FRESNO, Calif. - Episcopal leaders ousted a breakaway conservative bishop Wednesday in a struggle for control of the Diocese of San Joaquin and its properties.
-
Bishop John-David Schofield speaks to press in this file photo. The Episcopal House of Bishops voted Wednesday to depose Schofield who led the Diocese of San Joaquin to secede from The Episcpoal Church in December.
The Episcopal House of Bishops, meeting in Texas, took the action against Bishop John-David Schofield, who last December led the Fresno diocese to secede from The Episcopal Church.
San Joaquin is the first full diocese to split from the liberal-leaning denomination, which in 2003 consecrated the first openly gay Episcopal bishop, V. Gene Robinson of New Hampshire.
Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori, the head of national church, has been working to maintain oversight of the central California church region. Episcopal leaders still consider the diocese part of the denomination. Schofield, however, aligned the diocese with the conservative Anglican Church of the Southern Cone, based in Argentina.
The Episcopal Church is the Anglican body in the U.S.
The House of Bishops voted to "depose" Schofield, which removes him as head of the diocese and bars him from performing any religious duties with The Episcopal Church.
"This outcome was is the painful culmination of a lengthy process of conciliation and review led by two Presiding Bishops. While earnest voices were raised asking if there were other alternatives at this time, the conclusion of the House of Bishops is that this action is based on the facts presented to us and is necessary for the ongoing integrity of The Episcopal Church," said a statement by the House of Bishops.
Schofield, who opposes ordaining women and gays, called it a "shame that the disciplinary process of The Episcopal Church has been misused in this way," he said in a statement. That process, he said, was intended for those who had "abandoned the faith and are leading others away from orthodox Christianity, as held in trust by bishops in the Anglican Communion - and which The Episcopal Church had previously upheld also."
He vowed to continue leading the diocese as a member of the House of Bishops of the Southern Cone.
"I am still an active Anglican bishop," he said.
He warned that any attempt by the denomination to "seize our property" through litigation would violate biblical teachings. The diocese includes 48 church buildings in prime real estate markets throughout California.
"It appears as though the real motivation behind all of this is the use of raw power and coveting property," Schofield said.
Jefferts Schori cautioned that "since he is no longer the bishop of San Joaquin it would be inappropriate for him to retain title."
About 2,000 parishioners in the 8,000-member diocese want to stay in The Episcopal Church and have hoped for Schofield's removal, according to the Rev. Mark Hall, who is overseeing efforts to organize parishioners who wish to stay in the diocese.
"We've been waiting for this," said Ron Miller, a former vestry member at a Turlock parish that has split into opposing camps. "Many of us have gone through very hurtful times and vilifications by Schofield supporters. This is the initial step leading us toward healing and reconciliation."
Since last August, dozens of worshippers have been studying the Bible at a parishioner's home and are planning to hold Easter Sunday services in a park because congregants who support the bishop have control of St. Francis parish, Miller said.
Jefferts Schori and other leaders plan to travel to Stockton on March 29 for a convention in which parishioners who wish to stay with the national denomination will elect a new bishop.
The global Anglican Communion is a family of churches that trace their roots to the Church of England. The fellowship is on the brink of schism over Robinson's consecration.
Schofield and other conservatives believe Scripture bars same-sex relationships, and he told San Joaquin churchgoers that they risked moral decay by staying with the Episcopal Church.
Several dozen conservative U.S. parishes have split from the national denomination since 2003 and, like Schofield, aligned with like-minded Anglican provinces overseas. Bishop Suffragan William Jackson Cox of Maryland, who had also sought episcopal oversight outside The Episcopal Church, was also deposed on Wednesday.
Copyright 2008 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
RSS
As per you question on the situation with Adam and Eve (and the whole of creation) being created good. I have already answered that.
The word "good" does not necessarily have to be talking about their spiritual status. It could have been talking about the fact the God saw that He had created them in His image, and that He had done a good job of it.
And, apparently, CP finds nothing offensive in what I said. But my comment is entirely valid, even within your original topic. You said (paraphrased) how can anything good bring forth bad fruit". You used the scripture to back your question. I used the same scripture to ask that if you are born a sinner (an evil tree) how can any good come from you? Once you answer that question, you will have answered your own question. Those two are hinged upon each other.
Those who have ears to hear, let them hear what the Spirit is saying.
RE: REPOST of message by "Prophet" and my response
Prophet Sun Mar 16, 2008 5:01 pm
Patriot,
So you, then, cannot be saved. Because you were born into sin. And an evil tree cannot bring forth good fruit. And since you are not born again, why the name?
Proph – Re: Your Sun Mar 16, 2008 5:01 pm post
In an earlier post (Sun Mar 16, 2008 12:03 am) you accuse me of “weaving” a “web” of dissemblance. In this post, you accuse me of not being saved.
Rest assured, I am saved, and I am an American patriot; hence, my screen name.
Also, rest assured that until you make reconciliation (Matthew 18:15) for your accusatory behavior (Revelation 12:10), I will have no further communication with you (Ephesians 5:11).
By the unmerited grace of God and by the power of the blood of Jesus Christ I accepted as my personal Lord and Savior. I am first, a born again Christian; I am second, a grateful patriot of the United States. Hence, my screen name.
RE: Original response to Chris333Mon Mar 17, 2008 9:10 - Which someone flagged and deleted.
In it I answer someone's question regarding my slavation. The entire message in its entirety is reposted here:
I asked two questions that you did not answer in a way that seemed clear to me.
My first question, rooted in, and dealing only with the Edenic account in Genesis 1 follows:
How could Edenic humankind have produced the “evil fruit” of sin given that:
(1) All of creation, including man and woman, as created by God, was “very good” (Gen. 1:31) and
(2) Jesus is quoted by the evangelists in Matthew 7:18 and Luke 6:43 respectively, “A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.” and: “For a good tree bringeth not forth corrupt fruit; neither doth a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit”?
I accept your notions that God created our Edenic forbears, as you say, “wholly good” and with free will. I also assent to Jesus’ principle that what is good – by its very essence – produces only good. In light of that, how is it possible that in Eden, humans who were created “wholly good,” would choose to act contrary to what is good? Such behavior is illogical to me. I am merely seeking an answer to this conundrum. Nothing more…nothing less.
I restricted my question to Genesis 1 and would like to limit my consideration of the topic to the time prior to the expulsion. My focus is SOLELY on the fall by the “first Adam” and the “mechanism” that effected it – not on redemption proffered by the “Second Adam.”
I firmly believe that apart from Divine grace, and the love of God, I would still be an evil tree bearing evil fruit, deserving eternal damnation – to use the familiar metaphor. Please understand that, as I have said before, that by the unmerited grace of God and by the power of the blood of Jesus Christ I accepted as my personal Lord and Savior. I am first, a born again Christian; I am second, a grateful patriot of the United States. Hence, my screen name.
My second question is – How could the evangelists intimately associated with Jesus and observing the same event (Matt. 7:18 and Luke 6:43) not record His words exactly in the Scriptural record?
I flagged myself. I was going to repost what I had posted earlier, but patriot was kind enough to do so. Thank you for doing so. And thanks for posting it in its entirety so that it is read in context, which shows that no accusations were made towards you. But I do see that you have decided not to answer my question. My accuser has remained silent, so there is no offense.
Now, back to this article. I commend Schofield for separating himself, and his church, from an institution that supports the homosexual lifestyle. Homosexuality is a sin, and those who purpose to live in such sin should not be allowed to lead a church, or church organization. I wish more churches would do the samething as Schofield. Maybe then, the Episcopal church would re-evaluate their convictions. Apparently, the Word of God is not enough to convict their hearts, maybe losing parishioners, and their money, would have a greater impact.
