Re idolising the bible.  Christianity to me is a religion about Jesus, but I think it could be easy to form a conclusion by observation of some protestants, that they think it is a religion about a book.  It is not about a personal experience and your relationship with Jesus, but on a correct reading of the book.  The book says… etc.  It is probably not a strong point, but it is at least as sound as the often expressed protestant view that the real presence in the eucharist is idolatrous.  It is really just a matter of perspectivism.

I have to disagree completely. I think the Bible is the perfect word of God but at the same time don’t worry too much if it gets torn or thrown around as any other book. This seems rather different from for example, the Rite of Benediction, where people must kneel, priests wear fancy clothes and bread is kept in “tabernacles”.

You say we must accept as a minimum entry that the bible is inspired, infallible and inerrant.  Lets just look at this in its own terms and ignore the host of issues around the canon and tradition, that is the matter of inspiration.  If the bible is infallible and inerrant, then it must be that in all places.  Using the rule of logical positivism (ie hypotheses can be disproved), we can test that hypothesis.  If we find somewhere that the bible is inconsistent, that is it says two different things, then it can’t be infallible or inerrant.  As an example, which creation myth in genesis do you favour or do you think there is only one?

I personally think Gen 1-2 are two documents written by different people from different perspectives for different purposes. At a shallow reading they may seem inconsistent but I think it holds up under a deeper investigation. Our English translations don’t help the situation either, they’re not perfect.

No one has shown me a text which says Scripture is the sole authority...the best I’ve had so far is that it is so obvious and that it is implied!

Perhaps you can show us where it says the scriptures arn’t the sole authority?

Robert ian Williams - 03 August 2008 06:26 PM
No one has shown me a text which says Scripture is the sole authority...the best I’ve had so far is that it is so obvious and that it is implied!

Joshua A
I think you’ll just have to trust him that it’s obvious and implied. Not to mention the idea that he has the authority to make this claim and that it is not simply a man-made tradition!

Hi Joshua and Robert. The Scriptures are self-authenticating. This is the only way it can be. If there were a higher authority, they wouldn’t be the ultimate authority.

And i am aware that this sounds like circular reasoning.

I am most certainly not one who would set himself above the Scriptures as an authority, but must bow before the Word of God.

David McKay - 05 August 2008 08:05 PM

Hi Joshua and Robert. The Scriptures are self-authenticating. This is the only way it can be. If there were a higher authority, they wouldn’t be the ultimate authority.

The problem is that we’ve asked you to demonstrate this self-authentification on a number of occasions so far and you haven’t done so. If you’d like, we can start with the standard evangelical port of call, namely 2 Timothy 3:16-17?

David McKay - 05 August 2008 08:05 PM

I am most certainly not one who would set himself above the Scriptures as an authority, but must bow before the Word of God.

I claim to make no judgement concerning your sincerity in this respect, but Protestant in thousands of different sects claim the same thing. This being the case, how can you be sure that you have the right interpretation? How can you be sure that you are bowing before the word of God and not your own interpretation? How do you know that you are right and Marcus the Mormon is wrong?

Marcus the Mormon appeals to his church heirarchy to tell him how to interpret the Bible, Joshua.  Mormons believe that God reveals Himself directly to the leadership of the Mormon church.  I’m not sure it’s a comparison that helps your argument all that much.

Rome and Salt Lake City have more in common with each other in this respect, than either of them has with Wittenberg or Geneva.

Hi Joshua
Can I ask what you think 2 Timothy 3: 14-17 is intended to teach, please?

John Charles sStorer wrote in #38

Regarding all the protestant sects, do you think you are in the right one?

For a start, I prefer to call them denominations, although there are some sects.
Secondly, I am very comfortable being an Anglican, especially in this Diocese and Province.
Thirdly, unlike the Romans who deny validity of other denominations, I am happy to accept that there are Many Many Christians in other denominations. Tonight I held a Bible Study, at which we had representatives from the Anglican, Church of Christ and Salvation Army denominations. We had a few differences of opinions, but just as the Romans like to distinguish between doctrine and discipline, so I can distinguish between things that are essential and those things which we can have a variety of opinions about.

For to me, much of the theology presented in the Bible appears at odds with itself. For instance, is God one? So how can the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit all be God? Then we look at the nature of Christ- Man? God? Somehow both? Then we can see the Bible - God’s word? Man’s word? Both?; predestination v free will… etc etc etc (including Genesis 1 cf Gensis 2-3).
The way I have been shown to keep my brain from frying over these is not to run to the pope for his opinion (although I can do that), but to see that the Bible does not give narrow, sharp-point-of-the-pin type answers, but more often gives limits beyond which we cannot go. So instead of the narrow pushing that Roman Catholics often want us to have, we can have table-top theology. We see the limits as rather like the sides of the table, beyond which is falling off area.
However within the limits there is some legitmate room to have slightly different positions, and over which the history of the church has seen awful heartache & disgusting fights and splits.

