A word about our founder.

[seebs]

Okay, so, this is sorta like something I wrote last year, which went away in the Great Crash of 2003, if I recall correctly.

I'd like to say a few words, if I might, about the first liberal Christian.

Christianity's roots are in another faith; Judaism. Judaism has ceremonial laws for purity and ritual cleanliness, and these rules were used to keep the Jews separate from other people, and to keep their God even more separate; people who had defects in their sight could not approach the altar:

Leviticus 21:18-23

In fact, touching unclean things made you unclean, too, so people stayed far away from the unclean. They followed the rules, very carefully, aware that straying from them could cost them God's favor. Indeed, many wouldn't stray from the rules even to help others; for instance, had a good Jew seen a Samaritan lying bleeding, he would have been afraid to touch the man, because doing so would make him unclean.

Enter a man, unlike any other. This man touched the unclean. This man ate with them. This was, in the eyes of Jews of the time, an abomination:
John 18:28
Genesis 43:32

This man spoke with tax collectors, and prostitutes. Lepers. Cripples. Non-Jews. Single mothers, adulterers. All the people who were unclean, who could not partake fully in God's kingdom, because they were blemished, and He was holy.

Eventually, they killed Him for it.

In memory and imitation of this example, many of us spend time with unbelievers. People who are not good enough, not clean enough, not pure enough. People that most churches would kick out immediately. People who cannot possibly, we are told, be pleasing to God.

This is because we know the secret truth, which is that we are no better, no more clean, no more pure, but that Jesus sanctifies us, and makes us pure... And He does this even when our actions fall short.

He was the first liberal, and we walk in His footsteps.

[Polycarp1]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to seebs again.That was truly beautiful, Seebs -- and the Gospel truth! :clap:

[Bushido216]

Wowzers. That was great.

Oh, Polycarp, join the ~1~ revolution.

[elanor]

Amen and AMEN! :clap: Lord, let us see the people in this world through Your eyes, and grant us open and humble hearts to love them as You have loved them. We are humbled and we are grateful for the amazing priviledge of being Your children and Your servants. Help us to show Your love to each person in our path, and to seek out those who most need to know that You love them. For every moment, every opportunity to live this wonderful adventure of sharing Your love, thank You!

[Toney]

May I suggest that the Mods make Seebs' OP sticky, please. It is beginning to look like we might have a Page Two.

[PaladinValer]

Again, excellently spoken and said :)

[ICPitbull]

Well said. :)

[Anastasis]

Amen

[crimedog]

Yes!

[Dominus Fidelis]

Jesus the first liberal? Yeah, he shocked people by hanging out with sinners...but did he also tell the sinners that their sins were not sins? Did he tell them to sin no more?

[sakamuyo]

If "tell the sinners that there sins were not sins" is part of your definition of "liberal", I suggest reconsidering your definition (http://christianforums.com/t760985). I will also politely remind you that Jesus frequently condemned the behavior and attitudes of the "relgious right" of his time. Yes, he told people to "go and sin no more", but he also told the self-righteous to lay off and show some grace.

[seebs]

Jesus the first liberal? Yeah, he shocked people by hanging out with sinners...but did he also tell the sinners that their sins were not sins? Did he tell them to sin no more?

Yes, He did, and I assure you, the moment I am one person of a Trinity, another person of whom can fill people and give them the ability to turn from their sins, I will echo that sentiment soundly! Unless the additional wisdom compells me to forgive people, or more shockingly, refuse to condemn them in the first place.

But I'll happily tell people not to sin anymore. And, like Jesus, that's as far as I'll go. No punishment, no threats, no enforcement, no refusing to eat with them; the ice cream is totally free, whether or not you want it. There's no requirements. The woman taken in adultery was not condemned. Jesus did, in fact, tell her to go and sin no more... But He didn't say "or else I'll let them stone you next time", or anything like that.

[sakamuyo]

Very good point, Seebs!

[Treasure the Questions]

But I'll happily tell people not to sin anymore. And, like Jesus, that's as far as I'll go. :amen:

[McCravey]

I can't even post anymore....everyone else says it so much better than I.....I just want to come and listen.

[praying]

You folks have to taught me so much in my time here, thanks seebs and everyone else. Thanks!

[Dominus Fidelis]

Yes, He did, and I assure you, the moment I am one person of a Trinity, another person of whom can fill people and give them the ability to turn from their sins, I will echo that sentiment soundly! Unless the additional wisdom compells me to forgive people, or more shockingly, refuse to condemn them in the first place.

But I'll happily tell people not to sin anymore. And, like Jesus, that's as far as I'll go. No punishment, no threats, no enforcement, no refusing to eat with them; the ice cream is totally free, whether or not you want it. There's no requirements. The woman taken in adultery was not condemned. Jesus did, in fact, tell her to go and sin no more... But He didn't say "or else I'll let them stone you next time", or anything like that.


