A conservative Episcopalian who has been asked to help reconcile the Diocese of San Joaquin says the conflict that has split the diocese is more complex than a conservative versus liberal one.
Today's Christian News Online - The Christian Post
Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free. (JN 8:32)
CP HOME
> church > Denomination
Episcopal Leaders Investigate Conflict After Diocesan Split
By
Lillian Kwon
Christian Post Reporter
Mon, Mar. 10 2008 02:27 PM EDT
[-] Text [+]
Prev1Next
Most Commented Articles
La. Governor Signs 'Science Education Act'
Obama Prying Loose Evangelicals from Republicans
Federal Marriage Amendment Re-introduced in Senate
Why I Thank God for Charles Darwin
Anglican Head Sees Risks in Conservative Proposals
PCUSA Assembly Approves Deleting Gay Clergy Ban
Arizona Puts Marriage Amendment on Ballot - Again
Featured Advertiser Links
Comments
St. John's,
You have abandonded fair debate. I have nothing more to say, please read my post below to hear how I would respond to you. If you want to actually say something of value then I will respond, but you have not engaged any point I raised. You lobbed an unfounded attack against me.
Chris333, as I said, in the case of the abolition of slavery, the Scriptures and Tradition are absolutely firm, despite your protestations, and you are the one who has engaged an 'extremely abstract argument' to overturn the 'plain sense of Scripture.' I guess you just see in Scripture what you want to see, which of course, is the very argument used against those supporting women's ordination or the acceptance of homosexuality.
St. John's,
Once again you are side tracking, but to no avail. Let me make the case against slavery using the Bible, and then let me exlpain to you why either way this argument is superfluous to our argument.
Sure the OT has some "endorsments" of slavery, however, Jesus clearly said (regarding divorce) that Moses gave certain laws because their hearts were hard. And He said that in the Beginning it was not so. Moving on to the NT, the Epistles make it blatantly clear that God sees slave and master as equal, and that if a slave is able to secure freedom then they should do so. Paul was not interested in overturning the society, he was interested in telling people how they should act within the society. For that matter, we very much do have slaves today, we have enslaved half the world by importing cheap products paying people 2 cents a day. Slavery is still very much alive and thriving, and you and I are very much slave owners. Now you could either follow Pauls advice and treat those under you with kindness and make sure that they are taken care of, or you can deny the obvious.
This being said, this entire argument is of no consequence. My point is that we have three methods of determing truth, (revealed) Scripture, (revealed) tradition, or (ambiguous) reason. Of these three, Scripture and Tradition would be the most fruitful if we want to get anywhere. If we can agree generally about what is Scripture, then this should be sufficient, if not, then we have to decide which tradition is true. In any case, homosexuality and women ordination goes against Scripture and Tradition, so you are left with the third, reason to decide. But whose reason? And in what conext? Are you appealing to secularism? And why on earth should we accept what the Anglican Church says?
Chris333, you are very selectively reading your Scriptures if you think the Bible does not openly support the institution of slavery, for instance: “As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are round about you. You may also buy from among the strangers who sojourn with you and they may be your property. You may bequeath them to your sons after you, to inherit as a possession for ever.” Lev. 25:44-46, or “Slaves, be obedient to those who are your earthly masters, with fear and trembling, in singleness of heart,” (Eph. 6.5) or “Let all who are under the yoke of slavery regard their masters as worthy of all honor, so that the name of God and the teaching may not be defamed. Those who have believing masters must not be disrespectful on the ground that they are brethren; rather they must serve all the better since those who benefit by their service are believers and beloved. Teach and urge these duties. If any one teaches otherwise and does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching which accords with godliness (that person) is conceited and understands nothing” (I Timothy 6.1-3). Slaves are even acknowledged in the Ten Commandments. In this case the Scriptures and Tradition are absolutely firm, despite your protestations, and you are the one who has engaged an 'extremely abstract argument' to overturn the 'plain sense of Scripture.'