Please be advised that the following email message was sent to webmaster@christianpost.com on Saturday, March 22, 2008 10:37 pm
RE: Verbal abuse on the following thread: http://www.christianpost.com/article/20080313/31507_Episcopal_Church_Defrocks_Breakaway_Bishop.htm
Dear Webmaster:
This is regarding a post appearing on your website and made by christianpost.com member “Prophet” on Sat Mar 22, 2008 7:15 pm.
In the following quote, the individual accuses me of "telling agentorange (for those of you who know him) that he is unsaved and headed for hell.”
His accusation is patently untrue. I have NEVER suggested or accused anyone – at any time – of being unsaved. The determination of any person’s standing before God is a matter between him or her and the Lord.
I am informing you that I have flagged the cited message because of its abusive tone and false statement about me.
I am requesting that you please address this issue with this member. A return message from you regarding this matter would be most sincerely appreciated.
Sincerely yours in Christ
christianpost.com member name: Born-again Patriot
P.S. The complete text of the message posted by “Prophet” follows:
Prophet Sat Mar 22, 2008 7:15 pm : 0 : 0 Flag
I think the correct quote from that post is:
"So you, then, cannot be saved. Because you were born into sin. And an evil tree cannot bring forth good fruit." Please keep it in context. I was merely making a conjecture using your own statement. Maybe it would have made you more comfortable if I had made it into a question.
But.......is that statement true? If it is then it is not abusive, but rather truthful. It is not anymore abusive than telling agentorange (for those of you who know him) that he is unsaved and headed for hell.
If the statement is not true, then please explain how it is wrong? And if you can explain how it is wrong, then you will have answered your own original question.
Until you inform me whether what I said is true or not, and why you claim it true or not, I cannot accept your judgement of libel.
Original message posted by Born-again Patriot on Fri Mar 21, 2008 6:46 pm
RE: Teen4Christ Mon Mar 17, 2008 12:21 pm
Teen4Christ: If I read you correctly, your post mentioned two individuals claiming to be Christians. You challenged one individual who wrote the following messages to another person - each at different times on March 16.
“So you, then, cannot be saved.”
“You cannot be saved.”
Verbal abuse is defined in one study as “an attack on another’s self-concept with the intent or perceived intent to harm the other’s self-image” [Brandt and Pierce (2000)].
Healthy people can reasonably argue the points of an issue. But abuse is different from “arguments, which can be defined as verbal interchanges that ‘involve presenting and defending positions on controversial issues while attacking the positions taken by others on the issues’ (Infante & Rancer, 1982). Therefore, it is the intent to harm that defines verbal aggression [Brandt and Pierce (2000)].”
When it comes to flagging, you have every right to follow the policy of christianpost.com regarding the listed types of behavior. It states: “Please help us to monitor our message boards by flagging Abusive, Spam, Offensive, Illegal, Racist or Libellous (sic) Posts.”
You say you are a teen in school. Be assured that, regardless of your age, if you flag a message for any behaviors mentioned above, you are NOT obligated to contact the offending individual whose message you flagged.
Verbal abusers are emotionally wounded individuals.
After responding to you in my Thu Mar 20, 2008 11:44 am post, I received an email and wish to pass along a summary. In the event you feel you are verbally abused: IMMEDIATELY sever communication with the abuser, note the time then (1) notify your parents or another adult you trust, in the event your parents are not available. If necessary, they may need to (2) contact your local law enforcement agency as well as (3) notify webmaster@christianpost.com.
Be strong in the Lord and in the power of His love. Blessed Easter!
I think the correct quote from that post is:
"So you, then, cannot be saved. Because you were born into sin. And an evil tree cannot bring forth good fruit." Please keep it in context. I was merely making a conjecture using your own statement. Maybe it would have made you more comfortable if I had made it into a question.
But.......is that statement true? If it is then it is not abusive, but rather truthful. It is not anymore abusive than telling agentorange (for those of you who know him) that he is unsaved and headed for hell.
If the statement is not true, then please explain how it is wrong? And if you can explain how it is wrong, then you will have answered your own original question.
Until you inform me whether what I said is true or not, and why you claim it true or not, I cannot accept your judgement of libel.
Patriot,
Let me add to your option 2, if I may. Even though the post has been "deleted" from this message forum, it remains in the data base of Christian Post, and they will have it. So if you find something offensive (as per their definition of offensive) then flag it immediately, inform the guilty party of why it was done, and inform CP as well. They will have record of the post.
I just recently discovered that when some disgruntled athiest decided to flag EVERYONE on a number of message boards. CP was able to recover the messages and repost them for us. So, don't worry if you think you will lose evidence if you flag someone. CP has in on file.
RE: Teen4ChristMon Mar 17, 2008 12:21 pm
I am reluctant to respond to posts that are not addressed to me, but since your message specifically mentioned me, I felt it was okay to open a dialogue with you.
First, I am happy that you and your friends come here to keep abreast of news and current events.
Secondly, if what I write is confusing to you because the issues often addressed here are dense and complicated. When writing, I’ll keep your words in mind and try to do better :)
Thirdly, if I seem too formal, it is only because I try to maintain a cut-and-dry writing style that addresses issues – not personalities. This brings me to what follows:
You said that the purpose of your posting was to challenge the mean-spirited words, accusations and name-calling that are all-too-often hurled by people on this site. You were right to do that; I admire your maturity. Though you did not mention so, if I have done anything to offend you, please let me know – I will be happy to make amends and be reconciled.
Some suggestions I have for dealing with abusers in cyberspace or in “real life”:
First, if anyone here claims to be a Christian and is verbally abusive, accusatory or stoops to name-calling with you, rest assured they are not speaking in Christ’s love.
Allow NO ONE to be abusive to you. You have several options:
You may remain silent, flag the individual’s post, contact: info@christianpost.com, or confront the person’s behavior.
Option 1: You may remain silent. However, if you are truly offended, remaining silent offers no opportunity for reconciliation and allows the abuser’s behavior to go unchecked.
Option 2: Flagging a person’s post causes it to be deleted but also erases evidence of an individual’s abusive behavior.
Option 3: Contact the website and alert your parents. You may copy, cut and paste their posting and save it to a document as well as paste it to an email to info@christianpost.com. Keeping a record is a safety measure for you.
Option 4: See Matthew 18:15-17. Scripture says to approach the offending person in private, but the format of this site renders that option impossible. Your only recourse is to broach the issue publicly. (1) Express the exact nature of your offence in specific terms. Quote the offending party’s words back to him or her. (2) Extend your desire for reconciliation in Christ’s love. (3) If the person acknowledges his or her fault in specific terms and requests your forgiveness – be reconciled – see Psalm 133.
If you elected Option 4 and the offending party refuses to acknowledge his or her actions, assume responsibility for committing the offense and does not seek your forgiveness, reconciliation is not possible. REFUSE to engage the individual in ANY dialogue unless they make amends. Engaging them, without reconciliation, only encourages their abusive behavior. They may try to “hook” you and have the last word. Stand strong in Jesus against the abuser.
patriot
"Towb": Good, in the widest sense. could mean beautiful, best, bountiful, cheerful, at ease, graciously, joyful, loving, pleasant, etc etc.
I read the hebrew translation. It says nothing about morals. Gensis could be saying that God saw what He had made and it was very beautiful. Or it was very pleasant.
Patriot,
You have avoided my proposal.
RE: wilderness Sun Mar 16, 2008 11:47 am
In speaking of creation being “good,” you say “God was talking about the good construction of everything, not moral goodness.”