Never said to treat them badly, in fact, telling them a sin is a sin is an act of mercy. Telling them that the plain reading of the Bible is wrong and that a sin is not really a sin is not a loving thing to do, but its easier.

[McCravey]

Never said to treat them badly, in fact, telling them a sin is a sin is an act of mercy. Telling them that the plain reading of the Bible is wrong and that a sin is not really a sin is not a loving thing to do, but its easier.

I like what I heard a pastor say one time...."You may have done the things they say you did....but you are not who they say you are"

Helping people forget those things of the past.....dropping their old identities...and picking up their new identities in Christ......YEAH...call it liberal if you like....I will apply it liberally.

[Treasure the Questions]

Never said to treat them badly, in fact, telling them a sin is a sin is an act of mercy. Telling them that the plain reading of the Bible is wrong and that a sin is not really a sin is not a loving thing to do, but its easier.Please remember that this is an area for liberal Christians, and liberal Christians aren't so likely to be in favour of "plain reading of the Bible", they tend to like to understand the context and consider how it matches their own experience of life.

Do you consider yourself to be a liberal Christian in any sense? If so I'm sure we'd all like to hear why - there is a separate thread where you can tell us what you think makes you a liberal Christian. :)

Karin

P.S.

I've just come across this quote and think we could apply it to "sinners" as much as to enemies: In Your Enemy's Shoes
by Henry Wadsworth Longfellow

If we could read
the secret history of our enemies,
we would find in each person's life
sorrow and suffering enough
to disarm all hostility.Source: http://www.bruderhof.com/us/TodaysDig.htm?source=DailyDig

K

[Treasure the Questions]

I like what I heard a pastor say one time...."You may have done the things they say you did....but you are not who they say you are"

Helping people forget those things of the past.....dropping their old identities...and picking up their new identities in Christ......YEAH...call it liberal if you like....I will apply it liberally.
:thumbsup: Great post. I heard John Bell say something very similar. We certainly need a lot more Christians reminding people that God loves them and believes in them and calls them by beautiful and positive names.

Karin

[Toney]

We certainly need a lot more Christians reminding people that God loves them and believes in them and calls them by beautiful and positive names.

Karin

Amen. Amen. In this quiet corner of CF, one is not likely to find 35-page threads on topics like 'who gets to go to Heaven' nor on what constitutes invincible ignorance.

[Reader Nilus]

If anything most people suffer pain of one sort or another, it does not matter if their own actions created it or not, the fact is they suffer. As a Christian, it does no good as far as I am concerned to say "oh my you did that to yourself" but become a thou to them, befriend them suffer with them, heal them. We bring life, we do not need to preach hell fire, because all of us know hell, we need to know love, and those of us who have been loved can love.
Jeff the Finn

[Treasure the Questions]

befriend them, suffer with them, heal them. We bring life, we do not need to preach hell fire, because all of us know hell, we need to know love, and those of us who have been loved can love.
Jeff the Finn:amen: To my way of thinking that's what Jesus did for humanity, and it's the basis for incarnational living.

There's a great quote from Tolstoy in this week's Sojomail:
"There are many reasons for the failure to comprehend Christ's teaching...but the chief cause which has engendered all these misconceptions is this: that Christ's teaching is considered to be such as can be accepted, or not accepted, without changing one's life."

Incarnational living seems rather drastic to me, and hard to put into practice, but perhaps there are steps I can take, steps we can all take, towards that goal and to identify with the materially poor and also with those who suffer and struggle in so many different ways, and get alongside them and help them where we can. I think that's what Jesus would do, 'cause I think that's what Jesus did.

Karin

[Dominus Fidelis]

Amen. Amen. In this quiet corner of CF, one is not likely to find 35-page threads on topics like 'who gets to go to Heaven' nor on what constitutes invincible ignorance.

Why did you have to go there? No need to dis OBOB.

[McCravey]

If anything most people suffer pain of one sort or another, it does not matter if their own actions created it or not, the fact is they suffer. As a Christian, it does no good as far as I am concerned to say "oh my you did that to yourself" but become a thou to them, befriend them suffer with them, heal them. We bring life, we do not need to preach hell fire, because all of us know hell, we need to know love, and those of us who have been loved can love.
Jeff the Finn

Wow Jeff, I like your picture! I have a herd of beautiful Boer goats I would like to watch grazing there....drink coffee....maybe knock a little rock around with my staff...FORE!

[sakamuyo]

Telling them that the plain reading of the Bible is wrong and that a sin is not really a sin is not a loving thing to do.
Except when the "plain" reading of the bible /IS/ wrong.

