Episcopal Leaders Investigate Conflict After Diocesan Split

Former Episcopalian »

Thu Mar 13, 2008 1:55 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

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.

Episcopal Leaders Investigate Conflict After Diocesan Split

Former Episcopalian »

Thu Mar 13, 2008 10:42 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

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.

Episcopal Leaders Investigate Conflict After Diocesan Split

Former Episcopalian »

Wed Mar 12, 2008 4:07 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

St. John's,
So I will ask again, what do you preach from on Sundays? Where do the lessons come from on Sundays?

Episcopal Leaders Investigate Conflict After Diocesan Split

Former Episcopalian »

Wed Mar 12, 2008 8:54 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

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.

Episcopal Leaders Investigate Conflict After Diocesan Split

Former Episcopalian »

Wed Mar 12, 2008 7:33 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

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.

Anglican Boycott Over Gay Bishop

Former Episcopalian »

Mon Feb 25, 2008 11:57 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

To Jay continued,

Response 4: Yes. I profess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh and accepted Him as my personal Lord and Savior at the age of fifteen. My study of Scripture prior to, during and after seminary - has only strengthened my relationship with Him, my fellow believers, as well as those who are not yet “of the household of faith.”

I never questioned your faith in any of my posts. I am glad that you profess that Jesus is your personal savior. I do have one question for you concerning this issue. You seem to question the Bible and its accuracy, how do you know what to believe?

I got this from the Islamic-Awareness website. It seems that they agree with you.
“Any claim that the New Testament has been restored to the 'original text' based on ignorance because the people who are involved in restoring the Greek New Testament itself do not make such a claim. As far as the claim that the New Testament has been restored to a magnificient value of 98.33% or 99.8% of the original text (well, where is the original text to compare with!) one should just look at the comparison of the total number of variant free verses in Nestle-Aland edition with the other critical editions such as that of Tischendorf, Westcott-Hort, von Soden, Vogels, Merk, and Bover. It comes pretty close to 63%.
And Allah knows best!”

Anglican Boycott Over Gay Bishop

Former Episcopalian »

Mon Feb 25, 2008 11:55 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Jay,

Thank you for your response.

I will answer all three of your questions at one time. In the way you phrase your question, neither Geisler or Nix have expertise in Biblical textual criticism or Biblical languages. This, however, does not exclude them from reading and learning from other scholars and presenting these findings in a book that many non-biblical scholars can understand. Just because I never played soccer, does not mean that I cannot study the sport to learn how to teach it. The quote attributed to Metzger does not exist in his book. Geisler uses this 99.5% accuracy statement in two of his books Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics (1999) and General Introduction to the Bible (1968). To my knowledge; Metzger never corrected this statement during his lifetime which he certainly had time to do before he passed away last year. Why didn’t Metzger correct this error?

Response 3: Metzger devoted his life to an academic exploration of the NT MSS. Regarding these documents he did say, “The more significant variations do not overthrow any doctrine of the church.” By the same token, it is important to consider the following part of the Strobel-Metzger interview which you did not mention. Strobel: “How many doctrines in the Church are in jeopardy because of variants?” Metzger: “I don’t know of any doctrine that is in jeopardy.” Strobel: “None?” Metzger: “None.” [Strobel, L. (1998). The Case for Christ. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, p. 65]. Here, Metzger is not saying that doctrines are not in jeopardy because of textual inconsistencies. He is merely saying he knows of no such doctrine.

This is a glass half-empty statement. He knows of no such doctrine because at this time there are not any doctrines in jeopardy. Dr. Dan Wallace also concludes that there are no doctrines of the church in jeopardy. He is a professor of New Testament Studies at Dallas Theological Seminary and the Executive Director for the Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts. Dan Wallace said:

In sum, there is an assumption made by non-evangelicals when they pose the question of
inerrancy and the autographs. It is that the wording of the autographs is, in places,
completely unrecoverable—that is, unknown and unknowable. But this assumption
implies that the wording of the original in some places cannot be found in the
manuscripts. That is manifestly not true. Pragmatically, the wording of the original is to
be found either in the text or the apparatus of the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament.
We have the original in front of us; we’re just not sure at all times whether it is above the
line or below it.