True “goodness” is simply, and ultimately, the complete actualization of any being’s or thing’s purpose. If one concedes this to be true, goodness must be a universal, immutable principle. If you disagree, please let me know why.
Consider the created universe in Genesis 1:1-31. The heavens, earth, water, sky, vegetation, sun, moon, stars, vegetation, animals and humans were created. Scripture says of these creations that they were, in transliterated Hebrew, “towb me’od”, or “good exceedingly.” Why? Because they were existentially and wholly fulfilling the purpose for which they were created.
The sun, by its God-created design, completely fulfilled its purpose: being a giver of light and heat as well as a marker of the seasons.
The earth, by its God-created design, completely fulfilled its purpose: being a place upon which vegetation and animal life could be produced and humankind could live.
Humans, by their God-created design, completely fulfilled their purpose: being in relationship with God and each other and in relationship to creation.
ONLY when a thing completely fulfills it purpose, is it “exceedingly good” - (“towb me’od).” Whether inanimate, plant or animal, because of a thing’s inherent and God-created goodness, its Edenic qualities were – de rigueur – pleasant, agreeable and benign to any sentient onlooker. The same qualities were true for Edenic humanity, but not only so. Unlike the rest of creation, they were additionally spiritually, intellectually, emotionally – and by necessity – sensibly and ethically agreeable.
To contend that any thing in Genesis 1 was NOT created “exceedingly good,” is to say that:
1) God created that which is not good.
2) That created thing did not fully actualize its purpose vis-à-vis God’s creative act.
To admit the possibility of 2) concedes that any created thing could spontaneously fulfill some other purpose. This would fling wide the door of argument strongly in favor of evolution.
To admit the possibility of 1) is to assert that: a) God created evil, i.e.: a deficiency of good and b) God cannot be wholly good because complete goodness cannot logically create both good and evil.
The preceding considerations gave rise to my original question (Cf. Sun Mar 16, 2008 3:12 pm post.):
How could Edenic humankind have produced the “evil fruit” of sin given that:
(1) Man and woman with their souls, bodies, wills, affects and intellects– as created by God – were “very good” (Gen. 1:31) and
(2) Jesus is quoted by the evangelists in Matthew 7:18 and Luke 6:43 respectively, “A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.” and: “For a good tree bringeth not forth corrupt fruit; neither doth a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.”?
Born again,
But you forget that Luke did not view the event, he only heard reports of it. Also, it does seem that Luke was only saying a part of the sermon, whereas matthew quoted all of the sermon or more of it. Greek and Aramaic are very different and both would have either been translating directly from Aramaic or else from other greek sources which had been translated from Aramaic. I agree that they are most likely quoting the same event, but that does not mean they must look exactly the same.
I am learning Japanese and I could tell you that Japanese is very different than English.
If I hear the phrase, "Watashi wa heya ni itte, mizu o nonda." Then I would probably tranlsate it to say, "I went to the room and drank water." but the literal translation is, "I room to go, water drank". This is just a simple statement, if I were tranlsating an entire message there would be several ways to translate it, and all would be correct. What is more, I could say, "I went to the room" And leave out the drinking water, and this statement would be equally true to the whole statement, just half of it. There is a saying, if you have 2 then you have 1.
RE: wilderness Mon Mar 17, 2008 5:23 pm
The accounts of Jesus’ “Great Sermon” supplied in Matthew and Luke are so strongly similar that it is unreasonable to conjecture they document anything but the same occurrence – not separate ones, as you suggest. The Matthean pericope (5:1-8:1) as well as the Lukan pericope (6:12-7:1) situate Jesus’ homily between two like events: The first being Jesus activity relative to a mount; the second being his entrance into Capernaum.
Consider Matthew 5:1
Because the formatting on this site does not accommodate a Greek font (BTW, I teach Greek and Latin), the transliteration of Matthew 5:1 is: “idon de tous oxhlous anebe eis to oros kai kathisantos outou pronselthon auto oi mathetai autou.” Suffice it to say that Jesus saw the crowds, “idon de tous oxhlous” and did something. The something that he did was “anebe eis to oros,” or, “walked upon the mountain.” Next, the narrative reads, “kai kathisantos outou” – “and he sat himself down.” Finally, his disciples came to him: “pronselthon auto oi mathetai autou.” The sermon begins.
The phrase “anebe eis” is better understood in terms of its component elements. The verb “anabes” is in the third person, second aorist, active, indicative and merely conveys the image that Jesus, himself, walked. Where did he walk? He walked “upon the mountain” – “eis to oros.” Not in the sense that he hiked up to it then made an ascent, but that he was already there and walking on it. From this point, the narrative states that Jesus took a seat and began to deliver the sermon.
Now consider Luke 6:12-17
In vs. 12, we read that Jesus “exelthen eis to oros proseuxasthai kai en dianuktereuon en te proseuchn tou theou.” He went out upon the mountain. The verb “exelthen” – in the third person second aorist, active, indicative – shows that he went from one location so that he could be “upon the mountain”… “eis to oros”.. the same phrase, used in Matt 5:1.
After spending the night in prayer, and calling the twelve unto him, vs 17 reads, “kai katabas met auton este epi topou pedinou.” The verb “katabas” is in the third person second aorist active participle and means “he went down.” His descent was “upon a level place” – “epi topou pedinou.” From this elevated position of authority, as well as acoustic advantage – and not in a plain – he delivered his Great Sermon.
The closing of the sermon narrative in both Gospels is nearly identical.
In Matthew 7:28 – 8:5, Jesus finished the sermon, came down from the mountainside, healed a leper and entered Capernaum.
In Luke 7:1, Jesus completed the sermon and entered Capernaum.
That these two accounts record anything but the same sermon is not reasonable.
Considering these things, how could these two evangelists intimately associated with Jesus and documenting the same event (Matt. 7:18 and Luke 6:43) not record His words exactly in the Scriptural record? I am speaking specifically of Matt. 7:18 and Luke 6:43.
Sorry, I flagged myself because of a typo.
Teen4Christ,
Welcome to CP, and it is really cool that you and your friends are discussing topics presented here. I would warn you to be careful sometimes as there are some pretty irrational things said on other posts! That being said, I understand your concern about Christians being "angry" or "hateful" I have that concern as well, but even though these posts get pretty fiery some times, usually hateful words are not being exchanged (by both Christians and non-Christians alike). Usually whenever people are suspecting others of not being Christians it is based upon something that they have said before, which is expressedly condemned in the Bible. It is true that no one except for God knows if a person is going to go to heaven or not, but as Christians we need to strive to understand this as best as possible and condemn wrong ideas and behaviors, without condemning the person.
Patriot,
I would still have to say that there is something incorrect in your premises. Either you are misinterpreting Jesus' words, or you are wrong in that the terms "good tree" and "bad tree" are fixed, and they are rather only contingent upon the person. Also, I would take note that had it not been for satan then Adam and Eve may never have thought to rebel against God. In any case, this is not logically insurmountable, there are answers, and if there is one answer (even though it may not be the true answer) then the problem is solved.
Regarding your second question, I am not sure what you mean by Matthew and Luke not recording Jesus' words exactly in Scripture? First Luke was not intimitely associated with Jesus, he was intimitely associated with Paul and the Apostles. He probably would not have actually witnissed the event. If you are saying, "Why don't they both say the exact same thing?" Well part of the reason may be in the fact that Jesus was probably speaking in Aramaic and they were writing in Greek. Any translator can tell you that there are numerous ways to write the exact same thing in a different language. Another unlikely explanation (though slightly possible) would be that Jesus had given the same parable two times. It is possible and in other situations it is probable. I doubt it is actually true in this situation though. Another possibility is that Luke was giving a shorter version of the same story, and that Matthew was giving the entire story. But I have to ask you, is this really what you are asking?