Also,
I still find the case for the Anglican Church fairly weak, and by proxy the Episcopalian Church as well.
St. John's,
Haha, not so fast, I said absolutely no such thing as the issue being left to personal interpretation. The Bible is not pro-slavery, at best it allows it. There is no command anywhere in the Bible that says, "Certain people will be slaves, based upon nationality, religion, or gender" No words even close. And while there are verses talking about how a slave and a master are to act (note that God sees all as equal, both slave and master), there is nothing coming close to approval. Indeed, in the beginning God did not create slaves for Adam and Eve, rather slaves came later, just like kings and earthly authorities, and just like polygamy, but in the Beginning, God never created such an order. Note that God did not also create Adam and Bob, He made Adam and Eve and this is the perfect design. Homosexuality on the other hand is called an abomination in numerous places and is consistently referred to as a sin. Paul tells slaves that if they are able to secure freedom then they should, things were a great deal different then and Paul was acknowledging this reality.
Homosexuality takes only extremely abstract arguments from Scripture that really do not hold. There is no Scripture that supports it, Tradition within the Church has always been against it, and reason is a meaningless word if it is not qualified. Indeed, you must go against Scripture and Tradition, in a most unreasonable fashion to hold this position.
The same goes for women's ordination. You must overturn tradition which has always held that women were not to teach men in Church, and against the very words of the Bible. The case is weak for either case.
That being said, I suppose you could create a brand new church and then say, "After my reasoning, and MY tradition, and based on MY interpretation (I prefer twisting) of Scriptures, I have decided to make a Church that accepts homosexuality as not sinful and women priests." After you say this however, what is to stop the next guy from saying the same thing but substituting pornography, pedophilia, incest, or virtually anything else? In short, you have completely destroyed all standards and left "ME" as the only god and measure of all things.
Chris333, yes I absolutely agree with you that there is room for interpretational differences whether you are relying upon Scripture, Tradition, or Reason, though conservatives sometimes pretend that it isn't so with the Bible. Thus claiming that 'you have made your case' that the Bible is against slavery because the numerous Scriptural passages supporting the institution are overridden by the Spirit of Gospel which respects the equality and dignity of all human beings is the same argument used by those who support the ordination of women, and now those who support the consecration of Gene Robinson. I give up. I agree with you.
St. Johns,
I have made the case that the Bible is strongly against such abuse of any position. The New Testament takes an entirely different tone and it is ridiculous for you to try to take the Parables of Jesus and then assume a Biblical mandate, you have taken it entirely out of context. For that matter, which do you prefer Tradition or Reason? If it is Reason then whose reason? Is it reason based upon the Bible or based upon tradition, or based upon atheists? Depending on the world view you subscribe to you can come up with drastically different results using reason. Tradition might be safer, but you have to decide whose tradition. Or you could do like nearly every abolitionist did and use the Bible to support your arguments and the equality and dignity of all human beings. You pick your path.
You also have not satisfactorily answered my questions about the Anglican Church
The Anglican Communion asserts the authority of Scripture, Tradition, and Reason, not of ourselves alone. I am glad to see you moving away from the silly doctrine Sola Scriptura. Now let's consider another historical example that shows the Church overriding Scripture and Tradition by the employment of Reason: the abolition of the institution of slavery. The Biblical case is overwhelmingly in favor of slavery. It is mentioned in every book of the Bible, never a word against it. Exodus 24 allows one to beat one's slave to death, provided they survive a day or two first. Jesus tells a Parable where the slaves are beaten without comment. The Tradition of the Church supporting slavery is also firmly established. So by what authority did those Christian Abolitionists change the thinking and theology of the Church?
Though I have heard different, let us accept your train of thought, and let us even go so far as to say that Scripture must be accompanied by some tradition (this is actually closer to my position anyways), what should make us think that the Anglican Church has any authority? Simply tracing ones roots to the Apostles means almost nothing, there must be a Church Consensus, which the Anglican Church only has consensus with itself, I suppose we could call it monosensus. In anycase, it seems the RCC or Orthodox position would be much more sustainable if one wanted to expound tradition as necessary.