Here is a link to an article he wrote.

http://www.4truth.net/atf/cf/{0AA41589-FF9B-4057-8DD8-4C34D14E6387}/NTTCinerrancyNAMB.pdf

Laity Supports Leaving 'Episcopal Titanic'

Former Episcopalian »

Fri Feb 22, 2008 3:11 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

St Johns
I wish I had the time right now to discuss the slavery issue with you but I have to go out of town and cannot do justice to this issue in such a short amount of time. I will discuss the slavery issue with you once I return.

For the record, yes I am opposed to slavery and it is a tragedy that it still exists today.

Have I dismissed any parts of Scripture? If I have, please inform me where. Yes there are parts of scripture that are harder than others. There are parts that I would rather not hear becuase it along with the Holy Spirit convicts me of my sins but that is exactly why these things are in there.

Perhaps we got off to a bad start and I am sorry for that. I enjoy discussing these issues with you and I am sorry if I offended you in anyway. YBIC

Laity Supports Leaving 'Episcopal Titanic'

Former Episcopalian »

Fri Feb 22, 2008 8:12 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

I know and understand how the Bible was put together. If by me quoting scripture to back up my points causes you to call me a Pharisee then so be it. I have tried to make my points in this discussion using scripture because I believe it is God’s inspired word. Even Jesus asked the Pharisees’ “Have you not read?”

In your posts, you seem to draw many conclusions about who/what I worship, who I would damn, and what I should or shouldn’t hang my hat on. I left TEC is because when I asked the tough questions of my priest, she could not answer them in a satisfactory manner that was consistent with scripture. She, like you, wanted to downplay the importance of God’s word and mold it into what she wanted it to say to justify her believes. Also, the all Grace without repentance Gospel is not Biblical. That is not what Jesus preached.

In the end, the only way you have refuted any of my points is to cast doubt on the Bible and what it says and then to name calling. So, I guess from here we are at an impasse.

Isaiah 55: 11 “so shall my word be that goes for from my mouth; it shall not return to me empty but it shall accomplish that which I purpose and prosper in the thing for which I sent it.”

Anglican Boycott Over Gay Bishop

Former Episcopalian »

Thu Feb 21, 2008 6:43 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

I did not see Jay's flagged post either but I assume from his other posts that there was nothing in it that was so inflammatory that it needed flagging.

Anglican Boycott Over Gay Bishop

Former Episcopalian »

Thu Feb 21, 2008 3:08 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

I have no idea why these posts were flagged. There was nothing in them that was inappropriate.

Anglican Boycott Over Gay Bishop

Former Episcopalian »

Thu Feb 21, 2008 11:48 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Jay,

Did you even read my response to you? I did not cite Lee Strobel as a “Biblical Authority.” I cited Lee Strobel’s interview with Dr. Bruce Metzger contained within his book The Case for Christ. Some of the quotes attributed to Metzger in this book are as follows:

First, Strobel asks why it is so important to have thousands of manuscript to support a document like the New Testament. Metzger replies:
Well, the more often you have copies that agree with each other, especially if they emerge from different geographical areas, the more you can cross-check them to figure out what the original document was like. The only way they'd agree would be where they went back genealogically in a family tree that represents the descent of the manuscripts. (p. 59)
Metzger says here that the copies would agree if and only if there really were originals. And the more manuscript copies we have the better chance we have of finding the originals, after we sift through all of the manuscripts.

Second, Strobel asks Metzger about the comparison of the New Testament texts and later manuscripts with those of non-Christian texts and manuscripts, such as the Roman historian Tacitus, Jewish historian Josephus' Jewish War, and Homer's Iliad. "How does the New Testament stack up against well-known works of antiquity?" asks Strobel.
"Extremely well," [Metzger] replied. "We can have great confidence in the fidelity with which this material has come down to us, especially compared with any other ancient literary work." (p. 63).
Third, Strobel asks about the variations in the manuscripts. "Do they tend to be minor rather than substantive?"
"Yes, yes, that's correct, and scholars work very carefully to try to resolve them by getting back to the original meaning. The more significant variations do not overthrow any doctrine of the church. Any good Bible will have notes that will alert the reader to variant readings of any consequence. But again, these are rare." (p. 65).
Fourth and finally, Strobel asks what Metzger's scholarship has done to his personal faith.
"Oh," he said, sounding happy to discuss the topic, "it has increased the basis of my personal faith to see the firmness with which these materials have come down to us, with a multiplicity of copies, some of which are very, very ancient." (p. 71).

My “children’s story” sentence was used as an illustration to show that even though there are variants between the MSS, these variants are small and insignificant. To call the New Testament “error ridden” is not intellectually correct when most of the New Testament scholars agree that these variants are irrelevant to the discernment of church doctrine. The bottom line is there are no church doctrines in jeopardy from these different variants. As much as you would like to explain it away, you can’t.

Laity Supports Leaving 'Episcopal Titanic'

Former Episcopalian »

Thu Feb 21, 2008 9:24 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

St. Johns,

The statement that I made was a question to those who want to question God’s Truth laid before us in the scripture. Paul and Peter warned of these times in 2 Timothy 4: 3-4 and 2 Peter 2: 1-2.

I certainly do not worship the Bible. I view the Bible as the inspired, infallible word of God from which we can get direction and guidance and is the final authority. I believe the 66 books of the Old and New Testament are God’s complete and sufficient revelation and therefore carry God’s authority for the total well-being of mankind. See 2 Timothy 3: 16-17.

Since you are Anglican, the sixth article of the Anglican church contains this on Sola Scriptura, “Holy Scripture 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.

I also believe in the sovereignty of God and that the Holy Spirit convicts the world of sin, righteousness, and judgment. I also believe that the Holy Spirit will not provide any “new” revelations to anyone that goes against what was written and inspired by God.
2 Peter 1: 20-21 confirms this because the writers of scripture were inspired by the Holy Spirit. Why would the Holy Spirit redefine what was written in scripture when he is the third part of the Holy Trinity and thus sovereign?

You and TEC seem to want to make up your own version of truth and rely more on traditions, councils, and your own intuition especially in the matters of homosexuality and salvation.
People often attempt to give human traditions higher authority than God’s Word. This was true of the Jews of Jesus’ day. In refuting the errors of the Sadducees, the Scripture records the Lord saying, “Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God” (Mathew 22:29). Christ Jesus continually castigated and rebuked the Pharisees because they made their traditions on a par with the Word of God—corrupting the very basis of truth by equating their traditions with God’s Word. So He declared to them in Mark 7: 13 “You are making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such things do ye.” Since Scripture alone is inspired, it alone is the ultimate authority, and it alone is the final judge of Tradition.
So do not question what I believe. I do believe in God and Jesus and worship them and not the Bible. I look to the Word of God for instruction for what we as Christians should believe.
I unlike others don’t make it up as I go along.

Anglican Boycott Over Gay Bishop

Former Episcopalian »

Tue Feb 19, 2008 4:39 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Jay,

One only needs to look at God's creation to understand that homosexuality is wrong.

Anglican Boycott Over Gay Bishop

Former Episcopalian »

Mon Feb 18, 2008 5:24 am Agree: 5   Disagree: 2

Romans 1: 18-27 discussion continued.

There are no insertions of 20th century values when this was how God intended marriage and sex to be before the fall. Man has inserted his values trying to justify his actions when it is obvious what God's "nature" was meant to be. Paul also addresses this in Romans 1:25, "because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator... (Again Paul ties his narrative back to creation.)

The "committed" relationship argument holds no water either. That is an invention of the 20th century. A committed, sexual relationship between a brother and sister of age is wrong. A committed, loving relationship that is sexual outside the marriage covenant is wrong and a sin. Being "committed" does not make it right in the eyes of the Lord. His divine plan was a man and a woman in marriage before any sexual relations would take place. These two, once joined, should never divorce. If his plan would have been followed, we would not have the STD's we have today or any children out of wedlock. That was God's perfect plan. Man screwed it up after the fall.