ABOUT THE EDENIC EXPERIENCE: I think one may consider this.. The NT says we see as through a darkened glass..... it is not that there was anything "evil" of the fruit.... it is that in our finite bodies and finite minds the tree provided the fullness of God's Truth, a fullness that man in these vessels can not fully comprehend, therefore, in attempting to use this divine knowledge we "fall short", we "miss the mark" in its application.... our eyes, both spiritual and carnal can not ably receive the fullness of God's Truth and use it in full understanding and application.
My second question is – How could the evangelists intimately associated with Jesus and observing the same event (Matt. 7:18 and Luke 6:43) not record His words exactly in the Scriptural record?
Sermon on the Mount: Matthew 5:1...
Sermon in the Plain: Luke 6:17...
It was similar sermons, but two different places. The words may have changed, but the truth was still being spoken. Similar to an evangelist preaching the same sermon in two different places, the content and truth is the same, but the wording may have changed.
“In light of that, how is it possible that in Eden, humans who were created “wholly good,” would choose to act contrary to what is good?”
We must remember that Eve was deceived, not Adam. “And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression” (1Ti 2:14).
In light of that, why did Adam choose to follow Eve in that which was contrary to God? Before that event, we must remember what was said in Genesis 2:24, “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.”
Eve was Adam’s wife and he chose to cleave to his wife, even in her fall by deception. It was an act of love, just like the second Adam’s act of love, when he chose to follow man into his fall, becoming flesh, but without sin.
Just some thoughts to consider.
Patriot,
I can understand your concern. And it is a difficult question. You said "My focus is SOLELY on the fall by the “first Adam” and the “mechanism” that effected it – not on redemption proferred by the “Second Adam.”
In my view, it seems rather difficult to understand one without understanding the other. There are millions of questions that I could ask, that I don't. Like, why did God curse the earth when Adam and Eve sinned? Why do we have to pay for their sin? And so on. I may never know the answer. Maybe I should be as bold as you in asking the questions, whether I get an answer or not.
But I really believe that if we, who are born vessels of dishonor, can be changed into vessels of honor. Then it sufficeth to say that things and people who are created one way, do not necessarily remain that way. And though they were created good, maybe they were changed into vessels of dishonor as they contemplated the sin, not necessarily acted upon it.
And then comes the other point. What did God mean when He used the word "good"? Good could (and does) mean a plethora of different things.
"How was the movie?"
"Good."
?
That is extremely broad, and leaves a lot to read into it. Does "good" mean it was entertaining? Or that it touched you? Or that it was well made? The acting was good? It had a good plot? Unless it is expounded upon, it leaves one wondering whether they should go see the movie.
The question here, is what did God mean when He said it was "good". Did it mean that He did a good job in creating them? Such as when a sculptor creates a statue, and we say "Wow! That's good!" What I'm saying, is that perhaps when God said it was good, He wasn't refering to their spiritual condition. Maybe He meant that He did good in creating man in His image. I dont know if that helps.
RE: Chris333Mon Mar 17, 2008 9:10
I asked two questions that you did not answer in a way that seemed clear to me.
My first question, rooted in, and dealing only with the Edenic account in Genesis 1 follows:
How could Edenic humankind have produced the “evil fruit” of sin given that:
(1) All of creation, including man and woman, as created by God, was “very good” (Gen. 1:31) and
(2) Jesus is quoted by the evangelists in Matthew 7:18 and Luke 6:43 respectively, “A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.” and: “For a good tree bringeth not forth corrupt fruit; neither doth a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit”?
I accept your notions that God created our Edenic forbears, as you say, “wholly good” and with free will. I also assent to Jesus’ principle that what is good – by its very essence – produces only good. In light of that, how is it possible that in Eden, humans who were created “wholly good,” would choose to act contrary to what is good? Such behavior is illogical to me. I am merely seeking an answer to this conundrum. Nothing more…nothing less.
I restricted my question to Genesis 1 and would like to limit my consideration of the topic to the time prior to the expulsion. My focus is SOLELY on the fall by the “first Adam” and the “mechanism” that effected it – not on redemption proferred by the “Second Adam.”
I frimly believe that apart from Divine grace, and the love of God, I would still be an evil tree bearing evil fruit, deserving eternal damnation – to use the familiar metaphor. Please understand that, as I have said before, that by the unmerited grace of God and by the power of the blood of Jesus Christ I accepted as my personal Lord and Savior. I am first, a born again Christian; I am second, a grateful patriot of the United States. Hence, my screen name.
My second question is – How could the evangelists intimately associated with Jesus and observing the same event (Matt. 7:18 and Luke 6:43) not record His words exactly in the Scriptural record?
Teen,
Please read my comment in context of our conversation. And see how my response is not an accusation, but merely making a point.
I have never told anyone that they are not a Christian. But I have told people that their conversation and/or actions makes me question their claim.
Hi, Prophet – I was trying to read this page and have to say that even though it’s pretty dense I can still make most of it out I think. Born Again Patriot makes some cool but confusing points and seems a weee too up tight for me (sorry BAP nothing personsal if your reading this) but I’m not freaking out over it. But Prophet, saying people aren’t saved isn’t cool (sorry) because only God knows that for sure. I have some friends in my youth group I know read this sight because of all the different topics and news and we all talk about it at Church and school and each others’ houses too even though some of them are'nt saved yet. We’re all pretty good friends and hang out together. They say that if being a Christian is being harsh and mean like some of the people here are they don’t see the point in becoming a Christian. Even though they got a point it still makes me sad. Well that’s all I wanted to say so take it for what its worth and I hope I didn’t hurt anyones’ feelings.
(You also have to accept that people can indeed change, there is no such thing as a good person, all fall short of the glory of God, so by your logic we are all cursed to only ever bear bad fruit for all eternity, but God has given us hope through Christ, to challenge this is to undermine your own argument)
Patriot,
I like your style.
1) It must be stated that God did create all things wholly good.
2)Jesus' words saying a good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad cannot bear good must be accepted.
3)Therefore, it must be stated that the "goodness" of the person is not fixed, but is only based upon his continual striving for goodness and the grace of the Holy Spirit.
In otherwords, Adam and Eve were created wholly good and complete. But God gave them the ability to choose between right and wrong. So long as they remained in God's way, they bore good fruit and lived without consequence, but whenever they disobeyed God and followed what was wrong they became tainted and bore bad fruit.
In the same way, we as Christians can remain in the truth of Christ and in His commandments, or we can follow Satan.
If you can accept that you, being a sinner, can be changed, then you must accept the fact that something that is good can be changed.
patriot,
You cannot be saved. Good fruit cannot come from an evil tree.
Proph – Re: Your Sun Mar 16, 2008 5:01 pm post
In an earlier post (Sun Mar 16, 2008 12:03 am) you accuse me of “weaving” a “web” of dissemblance. In this post, you accuse me of not being saved.
Rest assured, I am saved, and I am an American patriot; hence, my screen name.
Also, rest assurred that until you make reconciliation (Matthew 18:15) for your accusatory behavior (Revelation 12:10), I will have no further communication with you (Ephesians 5:11).
Patriot,
So you, then, cannot be saved. Because you were born into sin. And an evil tree cannot bring forth good fruit. And since you are not born again, why the name?
wild – Re: Your Sun Mar 16, 2008 11:47 am post
I asked two questions and your responses failed to provide a satisfactory answer to them.
My first question is based upon two premises:
Premise 1: All of creation, including man and woman, as created by God, was “very good” (Gen. 1:31).