I can accept another denomination as having a Christian basis of belief, and yet still argue that some of the greyer issues are not quite right.

We see this sort of a process occuring in the historical Godhead & Nature of Christ debates and councils. First came the major claims, which were then discussed, argued about, the Scriptures checked & then a statement made as to what was OK and therefore what was not OK. These limits then brought another round of discussion as people wanted to push it a bit further & try to figure it out a bit more.

The 3 major creeds are the results. If you notice the creeds, they not only say what is true, but they also very carefully define what is not valid. The Athanasian creed does this especially. It has narrowed the table to a fairly specific area, which is important due to the importance of understanding who God is and what he has done for us.

However, on other areas either the narrowing cannot be so specific, or it has not been of such a horrendously important area that people have split well before consensus was agreed upon.

Thus I can accept the 2 Baptist Pastors down the road as my Christian brothers, and we fellowship and work together during the week. Yet on Sundays we meet separately, but not with accusing hateful spirits, content that we know the Lord, love him dearly, are saved by grace through faith and want people to grow in Christ. The same is true of the Unting Church female minister over there, the several charismatic pastor couples over there, the non-charismatic independant minister over there, and the former Catholic priest over there (former because he has moved, and I have not met the new one… he doesn’t come to our minister’s’ fraternal (yes we still use the old name) so I cannot even publicly state what he tells me his standing is with the Lord… although I pray he is in the Kingdom too)

For my protestant friends who are fixated on Assurance & the Roman Catholics, let me reassure you that there are many many Anglicans who have no assurance… which is why I also talk with them & help them to grasp onto the sweetest doctrine to calm our lurking fears & nagging doubts which is the death and resurrection of our Lord who died for us so that as we trust in him, he saves us, & his Spirit is the seal and downpayment of his promised eternal salvation. To God be the Glory, for He alone is our saviour, nothing in my hand I bring, simply to the cross I cling, naked come to Thee for dress, helpless… (to quote someone famous, with music ting- ting - tinging in my head).

Robert Denham says:

]"Tonight I held a Bible Study, at which we had representatives from the Anglican, Church of Christ and Salvation Army denominations. We had a few differences of opinions, but just as the Romans like to distinguish between doctrine and discipline, so I can distinguish between things that are essential and those things which we can have a variety of opinions about. ”

Baptism is a doctrine , a specific command of the Lord and not an optional discipline...the Salvationist has no baptism (instead they have dedication under the banner)..the Church of Christ only baptize adults and deny the baptism of infants.

And you know how to distinguish between discipline and doctrine!

The only problem with your creeds test ...is that you do not belive them like the Episcopal framers!

You do not believe in a visible hierrarchical Church.

You do not accept one baptism for the remission of sins...you are quite happy to fellowship with the unbaptized.

There is no division between essential and non-essential when it comes to a specific command of God.....Robert , you remind me of the liberals , who say Jeus had nothing to say about homosexuality. ..but his Apostles did, and when you hear them , you hear the Lord Jesus.

As for a hymn verse , what about. And I hold in veneration for the love of Him alone, Holy church as His creation and Her teaching as His own.

The Mormon analogy is a poor one… Catholics believe the Bible is the infallible word of God....Mormons that it is the word of God in so far as it has been translated correctly. Plus they have additional scriptures.The Mormon Church has changed its doctrine over the years and claims continuing revelation. the Catholic Church teaches that Public revelation ceased with the apostles and there is a wonderful consistency and continuity in all Catholic doctrines.

Catholics do not claim that the Pope is a living Prophet , Seer and revelator...we believe the Faith was handed to us once and for all by the Apostles. We do not believe in an apostasy...but in continuity.

As for 2 Timothy, David.. water is profitable for my health , but not sufficient...the key word is profitable and it does not mean sufficient!

Off to the National Eisteddfodd of Wales tommorrow..for you Ausies that is a cultural festival celebration of Welsh speaking culture. Welsh was the original language of Britain, before the Anglo-Saxon invaders conquered eastern Britain in the 5th century. It was heavily influenced by Latin during the 400 year Roman occupation.

For instance...Sanctaid...holy, Eglwys..church...pont...bridge...ladron...robber.
Fenster ..window…

Useless trivia.... the designer of the Australian flag was a Welsh Australian school boy.

