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Arrietty

Ship's borrower
# 45

 - Posted      Profile for Arrietty   Author's homepage   Email Arrietty   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Custard123:
Of course that's circular, though spiral would be a better way of putting it.

No, 'circular' is just fine. [brick wall]

--------------------
i-church

Online Mission and Ministry

Posts: 6634 | From: Coventry, UK | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Charles Read
Shipmate
# 3963

 - Posted      Profile for Charles Read   Author's homepage   Email Charles Read   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Custard poured out the following:
quote:
The fact that we claim that scripture as a whole has a meaning, which can be reached.

The Bible is pretty good at setting the parameters for understanding a passage. For example, every use of the word "sacrifice" carries with it the weight of all the other uses of it. So when you are studying a passage which uses that word, you need to understand the other passages.

Nope.

This assumes that whenever a word occurs in the Bible it means the same as it does everywhere else in the Bible. Patently not true - classic example is that Paul and James use 'faith' and 'works' in different ways, so a 'surface reading' of them makes them contradict each other - Luther fell into this trap.

Whereas words have meaning only in context. Anthony Thiselton - a noted evangelical scholar please note - has laboured this point to get it into the skulls of fellow evangelicals.

What's thos got to do with Sydney and the OP? Well one reason us non-Sydney evos have a problem with Sydney is that they tend to use the kind of hermeneutic which Custard outlines above and which I've just demolished (IMHO) - which hermeneutic actually ends up flattening scripture and making it harder actually to engage with the Bible. It reduces the Scriptures to a self-assembly guide book.

--------------------
"I am a sinful human being - why do you expect me to be consistent?" George Bebawi

"This is just unfocussed wittering." Ian McIntosh

Posts: 701 | From: Norwich | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Charles Read
Shipmate
# 3963

 - Posted      Profile for Charles Read   Author's homepage   Email Charles Read   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Custard poured out the following:
quote:
The fact that we claim that scripture as a whole has a meaning, which can be reached.

The Bible is pretty good at setting the parameters for understanding a passage. For example, every use of the word "sacrifice" carries with it the weight of all the other uses of it. So when you are studying a passage which uses that word, you need to understand the other passages.

Nope.

This assumes that whenever a word occurs in the Bible it means the same as it does everywhere else in the Bible. Patently not true - classic example is that Paul and James use 'faith' and 'works' in different ways, so a 'surface reading' of them makes them contradict each other - Luther fell into this trap.

Whereas words have meaning only in context. Anthony Thiselton - a noted evangelical scholar please note - has laboured this point to get it into the skulls of fellow evangelicals.

What's this got to do with Sydney and the OP? Well one reason us non-Sydney evos have a problem with Sydney is that they (Sydney) tend to use the kind of hermeneutic which Custard outlines above and which I've just demolished (IMHO) - which hermeneutic actually ends up flattening scripture and making it harder actually to engage with the Bible. It reduces the Scriptures to a self-assembly guide book.

--------------------
"I am a sinful human being - why do you expect me to be consistent?" George Bebawi

"This is just unfocussed wittering." Ian McIntosh

Posts: 701 | From: Norwich | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Ham'n'Eggs

Ship's Pig
# 629

 - Posted      Profile for Ham'n'Eggs   Email Ham'n'Eggs   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Custard123:
quote:
Originally posted by Ham'n'Eggs:
In other words, select what bits of the Bible you feel to be applicable on the basis of your particular interpretation of another part of Scripture. How is this different from what those of a more liberal persuasion stand accused of?

The fact that we claim that scripture as a whole has a meaning, which can be reached.
Utter bollocks. So do the liberals. So does virtually evey strand of Christianity.

Piss off, and spend some time finding out what those of different traditions actually believe, instead of the ignorant and libellous nonsense that I will wager is spouted from the pulpit of your local conventicle.

--------------------
"...the heresies that men do leave / Are hated most of those they did deceive" - Will S


Posts: 3103 | From: Genghis Khan's sleep depot | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76

 - Posted      Profile for Karl: Liberal Backslider   Author's homepage   Email Karl: Liberal Backslider   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Charles Read:
Custard poured out the following:
quote:
The fact that we claim that scripture as a whole has a meaning, which can be reached.

The Bible is pretty good at setting the parameters for understanding a passage. For example, every use of the word "sacrifice" carries with it the weight of all the other uses of it. So when you are studying a passage which uses that word, you need to understand the other passages.

Nope.

This assumes that whenever a word occurs in the Bible it means the same as it does everywhere else in the Bible. Patently not true - classic example is that Paul and James use 'faith' and 'works' in different ways, so a 'surface reading' of them makes them contradict each other - Luther fell into this trap.

Whereas words have meaning only in context. Anthony Thiselton - a noted evangelical scholar please note - has laboured this point to get it into the skulls of fellow evangelicals.


My favourite example of this is the use of John 1 to prove that the Bible and Jesus are actually the same thing.

I kid you not.

--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.

Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Charles Read
Shipmate
# 3963

 - Posted      Profile for Charles Read   Author's homepage   Email Charles Read   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
My favourite example of this is the use of John 1 to prove that the Bible and Jesus are actually the same thing.

[brick wall] [Roll Eyes]

[Charles reaches for gin bottle even though it's only lunchtime]

--------------------
"I am a sinful human being - why do you expect me to be consistent?" George Bebawi

"This is just unfocussed wittering." Ian McIntosh

Posts: 701 | From: Norwich | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Leprechaun

Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408

 - Posted      Profile for Leprechaun     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Charles Read:
Custard poured out the following:
quote:
The fact that we claim that scripture as a whole has a meaning, which can be reached.

The Bible is pretty good at setting the parameters for understanding a passage. For example, every use of the word "sacrifice" carries with it the weight of all the other uses of it. So when you are studying a passage which uses that word, you need to understand the other passages.