Premise 2: Recording the same event, Matthew 7:18 and Luke 6:43 respectively quote Jesus to say: “A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.” and: “For a good tree bringeth not forth corrupt fruit; neither doth a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.”
Question 1: Given that Premise 1 and Premise 2 are true, how could Edenic humankind have produced the “evil fruit” of sin?
Your first response to my first question was that “There may be various explanations.”
My reply is that your response is a non-response because you do not propose even one explanation to my question. Your non-response is an invalid answer.
Your second response to my first question was that Genesis 1:31 refers to all of creation, animate and inanimate. You say that “God was talking about the good construction of everything, not moral goodness.”
My six-part response to you follows:
Part 1: You assert that God, upon surveying the universe, remarked that whole of creation was “good” from a physical, not moral perspective.
Part 2: First, God, the Creator, created all things. Second, God created all things so they would comprised of all their constituent elements – without which, they would not be what they are. Third, these elements, when assembled correctly, comprise the thing and not some other thing. Finally, each thing must fulfill the purpose for which it was created.
Part 3: As you say, humans, like “trees, bees, grass, dust, gold, silver, coal, bugs, plants, herbs, stars, etc.” fulfill the physical requirements and purposes of their existence.
Part 4: However, you fail to consider that humans, unlike all other animate or inanimate terrestrial entities were – because of their physical, intellectual and spiritual components – designed not only to exist with physical integrity in order to fulfill their respective purposes, but to live in right relationship with God and each other.
Part 5: Right relationship could have occurred between God and the Edenic forebears only if humankind was morally “very good” (Genesis 1:31).
Part 6: Your unsubstantiated assertion, that Genesis 1:31 refers only to the physically constituted universe to the exclusion of humankind’s moral constitution, in view of my preceding argument, is in categorical error.
You wholly failed to respond to my second question, which relates to question 1 – How could the evangelists intimately associated with Jesus and observing the same event (Matt. 7:18 and Luke 6:43) not record His words exactly in the Scriptural record?
I would be sincerely appreciative of a response to this question, as well.
“My first question is – How could man and woman, who were created by God and proclaimed by Scripture to be “very good” have produced the “evil fruit” of sin – especially in view of the fact that the Lord Jesus Christ said that “good” only comes from a “good” source and “evil” comes only from an “evil” source?”
Though there may be various explanations or even a mystery, there is no discrepancy in the word of God. Let us consider an explanation using Gen 1:31 in regards to the question above: “And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. In addition, the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
“And God saw everything…” God included man in with trees, bees, grass, dust, gold, silver, coal, bugs, plants, herbs, stars, etc. By doing so, God was talking about the good construction of everything, not moral goodness.
proph – Why do you accuse me of “weaving” a “web” simply for asking two questions? Scripture states that Satan is the untiring accuser of believers: “the accuser of our brethren, who accused them before our God day and night, has been cast down…” (Revelation 12:10). My intentions and questions are earnest and sincere; your accusation is unwarranted and offensive (Matthew 18:15).
In an earlier post, wbmoore said, “God wrote the Bible, both the Old and New Testaments, using men as instruments.” Kindly allow me to reiterate my response a third time:
The Bible claims that man and women, as created by God, were “very good” (Gen. 1:31).
We read “A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.” Scripture also proclaims “For a good tree bringeth not forth corrupt fruit; neither doth a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit” Jesus, himself, is quoted to say these words in two separate accounts of the same event in Matthew 7:18 and Luke 6:43.
My first question is – How could man and woman, who were created by God and proclaimed by Scripture to be “very good” have produced the “evil fruit” of sin – especially in view of the fact that the Lord Jesus Christ said that “good” only comes from a “good” source and “evil” comes only from an “evil” source?
You, yourself, state that “Adam and Eve were created good.” Then you claim “Not everything that is good, remains good.” Jesus’ very words contradict what you assert. He never stated or suggested that a “good” tree could, at some future time, possibly produce “bad” fruit – nor the converse – as you claim. In fact, He points out the logical impossibility for anything “good” to generate anything but what is “good.”
You still have not demonstrated how our Edenic forebears, being “very good” could choose to produce the “evil fruit” of sin – even with the faculty of free will – unless, of course (and God forbid!), you are suggesting that Jesus is at best, inaccurate or at worst, a liar.
My second question is – How could the evangelists intimately associated with Jesus and observing the same event (Matt. 7:18 and Luke 6:43) not record His words exactly in the Scriptural record?
I would very much appreciate a response to this question, as well.
patriot,
Although I do not claim to know everything about everything, I will give you what I feel is the best explanation in my opinion. Although, I do see the web you are weaving, whether intentional or not I do not know, and will accomodate you.
Adam and Eve were created good. Not everything that is good, remains good. Just as not everything that is bad has to remain bad. They are a good example. God gave them (and us) a free will. They had a choice. They could listen to Satan, or believe what God said. They made a wrong choice. Their hearts were deceived, which I don't believe is a sin in itself. It became a sin when they acted upon it.
Proph – I’m sorry. I do not believe you answered either of the two questions I posed earlier to wbmoore. Please allow me to rephrase:
The Bible claims that man and women, as created by God, were “very good” (Gen. 1:31).
Jesus himself is said to have claimed that “A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit” (Matt. 7:18). In another account of the same event, Jesus was quoted to say “For a good tree bringeth not forth corrupt fruit; neither doth a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit” (Luke 6:43).
My first question is – How can man and woman, who were created by God and proclaimed by Scripture to be “very good” have produced the “evil fruit” of sin – especially in view of the fact that Jesus said that good only comes from a “good” source and evil comes only from an evil source?
My second question is – How could the evangelists intimately associated with Jesus and observing the same event (Matt. 7:18 and Luke 6:43) not record His words exactly in the Scriptural record?
It took God to make creation "good". It took man to ruin it.
Patriot,
Genesis 3:17-18. "17And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;
18Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;"
Because of sin, all creation was cursed.
Patriot,
One word: sin.
wbmoore: you said, “God wrote the Bible, both the Old and New Testaments, using men as instruments.” Okay, men wrote in Genesis 1:31 “And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.”
Therefore, according to the men who wrote Genesis, all of creation, including humankind, “was very good.”
Some time later, men quote Jesus to say in Matthew 7:18, “A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.” Also, men – being used by God as instruments – quote Jesus to say in Luke 6:43, “For a good tree bringeth not forth corrupt fruit; neither doth a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.”
Help me resolve two questions.
First, how could humanity which was created “very good” by God choose to bring forth “evil fruit” or “corrupt fruit” and disobey God?
Second, how could men closely associated to Jesus and observing the same event (Matt. 7:18 and Luke 6:43) not record that event exactly?
FAITH,
Amen. The first two lies perpetuated by Satan are still his strongest argument today.
1: Did God really say....?
2: Did God really mean....?
And they are as effective today as they were millenia ago. It's sad. You'd think we'd learn.
Schofield, who opposes ordaining women and gays, called it a "shame that the disciplinary process of The Episcopal Church has been misused in this way," he said in a statement. That process, he said, was intended for those who had "abandoned the faith and are leading others away from orthodox Christianity, as held in trust by bishops in the Anglican Communion - and which The Episcopal Church had previously upheld also."
Sounds like they should be voting to defroc themselves.
They exchange the Truth for a lie.
What was that question that the serpent asked Eve?
Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yeaa, hath God said,
I can't help but remember the populat saying, "God hates sin.....but loves the sinner".
Yes we need to love and minister life to all those in our midst or who seek to come to God in
confession repentance and truly willing to humble themselves under tha Mighty, Merciful,
Gracious, Forgiving and restoring Hand of God.