Anglican Boycott Over Gay Bishop

Former Episcopalian »

Mon Feb 18, 2008 5:23 am Agree: 2   Disagree: 1

Romans 1: 18-27 discussion:

In Romans 1: 18-27, Paul discusses what is "natural" and "unnatural" by his reference back to Genesis in verse 20.
"Ever since the creation of the world, his invisible nature,
namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse...." (RSV 1972).
By referencing creation and how God made a man and a woman, Paul solidifies his argument against same-sex sexual relations in verses 26 and 27. If we know and understand God's invisible nature by the things he has made when Paul discusses "natural" and "unnatural" sexual relations in these two verses there is no wiggle room. Paul is not just indicting temple sexual relations used by the pagans as some have suggested but all "unnatural" sexual relations between the same sexes.

I think that Paul's discussion in Romans 1:20 are essential to the argument. In verses 18&19, Paul discusses God's wrath on the ungodliness and wickedness of men and their suppression of the truth. He moves into (verse 19) “what is known about God is plain to them because He has shown it to them.” Then Paul gets to verse 20 and he discusses creation and God's nature and what has been MADE. This word is key for future reference.

So Paul's reference back to Genesis about what God made is the bedrock for the rest of the narrative. In Gen 2:23-24 it is revealed how God made man and his companion woman. Woman is made out of man. Now if you believe that God is sovereign, (and I do) he could have made any companion for man. Why not a dog or a cat or even another man? But He didn't, he made woman. In Gen 2:24 the first discussion of marriage is seen.
"A man leaves his father and mother and cleaves to his wife and they become one flesh." (RSV 1972)
Again Paul references two sexes with his use of father and mother. They become one again because woman was made from man. All of this occurred before the fall of man in Gen 3.
So what we have is God in His sovereign power created the two sexes and provided the covenant of marriage in his creation. This establishes the "natural" relationship in God's perfect creation before the fall of man. That is why it is so important in this discussion. When this is taken into account, it makes no difference how Paul's Greek is translated. God's nature was revealed in the creation and that nature is man and woman.

Anglican Boycott Over Gay Bishop

Former Episcopalian »

Mon Feb 18, 2008 4:53 am Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

Jay

First let me say that I do not personally condemn homosexuals or those who defend them. This is a theological discussion and it should be treated in that manner.

One of the biggest issues in the church today is sexual immorality. With the advent of the Internet Age, there is more access to sexual images than ever before. All one has to do is type the wrong word into Google and you can and will be bombarded by sexual images.

Is a homosexual sitting in a church pew next to a heterosexual man or woman who is committing adultery any more of a sinner? I don’t think so. Are they more of a sinner than the man who looks at porn on his computer daily? No! Both are sinners and need God’s love, grace and forgiveness. Forgiveness is a key word here. Before forgiveness is granted there must be repentance. Both should turn away from the sin, repent and be forgiven.

This “formula” if you will, is seen throughout both the Old and New Testaments. For me, a sinner, to condemn anyone for there sins is a sin in and of itself.

You are correct that there are many different manuscripts with thousands of variations between them. You also state that not one of these manuscripts agrees with the other and paraphrase Dr. Bruce Metzger to back up these statements.

I would contend that even though there are many discrepancies in the ancient manuscripts, the spirit of the Christian Doctrine is not in any jeopardy. Dr Bruce Metzger also agrees with this statement. In Lee Strobel’s book The Case for Christ, Dr. Metzger discusses this issue.

Also Biblical Scholars Norman Geisler and William Nix conclude, “The New Testament has not only survived in more manuscripts than any other book from antiquity, but it has survived in a purer form than any other great book – a form that is 99.5 percent pure.” (Taken from a General Introduction to the Bible, page 367.)

You also state that the Bible was not written in English and that is also true. Translations into English can be difficult but again I would contend that the Spiritual Doctrine of the Bible remains consistent. For example, if I were to write the following sentence would you get the meaning? The bare and the hair are animals that live in the forest. Despite my misspelling of the words Bear and Hare, my use of the word animals helps you understand the context of the meaning of the sentence. Also the use of forest in the sentence provides a setting for where these animals live. My meaning is not lost despite my wrong use of the words.