Nope.

This assumes that whenever a word occurs in the Bible it means the same as it does everywhere else in the Bible.

I really didn't want to get involved in this thread again. But this isn't the case. All it means is that we use the other uses of the word to inform the meaning of the word there in context. The other uses of the word (especially in that book/epistle) will particularly inform the meaning in that place. Its added evidence, but secondary to context. I don't think I have ever encountered any evangelical arguing that the same word means the same thing in the same way every time it is used.
quote:

Whereas words have meaning only in context. Anthony Thiselton - a noted evangelical scholar please note - has laboured this point to get it into the skulls of fellow evangelicals.


The other person I have heard effectively slate the "word groups" way of doing theology, and elevating the importance of context, is Don Carson, who, while not a Sydney evangelical, is certainly on the conservative side of things. I'm not sure who in these circles does hold to the view that you have effectively demolished.
Notably, Thiselton has not been at all unhappy about sharing a platform with Peter Jensen in the past.

[ 10. June 2004, 11:53: Message edited by: Leprechaun ]

Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
The other person I have heard effectively slate the "word groups" way of doing theology, and elevating the importance of context, is Don Carson, who, while not a Sydney evangelical, is certainly on the conservative side of things. I'm not sure who in these circles does hold to the view that you have effectively demolished.
Notably, Thiselton has not been at all unhappy about sharing a platform with Peter Jensen in the past.

Carson apparently preaches in both English and French. And discovered very early on in his career that there are some profftexts that he could get meaning out of in English - but not in French. And vice versa. So some of the commonly used interpretations simply didn't work - they were using the translation instead of the Bible. theologian and Bible translator - only to ta

--------------------
Ken

L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Sir George Grey.:
It has been pointed out that conservative evangelicals also pick and choose. Ken mentioned interest. Attitudes to divorce - long conceded as OK by many, contradicts Scripture.

Only if the divorced person is a bishop. Otherwise you have to assume that Mathhew's gospel is wrong.

--------------------
Ken

L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ham'n'Eggs:
I am curious to know how many of those who allege that others are selective in their interpretation of Holy Scripture are rigorous in their observation of the book of Leviticus?

I am of course. If I should ever find myself to have mysteriously become a Jew then I would have to stop wearting clothes made from two different cloths, and give up my habit of boiling kids in their mother's milk. And if then God should re-establish sacrifical temple worship I'd have to be sure to follow all the rules of that as well.

But as things are, would it not be presumptious of me, a Gentile, to act as if I was within God's Covenant with Israel, when in fact I am not?

--------------------
Ken

L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Charles Read
Shipmate
# 3963

 - Posted      Profile for Charles Read   Author's homepage   Email Charles Read   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Notably, Thiselton has not been at all unhappy about sharing a platform with Peter Jensen in the past.
Yes - they shared a platform at NEAC last September and contradicted each other.

--------------------
"I am a sinful human being - why do you expect me to be consistent?" George Bebawi

"This is just unfocussed wittering." Ian McIntosh

Posts: 701 | From: Norwich | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Ham'n'Eggs

Ship's Pig
# 629

 - Posted      Profile for Ham'n'Eggs   Email Ham'n'Eggs   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:

But as things are, would it not be presumptious of me, a Gentile, to act as if I was within God's Covenant with Israel, when in fact I am not?

In your opinion, perhaps. I am aware of a number of evangelicals who believe that Christians are included within this covenant, and would hold that Leviticus is applicable unless directly negated elsewhere in Scripture.

--------------------
"...the heresies that men do leave / Are hated most of those they did deceive" - Will S


Posts: 3103 | From: Genghis Khan's sleep depot | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Sean D
Cheery barman
# 2271

 - Posted      Profile for Sean D   Author's homepage   Email Sean D   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
I really didn't want to get involved in this thread again. But this isn't the case. All it means is that we use the other uses of the word to inform the meaning of the word there in context.

I think you and Charles are both right/wrong. There is a perfectly legitimate point that many of the NT writers might well have had particular OT contexts, meanings and concepts in mind when they used particular words. Personally I think a good example of this is the term "hilasterion" in Romans 3. One then needs to think, argue and carefully work out if this really is the case, but of course one can't assume it. This is what many evos do.

But some take it much, much further - even if Lep hasn't met them. They think that because the Bible = dictated by God it really is consistent in its meaning for different terms. So, for example, justification and the whole related word group always means pretty much the same thing*. Another example is the God Hates Fags brigade - who are hardly mainstream, but they really do this crap.

* Actually, I have heard Carson argue this precise point.

--------------------
postpostevangelical
http://www.stmellitus.org/

Posts: 2126 | From: North and South Kensington | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
Leprechaun

Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408

 - Posted      Profile for Leprechaun     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Seán D:


* Actually, I have heard Carson argue this precise point.

I have too, but on the argument that from the context the word group can always be seen to mean the same thing, (in Pauline writings alone I think when I heard him speak) rather than they must always mean the same thing because the same word is used.
I've also just read the 2 addresses from NEAC (busy day the the office) and couldn't find where they contradicted each other. But I'm probably just not theologically astute enough.

Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Sean D
Cheery barman
# 2271

 - Posted      Profile for Sean D   Author's homepage   Email Sean D   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
quote:
Originally posted by Seán D:


* Actually, I have heard Carson argue this precise point.

I have too, but on the argument that from the context the word group can always be seen to mean the same thing, (in Pauline writings alone I think when I heard him speak) rather than they must always mean the same thing because the same word is used.
That's fair. I withdraw my aside. I wonder if we heard him say this in the same context or whether he makes this argument a lot?!

--------------------
postpostevangelical
http://www.stmellitus.org/

Posts: 2126 | From: North and South Kensington | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools