|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Kingdom not of this world?
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Doc Tor;
quote:
Of course the church is affected by that shift. The naivety is firstly, believing that the Anabaptists haven't, and are somehow free of error.
I am certainly not saying Anabaptists are free of error; but errors are a bit easier to correct when one only has to correct the error and not also, as seems to be the case with some, find a form of words to correct the error without admitting a fault in the capital-T Tradition mechanism that gives the church questionable authority.
If 'Not having a capital-T Tradition' is not itself a capital-T Tradition, I'd like to know what the heck is.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Doc Tor;
quote:
It may be that Anabaptists decide it's okay now to vote. That doesn't mean the rest of us who have been voting all along ought to have been waiting for your permission.
Which rather raises the issue - whose permission really does matter?
Sioni Sais;
The point about 'capital-T Tradition' is that it is a Tradition that is outwith Scripture and can therefore potentially, like the traditions of the Pharisees which Jesus condemned, have the effect of 'making void the word of God'. To obey the word of God, to regard it as useful for reproof, correction, etc., including the correction of human Traditions, is a very different matter.
Mousethief;
I have no problem with the Church being the pillar and ground of truth. But I still have that question - the Church as redefined by Theodosius for the benefit of his worldly empire; can that mixum-gatherum be the Church in that sense?
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Sioni Sais;
The point about 'capital-T Tradition' is that it is a Tradition that is outwith Scripture and can therefore potentially, like the traditions of the Pharisees which Jesus condemned, have the effect of 'making void the word of God'. To obey the word of God, to regard it as useful for reproof, correction, etc., including the correction of human Traditions, is a very different matter.
Yours is still a Tradition, and how can one pretend it is anything else? After all, the Pharisees used scripture and the established churches do so to this day, and that is the basis of their Traditions. Quite how their use and that of the Anabaptists differ remains a mystery to me.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Sioni Sais;
quote:
Yours is still a Tradition, and how can one pretend it is anything else?
I'm not now sure exactly where it originated - I think it came from discussions with Gamaliel - but a fair number of us here on the Ship have been using the concepts of 'small-t' and 'big-T' t/Tradition to make a distinction between two ways of viewing 'traditions' in general. The point is that Anabaptists, like classic Protestants back to Luther/Wycliffe/etc, view Scripture, the Word of God, as having the ultimate authority in the Church.
In this concept, yes churches will develop new ideas and practices from time to time; but these developments are always supposed to be subject to 'reproof and correction' by the Scripture, so that the church remains in line with the original foundation teaching.
Some church bodies, particularly the RCs and the Orthodox, seem to claim a different kind of situation, which effectively gives the ongoing Church Tradition authority over and above Scripture. The RC Church 'Magisterium' concept is an example of such 'capital-T Tradition'. In theory, this Tradition is not supposed to contradict Scripture; in practice...??
quote:
After all, the Pharisees used scripture
I think Jesus might have said they misused it... or at least that they had built upon the Scripture a mass of added 'Tradition' that was in the end unhelpful and undermined the original intention.
I'm still trying to get back to John 18 etc.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
If 'Not having a capital-T Tradition' is not itself a capital-T Tradition, I'd like to know what the heck is.
Quotes file.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
The point is that Anabaptists, like classic Protestants back to Luther/Wycliffe/etc, view Scripture, the Word of God, as having the ultimate authority in the Church.
In this concept, yes churches will develop new ideas and practices from time to time; but these developments are always supposed to be subject to 'reproof and correction' by the Scripture, so that the church remains in line with the original foundation teaching.
But here's the issue you keep skirting: Scripture as interpreted how? As interpreted by whom? Using what guidelines? That is your capital-T Tradition. That is what you fail to see or acknowledge. Scripture is plainly not self-interpreting, or everybody who interprets it would come to the same conclusion. Or perhaps you believe it is self-interpreting, and the fact that others don't come to the Anabaptist interpretation is proof to you that they are interpreting in bad faith. That would explain 99% of this thread, actually. (and 80% of reconstructionist claims)
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
You can't make a distinction between Tradition and tradition as some seem to do. For a start, where does one end and the other begin? You just can't do it, which is why the seventh ecumenical council says "If anyone rejects any written or unwritten tradition of the church, let him be anathema".
And yet again Steve has shown that he has no idea what tradition is. It is not something separate from or adjacent to the scriptures. Tradition is merely the scriptures properly understood, the life of the Holy Spirit in the Church as seen in the ancient liturgies, the holy councils and the fathers, and in the lives of the saints. Outside of the context of the Church the scriptures cannot be understood properly.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
You can't make a distinction between Tradition and tradition as some seem to do. For a start, where does one end and the other begin? You just can't do it, which is why the seventh ecumenical council says "If anyone rejects any written or unwritten tradition of the church, let him be anathema".
This is risible.
Tradition, as expressed in ecumenical councils and elsewhere, can be immensely valuable, and we are all indebted to it whether we realize it or not,( as an evangelical I am very grateful for the theological and christological work put in by the councils from Nicaea to Chalcedon) but it must always be tested by Scripture.
In the famous words of Luther (a man who certainly didn’t dismiss tradition lightly) “councils.. have often erred and contradicted themselves” and must therefore be subordinate to the “testimony of Scripture”.
To say that there are differences in interpretations of Scripture does not mean that appeal to Scripture is useless, while suggesting that this challenge of interpretation can be solved by appealing to tradition is ludicrous, since there are many traditions, and even ecclesiastical regimes which make special claims to antiquity and the authority of tradition, such as the Roman Catholic and Orthodox, differ from one another.
The distinction between capital-t Tradition, which ranges from the toxic to the harmless (everything from indulgences to icons), and small-t tradition which embodies biblical truth, is not only useful, but essential and unavoidable.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
Bollocks! You make the same the mistake as Steve, that scripture is somehow self explanatory. It isn't. As I said earlier, tradition is nothing more than scripture properly understood, it is not something separate from it.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
You can't make a distinction between Tradition and tradition as some seem to do. For a start, where does one end and the other begin?
Meh. Big-T tradition has to do with rightly dividing the word of truth. Small-t tradition has to do with whether you break the fast with avgolimono soup or bacon-wrapped dates, or do vesperal liturgies in the morning or in the evening, or go to confession every time you take communion, or only at certain times through the year. Or to put it more succinctly, small-t traditions are things that don't matter if we do them differently. Big-T traditions do.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
Like Kaplan Corday and Steve Langton, I'd seek to draw a distinction between 'Tradition' and 'tradition'. I think SL had it right when he said:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
...errors are a bit easier to correct when one only has to correct the error and not also, as seems to be the case with some, find a form of words to correct the error without admitting a fault in the capital-T Tradition mechanism that gives the church questionable authority.
Take an extreme case of 'Tradition' - the Jehovah's Witnesses. AIUI, they view themselves as 'God's chosen channel of communication', making the admission of outright error pretty much impossible. So, as SL put it, whenever a position is changed (or when, in the earlier days of the movement, various prophecies of the end of the world didn't come to pass) a form of words had to be found that avoided any implication of error on the part of the church's hierarchy.
I think it must be a great deal easier for a denomination to change its teaching and doctrinal position when it doesn't consider itself to be God's specially chosen institution in any sense. When it just sees itself as one of many bodies that are trying their best to follow God's guidance and direction.
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
I always thought Tradition was made up by men in robes, while tradition is put together by ordinary people.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Bollocks! You make the same the mistake as Steve, that scripture is somehow self explanatory. It isn't. As I said earlier, tradition is nothing more than scripture properly understood, it is not something separate from it.
This is a very confused response.
For start, far from claiming that Scripture is "self-explanatory", I made a point of acknowledging that its exegesis can be a challenge.
Secondly, "properly understood" by whom, and according to what criteria?
And thirdly, various traditions are "separate from" Scripture to the extent that Scripture contains no direct reference to them whatsoever.
[ 27. December 2014, 03:20: Message edited by: Kaplan Corday ]
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
All of this is a tangent to the crucial question being put to Steve Langton.
Steve appears to claim that Scripture is self-evident and that his interpretation is the self-evident one, uncoloured by tradition with T large or small and unsullied by the established Church. He has so far managed to dodge having to provide support for this claim.
He would like to have us believe that he does not stand in any interpretive tradition, but that he merely finds himself fortuitously aligned with one by virtue of reading the Bible properly (unlike those not of like mind).
I have got to the place where, while I seek not to place Scripture above tradition, have to acknowledge the role tradition and the estalished Church have played in passing Scripture on to us, and the influences of historical tradition on my reading.
The equivalent for Steve Langton might be, for instance, to admit that figures like Menno Simons, whose complete works he owns, represent an authoritative (albeit not infallible) viewpoint, or to admit that the sexual failings of John Howard Yoder are a real problem because of the challenge they represent to the integrity of the tradition in which he stands.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Steve appears to claim that Scripture is self-evident and that his interpretation is the self-evident one, uncoloured by tradition.
Even if that were possible (which it isn't), none of us ever approaches any text, whether it be the Bible or Enid Blyton, in an entirely objective manner. All of us have been shaped by all kinds of influences and have developed preconceptions, mostly unconscious ones, before we ever begin reading.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
Indeed. That's what I'd like to see him acknowledge. From that might follow a smidgen of acknowledgement that his hermeneutic (which remains almost entirely obscure) is one among multiple possibilities.
Reading this account of John Yoder's abuses reminds me irresistibly of those of Chris Brain of the Nine O'Clock Service (and again offers echoes of Münster). Which reinforces my conviction that thinking you've got your theology right is no recipe for holiness and indeed, can be a recipe for disaster.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Eutychus;
quote:
Steve appears to claim that Scripture is self-evident and that his interpretation is the self-evident one, uncoloured by tradition with T large or small and unsullied by the established Church. He has so far managed to dodge having to provide support for this claim.
He would like to have us believe that he does not stand in any interpretive tradition, but that he merely finds himself fortuitously aligned with one by virtue of reading the Bible properly (unlike those not of like mind).
Exaggerated, a bit....
If you saw my bookshelves, and these days the contents of my Kindle as well, you'd know that I am very far from disregarding the nearly-2000 years of interpretation - and church history - since the NT was written.
I always considered myself to be following basic Protestant/Reformed principles of Bible interpretation, as do most Anabaptists. No obscure hermeneutics. I've previously quoted Tyndale on how literally the Bible is to be taken, pointing out that the 'literal sense' of medieval scholarship's 'four-fold sense' reading is primary; but also that in that interpretation 'literal' did not mean what we might call 'dumb wooden literal' but meant essentially reading the Scriptures like an ordinary book with due allowance for figures of speech, genre, and other literary artifices. As the Scriptures are not flat but do vary in genre there isn't a single universal way to read all of it - history, poetry, prophecy or whatever each need to be read in an appropriate way.
Believing it is God's word also means interpreting consistently between the various writings. Insofar as there is a distinctive Anabaptist 'hermeneutic' it is probably that more stress is placed on the NT and it is understood that the NT supersedes the OT - not by contradiction, but by fulfillment.
The historic understanding here is that because the Reformation took place in a 'Christendom' context, the theology of 'Christendom/the Christian country' was largely assumed by Protestants and went unchallenged while the various Protestant groups settled out from the Reformation stir-up. For example, the likes of Elizabeth I in England were not likely to consider accepting the plurality of belief in society which the NT teaches. Some of the Reformers are known to have considered going further but drew back; the Anabaptists also considered, realised that the Protestant principle of putting the Scripture first required going further in that area, and went there.
As has been more than adequately ventilated Shipboard already, groups called 'Anabaptist' at that time were not all exactly like the modern Anabaptists - the Munsterites did, in Christendom terms 'rebaptise', but had an essentially 'Constantinian' notion of setting up a 'kingdom of this world' for Jesus, which of course showed many of the problems of Christendom itself - like warfare....
Unfortunately, I can't reasonably comment on the John Howard Yoder affair; it is currently being investigated by a panel set up for the purpose and is in effect 'sub judice' in Anabaptist circles. I feel that also makes it inappropriate for Shipboard discussion for the time being until that enquiry reports (though I don't think there is any legal danger to the Ship if people want to discuss it - but I won't be engaging with it if they do).
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
We could get bogged down in a clash here between the Orthodox view of Tradition - as espoused by Ad Orientem - and the 'radical' (or conservative more like) Protestant view of 'extra-biblical' tradition/Tradition as challenged here by Kaplan.
There may well be some merit in having that discussion, but here I think it's somewhat tangential to the issue -- because what whatever tradition we belong to, there is a tradition to which we belong.
SL doesn't seem to acknowledge this fact. He doesn't appear to recognise that his views are as much part of a tradition as anyone else's here on this thread - be it Kaplan, Eutychus, Sioni, South Coast Kevin Baptist Trainfan, myself or any of the other Protestant posters here - or Mousethief and Ad Orientem as representatives of Orthodoxy - or any RC posters that they may have been.
Eutychus and Baptist Trainfan have nailed it.
There is no possible way we can approach the scriptures at all except through the application of some kind of interpretative framework.
Sure, we may well believe, as Ad Orientem does within his interpretative framework, and as Steve Langton does within his, that ours is the correct one. What we can't say is that ours isn't a tradition at all nor that we aren't using some kind of interpretative framework.
That's just daft.
Even if we are the most Sola Scriptura types that have ever lived, we are still approaching the scriptures through an interpretative framework - in this case a Sola Scriptura one -- which all too easily becomes a Sola Scriptura one - or an imagined position of that kind.
Nobody, but nobody comes to the scriptures ALONE.
We all approach them in a particular context and we all bring our cultural presuppositions, our experiences, traditions, backgrounds and all sorts of other influences to bear.
How can it possibly be otherwise?
And what's wrong with acknowledging that we do so?
That doesn't in any way lessen the importance or the power of the scriptures themselves.
The older I get, the more I agree with the kind of position that Eutychus has adopted here - and the more I appreciate that scripture doesn't 'stand alone' in the way that many evangelical Christians fondly imagine that it is does.
That doesn't make me any less 'Biblicist' - if anything, I'd suggest that such a position is more fully Biblicist as it moves away from the kind of reductionist and overly simplistic approaches that pass for exegesis in some quarters.
I can see what Sola Scriptura is trying to assert and defend - but I'm not convinced that it is a tenable position - at least if understood in the more populist and reductionist way that some appear to apply it.
The Jews were never 'sola scriptura' types. The concept would have been completely alien to them.
It's an understandable sound-bite rallying call adopted by the 16th century Reformers in order to rail against the extra-biblical panoply of penances, indulgences and so-on and so forth that flourished in late-medieval Roman Catholicism.
As far as a convenient label or slogan goes, it does it's job.
As an approach to interpreting scripture - whatever it's merits and demerits - it is simply one of a range of approaches - it represents another tradition that sets itself against Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy. It is ITSELF a tradition.
The problem is, it isn't a water-tight approach as what it effectively boils down to is 'Sola my interpretation of scripture' rather than 'Sola scriptura'.
The ultimate umpire isn't scripture itself, in this approach, but one's own intepretation of scripture.
That's why, along with Eutychus, I am increasingly of the view that the scriptures are best interpreted in community. We interpret them not as individuals in our own right, but as individuals who are part of the wider community of faith - or the wider Christian tradition as a whole.
Kaplan Corday is aware of that - even though he espouses what might be called a 'radical reformation' approach.
The mileage varies, but what none of us can do is point to the scriptures as though we were the first to read or interpret them -- that was where the US 'restorationists' went wrong.
We all of us stand on the shoulders of giants. We all of us interpret the scriptures through a received tradition.
There is no way around that. Nor should there be.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Where does the NT 'teach the plurality of belief in society'?
There was plurality of belief in the 1st century because the Roman Empire, at that time, tended to tolerate all manner of religions - provided they weren't too much of a threat to the status-quo.
Judaism was regarded with suspicion, but was tolerated and even admired in some circles - hence the reference to Gentile proselytes we find in the NT.
Christianity later became suspect because Christians refused to worship the Caesars as gods.
I would imagine that all of us here would believe that plurality of belief in society is a good thing - but I doubt if we'd be able to 'proof-text' or supply water-tight chapter-and-verse to support this assertion.
That's not how this stuff works.
The NT doesn't have any more to say about 'plurality of belief in society' than it does about nuclear physics, the kind of coinage that should apply or whether we should eat muesli or bacon and egg for breakfast.
Amidst all the cut and thrust about tradition and Tradition, I'm still waiting for Steve Langton to answer South Coast Kevin's question/s about how an Anabaptist approach should 'look' and what positive things it brings to the party that none of the other groups are bringing to the table.
Sure, I can see the pacifism thing and the emphasis on having 'gathered' and 'intentional' communities - but these aspects are not the sole preserve of Anabaptists, of course.
As I've said over and over, we are all heading in the direction of 'intentionality' in a post-Christendom - and increasingly post-Christian - context.
What I'm struggling to see is how Steve Langton's vision plays out on the ground - in a way that doesn't become isolationist or overly Pharisaical and pernickety - too heavenly minded to be of any earthly good.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Gamaliel;
quote:
The NT doesn't have any more to say about 'plurality of belief in society' than it does about nuclear physics, the kind of coinage that should apply or whether we should eat muesli or bacon and egg for breakfast.
Just all the stuff about the nature of the Church and of Christian faith. John 18 for one, John 1; 12-13 for another... many, many more....
by Gamaliel;
quote:
That's why, along with Eutychus, I am increasingly of the view that the scriptures are best interpreted in community.
That is also the basic Anabaptist view - but of course the community of the Church, NOT the community of an 'Everyone here is a Christian' Constantinian state....
Does it help if I say that my aim in interpreting is that ideally the end result is not "because I say so..." but rather "Look, you can see for yourself..."
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
For the billionth time, Steve Langton, no-one here as far as I can see is advocating a 'Everyone here is a Christian: Constantinian State' position.'
It's a straw-man.
But if it helps you to divide the world into neat, clear-cut, cut-and-dried, Painting By Numbers categories then who am I to stand in your way ...
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
You still haven't answered South Coast Kevin's question.
All you've down is throw out a few scriptural references and say, 'There you go, look at that ...' as if nobody has read these scriptural references before or as if everyone else is innured to their true meaning and implications apart from a bunch of Anabaptists somewhere ...
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
You're beginning to remind me of UKIP. They are known for what they are against - the European Union - rather than what they are FOR.
What does 'UK independence' mean in practice? What differences would it make to the way the railways are run, the way the bins are collected, the way housing policies are determined?
We've heard you out on John 18 and there are posters here who don't arrive at the same conclusions from that chapter as you do.
I'm still waiting for you to elucidate what any of this means in practice. Instead, all I'm seeing is some pietistic palm-waving and generalities.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
At any rate, last time I looked, South Coast Kevin, Eutychus and others here who are trying to pin you down to something more definite than pietistic generalities have impeccable credentials on the 'born again' side of things ... if 'born again' (or 'born from above' is to be interpreted in the way you are interpreting it, that is) ...
And yet, they too (as well as myself and I can 'own' and cite all the 'new birth' scriptures just as well as you or they can) are all waiting for you to elucidate some practicalities and specifics.
So far, all we've seen are criticisms of the CofE for not Disestablishing itself in they way you think it should and of anyone and anything pertaining to the so-called 'Constantinian' or 'Theodosian' or whatever-else 'ian' (Christian, perhaps?) churches that you disapprove of so much.
What we haven't seen is any evidence of a positive manifesto - simply pietistic platitudes about avoiding politics (as if this were even possible), and not being as 'worldly' as other people apparently are.
In other words, Pharisaisism.
Prove us wrong.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
It's like trying to explain water to a fish.
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
'In Him we live and move and have our being,' eh?
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Or what the Scotsman (a 'True' one?) said, 'It's better felt than tell't.'
I can see what you are getting at - but I'm not the only one here who would like to see some 'cataphatic' statements and examples from Steve - rather than 'apophatic' or arguments from the negative as it were ...
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Surely, after a billion pages and 1,876.003 diatribes against 'Constantianism' and 'neo-Constantinianism' and 'Theodosianism' and 'Anything Steve Langton Doesn't Like-ianism', that's not too much to ask ...
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
'In Him we live and move and have our being,' eh?
I thought the point was more "in our own interpretive framework we live and move and have our eisegesis." Or, it can be difficult to see that you have a Tradition because you're smack dab in the middle of it. After a while, to invoke Saint Clive, you forget you have blue spectacles on, and think the world is just blue.
It's all in Kant, all in Kant. What do they teach them in these schools?
[ 27. December 2014, 16:36: Message edited by: mousethief ]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Yes, I reckon so ...
But is it Kant or cant?
That's where the rub lies, it seems to me.
It's dead easy to claim that this, that or the other practice (or absence of particular practices) is somehow more scriptural than what those other folks down the road get up to ...
I'm interested in the difference it makes.
If it simply leads to isolationism and a Pharisaical attitude towards everyone else then count me out - and I'd say that to any and every tradition and also say it to myself ...
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Gamaliel;
quote:
For the billionth time, Steve Langton, no-one here as far as I can see is advocating a 'Everyone here is a Christian: Constantinian State' position.'
And for the billionth time on my side, I have of course noticed that most people aren't advocating anything that extreme (your 'no-one here' may be overstating the case slightly - I have spotted a few...). So you don't need to say that EVER AGAIN!!!! PHEW!!!!!
But I haven't noticed much sign of a solidly biblical alternative being presented either.
What I'm seeing is more a case of either confusion or that Christians are operating with a secular 'freedom of religion' model (so vague than in the UK it still allows the continuance of the ragged left-overs of a legally 'established' church!). Shouldn't Christians want to be interacting with the world in the way God has described in his word, rather than with a vaguer idea almost 'borrowed from the enemy'?
by Gamaliel;
quote:
Where does the NT 'teach the plurality of belief in society'?
It doesn't.... It teaches a slightly different idea, that Christians shall be separate from society by the simple fact of being 'born again', and shall be citizens of heaven living as 'resident aliens' on earth. Christians will be God's international holy people.
The NT doesn't tell society to be plural; it simply tells Christians follow Jesus as Lord and therefore to be separate and make society ipso facto plural. Society may of course object and respond not by toleration but by persecution. Or they may learn from the peaceable Christian example, that society can work without being totalitarian and uniform....
I'll be back on the tradition thing; but my reaction at the moment is basically that I'm talking about a specific kind of 'Tradition' which is a clear problem and needs to be rejected. In contrast to that, I'm fully recognising the looser kinds of tradition, influences of surrounding culture, etc, just saying that ultimately all of those things are in principle subordinate to Scripture. And I'm aware and have said so at least a few times, that us hooman beanz aren't perfect about this, but I still think aspiring is better than blethering ourselves out of aspiring.
You with your endlessly repeated 'everybody's got traditions' thing are really rather confusing the issues by a usage of the word 'tradition' which is just too wide and foggy to be useful.
The essentials of Scripture ARE self-explanatory - God isn't that bad a writer, even when using human 'ghostwriters' like Matthew, Mark, Paul, etc. And yes, I think the stuff about the 'kingdom not of this world' is pretty much self-explanatory IF you give it a chance - which of course powerful state churches (or even less powerful 21st Century rags of former state churches) don't want to give it....
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Gamaliel;
quote:
The NT doesn't have any more to say about 'plurality of belief in society' than it does about nuclear physics, the kind of coinage that should apply or whether we should eat muesli or bacon and egg for breakfast.
Just all the stuff about the nature of the Church and of Christian faith. John 18 for one, John 1; 12-13 for another... many, many more....
OK, I'll bite.
quote:
Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God – children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God.
John 1:12-13
Where in those verses is any mention of "plurality of belief"? OK, there's an implication that not all believe in the name of Jesus (actually rather explicit if you add in verse 11). Which is an acknowledgement that society has a plurality of belief. But, in theory, why shouldn't the number of people who do not accept Jesus be zero?
But, then again, there has always been plurality of belief. Even at the times when there have been attempts to limit belief, there has been a plurality. When Theodosius tried to make Christianity the one and only religion he had a Senate full of men complaining that the altars to the Roman gods had been removed.
The fact of plurality of belief isn't in dispute, either in the NT era, present day or any point in between. The question is how do we live in a society with a plurality of belief? Options with Scriptural support include total isolation, having nothing to do with non-believers except as potential converts, or to become deeply involved in the working of society such that the values of the Kingdom are (as far as possible) reflected in the government policies and increasing the exposure people have to the gospel message that as many as possible accept Christ. And, a whole range of options in between.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
Steve,
Sorry, but nowhere in the scriptures does it say that Christians shouldn't be part of society, as you put it. What you describe is not being in the world but not part of it, rather it's isolating yourself from everyone else.
[ 27. December 2014, 17:34: Message edited by: Ad Orientem ]
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
Which is maybe why anabaptists are this irrelevant little sect who rebaptise.
[ 27. December 2014, 17:37: Message edited by: Ad Orientem ]
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
The essentials of Scripture ARE self-explanatory
And there is your Big-T Tradition. It's clearly wrong, given what we see in the world. Unless you want to say that people who disagree with you on the essentials of Scripture are acting in bad faith. Which you almost do here:
quote:
And yes, I think the stuff about the 'kingdom not of this world' is pretty much self-explanatory IF you give it a chance - which of course powerful state churches (or even less powerful 21st Century rags of former state churches) don't want to give it....
Actually I take back the "almost."
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
But I haven't noticed much sign of a solidly biblical alternative being presented either.
Including by yourself. quote:
it simply tells Christians follow Jesus as Lord and therefore to be separate
And so far you have failed to give a single example of what that means in practice, apart from railing at Anglicans. quote:
The essentials of Scripture ARE self-explanatory - God isn't that bad a writer, even when using human 'ghostwriters' like Matthew, Mark, Paul, etc. And yes, I think the stuff about the 'kingdom not of this world' is pretty much self-explanatory IF you give it a chance
And yet after 15 pages, many promises, and thousands of words about other issues, you have failed to come up with your promised explanation of John 18. Why do you find this so complicated if it's "self-explanatory"?
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
But I haven't noticed much sign of a solidly biblical alternative being presented either.
Why do I need to present an alternative to the status quo, with the CofE being the established Church in England? It has its flaws, but I'm more or less happy with it.
Presenting an alternative is your job, and one which you've singularly failed to do.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I'm not sure I detect any reluctance or incapacity here for anyone to pose a 'solidly biblical alternative' - it may simply be that most posters here don't want to be as reductionist in their understanding of these things and how they work out in practice.
There's all the difference in the world between being 'solidly biblical' and being inflexibly wedded to a reductionist position.
Forgive me, but there's something almost Manichaean about some of your posts on these matters - as if something either has to be intrinsically evil or else be completely 'of God' as it were.
It's a terribly dualistic world-view.
You also seem to be subscribing to a 'dictation' view of divine inspiration - which is more Islamic than Christian.
God didn't write the Bible. Human beings wrote the Bible. Yes, he inspired it, but he didn't 'dictate' it. And it was also human beings who canonised the scriptures and through a process of collegial discussion and debate eventually decided which books to recognise as scriptural and which to exclude ... although even that isn't clear-cut as there isn't universal agreement on the canon.
What I'm trying to get from you is how Christians 'should be interacting with the world in the way God has described in his word ...'
What does that entail exactly?
How does it work out in practice?
Does it involve the demonisation of anything pertaining to a civil society - which is what you seem to be doing?
On the one hand you condemn attempts at theocracy - and yes, with good reason - and the idea of 'state churches' and then, on the other, you complain about secular or less overtly 'religious' ways of organising governments and societies - even to the point of assigning them some kind of Satanic origin.
A vaguer idea, 'almost borrowed from the enemy ...'
You seem to want your cake and eat it.
Being 'in the world but not of it' doesn't involved separation from society - how could that even be possible?
We are all part of society. 'No man is an island entire of himself ...'
You're beginning to sound like a certain Maggie Thatcher, 'There's no such thing as society ...'
Christians can be 'resident aliens' and so on without being separate from society - such separation, I would argue, is impossible anyway.
When you go to your model railway meetings you are part of society - like it or not. Are you insisting on everyone who attends such meetings should be 'born again Christians'?
You may wish that they were, and you may seek to 'witness' to them and evangelise them - but whether you are involved expressly for that purpose or whether you are there to share an interest in model railways - then either way you are part of that group, that society - and part of wider society too.
How can you not be?
As for the tradition thing - it might sound vague and foggy to you but however we cut it, we are all part of some tradition or other. Whether we like it or not.
Real-life doesn't break down into the nice neat categories you appear to want it to.
It'd be lovely and a lot less complicated if it did - but it doesn't.
We have to learn to live with that tension.
The tension between the 'now and the not yet'.
You might enjoy living in a black-and-white, them-and-us, state churches or raggedy remnants of state-churches versus everyone else but that's not how things are. It's not how these things work. These things are nowhere near as simple and uncomplicated as that.
Sure, Christians are 'born again' and part of an international community of faith - more than that - a community that transcends both space and time - the Church Triumphant as well as the Church Militant.
Everyone accepts that - even those who belong to the so-called 'Constantinian' or other 'inian' churches ...
'But there's another country I heard of long ago ...' as the somewhat iffy hymn, 'I vow to thee my country' puts it.
The Apostle Paul drew on being a Roman citizen, a citizen of Tarsus - 'no mean city' - as well as regarding himself as a citizen of heaven.
He was both, of course. He was a citizen of heaven, but here on earth he was also a citizen of the Roman Empire. We don't lose our identities, nationalities, culture or anything else when we are 'born again' - we don't suddenly stop being British, French, Canadian, Greek or whatever else.
Yes, our loyalties and destination are 'higher' but we are still 'in the world'.
That's the reality. It is not fog or vagueness, it is not confusion - it is how things are.
'Humankind cannot bear very much reality,' T S Eliot memorably observed.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Being 'in the world but not of it' doesn't involved separation from society - how could that even be possible?
Jesus most certainly didn't separate himself from society - indeed, one of the criticisms levelled against him was that he got too much enjoyment out of being part of it!Yet he was not dragged down by it.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
The Apostle Paul drew on being a Roman citizen, a citizen of Tarsus - 'no mean city' - as well as regarding himself as a citizen of heaven.
He was both, of course. He was a citizen of heaven, but here on earth he was also a citizen of the Roman Empire. We don't lose our identities, nationalities, culture or anything else when we are 'born again' - we don't suddenly stop being British, French, Canadian, Greek or whatever else.
Quite right. As you imply, the important thing is that, if there is a clash, one's heavenly loyalty should transcend one's earthly nationality. Sadly it doesn't always work out like that ...
[ 27. December 2014, 19:01: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Indeed ... which is itself part of the tension.
It's one that is not going to resolved this side of the Parousia - however 'aspirational' we might be to the contrary.
Throughout this thread, I'm afraid that I've found Steve Langton's tone to be rather judgmental and carping - as if the rest of us have somehow 'sold-out' and aren't as 'radical' or wholehearted in their discipleship as he'd like to think that he is.
I'm still waiting for him to demonstrate what his 'better way' actually consists of - other than the taking up of carping attitudes towards other Christians and other churches.
These things happen in all traditions, of course - I've come across Orthodox and RCs, for instance, who seem to consider everyone else substandard in some respects ...
Which brings us back to the points that Richard Baxter was raising in the 17th century and which I have reiterated here several times.
I'm sure it's possible to be Orthodox, or RC or Anabaptist (or anything else) without necessarily being arsey about other Christians and other churches ... but at the same time it seems inevitable that there'll be a certain amount of that inherent and intrinsic within each system.
'We're Orthodox, you aren't. We can't even be sure you are orthodox (small o) ...'
'We're Anabaptists. You aren't. Therefore you must be Constantinians or neo-Constantinians of some kind. We can't actually be sure you're really 'saved' ...'
In fairness, I think there is scope for nuance in both positions ...
I don't see much evidence of that in Steve's posts. What the rest of us see as shades of grey he appears to consider to be 'confusion' at best.
What he considers to be the solid biblicism of his argument, others recognise as a rather inflexible and reductionist approach based on an untenably fundamentalist, almost 'dictation' view of scriptural inspiration that is closer to fundamentalist Islam that Steve would probably be prepared to accept.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Gamaliel;
quote:
You also seem to be subscribing to a 'dictation' view of divine inspiration - which is more Islamic than Christian.
No - that's why I used the 'ghostwriter' image; ghostwriters contribute considerably to what they pass on. I highly value the fact that the Christian Scriptures are very different to the Quran. But the basic point I made still stands; that however achieved, the essentials of the Scriptures are not incomprehensible to ordinary human readers. (And to be blunt, the things that aren't so comprehensible are the ones where you DON'T want some guy around to tell you you have to interpret it his way because he and/or his church has the 'Tradition/Magisterium/whatever' and so has the kind of authority which is 'because I say so'.)
Mousethief/Ad Orientem;
still waiting for the bit where the Tradition you both belong to gets you singing from the same hymnsheet on state-and-church issues....
by Eutychus;
re Her Majesty's Christmas message;
quote:
Are we to conclude that this testimony to the nation(s) is a sad reflection of worldliness on the part of the Church?
I do wonder how it comes over in a Muslim land which has recently had a 'crusading' British army in it.... I have massive personal respect for the Queen, and her father; my unhappiness is that the English constitution puts a good Christian in a very questionable position.
Oh, and John 18 remains simple in itself; sorting out some of the confusion you threw into the conversation early on, back in Keryg, is causing me work I shouldn't be needing to do.
Winterval? If you're happy with the current state of a midwinter festivity which almost certainly doesn't celebrate Jesus' actual birthday...? But at much risk of 'junior hosting' I think that may well be a tangent too far at this point. Reminds me - I must get on with my 'fluff-free' Nativity play....
Two other general comments; yes, very much 'IN the world but not of it' - I am much NOT an 'Exclusive Brother' and I'd have thought I'd said enough at various points for you all to know that.
And the other; look, it is the state-and-church entanglement which is the big problem. Not only in the gross form of Anglican 'establishment' but all the other forms up or down to the idea of the 'Prawtistant cawntry' of Ulster and the trouble that causes. And not only does this cause problems and confusion for our fellow-citizens, it makes difficulties for Christians. And in this context, it's the people who insist on the state entanglement, the 'Christian country' idea, who are the real 'separatists'. Think about it. The people who do the resident alien thing have to not only distinguish themselves from their pagan neighbours, but also from a way-beyond-dubious supposed form of Christianity itself, which in the past has persecuted in Jesus' name.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
And the other; look, it is the state-and-church entanglement which is the big problem.
You say it's a big problem not only for those who belong to the established church, including the technical antichrist at its head, but also for the witness of all Christians in England, and also for the way the nation is perceived abroad.
You have yet to establish this (which is ironic).
Given, at the moment, every household in England is in a CofE parish, and (theoretically if not practically) every parish has a vicar and every vicar has a duty to care for the souls within their parish, be they members or not - what would you replace that with?
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Mousethief/Ad Orientem;
still waiting for the bit where the Tradition you both belong to gets you singing from the same hymnsheet on state-and-church issues....
Wait all you want. Why should we try to fit into your Procrustean bed? Let us be who we are and stop trying to make us over into your "Constantinian" model. Oooh, we don't agree on everything, like good Constantinians should. Well you know what? We're not good Constantinians. Get over it. Get the FUCK over it. We are not who you would like to think we are. We are who we are. How dare you tell us what we should be like?
Now stop using that as an excuse to tell us what YOU are. Your dodge is getting old. We're not falling for it. You fail to answer any of our questions. Why? Why? Why this excusing and "you guys aren't perfect so I don't have to answer your questions" bullshit? Do you even HAVE an answer to the many questions that have been put to you? So far all we have gotten is smokescreens and "maybe later"s.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
And the other; look, it is the state-and-church entanglement which is the big problem.
You say it's a big problem not only for those who belong to the established church, including the technical antichrist at its head, but also for the witness of all Christians in England, and also for the way the nation is perceived abroad.
You have yet to establish this (which is ironic).
It is a big problem from Steve Langton's personal reading of scripture (untainted by tradition), therefore it is a big problem. A bigger problem than world peace, a cure for cancer and salvation too.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
No - that's why I used the 'ghostwriter' image; ghostwriters contribute considerably to what they pass on. I highly value the fact that the Christian Scriptures are very different to the Quran. But the basic point I made still stands; that however achieved, the essentials of the Scriptures are not incomprehensible to ordinary human readers. (And to be blunt, the things that aren't so comprehensible are the ones where you DON'T want some guy around to tell you you have to interpret it his way because he and/or his church has the 'Tradition/Magisterium/whatever' and so has the kind of authority which is 'because I say so'.)
So how does that differ from what you are proposing? You are rejecting one kind of Tradition/Magisterium and replacing it with one of your own - 'because Steve Langton says so ...'
On the differences between Mousethief and Ad Orientem - they can answer for themselves but to a great extent I think it's a healthy thing that people can belong to the same tradition and yet have different views on things.
That's not a weakness, it's a strength.
Obviously, on certain issues Mousethief and Ad Orientem will be on the same page as one another. On other issues they will differ - surely that's a healthy thing?
For one thing it explodes your assertion that Tradition it there to allow some guy or guys to boss people around and tell them what to believe.
If it were, then Mousethief and Ad Orientem would be too kow-towed to disagree with one another. As it is, they do disagree.
And they are free to do so. No-one is going to fling either of them out of the Orthodox Church because they disagree on church/state relations.
Your example doesn't undermine Mousethief's and Ad Orientem's claim to go by Holy Tradition - rather it shows up the paucity of your own understanding of it.
Likewise this business of Northern Ireland being a 'Prawtistant country' that you keep touting - no-one here is advocating any such thing. We're not Ian Paisley.
I happen to agree that Anglican Establishment is problematic, but not everyone does and if we have to deliberately distance ourselves from that then I would suggest that we also have to deliberately distance ourselves from the attitudes and behaviour of minority sectarian groups who take a 'holier than thou' approach and who believe themselves to be more 'biblical' or supposedly more 'radical' than everyone else ...
[code]
[ 28. December 2014, 06:05: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I have to say, Steve, that I am rapidly losing what respect and admiration I once had towards the Anabaptist position on things.
The way you've been arguing on this thread, eliding direct questions, producing no real evidence for your assertions except to repeat them over and over again in the vain hope that we'll eventually see how self-evidently correct they are and your apparently hypercritical view of every tradition other than your own ... even when you patently misunderstand the other traditions represented here and insist on lumping them all into a 'Constantinian' mould that no longer exists or operates ... has tended to push me in the opposite direction.
The only reason I continue to entertain a degree of respect for the Anabaptist tradition is because I can't imagine all its proponents to offer such palpably lame defence of it.
Of course, no Christian tradition is adequately represented by its proponents. I don't think that Mousethief and Ad Orientem would consider themselves to be the best possible mouth-pieces and advocates for Orthodoxy any more than Doc Tor believes himself to be an exemplary advocate or role-model for Anglicanism.
So, no, I'm not trying to place a burden upon you that is impossible for you - or any mortal being - to bear.
But I'm still not seeing anything 'positive' in what you're proposing. It's all 'negative' - it's all about what you aren't - 'we're not a state church ... we're not allied with the world ...' - rather than what you ARE.
I know you're not some kind of Exclusive Brother nor a po-faced pietist of the 'Holiness' variety - 'We don't smoke, we don't chew, we hold no truck with those who do ...'
But there's very little you've posted here that gives the lie to Baxter's assertion that the Anabaptists and Separatists of the 17th century considered themselves 'holier' than everyone else - just as he saw the RCs and 'the Greeks' as believing that their sheer size and antiquity somehow put them head and shoulders above everyone else ...
I'm sure there are plenty of Anabaptists doing good stuff, playing important roles as salt and light in their societies, spreading the Gospel by word and deed ...
Yet we've heard nothing of them. All we've heard is how bad you consider the CofE to be, how wrong you consider the RCs and the Orthodox to be, how compromised you consider the rest of the Protestant world to be other than the Anabaptists.
Is it any wonder the rest of us are becoming somewhat impatient?
You're not giving us a lot to go on apart from your questionable hermeneutics and separatist/perfectionist attitudes and over-realised eschatology.
You could have done yourself innumerable favours all along by answering direct questions and giving practical and positive examples rather than pointing the finger and carping at and criticising traditions other than your own.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
Anyway, I'm not even sure how much we actually differ (though I'm not arguing that there is no difference between Mousetheif and I). I never argued that any synergy between Church and State was a matter of tradition and all else be anathema, only that it was a pragmatic solution to how the Church and State should relate to one another when the ruler identifies itself as Christian. What I would argue is that this was mostly for the good and, quite frankly, under such circumstances I don't even believe in religious freedom in the modern secular sense anyway (which is probably where any difference lies).
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
And one more thing, seeing as Steve has on a number of occasions mentioned being born again and nominalism in his arguments (for what they're worth), I would quite naturally argue, using John 3, that to be baptised with water in the name of the Most Holy Trinity is to be born again and that anyone who says otherwise is anathema.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
You know what... I'm outta here! This thread started in Hell and it's never really got out of it. I'd really hoped for a substantive discussion and it's just been same old same old from the same old people - and you have the brass neck to call me repetitive.... When I've finished it I'll publish the upgraded/updated version of my John 18 comments on my blog where people may actually care - may even actually read it before sounding off....
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
Have a tantrum then. Or maybe you just don't like being challenged.
[ 28. December 2014, 00:41: Message edited by: Ad Orientem ]
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I'd really hoped for a substantive discussion
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
Too rich. My irony meter just busted a needle and it flew through my first edition copy of "Irony: A History" by I. Ron Iqq.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I hope you find readers for your blog, Steve Langton.
My own view is that you should stick to your model railways and blog about that.
You'd probably find more attentive readers within that constituency.
Who knows, non-model railway enthusiasts might actually read it too and be intrigued. They might actually revise their opinion of model railways and model railway enthusiasts ...
I'd like to revise my opinion of Anabaptists. I'd dearly like to return to my previously warm and open attitude towards them and the tradition they represent.
Perhaps I will one day, when I encounter one who can make a more attractive and convincing case than you have here.
I still believe that the Anabaptists have things that the rest of us can learn from - despite your best efforts to convince me otherwise.
So perhaps something has been achieved after all ...
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Thread closed
Printer-friendly view