This does not mean that we simply ignore what God's Word says and attempt to be "politically
correct" in order to maintain the status-quo. without controversy.
Jesus said I didn't come to bring peace....but a sword.......
Who ..... is on God's side?
\The line is being drawn in the sands of time.
Choos you this day whom you will serve!
32 Every one therefore who shall confess me before men, him will I also confess before my Father who is in heaven. 33 But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father who is in heaven. 34 Think not that I came to send peace on the earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. 35 For I came to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law: 36 and a man's foes shall be they of his own household. 37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. 38 And he that doth not take his cross and follow after me, is not worthy of me.
Matt 10:32-38 (ASV)
StJohns--
You are committing the error that most secular folks do when they toss out the "judge not lest ye be judged" (partial) verse - probably the most incorrectly used (and overused) verse in all of scripture. Jesus wasn't saying *don't* judge, Jesus was talking about judging *hypocritically*. If you're an adulterer you shouldn't be judging someone on adultery, if you're committing homosexual sodomy then you shouldn't be judging people on being homosexual. Jesus wasn't telling others not to judge anyone but to use *right* judgment.
Second, I am quite comfortable in believing that in standing up for scripture and opposing the sin of homosexuality, in the church, in same sex unions, etc, that I am not "found opposing God". I would suggest you go back to your scripture as you are committing grave and serious errors against God and his Word, and you should consider very carefully what you are supporting and, worse even, what you are trying to justify in opposition to the clear words of the scripture on a sinful act, sinful and unnatural relationship, and something God considers abomination.
I'm sorry. What part of THOU SHALT NOT COMMIT ADULTERY did you not understand?
Quecat.
Thanks. All people want to avoid being called to task for something they know they should not be doing. Christians and non-Christians are alike in this matter - we speak from the flesh. But when we agree with the word of GOd, then we begin the process of change, and htis is what all the teachers of the New Testament writers spoke of - the need for change in our lives from following our own desires and our own versions of God to following the only and one true God. By doing this, we will in fact change our minds and emotions and destinies. But submission to God is a hard thing for most people to do - hence the Flood. We keep going our own ways, rather than trying to follow God.
None of us are perfect. We all sin. We all fail to follow what w eknow to be right some of the time. The trick is to keep submitting to God and not beating ourselves up and not saying since we can't do it perfectly that we should not do it at all. Faith in God is faith in what He has done fdor us, and that includes the saving work that Christ did on our behalf. This faith is what saves us, but this faith must be lived out. We must have evidence in our lives of change toward God and away from sin.
I am saddened when I read about church leaders falling away from the faith and teaching heresy. I am saddened when I see the love of God trodden upon by people wanting to justify themselves and in the process destroy the unity of Christ in the church (and yet they blame others for the fact that people of true faith can not have communiion with those who are heretical).
had to flag myself for typos ! :)
Thank you WBMoore for your efforts on this matter.
It's quite frustrating and disheartening to see the error that has crept into some church bodies.
What's more, God does call us to correct a brother walking in error, but so many in the church these days have so little understanding of scripture that they only seem to pick up on "thou shalt not judge, thou shalt not judge" and somehow misapply it to themselves as defense against being called to task regarding their error.
What's more shameful, is this is the same tactic used by non-Christians and all woefully out of context!
What Jesus said in Matthew 7 was specifically addressing hypocritical judgment.
It's even more amazing that so many folks in the modern hyper-politically correct atmosphere have totally lost sight of what "hypocrite" truly means. Somehow they've come to equate it with "you can't point out my sin if you have any of your own of any kind" FALSE.
Hypocrisy: The act of pretending to oppose a belief or behaviour while holding the same beliefs or behaviours at the same time.
Now were I to support ordination of sodomites (which I don't), then it WOULD be hypocritical of me to say that I don't. THAT is what hypocrisy is.
The bible speaks in many places about using sound judgment and "reproving" fellow believers, urging them to correct their ways.
1 Cor 5:12,13 "What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? ARE YOU NOT TO JUDGE THOSE INSIDE? God will judge those outside. “Expel the wicked man from among you.”
Please dont forget that Paul taught from the Old Testament - he used what was considered scripture at the time to teach what God liked and did not like. He did not teach to follow the Law for righteousness, but he did teach to follow God's word concerning sin and how to act and live.
Romans 6:11-16
11 In the same way, count yourselves dead to sin but alive to God in Christ Jesus. 12 Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its evil desires. 13 Do not offer the parts of your body to sin, as instruments of wickedness, but rather offer yourselves to God, as those who have been brought from death to life; and offer the parts of your body to him as instruments of righteousness. 14 For sin shall not be your master, because you are not under law, but under grace. 15 What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means! 16 Don't you know that when you offer yourselves to someone to obey him as slaves, you are slaves to the one whom you obey—whether you are slaves to sin, which leads to death, or to obedience, which leads to righteousness?
Romans 6:23
23 For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in[a] Christ Jesus our Lord
Romans 8:13
13 For if you live according to the sinful nature, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live
God is against homosexual relations. Feel free to disagree - its your choice to call God a liar or not.
Homosexual sin is no worse or better than any other, but we can not continue to live in our sins, for if we do, then we do not love God.
1 John 3:7-10
Dear children, do not let anyone lead you astray. He who does what is right is righteous, just as he is righteous. He who does what is sinful is of the devil, because the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the devil's work. No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God's seed remains in him; he cannot go on sinning, because he has been born of God. This is how we know who the children of God are and who the children of the devil are: Anyone who does not do what is right is not a child of God; nor is anyone who does not love his brother.
God wrote the Bible, both the Old and New Testaments, using men as instruments. God superintended the writing of the letters that became the Bible, as well as the collection of them, as well as the preservation of them. If you do not agree that the entire Bible is God's word, then you have a deeper issue to worry about than whether any particular sin is important to God or not.
Jesus's teaching and preaching have been recorded in some of the books of the New Testament, but so are the teachings of the certain church leaders and apostles. God used these men to tell us what He liked and did not like.
The Old Testament is very explicit about what God thinks about homosexual sin.
But so is the New Testament.
Romans 1:24-32
Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator--who is forever praised. Amen. Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways doing evil; they disobey their parents; they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.
The sahemful lusts were same-sex attraction.
Natural relations are the sexual relationships between a husband and wife, while unnatural ones would be between two people of the same gender. God called it degrading, shameful, unnatural, indecent, perversion, and depraved. Thes are things one should not do, in case anyone was wondering what that meant. :)
Should Christians judge people or their actions?
We have to take the scripture in context and look at all of it. Jesus did not just say to not judge, he said to not be a hypocrite. If you judge, you will be judged by the same standard. We are to be merciful, and not consider others less or more than ourselves, but we are to judge between right and wrong.
He said to take care of the sin in your life before you address the same sin in the lives of others.
Matthew 7:1-5
"Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. "Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.
Luke 6:36-38
“Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful. Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven. Give, and it will be given to you. A good measure, pressed down, shaken together and running over, will be poured into your lap. For with the measure you use, it will be measured to you."
Jesus Himself said we are to judge what is right or wrong.
Luke 12:57
Why don't you judge for yourselves what is right?
In fact, Jesus said to call sinners on their behavior:
Luke 17:3
So watch yourselves. "If your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him.
Paul said to not be a hypocrite:
Romans 2:1
You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things.
But we are to discern what is right and wrong and avoid wrong.
Romans 12:9
Love must be sincere. Hate what is evil; cling to what is good.
1 Corinthians 5:12
What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside?
So Christians should judge their own actions first and deal with sin in their own lives. But we are to judge the sins of those inside the church. Even so, this does not mean we are to judge someone as being better or worse than ourselves.