Chris333, it is clear that the Jewish Community absolutely did NOT set its Canon before the time of Jesus, and certainly before the time of the Septuagint as you suggest. Indeed the New Testament record and the Dead Sea Scrolls in the first century A.D., together clearly confirm that at that time the Jewish Scriptures consisted of the Law and the Prophets, maybe the Psalms, but that the Writings were clearly NOT an accepted or defined part of the Hebrew Canon, which of course was set much later, perhaps as late as the fourth century A.D. Christian usage itself is one of the best proofs of that.
St. John's,
It is true that sometimes a good offense is the best defense, but unfortunately that is not so in debate. You completely dodged the allegations I brought forth and didn't not even give a shot at defending your position. Instead you attempted to attack my position using words that I did not even say.
In any case, it has always seemed to me that the best attack against Sola Scriptura is that the Scriptures actually do not teach Sola Scriptura. That being said, the Bible does not explicitly teach many things that we do believe in, e.g. the Trinity. Those who support Sola Scriptura usually say that all that is contained within Scripture is sufficient for salvation and preparing a person for "all good works". They also refer to Paul and Peter's quoting of one another (as Scripture) as to the fact that they did consider themselves as in the process of writing Scripture. Now you have jumped midway into the debate by stating, "How do we know what is actually Scripture?" Regarding the OT, the Protestants accept the books chosen by the Jewish Community, prior to the Septanguint, and cite numerous exaggerations and chronological and historical errors, which do not "seem" like the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. As for the NT, we accept the same as were decided in 395, and we simply say that they bear the marks of 1) Apostolic Authority, 2)Historical accuracy, 3)Coherence, and 4) An appearant "God-breathed" nature about them.
Nonetheless, even if we threw up our hands and said, "Ah, without tradition Scripture is impossible" It wouldn't change the fact that the case for Anglicanism is very weak. I mean, how does the Anglican Church combat Mormonism?
Chris333, Sola Scriptura is the position that hasn't been thought through. The Bible didn't fall from heaven. Numerous books have been and were considered inspired, e.g. the Book of Enoch, the OT Apocrypha, the NT Pseudepigrapha, the Book of Mormon. Who decides the Scriptures? The very question calls into question any concept of Sola Scriptura. The Bible is not self-establishing. Quoting 2 Timothy and then pretending that it refers to just the books you want it to, some of which may not even have been written at the time, is ludicrous. The Bible can't be taken out of Tradition or considered without Reason, though many have tried both.
"We are who we are. I guess upstart new denominations have to make some bold claim of self-righteousness"
Not at all, rather there is only one truth and we don't get to make it ourselves. It seems a bit disingenuous that the Anglican Church just says, "Well we are both Apostolic/tradition and Reformed Protestant" It is like saying, "I am both for and against killing people" You can't be for and against the same thing! (Killing is just an example, virtually anything could be substituted). And it is not humility that causes the Anglican Church to adopt the position it takes, if anything it is extreme arrogance. The fact of the matter is that either 1) Holy Tradition is correct, or 2) Sola Scriptura is correct. You can't say, "Well both scripture only and tradition + scripture are true, and we just so happen to be the only one that has figured this out"!
I need a better defense of your position, in fact, it is hard to even know what your position is. The Anglican Church is not a part of Catholicism, it is completely separated and has no right to call itself as such. The position of the Anglican Church is altogether confusing, you say Scripture, Tradition, and Reason, yet it is not certain how you view Scripture and which Tradition determines Scripture, then it is not certain what Tradition you actually believe in, you said the first 7 councils, but the Anglican Church was part of the Catholic Church for most of those councils, also it seems in large part you reject that Tradition because you accuse the RCC of being false (or at least they accuse you of being false). And as far as Reason, it is difficult to know what role if any reason plays in this, many extremely intelligent individuals came from the Church of England, but I wonder how well they thought through the basis of their church? It would be better for the Church of England if it would either just make the entire leap to protestantism, or reconcile with the RCC.
