Ann Redding on the Trinity from her sermon

[gtsecc]

http://www.saintmarks.org/Sermons%20Etc/Redding061106.pdf

Those of us who attended Jamal Rahman's presentations on Rumi and on Islam as part of our formation offerings, have heard him quote the prophet Mohammed who was, in turn, quoting God: "I cannot be contained in the space of the earth. I cannot be contained in the space of the heavens, but I can be contained in the space of the pure loving heart of my servant."

In Islam, which has no concept of original sin, the human heart remains uncorrupted. Allah is said to stand between a person and that person's heart, protecting it from any distortions of wrong actions and sins committed. If we can hear and obey, if we can get back to the wisdom in our heart, the place where God deigns to dwell in us, then we will know what God's will is.

So what if Jesus could be one who always listened to his pure loving heart, who identified wholly with the God who dwelled in his heart? In that sense Jesus can be a model, a window for us, a lesson in listening to God's heart wisdom.

How could we look at the Trinity from that perspective? Could perhaps another rendering of the Trinity be the most high God, the heart of God in Jesus, and the spirit of God working in the world and in us?

Again, I'm not suggesting we throw out our creed; however, as I have often said in Christian initiation and baptismal preparation classes, the creeds do represent historical debates. They answer questions that we do not necessarily have. I for one must confess that I recite the creed as an act of filial piety -- out of respect for our ancestors for the creativity of their theological explorations and struggles...

[gtsecc]

More from Our Lady of Heresy:


In this time that is characterized more by
interfaith strife than it is by interfaith
cooperation, I am inviting us to make an offering
of our own. I’m not requesting that we give up
our ideas about Jesus as divine or equal to God;
rather, I suggest that we make an offering of a
re-examination to see just what that means to us,
and also to see whether or not other faiths can
help us see our own in new ways.
We could begin by acknowledging that just as
we know that Scripture is not something to be
taken entirely literally, that God’s Word is larger
than our words; that this understanding applies
so much more to a doctrine like the Trinity. The
Trinity starts as an abstraction; it never was
literal, so there’s no way it can be taken literally.

[gtsecc]

Via Media executed a preemptive strike against Bishop elect Mark Lawrence because they thought, even though he said he would not, try to take the Diocese of SC out of TEC. This was specifically labeled Abandonment of the Faith.

I can’t wait to see what they are going to do to Ann Holmes Redding and her Bishop.

[Secundulus]

What Pagan Temple was that non-christian sermon preached in?

[brightmorningstar]

Ok well first lets have a look at Dr Redding’s sermon. The first point is that she approaches the trinity from an academic point of view suggesting she hasn’t yet got the relationship with God, something God gives us through Jesus and the Holy Spirit that other religions such as Islam don’t have. God dwells in us.
Now here comment…..
So what if Jesus could be one who always listened to his pure loving heart, who identified
wholly with the God who dwelled in his heart? In that sense Jesus can be a model, a window for us, a lesson in listening to God's heart wisdom.
..shows that she hasn’t understood the scripture which tells us Jesus said He was speaking the words of the Father He heard and did what He saw the Father doing. This is actually a denial of the I AM claims of Jesus. Who is said He is. More than a window or lesson or model Jesus said He is the way and no-one gets to God except through Him. The path is narrow. I could add many more things, but Dr Redding’s statement here is clearly not a Christian view. After having made an assumption contrary to Jesus words and teaching she then develops alongside the Islam views which she has not made any assumptions about.

Now this may be because she is listening to Islamic scholars and not the Holy Spirit, if she wishes to listen to scholars why not hear from Christian scholars who were once Muslims and Islamic scholars. .. the she would get the benefit of both scholarship.

Again, I'm not suggesting we throw out our creed; however, as I have often said in Christian initiation and baptismal preparation classes, the creeds do represent historical debates.
Actually the creeds are a statement of faith based on what the Bible says, the historical debate usually involves having debates with people who don’t believe what the scriptures say, and therefore have doubts about the creeds.

Indeed the Anglican Communion recognises the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral, setting out four essential elements of the Christian faith: two of which are
1. The Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments as
“containing all things necessary to salvation”, and as being the
rule and ultimate standard of faith.
2. The Apostles’ Creed, as the baptismal symbol; and the Nicene
Creed as the sufficient statement of the Christian faith.
There is no debate about this, http://www.anglicancommunion.org/leaflet/ac.pdf (http://www.anglicancommunion.org/leaflet/ac.pdf)

So she doesnt seem to hold basic core Christian views let alone Anglican ones.

[ebia]

Having now actually read her sermon, there doesn't seem to be all that much that would actually be 'heretical'. I can see very little there that couldn't have been said by someone clearly Orthodox and nobody would have batted an eye in that context. The objections seem to be largly to (a) what she hasn't said and (b) to what people think she is trying to imply.

I mean:


So what if Jesus could be one who always listened to his pure loving heart, who identified
wholly with the God who dwelled in his heart? In that sense Jesus can be a model, a window for us, a lesson in listening to God's heart wisdom.


What is actually wrong with this. Yes, it's not a complete understanding, but she doesn't seem to be claiming it is?


Again, I'm not suggesting we throw out our creed; however, as I have often said in Christian initiation and baptismal preparation classes, the creeds do represent historical debates.


The creeds are the result of historical debate. They were written to answer specific questions. It may well be that she doesn't believe the creed, but she doesn't actually say either way in this sermon.

In this time that is characterized more by
interfaith strife than it is by interfaith
cooperation, I am inviting us to make an offering
of our own. I’m not requesting that we give up
our ideas about Jesus as divine or equal to God;
rather, I suggest that we make an offering of a
re-examination to see just what that means to us,
and also to see whether or not other faiths can
help us see our own in new ways.
We could begin by acknowledging that just as
we know that Scripture is not something to be
taken entirely literally, that God’s Word is larger
than our words; that this understanding applies
so much more to a doctrine like the Trinity. The
Trinity starts as an abstraction; it never was
literal, so there’s no way it can be taken literally.
Only the very last line of this would seem to be dubious (and to be honest, I'm not at all sure what she means by it.)

How much of the fuss is to what she actually said, and how much to what people think she said, or what people think she should have said but didn't?

[brightmorningstar]

Dear ebia,
So what if Jesus could be one who always listened to his pure loving heart, who identified wholly with the God who dwelled in his heart? In that sense Jesus can be a model, a window for us, a lesson in listening to God's heart wisdom.
What is wrong is Jesus is God, He is the Son and therefore isn’t a lesson in listening to God ’s heart but a lesson in God’s heart.
Its an expression that doesn’t fully acknowledge who Jesus said and demonstrated He was.
Dr Redding’s statement here is clearly not a Christian view. After having made an assumption contrary to Jesus words and teaching she then develops this assumption.
The creeds are a basic statement of faith, if she wants to see what it means to her, how can she have yet accepted them as a basic statement of her faith.
I cant see how Jesus is equal to God if He was fully God as well as fully man.
Other faiths don’t have faith in Jesus Christ for who He said He was in the Bible so we cant learn about the One in whom we have faith from those who don’t know Him as we do.
Scripture is something to be taken literally and then interpreted,
that God’s Word is larger than our words; By God’s Word I assume she means Jesus Christ the Word, in which case Jesus’s words, His teaching is more important that our ideas.
The Trinity starts as an abstraction; it never was literal, so there’s no way it can be taken literally. On the contrary the Trinity is just how we describe our God, Father Son and Holy Spirit is His nature, its not abstract, men have seen Jesus Christ and witnessed the Holy Spirit.

[gtsecc]

Well, just to start, she articulates an adoptionist position, which is a formal heresy.

Adoptionism is a minority Christian belief that Jesus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus) was born merely human and that he became divine later in his life. By these accounts, Jesus earned the title Christ through his sinless devotion to the will of God, thereby becoming the perfect sacrifice to redeem humanity. Adoptionists typically portray two key points in Jesus' life as stages in Jesus' theosis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theosis): his baptism and his resurrection. They consider God to have given Jesus his miraculous power and divine authority after Jesus proved his holiness. Adoptionism arose among early Christians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Christians) seeking to reconcile the claims that Jesus was the son of God (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Son_of_God) with the radical monotheism of Judaism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judaism)[citation needed] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources).
Adoptionism was common before it was first declared heresy at the end of the 2nd century. Some scholars see adoptionist concepts in the Gospel of Mark and in Paul's epistles. Adoptionism, however, contradicts the identification of Jesus as the divine Logos, as put forth in the Gospel of John.
Adoptionism was condemned by the church (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church) as heresy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_heresy) at various times, most explicitly at the First Council of Nicaea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea). The belief contradicts the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity), which identifies Jesus as eternally God.
Adoptionism is also called adoptianism or dynamic monarchianism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchianism).

[brightmorningstar]

Dear gtsecc,
Thats informative to me, many thanks :thumbsup: :)

[RadixLecti]

http://www.standfirminfaith.com/images/redding_priest_and_muslim.jpg

[Aymn27]

http://www.standfirminfaith.com/images/redding_priest_and_muslim.jpg
how ridiculous - she needs to be inhibited, defrocked, and by golly - if there's a stake - well, too bad we're not in the 17th century...j/j (well, just on the last part)

[ebia]

Dear ebia,
So what if Jesus could be one who always listened to his pure loving heart, who identified wholly with the God who dwelled in his heart? In that sense Jesus can be a model, a window for us, a lesson in listening to God's heart wisdom.
What is wrong is Jesus is God, He is the Son and therefore isn’t a lesson in listening to God ’s heart but a lesson in God’s heart.

Seems to me that Jesus is all those things as well as what you said.


Its an expression that doesn’t fully acknowledge who Jesus said and demonstrated He was.
I don't think it claims to be. One can't say everything all the time. This is what I meant by being offended by what she didn't say.


Dr Redding’s statement here is clearly not a Christian view. After having made an assumption contrary to Jesus words and teaching she then develops this assumption.
The creeds are a basic statement of faith, if she wants to see what it means to her, how can she have yet accepted them as a basic statement of her faith.

I'm not going to argue that she does accept them as a basic statement of faith, but she has (presumably deliberately) left that ambigous in the text. Whether they are or aren't there is nothing wrong with saying "what can I learn from them - what do they mean to me [besides repetition of facts]".

I cant see how Jesus is equal to God if He was fully God as well as fully man.
Sorry?

Other faiths don’t have faith in Jesus Christ for who He said He was in the Bible so we cant learn about the One in whom we have faith from those who don’t know Him as we do.
I don't think that follows. I've learned a lot about Jesus Christ from people who don't follow him.

Scripture is something to be taken literally and then interpreted,
Tosh.


By God’s Word I assume she means Jesus Christ the Word, in which case Jesus’s words, His teaching is more important that our ideas.
Isn't that approximately what she said?


On the contrary the Trinity is just how we describe our God, Father Son and Holy Spirit is His nature, its not abstract, men have seen Jesus Christ and witnessed the Holy Spirit.
As I said, that's almost the only phrase I can see being a problem and, to be honest, I don't know what it means.

[ebia]

Well, just to start, she articulates an adoptionist position, which is a formal heresy.

Adoptionism is a minority Christian belief that Jesus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus) was born merely human and that he became divine later in his life. By these accounts, Jesus earned the title Christ through his sinless devotion to the will of God, thereby becoming the perfect sacrifice to redeem humanity. Adoptionists typically portray two key points in Jesus' life as stages in Jesus' theosis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theosis): his baptism and his resurrection. They consider God to have given Jesus his miraculous power and divine authority after Jesus proved his holiness. Adoptionism arose among early Christians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Christians) seeking to reconcile the claims that Jesus was the son of God (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Son_of_God) with the radical monotheism of Judaism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judaism)[citation needed] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources).
Adoptionism was common before it was first declared heresy at the end of the 2nd century. Some scholars see adoptionist concepts in the Gospel of Mark and in Paul's epistles. Adoptionism, however, contradicts the identification of Jesus as the divine Logos, as put forth in the Gospel of John.
Adoptionism was condemned by the church (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church) as heresy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_heresy) at various times, most explicitly at the First Council of Nicaea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea). The belief contradicts the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity), which identifies Jesus as eternally God.
Adoptionism is also called adoptianism or dynamic monarchianism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchianism).
She may well hold to roughly that view, and her sermon would be compatible with that view, but I really don't think she actually said much that is not compatible with a more orthodox view. How about, instead of telling me what you think her views are, you point out precisely what in the sermon that you think is not orthodox?