David Jones Dept store in Sydney was founded by a Welshman…

Billy Hughes ( the little digger), Australian prime minister during the first world war was a Welshman....and of course new SOUTH WALES...need I say anymore.

Newydd. Dde Cymru.......New South Wales in Welsh!

Robert ian Williams - 06 August 2008 04:39 AM

As for 2 Timothy, David.. water is profitable for my health , but not sufficient...the key word is profitable and it does not mean sufficient!

You’re referring to 3:16.  I think David (who referred to 3:14-17) would like you to consider also verse 17 which does indeed teach sufficiency in the Protestant sense and scope.

Hope the Eisteddfod is/was wonderful!

Joshua
I’m afraid you won’t get a satisfactory answer.  The bible has let them down on this occasion.

The bible does not give a list of books to be included.  The writers did not know they were writing inspired works.  So how do we know that these works are inspired? 

Luther had the hide to throw out books that didn’t suit his doctrine of justification by faith alone.  The Dead Sea Scrolls have the Deuterocanonical books included as well as other books not included in the Protestant bible.  So somewhere, somehow, a decision was made as to which would be included. 

If our faith was to be based on a book alone, then Jesus had three years to tell us and He didn’t.

Donna

Response to Dan.....Paul is referring to the Old Testament as the New Testament did not exist at the time he wrote the Epistle! Also in james 1:4 we are told that patience makes perfect..

Self authenticating....then why were there disputes as to which books were inspired?

Robert IW

And you know how to distinguish between discipline and doctrine!

Robert you have misread what I wrote. I said that the Roman Catholics have a distinction between discipline and doctrine, which you alerted me to in another thread. I said something like that I accept that there are essential things, and less essential things. Thank you for placing baptism in the doctrine camp, now I know more.

To ease your mind, the Salvation Army person had been baptised and confirmed as an Anglican many years before. The Church of Christ person is married to someone who attends an Anglican service each week. They both like the way I teach, so come for the study. That does not mean that they agree with me on every detail (just as you don’t, and just as most of my parishioners don’t… nor do I expect them to).

You do not believe in a visible hierrarchical Church.

visible hierrarchical Church

You do not accept one baptism for the remission of sins...you are quite happy to fellowship with the unbaptized.

Robert , you remind me of the liberals , who say Jeus had nothing to say about homosexuality. ..but his Apostles did, and when you hear them , you hear the Lord Jesus.

Alan Dungey - 03 August 2008 07:24 PM

This probably sounds a bit “doh!” but when Jesus said these words, He didn’t cut off his finger or his left ear and hand it about - his flesh and blood were still in one piece, and so obviously he spoke metaphorically of his body as bread and his blood as wine, just as he meant all the other similar sayings (I am the vine, I am the door etc.) metaphorically.  I’m aware that Roman Catholic tradition teaches otherwise; I don’t accept that tradition:  I prefer the natural meaning of the words in context.

Hi Alan

Your statement only has meaning if you deny any magical aspect of religion.  If you assume a magical aspect, which is supported by things like miracles, then the words can easily have their literal meaning.

The definition of sect is “body of persons agreed on religious doctrine”.  My point is that protestantism is not monolithic.

Regarding scripture, my point is that I believe protestants (and as demonstrated by galea in his book) apply rules to scripture in an inconsistent way, with the one unifying rule by my analysis being to ensure that a particular paradigm (anything that looks like coming between me and god is wrong) is sustained.

Your statement on contradiction is circular ie A=B, therefore B=A.  Why should I give such an argument any weight?

On scripture, I don’t think that catholics have the same imperative to reject allegory and metaphor that protestants have, except of course in the one case of transubstantiation, where protestants are compelled to adopt metaphor as an explanation.

cheers

John

Rob Elder - 03 August 2008 07:32 PM

My difficulty with Catholicism then is not that it includes claims not made in the Bible (eg the acension of Mary) but that it includes claims contradictory with the Bible - principally the claim that Salvation does not come by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone but rather through various other means and channels.

How do you gloss your way out of Mathew 5:17, 7:21, 15:10, 19:16 and 25:31ff for example?  These are the words of Jesus, and particularly the last, call you to action and to account for your actions.

cheers

John

Hi Dannii

Not sure on your view re Genesis and two stories.  Can you cite me a scholarly concordance which takes a view that they are the same?  I have an old copy of Peakes (a protestant source with a foreward by the archbishop of Canterbury) and it talks about the two myths cobbled together.

Re idolatry, I am sure you don’t see yourself idolising a book, but an outside observer could form that conclusion.  I don’t see myself idolising a piece of bread but Mr Galea, for example, thinks catholics do.

cheers

John