Chris333, I guess the Anglican Communion is humble enough not to go around declaring that other branches of the Christian Church are deficient in Truth, and have always seen ourselves as part of the larger Christian Church, but not exclusively that Church. That's a position I kinda like. We value Scripture, Tradition and Reason as the source of authority in making decisions in the Church, and definitely claim that we are both Catholic (because we retain the ancient Creeds, Scriptures, Orders of Ministry and Sacraments, as well as Apostolic Succession) (obeying the Pope is definitely not the ancient defining characteristic of being Catholic, that's a modern phenomenon) and Protestant, reformed and reforming. We are who we are. I guess upstart new denominations have to make some bold claim of self-righteousness. We don't.
St. John's,
Then what is the Anglican Church's position? The RCC and Orthodox view Anglican as deficient in Truth, and the Protestants view it as deficient in Truth. Therefore you must assert that both Protestant and RCC/Orthodox are deficient in Truth and that you are in fact the "true Catholic and Apostolic Church" But if that is so, then why so much confusion for 1000 years? And for that matter, where was the Church council that decided that the Church of England's position was right? It sounds to me like the Church of England is somewhat comprable to any other minor split in the main Church being RCC/Orthodox. Nothing you have said has changed the fact that the Anglican Church was Catholic before Henry the VIII, and it became its own distinct brand new Church afterwards (with some claim to a celtic origin, but I do not hear you upholding the works of Pelagius) The Anglican Church is not Catholic, in that it does not recognize the Pope as the Supreme head of the Church (though it did for 1000 years prior) it is Catholic in that it calls itself catholic, but where is the basis in any of this? Simply pointing to a history attached to the Apostles guarantees nothing. We do not say that the oriental orthodox church is true or right in any way, regardless of the fact that they have a legitimate tie to the Apostles. The Anglican Church is merely a dissenter from the RCC as far as I can see.
Chris333, you have a strange reading of English Church history. The Celtic Church didn't 'disappear' but became a part of the larger Church in England. The continental RCC didn't exert much influence until after the Norman invasion of 1066, and there remained an independent spirit in the Church in England even thereafter, which contributed to the later split with the continent under Henry VIII, who served as 'head' of the Church in the same way as the Holy Roman Emperor did earlier. There was a change of politics more than religion, with the rise of nation states. I am not sure the Church in England would feel that it ever rejected the early Councils of the Church (there was some before the 4 you mention, or the 7 traditional Ecumenical Councils), but just as in our days there were disagreements and controversies with the decisions of various councils. But you are right, the Anglican Communion does see itself as both Catholic and Protestant, and always as a part of the larger one true Body of Christ, despite your own personal disagreements with her.
St. John's,
You didn't answer my allegations. I am fully aware that there was an earlier church in England, however that church (as far as I can see) completely dissappeared as it was swallowed by the RCC, and for 1000 years it remained as such. Now this is all fine and good, but King Henry just declared the revival of such a Church with himself as head, with the main reason being so that he could get a divorce (of course there were other reasons as well). There is no real connection. Also, it is clear that all of the early Church councils were decided with the Church as a whole, being the unified Orthodox and RCC. Now if you recognize the first four(?) Councils, which may or may not have had this early Church of England as a part, then how can you regect the overal council of the Church and then go to make your own Church on shaky reasons at best? The Anglican Church seems to want it both ways, they want to be reformed Protestants, and they want Apostolic Succession, well you can't have it both ways.
Ohh yay another split. Why don't they dig up Martin Luther's dead body and relieve themselves on it just to seal the deal?
Former Episcopalian, relax. I believe that the Holy Scriptures as defined by the Councils of the Church containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation. However, I also do not believe that everything read therein should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation.