[Colabomb]

She doesn't believe the Creed.

[Secundulus]

This whole episode with the Rev. Redding reminds me of this:

1 Now the serpent was more crafty than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said to the woman, “Indeed, has God said, ‘You shall not eat from any tree of the garden’?”
2 The woman said to the serpent, “From the fruit of the trees of the garden we may eat;
3 but from the fruit of the tree which is in the middle of the garden, God has said, ‘You shall not eat from it or touch it, or you will die.’ ”
4 The serpent said to the woman, “You surely will not die!
5 “For God knows that in the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”
6 When the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was desirable to make one wise, she took from its fruit and ate; and she gave also to her husband with her, and he ate.

New American Standard Bible : 1995 Update. LaHabra, CA : The Lockman Foundation, 1995, S. Ge 3:1-6

[ebia]

She doesn't believe the Creed.
While I suspect that's true, she didn't quite say that.

[ContraMundum]

What *does* it take to get defrocked or excommunicated in TEC?

Anyone know?

[brightmorningstar]

Dear ebia,

Seems to me that Jesus is all those things as well as what you said.

Not to me, we know who Jesus said He is, Dr Redding's description isnt quite there yet.
I'm not going to argue that she does accept them as a basic statement of faith, but she has (presumably deliberately) left that ambigous in the text. Whether they are or aren't there is nothing wrong with saying "what can I learn from them - what do they mean to me [besides repetition of facts]". If she has to learn from the creeds they cant yet be a basic statement of her faith.

I don't think that follows. I've learned a lot about Jesus Christ from people who don't follow him. From people perhaps, but you said from other faiths, other faiths don’t have faith in Jesus Christ for Who He is according to the Biblical testimony, so you cant learn from other faiths except where they acknowledge the truth. Islam believes Jesus was a healer and a Muslim.

Tosh. On what then do you base your interpretation if not what the text literally says?

Isn't that approximately what she said? not really.

As I said, that's almost the only phrase I can see being a problem and, to be honest, I don't know what it means. Does Dr Redding?

[ContraMundum]

Having now actually read her sermon, there doesn't seem to be all that much that would actually be 'heretical'.

Historically heresy has had a tendency to hide itself amongst the words of orthodoxy. It always presents itself small at first. This is why we are strongly urged in the scriptures to be very diligent with what is taught among us. As they say, the Devil is in the details.

[ebia]

Historically heresy has had a tendency to hide itself amongst the words of orthodoxy. It always presents itself small at first. This is why we are strongly urged in the scriptures to be very diligent with what is taught among us. As they say, the Devil is in the details.
No doubt that is true to some extent.

I just wonder whether what is going on here is:

read the sermon => notice some unorthodoxy => draw conclusions about the author

or

read the author's name => assume some unorthodoxy => draw conclusions about the sermon.

[ebia]

Dear ebia,

Not to me,
Which bit do you think is not true:

Jesus always listend to his pure loving heart
Jesus identified wholy with the God who dwelled in his heart
We can learn from Jesus how to listen to God's wisdomwe know who Jesus said He is, Dr Redding's description isnt quite there yet.
I don't think it's supposed to be "there yet". It's not meant to be a complete description of who Jesus is.

If she has to learn from the creeds they cant yet be a basic statement of her faith.
Tosh. The creeds are sufficiently deep statements that there are always new things to learn from them.

From people perhaps, but you said from other faiths, other faiths don’t have faith in Jesus Christ for Who He is according to the Biblical testimony, so you cant learn from other faiths except where they acknowledge the truth. Islam believes Jesus was a healer and a Muslim.
I can learn, for instance, from Islam a greater respect for the creating power of God. Now, a Muslim isn't going to to correctly identifiy that as the second person of the Trinity, but that hasn't stopped me learning something important from the Islamic faith.

On what then do you base your interpretation if not what the text literally says?
On the text, interpreted as best one can with the tools available. Inserting "literal" in their is either meaningless, or trying to foist one interpretation above others without considering their relative values for that particular text.

not really.
How is it different? They look much the same to me.

Does Dr Redding?
I have no idea.

You forgot to clarify what you meant by this for me:

I cant see how Jesus is equal to God if He was fully God as well as fully man.

[brightmorningstar]

Dear ebia,
Which bit do you think is not true: Well having recently written why and asked you to address my criticism, I cant see why you have asked me again.
Jesus always listend to his pure loving heart When? Where did you get this idea?
I know Jesus was lead by the Holy Spirit, ie. Matthew 4:1,12:28, Mark 2:8, Luke 2:27, 4:18 etc. He spoke the words of the Father John 14:10, 14:24, He was always praying to the Father Matthew 6, 26.
But I don’t see where He listened to His own heart.

I don't think it's supposed to be "there yet". It's not meant to be a complete description of who Jesus is. Why not? How can a priest who isn’t there yet lead a congregation some of whom may be there.

Tosh. The creeds are sufficiently deep statements that there are always new things to learn from them. I would that’s tosh as we don’t learn from the creeds, the creeds are what we have learned from the scripture. The creeds are a statement of faith more than a source of understanding

I can learn, for instance, from Islam a greater respect for the creating power of God. Now, a Muslim isn't going to to correctly identifiy that as the second person of the Trinity, but that hasn't stopped me learning something important from the Islamic faith. In what way can you learn a greater respect for the creating power of God. What greater respect could there be than the Biblical testimony of what we see?
But you cant learn about the person of Jesus Christ from Islam, that’s a completely different view, there are only common elements.


On the text, interpreted as best one can with the tools available. So are you saying you do base your interpretation on the text, or on an interpretation of an interpretation of the text.

Inserting "literal" in their is either meaningless, or trying to foist one interpretation above others without considering their relative values for that particular text. But while you apparently agree with Dr Redding’s viewpoint, it was Dr Redding’s article that had literal inserted and commented on. Are you now saying Dr Redding’s insertion of literal is meaningless?
What relative values does a particular text have, if not to do with what it literally says.

You forgot to clarify what you meant by this for me: It literally means what it says, does that help?

[ebia]

Dear ebia,
Well having recently written why and asked you to address my criticism, I cant see why you have asked me again.
When? Where did you get this idea?
I know Jesus was lead by the Holy Spirit, ie. Matthew 4:1,12:28, Mark 2:8, Luke 2:27, 4:18 etc. He spoke the words of the Father John 14:10, 14:24, He was always praying to the Father Matthew 6, 26.
But I don’t see where He listened to His own heart.
It doesn't say it in those words, but if his heart is in tune to God (which it clearly is) then surely this is clearly the case. Her way of describing things isn't traditional, but it's the same stuff in different language.

Why not? How can a priest who isn’t there yet lead a congregation some of whom may be there.
I didn't say she wasn't there. Remember, I'm talking about her sermon, not about her. The description you quoted is clearly not intended to be a complete description of the fullness of Christ. To treat as such is silly.

I would that’s tosh as we don’t learn from the creeds, the creeds are what we have learned from the scripture. The creeds are a statement of faith more than a source of understanding
They should be both, and they have long been used as both. If you haven't learned anything from them I'm sorry - either your understanding of God is so far advanced compared to most of the rest of us, or you have been missing out. Either way, don't look down on those who do learn something from them.


In what way can you learn a greater respect for the creating power of God. What greater respect could there be than the Biblical testimony of what we see?
But you cant learn about the person of Jesus Christ from Islam, that’s a completely different view, there are only common elements.

I can (and for that matter have) still learned from those common elements. You can stand there and tell me it's impossible all you like, it isn't going to wash.


So are you saying you do base your interpretation on the text, or on an interpretation of an interpretation of the text.
On the text, so far as that is possible, bringing such other stuff to bear as is approrpriate or unavoidable.

But while you apparently agree with Dr Redding’s viewpoint, it was Dr Redding’s article that had literal inserted and commented on.
Sorry - it hasn't always been clear when you have been quoting Dr Redding, and when you have been commenting.


Are you now saying Dr Redding’s insertion of literal is meaningless?
Dr Redding said "... scripture is not something to be taken entirely literally....", which makes perfect sense.

You said: "Scripture is something to be taken literally and then interpreted" , which makes no sense since taking something literally is an interpretation, and then asked: "On what then do you base your interpretation if not what the text literally says?: which is similarly problematic.

What relative values does a particular text have, if not to do with what it literally says.

It literally means what it says, does that help?
Not at all -"It literally means what it says" is meaningless. If I knew what you meant I wouldn't have asked.

Are you saying Jesus is not equal to God, that Jesus is not fully God, or that Jesus was not fully man, or did you think she said one of those things, or what?

[Secundulus]

No doubt that is true to some extent.

I just wonder whether what is going on here is:

read the sermon => notice some unorthodoxy => draw conclusions about the author

or

read the author's name => assume some unorthodoxy => draw conclusions about the sermon.

You don't need to read the sermon to draw any conclusions. You can draw conclusions from the fact that she converted to Islam.

[ebia]

Maybe. But this thread is supposed to be about this particular sermon, not just using the sermon to bash her again justified by what we already "know". If you want to "discuss" the implications of her supposed conversion to Islam there was already a perfectly good thread to do that.

[brightmorningstar]

Dear ebia,
Quote:
Originally Posted by brightmorningstar
Dear ebia,
Well having recently written why and asked you to address my criticism, I cant see why you have asked me again.
When? Where did you get this idea?
I know Jesus was lead by the Holy Spirit, ie. Matthew 4:1,12:28, Mark 2:8, Luke 2:27, 4:18 etc. He spoke the words of the Father John 14:10, 14:24, He was always praying to the Father Matthew 6, 26.
But I don’t see where He listened to His own heart.

It doesn't say it in those words, but if his heart is in tune to God (which it clearly is) then surely this is clearly the case. Not ‘surely’ at all, that’s your guess. Surely He was lead by the Spirit and did what He saw and heard the Father doing and saying but not surely what you are saying.

Her way of describing things isn't traditional, but it's the same stuff in different language. No I think its error. It misses the truth which is clear.

I didn't say she wasn't there. I said she wasn’t there yet, that’s my view against the evidence.

They should be both, and they have long been used as both. No they haven never been both, the creeds are a basic statement of faith, what I suspect dr Redding’s approach is, is to pretend we can look at the creeds in a different way because at the moment she obviously doesn’t believe in One God, Father Son and Holy Spirit,
If you haven't learned anything from them I'm sorry – either your understanding of God is so far advanced compared to most of the rest of us, or you have been missing out. Either way, don't look down on those who do learn something from them. Sorry ebia but most here agree with me so careful with the ‘rest of us’ spin thank you very much. I have learned that the creeds are a valid and true basic statement of my faith because they are scriptural. People can learn from them, Dr Redding hasn’t said that, she has said the creeds represent historical debate, they do not, historically they were born out of debate but they were created to express the basic core faith. Dr Redding has said that she only recites them as an act of filial piety. I don’t, I state them as who I have faith in, she obviously doesn’t seem to connect with the person the creeds are about..

I can (and for that matter have) still learned from those common elements. You can stand there and tell me it's impossible all you like, it isn't going to wash. No you have made the claim I am asking you in what way? In what way can Islam teach you a greater respect for the creating power of God?

On the text, so far as that is possible, bringing such other stuff to bear as is approrpriate or unavoidable What do you mean ‘so far as it is possible’, do you not have the text? Other stuff is what we bring to bear to interpret what the texts say. What you are describing in my view is interpreting what you think the texts should say, not what they actually say.

Sorry - it hasn't always been clear when you have been quoting Dr Redding, and when you have been commenting. I repeat, to address your comment about inserting ‘literal’ it was Dr Redding’s article that had literal inserted and commented on. One has to take what the text literally says before we can interpret it, it is nonsense to suggest otherwise.

Are you saying Jesus is not equal to God, that Jesus is not fully God, or that Jesus was not fully man, or did you think she said one of those things, or what ? If I have said God is Father Son and Holy Spirit how can I be saying that? Of one being with the Father Light of Light (Psalm 27: I; John 8: 12; Matthew 17: 2,5)
true God of true God, (John 17: 1-5), of one essence with the Father, (John 10: 30)

[gtsecc]

She may well hold to roughly that view, and her sermon would be compatible with that view, but I really don't think she actually said much that is not compatible with a more orthodox view. How about, instead of telling me what you think her views are, you point out precisely what in the sermon that you think is not orthodox?
I agree with what you said. On its own, the sermon might squeek by without any overt heterodox statement. However, when taken in the context that she is a Muslim, then it is clear she is an adoptionist.

[Colabomb]

I can learn, for instance, from Islam a greater respect for the creating power of God. Now, a Muslim isn't going to to correctly identifiy that as the second person of the Trinity, but that hasn't stopped me learning something important from the Islamic faith.






We also learned great math skills from Islam and the Arabs, that doesn't mean I should go pray in a mosque or call Christ a Created being.

[Tonks]

My monarchianism-dar just broke (sorry...just had to post after reading the sermon).

[ebia]

We also learned great math skills from Islam and the Arabs, that doesn't mean I should go pray in a mosque or call Christ a Created being.
I didn't intend to imply that we should. (Although I have prayed in a Mosque, I did so to the Triune God.)

[ebia]

Dear ebia,
Quote:
Originally Posted by brightmorningstar
Dear ebia,
Well having recently written why and asked you to address my criticism, I cant see why you have asked me again.
When? Where did you get this idea?
I know Jesus was lead by the Holy Spirit, ie. Matthew 4:1,12:28, Mark 2:8, Luke 2:27, 4:18 etc. He spoke the words of the Father John 14:10, 14:24, He was always praying to the Father Matthew 6, 26.
But I don’t see where He listened to His own heart.

Not ‘surely’ at all, that’s your guess. Surely He was lead by the Spirit and did what He saw and heard the Father doing and saying but not surely what you are saying.

No I think its error. It misses the truth which is clear.
I disagree fro the reasons I've outlined above, which you don't seem to be understanding. However, I can't think of anyway to express what I'm saying more clearly so I'll drop it.

I said she wasn’t there yet, that’s my view against the evidence.
And I'm trying to discuss the content of the sermon, not her personally.

No they haven never been both, the creeds are a basic statement of faith, what I suspect dr Redding’s approach is, is to pretend we can look at the creeds in a different way because at the moment she obviously doesn’t believe in One God, Father Son and Holy Spirit,
Again, you are bringing in what you (think you) know about her, rather than discussion the content of this sermon.



Sorry ebia but most here agree with me so careful with the ‘rest of us’ spin thank you very much. I have learned that the creeds are a valid and true basic statement of my faith because they are scriptural. People can learn from them, Dr Redding hasn’t said that,

Um, yes she did, in slightly different words.



she has said the creeds represent historical debate,

well, they are. The Nicene in particular is very much the result of a particular historical debate about the nature of God and Christ.

they do not, historically they were born out of debate but they were created to express the basic core faith.
They were (or at least the Nicene was) created first and formost to be the definitive answer to a particular set of questions.


Dr Redding has said that she only recites them as an act of filial piety.
As far as I remember she didn't have the word 'only' in there, without which, and in context, her statement is considerable more ambigous.

I don’t, I state them as who I have faith in, she obviously doesn’t seem to connect with the person the creeds are about..
I don't think that is clear from this sermon at all.

No you have made the claim I am asking you in what way? In what way can Islam teach you a greater respect for the creating power of God?
I don't think I can explain how in a reasonable number of words - you'll have to take my word for it. Suffice to say that the Muslims I've engaged in conversation with do have a profound respect for the creative power of God, and for his creation, that is lacking in most of Christianity.

What do you mean ‘so far as it is possible’, do you not have the text?
I have the texts. My ability to interpret them is limited by my falliblity, my lack of understanding of the contexts, my lack of imagination, my limited understanding of the rest of scripture and God's creation, etc, etc, etc.

I repeat, to address your comment about inserting ‘literal’ it was Dr Redding’s article that had literal inserted and commented on.
Perhaps you could quote the sentence in her article that you are commenting on for me.

One has to take what the text literally says before we can interpret it, it is nonsense to suggest otherwise.
The text just is. Once you put "... literally says" in there you are talking about an interpretation, not the text itself.

If I have said God is Father Son and Holy Spirit how can I be saying that? Of one being with the Father Light of Light (Psalm 27: I; John 8: 12; Matthew 17: 2,5)
true God of true God, (John 17: 1-5), of one essence with the Father, (John 10: 30)
I don't know - that's why I asked you what you meant by the statement, but you don't seem willing to tell me.

[brightmorningstar]

Dear ebia,
Thanks for your response,
I disagree fro the reasons I've outlined above, which you don't seem to be understanding. However, I can't think of anyway to express what I'm saying more clearly so I'll drop it.
Ok so I have quoted the Bible to show what I mean and you cant express what you are saying. Do you disagree with the Bible passages, why not just focus on them?

And I'm trying to discuss the content of the sermon, not her personally. Yes good point, thanks for pointing this out to me J My apologies here. Let me re-phrase, her sermon doesn’t seem to show an understanding.

Again, you are bringing in what you (think you) know about her, rather than discussion the content of this sermon. Yes but her statement is incorrect, the creed is a statement of belief which comes from the scriptures, not a statement to learn what on believes. People can learn from it if they hear it, but it is a statement of of what we believe. What we believe in Father Son and Holy Spirit is in the Nicene Creed, anyone who thinks they can be a Muslim as well doesn’t believe the Nicene Creed. One cant say God is not Father Son and Holy Spirit, but He is alos Father Son and Holy Spirit. Its nonsense.

As far as I remember she didn't have the word 'only' in there, without which, and in context, her statement is considerable more ambigous. Ok but why be ambiguous about a know statement of faith.

I don't think that is clear from this sermon at all. I do, very clear, I think the sermon is utter nonsense.

I don't think I can explain how in a reasonable number of words - you'll have to take my word for it. Ok fair enough.
Suffice to say that the Muslims I've engaged in conversation with do have a profound respect for the creative power of God, and for his creation, that is lacking in most of Christianity. Ok but Muslims aren’t Islam, Islam is a religion, Muslims are those who practice. You haven’t quite addressed my criticism. I think Sura 11 verse 6 makes the same sort of claim as the Bible’s creation story but I am not as familiar offhand.

I have the texts. My ability to interpret them is limited by my falliblity, my lack of understanding of the contexts, my lack of imagination, my limited understanding of the rest of scripture and God's creation, etc, etc, etc. So is the lack ot understanding, imagination and the rest of Scripture, the tools you were referring to?
If one is lead by the Holy Spirit and has fairly holistic knowledge of the Bible, one can consider the relative values and meaning of a particular text, something you said you lack. Tools like Strong’s Greek and Hebrew concordance can help as well.
As to foisting the meaning on others, is that what we do? Surely we just tell the message and people can believe or not. Jesus said His disciples were to teach disciples to obey everything He taught (Matthew 28, John 14,etc) not adapt it so people can like it.

Perhaps you could quote the sentence in her article that you are commenting on for me. Certainly…. (its in post #2)
We could begin by acknowledging that just as we know that Scripture is not something to be taken entirely literally, that God's Word is larger than our words; that this understanding applies so much more to a doctrine like the Trinity. The Trinity starts as an abstraction; it never was literal, so there's no way it can be taken literally.


I don't know - that's why I asked you what you meant by the statement, but you don't seem willing to tell me. I have given you the scriptural references. Don’t you understand the scriptural references?

[ContraMundum]

No doubt that is true to some extent.

I just wonder whether what is going on here is:

read the sermon => notice some unorthodoxy => draw conclusions about the author

or

read the author's name => assume some unorthodoxy => draw conclusions about the sermon.

I think it is better to

read the sermon => notice the unorthodoxy => draw conclusions about the sermon => draw conclusions about the theology of the author/speaker.

I think that is fair.

[ContraMundum]

I can learn, for instance, from Islam a greater respect for the creating power of God. Now, a Muslim isn't going to to correctly identifiy that as the second person of the Trinity, but that hasn't stopped me learning something important from the Islamic faith.

ebia,

Nothing that is true in Islam hasn't already been stated in Judaism and Christianity. For example, the creating power of God is clear in the Bible, and this is understood without Mohammed's input. If people miss that, it is not the Bible's fault, but theirs.

[ebia]

Dear ebia,
Thanks for your response,

Ok so I have quoted the Bible to show what I mean and you cant express what you are saying. Do you disagree with the Bible passages, why not just focus on them?
It's not bible passages I'm disagreeing with. It's your conclusion that the particular quote in question from her sermon is incompatible with orthodox christianity.

Yes good point, thanks for pointing this out to me J My apologies here. Let me re-phrase, her sermon doesn’t seem to show an understanding.
If it's not meant to be a complete statement about the nature of Christ then it's unreasonable to expect it to. It is not reasonable to expect someone to say everything all of the time; not every sermon has to expound the full details of one's Christology.

Yes but her statement is incorrect, the creed is a statement of belief which comes from the scriptures, not a statement to learn what on believes. People can learn from it if they hear it, but it is a statement of of what we believe.
The two are not exclusive. "The creed is something we can learn from" does not necessarly imply "the creed is not a statement of belief". Again your objection is that she chose not to say something rather than with something she did say.



What we believe in Father Son and Holy Spirit is in the Nicene Creed, anyone who thinks they can be a Muslim as well doesn’t believe the Nicene Creed.

Excuse me if I stick to discussing the content of the sermon.

Ok but why be ambiguous about a know statement of faith.
Possibly because she doesn't want to be sidetracked, or possibly because she knows that make her sermon contraversial, or possibly because she knows that her audience have a variety of views on the creeds and she wants to make a particular point without allowing them to focus on whether she affirmed or denied them as factual statements. Or possibly some combination of the above.



I do, very clear, I think the sermon is utter nonsense.

Ok fair enough.
Ok but Muslims aren’t Islam, Islam is a religion, Muslims are those who practice. You haven’t quite addressed my criticism. I think Sura 11 verse 6 makes the same sort of claim as the Bible’s creation story but I am not as familiar offhand.

I'm not going to get into a discussion on Islamic theology.

So is the lack ot understanding, imagination and the rest of Scripture, the tools you were referring to?
Probably - I've lost track of the original conversation slightly.



If one is lead by the Holy Spirit and has fairly holistic knowledge of the Bible, one can consider the relative values and meaning of a particular text, something you said you lack. Tools like Strong’s Greek and Hebrew concordance can help as well.
Amongst others, yes.


As to foisting the meaning on others, is that what we do? Surely we just tell the message and people can believe or not. Jesus said His disciples were to teach disciples to obey everything He taught (Matthew 28, John 14,etc) not adapt it so people can like it.
I don't recall saying anything about foisting meaning on others.


Certainly…. (its in post #2)
We could begin by acknowledging that just as we know that Scripture is not something to be taken entirely literally, that God's Word is larger than our words; that this understanding applies so much more to a doctrine like the Trinity. The Trinity starts as an abstraction; it never was literal, so there's no way it can be taken literally.

And, like I said, the word "literal" in that context makes perfect sense the way she has used it. It doesn't make sense the way you have used it.


I have given you the scriptural references. Don’t you understand the scriptural references?
I don't understand what you are saying. Simple as that. What's the big problem with restating it slighly differently instead of playing stupid games about it?

[ebia]

I think it is better to

read the sermon => notice the unorthodoxy => draw conclusions about the sermon => draw conclusions about the theology of the author/speaker.

I think that is fair.
That would be fair, but I'm not convinced that is what is going on in this thread.

[ebia]

ebia,

Nothing that is true in Islam hasn't already been stated in Judaism and Christianity. For example, the creating power of God is clear in the Bible, and this is understood without Mohammed's input. If people miss that, it is not the Bible's fault, but theirs.
Maybe, but that doesn't nullify my point.

[Colabomb]

Maybe, but that doesn't nullify my point.

Actually it sort of... does.....

If all Truth in Islam, is Present in Christianity, and everything that is not in line with Christianity is false..... what worth is Islam?

[ebia]

Actually it sort of... does.....

If all Truth in Islam, is Present in Christianity, and everything that is not in line with Christianity is false..... what worth is Islam?
What is present (at least in theory) but has got a bit lost in Christianity is sometimes more prominent in Islam, and hence Islam can teach us (sometimes) what we should already know.

[Colabomb]

What is present (at least in theory) but has got a bit lost in Christianity is sometimes more prominent in Islam, and hence Islam can teach us (sometimes) what we should already know.

It can also teach us many things that are abominations.

If there is something lacking in Christian Teachers, we should bow before God, and pray that we get our acts together, not run off to false prophets.

[ebia]

It can also teach us many things that are abominations.
Maybe. Though we are quite capable of that without outside assistance.

If there is something lacking in Christian Teachers, we should bow before God, and pray that we get our acts together, ...
If we've learned the need to do that, we've learned something.

not run off to false prophets.
Truth is truth, wherever it's found.

[RadixLecti]

Truth is truth, wherever it's found.

Veritas? Quid est veritas? ;) JK

[Colabomb]

Maybe. Though we are quite capable of that without outside assistance.


If we've learned the need to do that, we've learned something.


Truth is truth, wherever it's found.

No matter what truth they teach, they teach the abominable lie.

Monotheism and a respect for Mary, does not make up for denial of the Gospel.

Islam is absolutely evil.

[RadixLecti]

No matter what truth they teach, they teach the abominable lie.



'How shall I bear a child,' she [Mary] answered, 'when I am a virgin...?' 'Such is the will of the Lord,' he replied. 'That is no difficult thing for Him...God forbid that He [God[ Himself should beget a son!...Those who say: 'The Lord of Mercy has begotten a son,' preach a monstrous falsehood..." (Surah 19:12-, 29-, 88)

"The God will say: 'Jesus, son of Mary, did you ever say to mankind 'Worship me and my mother as gods besides God?' 'Glory to You, 'he will answer, 'how could I ever say that to which I have no right?" (Surah 5:114-)

[ebia]

No matter what truth they teach, they teach the abominable lie.

Monotheism and a respect for Mary, does not make up for denial of the Gospel.
I don't remember saying it did.

[karen freeinchristman]

ebia, in all this to-ing and fro-ing, I've lost the plot completely. Can you please tell us what your point is?

In fact maybe if you state your point and brightmorningstar states his point, this interminable misunderstanding will cease?

At this stage, this is what I've concluded from the discussion between the two of you:
ebia thinks that we should only stick to the sermon as our informational source in this thread and not make assumtions that cannot be backed up by the sermon itself.
brightmorningstar feels that we can use the words of the sermon to determine the theology of the preacher.

Is that a correct summary? In which case, you two disagree with each other. So when people infer from the sermon what Dr. Redding believes, ebia feels it necessary to come to her defence. Then when ebia defends her, it sounds like he is defending her stance in trying to be both Muslim and Christian. Problem crops up again because she is not JUST a Christian, but she is a Priest.

:doh:

I give up. You may now return to the to-ing and fro-ing of arguments and misunderstandings.

[ContraMundum]

That would be fair, but I'm not convinced that is what is going on in this thread.

I'm unsure of that myself. :)

[brightmorningstar]

Dear ebia,

It's not bible passages I'm disagreeing with. It's your conclusion that the particular quote in question from her sermon is incompatible with orthodox christianity. Its because what she ahs said not compatible with the Bible that I draw that conclusion. I would say therefore that you are disagreeing with the Bible passages.

The two are not exclusive. "The creed is something we can learn from" does not necessarly imply "the creed is not a statement of belief". Again your objection is that she chose not to say something rather than with something she did say. What I am saying is nothing to do with the two not being exclusive, its basic logic, if she needs to look at the creed again she cant be seeing it as a statement of her faith.


Quote:

What we believe in Father Son and Holy Spirit is in the Nicene Creed, anyone who thinks they can be a Muslim as well doesn’t believe the Nicene Creed.

Excuse me if I stick to discussing the content of the sermon. Excuse me if I am sticking to it. She has mentioned the creed which is a statement of faith in how we understand the Trinity. It is relevant. Also relevant is who is she that has given this sermon If she is a Muslim priest she doesn’t believe the Nicene Creed and if she isn’t why does she think she is?

Furthermore if her audience has a variety of views on the creed then it probably doesn’t represent a statement of their faith either and no wonder they are confused with sermons like Dr Reddings.

I'm not going to get into a discussion on Islamic theology. Ok then please don’t claim something it does, as you have done , without being able to support the claim which from my knowledge is unsupportable.

Probably - I've lost track of the original conversation slightly. You said you needed tools to be able to interpret the Bible text. What tools?

I don't recall saying anything about foisting meaning on others. post #21

I don't understand what you are saying. Simple as that. What's the big problem with restating it slighly differently instead of playing stupid games about it? Sorry but the problem is I gave the scriptural references ….
Light of Light (Psalm 27: I; John 8: 12; Matthew 17: 2,5) true God of true God, (John 17: 1-5), of one essence with the Father, (John 10: 30)

I hardly think its fair to say I am playing stupid games by wondering why you cant understand scriptural passages. Perhaps you don’t understand the passages the same as me, but that I would call unbelief as they are clear to me that what Dr Redding is saying is wrong. Perhaps that was the problem right form the start of our debate, in effect two different religions. Which takes us back to being a Muslim and a Christian, for me that’s not possible that would be not being a Christian.