If as Christians we cannot trust what the Bible says, what else are we supposed to believe?

Laity Supports Leaving 'Episcopal Titanic'

Former Episcopalian »

Mon Feb 18, 2008 4:48 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

Jay,

First let me say that I do not personally condemn homosexuals or those who defend them. This is a theological discussion and it should be treated in that manner.

One of the biggest issues in the church today is sexual immorality. With the advent of the Internet Age, there is more access to sexual images than ever before. All one has to do is type the wrong word into Google and you can and will be bombarded by sexual images.

Is a homosexual sitting in a church pew next to a heterosexual man or woman who is committing adultery any more of a sinner? I don’t think so. Are they more of a sinner than the man who looks at porn on his computer daily? No! Both are sinners and need God’s love, grace and forgiveness. Forgiveness is a key word here. Before forgiveness is granted there must be repentance. Both should turn away from the sin, repent and be forgiven.

This “formula” if you will, is seen throughout both the Old and New Testaments. For me, a sinner, to condemn anyone for there sins is a sin in and of itself.

You are correct that there are many different manuscripts with thousands of variations between them. You also state that not one of these manuscripts agrees with the other and paraphrase Dr. Bruce Metzger to back up these statements.

I would contend that even though there are many discrepancies in the ancient manuscripts, the spirit of the Christian Doctrine is not in any jeopardy. Dr Bruce Metzger also agrees with this statement. In Lee Strobel’s book The Case for Christ, Dr. Metzger discusses this issue.

Also Biblical Scholars Norman Geisler and William Nix conclude, “The New Testament has not only survived in more manuscripts than any other book from antiquity, but it has survived in a purer form than any other great book – a form that is 99.5 percent pure.” (Taken from a General Introduction to the Bible, page 367.)

You also state that the Bible was not written in English and that is also true. Translations into English can be difficult but again I would contend that the Spiritual Doctrine of the Bible remains consistent. For example, if I were to write the following sentence would you get the meaning? The bare and the hair are animals that live in the forest. Despite my misspelling of the words Bear and Hare, my use of the word animals helps you understand the context of the meaning of the sentence. Also the use of forest in the sentence provides a setting for where these animals live. My meaning is not lost despite my wrong use of the words.

If as Christians we cannot trust what the Bible says, what else are we supposed to believe?

Anglicans Move Separate Ways Ahead of Major Meeting

Former Episcopalian »

Thu Feb 14, 2008 11:49 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

“It appears to be happening again. Whether this new group succeeds, only time will tell, but let's not be self-righteous about it in the meantime.”

What if they do succeed in their quest for bringing into the church new avenues of salvation and are wrong? What happens to the people who buy into what these “new principles of interpretation” (especially on salvation) say and die before they are proven wrong? I would say that believers have every right to question this apostasy.

There isn’t one verse in the New Testament that says anything about another form of salvation other than through Jesus Christ. The early church was founded on this believe.

If there was another way to salvation what does Jesus’ death on the cross mean?

Laity Supports Leaving 'Episcopal Titanic'

Former Episcopalian »

Thu Feb 14, 2008 2:46 am Agree: 3   Disagree: 3

St. John’s

I do not damn anyone as it is not my place. Only God can judge and will judge. I can only go by what is in the Bible which I believe was inspired by God.

You keep saying the Bible is historically unreliable. Much like the serpent in Genesis, you question what God has said. I have read the work of Biblical scholars who contend that the Bible is very accurate. There are many who believe this to be true. You may try reading some of Dr. Craig Blomberg, Dr. Gary Habermas or Dr. Bruce Metzger’s work.

You contend that Peter’s quote in Acts is not accurate but reflects important theology of the early church. I ask you why wasn’t this theology corrected if it wasn’t true? One of the disciples or Paul could have corrected this statement or the statements of John but they didn’t. They built the early church on these statements and this “important theology” has carried forward since then.

You still have not shown me another way to salvation in the New Testament. I will make it easier for you. Show me one verse where salvation other than through Jesus is mentioned.

I guess this is where we disagree. The Bible is all that I have to go on and so I will do that. You can work out your own salvation however you see fit.