St John’s
OK, I will concede the point on the Apocrypha being quoted in the NT, although my sources say differently.
I would still like to know whether you believe the Bible, Protestant or Catholic, is the inspired Word of God. If not, why do you use them to preach on Sundays?
You seem reluctant to answer this question for some reason, but maybe that is my perception.
Every single book in the Apocrypha is quoted or alluded to in the NT same as the books from the later Hebrew Bible, without distinction. The Hebrew Canon was not settled at Jamnia. And when St. Augustine later of Canterbury arrived in England in 599, he found a Church in England that dates back to at least the early second century.
The Protestant Bible agrees with the official canon of Judaism, established around 100 A.D. when Jewish Rabbis excluded portions of the Greek Septuagint because the authorship and authenticity of the books could not be established. The books of the New Testament in the Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox Bibles are identical.
The Apocrypha was never quoted in the NT, not once. The five books of the current OT that are not quoted from in the NT are Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Solomon. This is not significant because they were part of collections of Jewish Scripture. Ezra, Nehemiah and Esther were always included in the History collection of the Jewish scripture and Ecclesiastes and Song of Solomon were always included in the Poetry collection. Since other books within the same collection were quoted and shown to be inspired, this shows them to be inspired.
You study and preach from the RCL which has the same books of the NT and OT but includes the Apocrypha. But yet here and in other forums you call authorship and validity of some of the NT books into question.
Are they the inspired Word of God or not? And if not, why do you use them to study and preach from on Sundays? Simple questions that deserve an answer.
St. John's,
But does the Anglican church not trace its apostolic succession to Christ from the RCC? It was a part of the RCC for over a thousand years. How can the Anglican church claim Apostolic succession if it was broken for 1000 years and the entire church was following the false tradition of the RCC? Either the Anglican church was breaking off from the RCC, or it was starting something completely new but only slightly tied in form to the RCC, but it could not seriously make the claim that it was going back to some pre-Roman/Augustinian influence 1000 years prior. Further, while Henry VIII did cause the rupture that was arguably longcoming, he still did declare himself as the head of the Church. That seems highly arrogant if not extremely preposterous.
Forgive me if I was a bit rude, but I just find it very unconvincing that the true apostolic church actually was in England in the 5th Century, and was only obscurred for a 1000 years by the RCC, until finally Henry the VIII liberated it (so that he could get an anullment...) I am not too knowledgable of the Anglican church, so correct me if I have been wrong, but in my opinion there are only three valid positions, RCC, Orthodox, and Sola Scriptura (I mean otherwise we are going to have to make sure the Oriental Orthodox, and Ethiopian Church, and the Aryan Church, are not the true Churches who were only squelched by the RCC/Orthodox)
Chris333, I don't have a gripe with you. I liked what you wrote below. I was just identifying the passage for you from Enoch, since you seemed unaware of it. By the way, the Anglican/Episcopal church wasn't founded by Henry VIII, he just separated the Church in England from Rome again, as it had been in the beginning. Finally Sola Scriptura is hard position to hold these days, since we know that there is no agreed Christian Bible and never has been. I don't believe that any of the 15 lists from the 4th century even agree with any of the others. So who chooses? The Bible didn't fall from heaven. So we are back to Former Episcopalian's absurd attempt to quote 2 Timothy 3:16 and then apply it just to the books he wants it to apply to.
St. John's
I don't know what your gripe with me was over the book of Enoch. You seem to be advocating its trustworthiness, but then you say it is not in the "so-called Apocrypha"? Do you teach it as Scripture or not? I was only serving a point, not making a statement of belief. I also have to ask, if you hold the traditions of the Church with such high regard, then why are you not a RCC or Orthodox? I mean how could the Church have gotten the Apocrypha right among other things, and then failed miserably on everything else? Seems a double standard, either you are all for tradition or you are completely against it and take sola scriptura, these are the only two valid arguments.
This brings up another point that has always bothered me. The Anglican/Episcopalian church has accepted many aspects of the RCC, including the Apocrypha, but then it is based upon a King who couldn't get a divorce! This is the most preposterous reason to form your own Church, declaring yourself as the head of it, that I have ever heard! How do you and other Anglicans defend such a "tradition" that is clearly not divine in any way? You cannot just say, "Oh I don't like the way my Church is doing things, therefore I will make my own Church largely modeled after this one, and make myself the head of it" Can you please defend such a position?
It is either RCC/Orthodox all the way, or it is Sola Scriptura. Those are the only two options that seem logical.
Former Episcopalian, the Episcopal Church has adopted the ecumenically approved Revised Common Lectionary or RCL, which continues to includes lessons from the traditional Western Catholic Bible, including the so-called Apocrypha rejected by the Protestants at the Synod of Dort in 1618.
St. John's,
So I will ask again, what do you preach from on Sundays? Where do the lessons come from on Sundays?
Chris333, Jude 1:14 directly quotes the Book of Enoch, to which Jesus also seems to have alluded several time, but note also that Enoch is NOT in the so-called Apocrypha. Jerome and Luther may not have liked the so-called Apocrypha, but the Christian Church seemed to accept them without distinction until the Protestants rejected them in the 17th century. Augustine specifically declares that they were indefectible, but I wholeheartedly agree with you that the Scriptures form the basis of our discussions and decisions. Only we can't self-righteously quote a few verses and ignore the long history of Christian tradition introducing contrary practices to them, like the allowance of Gentiles, the dismissal of Levitical practices (except apparently for homosexuality), the promotion of democracy over the biblical idea of the Divine Right of Kings, the acceptance of usury, the abolition of slavery, overcoming the subjugation of women, and on and on.
Former Episcopalian, Irenaeus is the first to argue for four and only four gospels. He has no list per se, though others have tried to coble one out of his writings, usually reading into them what they want to find. We do have 15 undisputed lists of Christian Scriptures from the 4th century, when lists first appear, and NOT one of them agrees with your Protestant BIble. So when exactly did the Church 'discover' the Bible and which biblical list was it. You seem to prefer Athanasius' list of New Testament books, but then deny his list of Hebrew Scriptures. How convenient for you. You are right when you say "The books of today’s NT were widely used and accepted by contemporary believers," but then so were many others, like the Book of Enoch or the Gospel of Peter. So we are still left pondering your self-serving quotation from 2 Timothy.
Former Episcopalian,
I agree that part of the problem is certainly centered around a ridiculous and illogical idea of relativism. But I belive there is another and more sinister reason to blame as well. I have consistently stated on other threads that denominations are almost entirely based upon greed, and tradition. Indeed these were the two points that the reformers had gripes with the RCC, but it turns out that it is also the reason why we have such breaks in the Church. There is absolutely no excuse for 30,000 denominations. Most agree that a certain set of clear fundamental points based on the actual interpretation of Scripture is all that is necessary for salvation. Most agree that disagreeance on smaller points is of little consequence. So why the splits? I believe that it is because there is a great deal of money in maintaining ones own denominations and staying in such organizations, and because people are unwilling to let go of the traditions of their churches. It is possible to have a Bible based church, that has some leniancy on minor points. So what is keeping Lutherans and Baptists from joining? Arrogance.
St. John,
I think one important distinction is made in what you are saying. Firstly, Former Episcopalian was stating that our opinions must be forged by truth as is defined by the Bible. It is true that we must have some discernment, which should always be based on sound scholarship and a total view of Scripture in mind, but it is not to say that we can just take the parts of the Bible we like, or interpret it wholly according to how we feel. Indeed this is meaningless and ridiculous to even propose, we could justify nearly anything I wanted from the Bible if we took such a stance and all of it would be meaningless, we might as well throw up our hands and say, "Alas nothing is true, but what we say is true!"