Jar1961, I pray that you be humble enough to acknowledge that you have only made a defense of your interpretation of the Scriptures, and that other faithful Christians might see things differently.
I agree... we have made a defense of the Scriptures... it is time to shake the dust from our sandals in this matter.
Irenaeus, I would suggest we follow the dictates of Jesus who commanded us to judge not lest we be judged, or maybe Gamaliel in Acts advising us to "keep away from these men and let them alone; for if this plan or this undertaking is of men, it will fail; but if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them. You might even be found opposing God!"
DaveRaymer,
"their actions are judgemental, and unless I've misread something, one sin never justifies another. "
Some actions deserve a judgemental response, and in those cases, a judgemental response is not a sin.
FOR MR> MAYER: Mr. Mayer, here is the bottom line... JOhn 1 states that in the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word was God. And the Word became flesh and walked among us.....As for your accusation that our attacks are ad hominem... it would be you that make such attacks. The basis for our defense is rooted in Scripture not conjecture... YOur misreading and selective use of Scripture demonstrates your needing further study in God's Word... Notice I said God's Word.. not Paul's... and I never stated that Timothy wrote Timothy.. nice try at attacking my Biblical credibility....
Umm. as far as the sin of homosexuality you need to examine these versus:
# 1 Corinthians 5:9 (Whole Chapter)
I wrote unto you in my epistle to have no company with fornicators;
# 1 Corinthians 5:10 (Whole Chapter)
not at all meaning with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous and extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world:
# 1 Corinthians 6:9 (Whole Chapter)
Or know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with men,
# 1 Timothy 1:10 (Whole Chapter)
for fornicators, for abusers of themselves with men, for menstealers, for liars, for false swearers, and if there be any other thing contrary to the sound doctrine;
Romans 1:27 (Whole Chapter)
and likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another, men with men working unseemliness, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was due.
# Hebrews 13:4 (Whole Chapter)
Let marriage be had in honor among all, and let the bed be undefiled: for fornicators and adulterers God will judge.
# Revelation 21:8 (Whole Chapter)
But for the fearful, and unbelieving, and abominable, and murderers, and fornicators, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, their part shall be in the lake that burneth with fire and brimstone; which is the second death.
# Revelation 22:15 (Whole Chapter)
You see.. the Scriptures are wither the Infallible inerrant word of God or they are not... JOhn 1 is the litmus test for those who hold to the Truth.
As far as Biblical Knowledge... I spent a total of 7 years in seminary.... Im pretty well trained. Now, you will notcie that not only men who lay with men, but those who are effeminate as well.... I guess either you havent read the NT or you are willfully ignorant of the Truth
DaveRaymer
Pelagius was considered a heretic also, as were the gnostics. You may not be in such good company after all.
To answer your question. NO, I do not see a paralell here. Jesus did not approve of the adultery of the woman. He forgave her and told her to "sin no more." Liberal churches today seem to forget the sin no more part. I don't know that anyone is advocating punishing sin here. I would hope not, that must be left to God. What I see is an concern that some Christians are teaching that God forgives sin without repentance or worse, that things which are clearly called sin in the Bible are not sin at all. We are called to be salt and light, not balm and blinders.
Enigma -- well said, now we are getting somewhere. The question begs, when Christ teaches "Let you who are without sin be the first to cast a stone" when the mob wanted to clamoring mob wanted to stone the sinner, don't you see a parallel there with what is going on here.
On a second not, will those of you accusing me of apostasy please look up that word. Apostacy is the renouncing or abandonment of faith -- I have done neither. If you want to accuse me of something, accuse me of heresy. Christ was a heretic to the Jews, Martin Luther a heretic to the Catholic Church -- so at least I'll be in good company.
canadianchristian,
Take it easy. What you say may be true, but please say it a little more gently. We need to correct our brothers not bludgeon them.
DaveRaymer,
When I say not teaching the truth, I am not necessarily talking about teaching lies. Many churches which do not teach falsehood still do not teach the whole truth. Lots of churches of different denominations do not teach about sin. Tolerance is a dangerous thing. If we do not tell sinner that they are sinning we are not loving them, we are letting them go unrepentent, into the abyss. I do not hate homosexuals. If I did I would just let them go, and I would laugh, knowing what is in store for them, but I can't do that.
As for he Episcopal Church not teaching the truth. I do not know much about Epicopal doctrine. I imagine that it is much like any other denomination. But when a national meeting of a church approves a bishop who is openly and even proudly living a life of sin, this gives approval to sin. Elevating this man to that possition goes even beyond saying that homosexuality is acceptable. Because this man is made a bishop, it sends the message that this lifestyle is good and honorable. This is not true.
I will stay out of the women in ministry debate as neither side would like what I have to say on that.
D.Raymer,
It seems pretty clear to all of us reading this that you have no problem with unbiblical doctrine of homosexuality and women clergy, sorry to burst your bubble but both are unscriptural and sinful- I don't have to do a web search, I simply open my KJV and the HOLY SPIRIT leads me to the truth. Be very careful of what you are promoting to others- this is not about religion or politics it is about the truth. If you think CHRIST was all about love only you are deceived, there is judgement and the HOLY justice of GOD, that is the whole reason CHRIST died for us all- to pay our sin debts in full so that we could enter into the presence of a HOLY SPOTLESS RIGHTEOUS GOD. By minimizing sin you are minimizing the sacrifice of the LORD, I pray you are prepared to answer CHRIST for your obvious apostasy.
Enigma -- lets leave it as you don't understand me correctly. I believe that we have to be careful about picking and choosing which parts of the Bible, rather than paying attention to the greater message. Tell me where the Episcopal Church doesn't teach the Truth.
DaveRaymer,
Do I understand you to say that the only part of the Bbile that counts are the words in red? You have dismissed the Old Testament and anything written by Paul. I think that makes you a heretic, and all because you want to allow homosexuality. Sin is sin. Even your favorite sin is sin. Try as you might, you can't change that. I tried for some time when I was first saved to justify my favorite sins, but as I matured, I found that I could not do it. You must accept what the Bible says whether you like it or not. Once you accept it you will grow to like it. God is good that way (and every other way).
As for your assertion that I might be surprised what Biblical scholars say about homosexuality; No I wouldn't. Not all Biblical scholars are Christian and they can write some off the wall stuff.
I also find it interesting that a couple of paragraphs after dismissing the OT and most of the NT that you claim to "believe the message of the Bible." Maybe its just simantics, but maybe you should just believe the Bible, the whole Bible. Studying it in four languages is not enough. I have debated athiests who do that and still have it all wrong. Try studying the Bible in God's language. Open yourself to the Holy Spirit and learn.
I have no particular beef with the Episcopal Church, but I do have a problem with any church that doesn't teach the Truth.
John14-6: with regard to your inquiry into the selection of leadership within the Episcopal Church. Fundamentally yes -- much like the national governments of the United States, England, and others, TEC functions using a republican form of governance -- that is through diocesan, state, and national conventions. Article II of the Constitution and Canons of the General Convention of the Episcopal Church covers Bishops. Bishops are selected from eligible candidates (ordained priests, 30 yrs of age or older) by the diocese that is in need of a Bishop through a lengthy process that varies somewhat betwee dioceses. The selection is done by an apointed committee, not by the actual congrations with little or no input from the parish congregation members. The process is repeated for Bishops at other levels in a similar fashion.
If an individual Christian, disagrees with the leadership of any particular branch of Christianity, they have the right to do so, we must be careful when our disagreement turns to judgement.