[ebia]

Sorry but the problem is I gave the scriptural references ….
Light of Light (Psalm 27: I; John 8: 12; Matthew 17: 2,5) true God of true God, (John 17: 1-5), of one essence with the Father, (John 10: 30

I'm not asking you to prove your statement is true, I'm asking you to repeat it slightly differently so I can make sure I've correctly understood what you said. I don't want references - we can discuss those later if I happen to disagree with the statement. Quoting references for it does not tell me what your statement means. It's your statement I'm having problems understanding, not the scriptural passages. If you want to carry on the conversation I would appreciate it if you could clarify the statement in your own words for me.

[brightmorningstar]

Dear ebia,
I'm not asking you to prove your statement is true, I'm asking you to repeat it slightly differently so I can make sure I've correctly understood what you said. I don't want references - we can discuss those later if I happen to disagree with the statement. Quoting references for it does not tell me what your statement means. It's your statement I'm having problems understanding, not the scriptural passages. If you want to carry on the conversation I would appreciate it if you could clarify the statement in your own words for me.
Ok I believe the Bible, so take that as my statement, otherwise what don't you understand about the Bible passages I have quoted. The Bible is the truth, I can't improve on it.
Dr Redding makes the suggestions 'so what if Jesus could be the one who always listened' what dodes she mean 'what if' the scripture says Jesus did listen to the Father, and the scripture says Jesus is one essense with the Father God. Dr Reddings statement continues implyting what if Jesus identified with God, how did He not if He is one essence with God? She then asks how could we look at the Trinity form that perspective, the perspective that Jesus could be something the scripture affirms He is.

Anyway, I dont know why we are arguing, Dr Redding has I understand been told by her Bishop to basically take a break and reconsider her beliefs.

[ebia]

Dear ebia,

Ok I believe the Bible, so take that as my statement, otherwise what don't you understand about the Bible passages I have quoted.
I repeat, I'm fine about what the passages quoted say. What I wanted to know is what exactly you meant by your particular statement. I have absolutely no idea why you are refusing to clarify it, but given that you won't I see no purpose in trying to carry on a conversation with someone who will not clarify their meaning on request.

[brightmorningstar]

Sorry ebia, I have told you I believe the scripture means what it says.
Jesus says John 10:30 that He and the Father are one.
Thats what the Nicene Creed means when it says of one essence with the Father.
So when Dr Redding says what if Jesus 'could be' one who identified with the God .. Jesus already is who Dr Redding thinks He 'could be', she obviously has yet realised and believed,
It goes some way to explaining why she is confused about thinking she is Muslim and Christian

[ebia]

Sorry ebia, I have told you I believe the scripture means what it says.
Jesus says John 10:30 that He and the Father are one.
Thats what the Nicene Creed means when it says of one essence with the Father.
So when Dr Redding says what if Jesus 'could be' one who identified with the God .. Jesus already is who Dr Redding thinks He 'could be', she obviously has yet realised and believed,
It goes some way to explaining why she is confused about thinking she is Muslim and Christian
Now why couldn't you have said that 3 pages ago.

Thanks.

Dr Reddings comments look more like a manner of speaking roughly equavlent to "why don't we try expressing it in this way and see where it leads..." rather than intending to express an about about it. It would be cleared if one heard her speaking the sermon no doubt.

[brightmorningstar]

Dear ebia,
Ok well thanks for your patience with my explanations :thumbsup:

Why express who we think Jesus could be when we know who we believe He is? We might be in doubt but as she thinks she is a Muslim as well we know she does yet believe who Jesus is.

[ebia]

Dear ebia,
Ok well thanks for your patience with my explanations :thumbsup:

Why express who we think Jesus could be when we know who we believe He is? We might be in doubt but as she thinks she is a Muslim as well we know she does yet believe who Jesus is.
As I tried to say, I do not think that when she says "Jesus could be..." she means to imply "but he might not be...". I think it's just a manner of speaking. Some people naturally couch their statements in conditionals, regardless of whether there is actually any doubt about their truth, but as a way of saying "if this is true, then what..."

We might be in doubt but as she thinks she is a Muslim as well we know she does yet believe who Jesus is.
I don't want to get into that debate again, but it doesn't appear that her views are 'orthodox' Muslim either, so we should be careful about guessing too much about her views from her claim to be Muslim.

Her bishop has suspended her, and so we can reasonably infer that he has good reason to know that either her views or her teaching is insufficiently orthodox. However, I still maintain my perspective stated earlier about what is going on in this thread.

[brightmorningstar]

Dear ebia,
As I tried to say, I do not think that when she says "Jesus could be..." she means to imply "but he might not be...". I think it's just a manner of speaking. Thats not my point, it is with our hearts we believe and it is with our mouths we confess Jesus is Lord, there is not what if about it.
Some people naturally couch their statements in conditionals, regardless of whether there is actually any doubt about their truth, but as a way of saying "if this is true, then what..." Yes they may but as we know she thinks she is a Muslim and calls quotes from the prophet Mohammed as from God, who doesn't recognise Jesus Christ for who Jesus Christ says He is, we cant have this level of disbeleif in the church.:yawn:

I don't want to get into that debate again, but it doesn't appear that her views are 'orthodox' Muslim either, so we should be careful about guessing too much about her views from her claim to be Muslim. I am not interested what make her a Muslim, I am interested in what she denies about Christ

[Colabomb]

She may not be a priest, but she might be our forum mod here soon.

[ebia]

Dear ebia,
Thats not my point, it is with our hearts we believe and it is with our mouths we confess Jesus is Lord, there is not what if about it.
This is a sermon, not a confession.


Yes they may but as we know she thinks she is a Muslim and calls quotes from the prophet Mohammed as from God, who doesn't recognise Jesus Christ for who Jesus Christ says He is, we cant have this level of disbeleif in the church.:yawn:
That's a call for her bishop to make.

I am not interested what make her a Muslim, I am interested in what she denies about Christ
In this particular sermon she hasn't denied anything much about Christ. "If Jesus is X..." does not imply Jesus is not X, or even that Jesus might not be X.