However, you did bring up a legitimate point in, "Why do we reject the apocrypha?" From a rationalistic point of view, it makes perfect sense. The apocrypha have many "errors" in them and some extreme exaggerations, they were not included in the Hebrew Bible, and were considered "deuter-canonical for most of Church history. You raise a point about Jude possibly reffering to one of them, I have not heard this but if true it would not necessarily make much difference. There were several quotes in the NT that did not come from anywhere in the Bible.
St Johns, the canon of scripture was decided upon long before the Synod of Dort. Irenaeus (A.D. 180) in his writings names the books of the New Testament. F.F. Bruce writes concerning Irenaeus, “His writings attest the canonical recognition of the fourfold Gospel and the rest of the NT. In his treatise, Against Heresies III, it is evident that by AD 180 the idea of the fourfold Gospel had become so axiomatic through Christendom that it could be referred to as an established fact as obvious and inevitable and natural as the four cardinal points of the compass (as we call them) or the four winds.”
Athanasius of Alexandria (A.D.) gave us our earliest list of NT books which is exactly like our present NT.
Again you use an incorrect view of what is included in the canon. The church is not the determiner of the canon it is the discoverer of the canon. The books of today’s NT were widely used and accepted by contemporary believers.
Assuming you are a Priest in the Episcopal Church, I begin to wonder what you preach from on Sundays when consistently and constantly on this forum call the scriptures into question.
Former Episcopalian, step back a moment and look at what you've done, for you have done exactly what you are accusing others of doing. Right after quoting verses from 2 Timothy, you wrote "The problem occurs when people use their experiences to interpret the Bible rather than the Bible to interpret their experiences." But you are interpreting those verses from your experience. Do you really think the author of those verses meant your Protestant Bible which first appears at the Synod of Dort in 1611? Might not the author have a different set of Scriptures in mind than your experience? Like the Book of Enoch which is specifically quoted in Jude? Did the author of your verses, whose very identity is questioned, mean the Book of Baruch or Wisdom? Did he include any of the later canonical Gospels, which may not even have been written by that time? You quote the verses so confident of their meaning, because you have imposed your meaning onto them, the very thing you have consistently accused others of doing.
This is a very interesting question Chris. I believe that the answer lies in the fact that there is no belief in absolute truth any longer. Many believe that truth is subjective and in the eye of the beholder, so to speak. Truth has been subverted by reason.
Statements like, Christianity may be true for you, but it’s not true for me,” or “All truth is personal. You’ve got yours and I’ve got mine” are very prevalent in today’s society and even amongst the different denominations within Christianity. People seek a relative truth to justify their believes on a certain issue without actually seeking absolute truth. Peter Kreeft had this to say about subjective morality:
"Of course, objective morality is not one among many moral options; it is the very definition of morality. "Subjective morality" is an oxymoron; it is no morality at all; it is a mere game. If I (or we) make rules, I (or we) can change them. If I tie myself up, I am not really bound. And a nonbinding morality is not morality, only some "good ideas". It has no laws, nothing with teeth in it; only "values": soft, squooshy things that feel like teddy bears."
When we hold the Holy Bible, we hold absolute truth in our hands. Paul says that “ all scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness.” 2 Timothy 3:16. The problem occurs when people use their experiences to interpret the Bible rather than the Bible to interpret their experiences.
Why do we have an Episcopal church? This is not the Catholic or Orthodox church. We do not believe that being an Episcopal, or Lutheran, or Presbyterian is what allows one to go to Heaven, rather we believe it is by a saving faith in Christ as illustrated by the Bible. So why don't we have one Church which is based on a clear teaching of the Bible and is rigid only on fundamental and necessary points and allows some variation so long as it does not go against the overall witness of the Bible? Why do we care if the Episcopal church splits up? Why don't we band together as Christians, and not denominations. If we do not believe in Bible+Holy Tradition, then why don't we start acting like it?
Any thoughts?