The fundamental problem in this situation is that many of the Bishops, parishes and congregations that have left, are in the process of, or are discussing leaving TEC are doing so for more reasons than just the consecration of an openly gay man as a Bishop. Given the structure of the Episcopal Church, it is no more a reflection on the individual than the government of the United States or England is on the citizens of those country. This is about politics and is being used by many as "the final straw".
If you reflect, neither Christ nor Martin Luther set out to "split" the faith of their day, they set out to right the wrongs. If my fellow Episcopals are so incensed by women in the priest role and the ordination of gays to the pulpit, then they should either work to change the position of the church from within, or simply change denominations -- their actions are judgemental, and unless I've misread something, one sin never justifies another.
DaveRaymer--
I think you are partially right when you say calling the entire church liberal when certain parishes maybe conservative, etc, isn't fair. However, I think what many of those here accusing TEC of being liberal really mean is the *leadership*. Jeffers-Schori being the worst offender just ahead of the ordained, openly homosexual Robinson. It is the Episcopal leadership here in America that is responsible for the perceptions, because their decisions are made as the "face" of TEC. When they affirm and support the ordination of an unrepentant sodomite as a bishop, that is a decision of the Episcopalian Church in America, regardless of how many conservative parishes there might be out there that disagree with the decision. The leadership *is* the church, or the face of it to the world, anyway, for better or for worse. For worse, in this case. But the parishes are responsible for the election of this leadership, are they not?
jar1961 and many others-- engaging in ad hominen personal attacks is never the way to bring someone to your opinion or belief; I don't believe you'll find Christ setting this example, nor in judging others the way many of you seem to be so ready to do, He chose to forgive rather than judge. Note that 'Bishop' Schofield is in fact no longer a bishop of anything; he resigned his holy orders in January (check the web).
As far as the Book of Timothy (which jar1961 was not written by anyone named Timothy as your response seems to imply) what about Paul's letters to the Hebrews as to how someone is called to serve as a priest/pastor/bishop. Do a search on the web for homosexuality in the New Testament, you might be surprise by the what biblical scholars have to say.
And with regard to people staying in the pulpit, any preacher that commits the same sin repeatedly is governed by those words, not just the supposed sin of homosexuality. Note, that I say supposed, because other than the OT, God makes no prohibition agains homosexuality in the Bible. Read that carefully people, GOD -- The NT addresses homosexuality in the words of Paul, not the words of Christ.
Moses brings explicit laws to the wandering Israelites in the matter, but if you are going to take those as authoritatively apply to Christian, then you've got 630+ other laws you'd better start following as well.
As a personal note, I am a happily married (22 years) heterosexual male with 3 children ages 20, 19, and soon to be 13. I am a scientist and a devout Christian, who believe the message of the Bible and lives his life to that message to the glory of God, not by picking and choosing passages and listening to the words of others, but by studying the word of God in English, German, Hebrew, Greek and Latin. I teach the scripture study at my church, am active all aspects of church life.
As a note, its not just the homosexuals Schofield has a problem with, he's equally opposed to women as priests. This isn't about religion or faith, its about politics.
Before one person tells another about the Truth, they might take some time to learn it for themselves. One must first forgive before one can be forgiven; Christ was Love, not condemnation. God allows each of us to condemn ourselves, He won't do it for you.
StJohns --
Please stop with the tired liberal formula that is regurgitated nearly word for word in defense of every action the liberal unorthodoxy makes against Jesus Christ and His Church. You understand nothing, it appears, about what Jesus was saying about (and to) the Pharisees. This constant liberal appeal, comparing everyone who challenges their destructive acts designed to spread error and sow discord and content with the Pharisees, is a very tired tactic. First, Jesus said to follow the Pharisees teaching, but not what they do. He was taking the Pharisees to task for their hypocrisy not what they taught. Was the apostle Paul a "Pharisee" when he wrote 1 Corinthians or 2 Corinthians? He chastises those churches well, and rightly he should have, for their descent into the same kind of antinomianism and liberalism that is rampant in the mainline Protestant churches today.
It isn't Pharisaism to challenge the apostasy of denominations like the Episcopalians when they promote teaching and condone behaviors that are in direct conflict with the Word of God. And please don't bring up slavery again, or any of the other things you go on about, as those issues have been dealt with *repeatedly* by churches and scholars for centuries. You haven't discovered anything new. Plenty of scholars, Catholic, Orthodox, mainline and evangelical have written endless papers, treatises and books explaining the very situations you go on about. If you haven't the time, patience or energy to go seek them out and do some reading, educating yourself, then I doubt anything I say could do it either.
Women clergy and homosexuality are in complete opposition to Biblical teaching. Period. And any church, mainline or other, that ordains women, homosexuals, or promotes homosexual unions is apostate, in my opinion, and in the opinion of millions of others who believe the Bible is the Word of God and should be followed.
God bless Bishop Schofield for separating his parish from this apostate church. The Episcopal Church in America has long ago gone over the liberal cliff, and it's nice to see a few of the leaders of this apostate body recognize the serious evil in the direction this church's teachings have been going for along time, and doing what they must, what God requires, so they can to escape it.
Bishop Schofield resigned from the House of Bishops of the Episcopal Church on his own. Thus that House has now accepted his resignation, so that he can no longer be considered the Episcopal Bishop of San Joaquin. The deposition is as simple as that. It was made with regret and not based upon theological positions, but practical considerations of who is to be the Episcopal shepherd of the Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin. All these self-righteous condemnations remind me far more of the Pharisees than Jesus, who counseled us all to judge not, lest we be judged.
Now isn't it an interesting turn of events when a church body has strayed so far from biblical principles that they are removing the RIGHTEOUS from ministerial offices!!!???
It's called apostasy.
Isa 5:20,21 " Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! Woe unto [them that are] wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight! "
Isa 5:23,24 " Which justify the wicked for reward, and take away the righteousness of the righteous from him! Therefore as the fire devoureth the stubble, and the flame consumeth the chaff, [so] their root shall be as rottenness, and their blossom shall go up as dust: because they have cast away the law of the LORD of hosts, and despised the word of the Holy One of Israel. "
May the Lord richly bless Mr. Schofield for standing on the word of the Lord in times such as these.
Maranatha!
This should serve as a warning to other denominations. If unBiblical leaders are allowed to remain in our churches, then they will take over and throw out those "untolerant" people who actually want to stick to Biblical teaching.
FOR DAVERAYMER: Mr. Mayer you obivously are not a Bible believing Christian. If you were you would realize the books of Timothy and Peter are clear on the requirements for priesthood....
It would also be clear to you that homosexual behaviour is anathema to the Christian faith...tell me..would you ordain a pastor who is having a sexual affair with a married woman? Or having other forms of sex outside of marriage?
It is both liberal and heretical. Christianity calls for being a witness and standing for truth... not for being tolerant about behaviour.....We are in fact to judge behaviour and love the sinner.... but our faith is also clear.. if any one who calls himself a brother (or sister) persists in sin and has been rebuked and disciplined according to the Scriptural mandates.. then the last step is to be ex communicated... so bearing this in mind.. how is a practicing homosexual to remain in the pulpit????
Well said, DaveRaymer. I look forward to seeing your writings again soon!
A slight clarification to the report --
"...San Joaquin is the first full diocese to split from the liberal-leaning denomination"
The Diocese of San Joaquin voted at a diocesan convention leave the TEC with 42 out of 47 parishes (churches) supporting the move. Subsequently, a totoal of 17 parishes have chosen to remain to with TEC.
Calling the TEC liberal leaning is a bit unfair -- one state selecting an openly gay bishop and the ordination of women does not make one liberal, tolerant perhaps, liberal, no. You'll find a large number of politically conversative parishioners in most Episcopal Churches