[oworm]

Okay, so, this is sorta like something I wrote last year, which went away in the Great Crash of 2003, if I recall correctly.

I'd like to say a few words, if I might, about the first liberal Christian.

Christianity's roots are in another faith; Judaism. Judaism has ceremonial laws for purity and ritual cleanliness, and these rules were used to keep the Jews separate from other people, and to keep their God even more separate; people who had defects in their sight could not approach the altar:

Leviticus 21:18-2318 For whatsoever man he be that hath a blemish, he shall not approach: a blind man, or a lame, or he that hath a flat nose, or any thing superfluous, 19 Or a man that is brokenfooted, or brokenhanded, 20 Or crookbacked, or a dwarf, or that hath a blemish in his eye, or be scurvy, or scabbed, or hath his stones broken; 21 No man that hath a blemish of the seed of Aaron the priest shall come nigh to offer the offerings of the LORD made by fire: he hath a blemish; he shall not come nigh to offer the bread of his God. 22 He shall eat the bread of his God, both of the most holy, and of the holy. 23 Only he shall not go in unto the veil, nor come nigh unto the altar, because he hath a blemish; that he profane not my sanctuaries: for I the LORD do sanctify them.

In fact, touching unclean things made you unclean, too, so people stayed far away from the unclean. They followed the rules, very carefully, aware that straying from them could cost them God's favor. Indeed, many wouldn't stray from the rules even to help others; for instance, had a good Jew seen a Samaritan lying bleeding, he would have been afraid to touch the man, because doing so would make him unclean.

Enter a man, unlike any other. This man touched the unclean. This man ate with them. This was, in the eyes of Jews of the time, an abomination:
John 18:28Then led they Jesus from Caiaphas unto the hall of judgment: and it was early; and they themselves went not into the judgment hall, lest they should be defiled; but that they might eat the passover.
Genesis 43:32And they set on for him by himself, and for them by themselves, and for the Egyptians, which did eat with him, by themselves: because the Egyptians might not eat bread with the Hebrews; for that is an abomination unto the Egyptians.

This man spoke with tax collectors, and prostitutes. Lepers. Cripples. Non-Jews. Single mothers, adulterers. All the people who were unclean, who could not partake fully in God's kingdom, because they were blemished, and He was holy.

Eventually, they killed Him for it.

In memory and imitation of this example, many of us spend time with unbelievers. People who are not good enough, not clean enough, not pure enough. People that most churches would kick out immediately. People who cannot possibly, we are told, be pleasing to God.

This is because we know the secret truth, which is that we are no better, no more clean, no more pure, but that Jesus sanctifies us, and makes us pure... And He does this even when our actions fall short.

He was the first liberal, and we walk in His footsteps.
I like this........................In fact i like a lot of what Seebs has to say but might i add that Jesus was also Conservative about things he had to be conservative about and fundamentalist about things he needed to be fundamental about ? I think its really sad nowdays that the divisions in the church have become polemic in our individual quests to hold our beliefs and convictions tightly to our chests!!
It seems to me that we conservatives may be guilty of an over emphasis on the divinity of Christ at the expense of the truith that he was also fully human! Conversly the Liberal camp may have gone the other way !

[seebs]

In a way, I think the amazing level of forgiveness and tolerance is rather more the Divine side than the Human side. The Jesus who is perpetually angry and judgmental reminds me a lot more of people that I've met and seen on TV than it does of the actual Creator.

[Dominus Fidelis]

Except when the "plain" reading of the bible /IS/ wrong.

According to whom?

[sakamuyo]

God?

[sakamuyo]

OK, so a slightly more thought out response...

A verse, taken out of context, doesn't always appear at first to mean what it really means. Read a verse in 1 Corinthians about women staying silent and you might think women are subservient to men and should never speak. That would be the "plain" interpretation. However, putting that verse into the context of the passage and book as a whole changes things. The verse is in the middle of a large section of dealing with bringing order to worship and is in reference to women interrupting the speaker. In that context, it's quite plausible Paul is not saying women can never speak, but that they should not be interrupting the service. Those are two different things, as the latter understanding leaves it open for women to speak when it is their turn in the orderly fashion of the service. In other words, don't holler out from the pew, but that doesn't mean you can preach.

There are other passages that read differently if you know the rest of the bible than if you just read that one passage. For some, the "plain" understanding of Jesus's statement that he has fulfilled the law, is that the Old Testament is no longer relavent and can be tossed aside. That's the easy answer and the plain answer, but isn't necessarily the most complete answer. Understanding OT covenants, going back to David, Moses, and Abraham, and the full history of Israel adds to the significance of Jesus's statement.

I stand by my quick response that it's by God's standard, not mine. The longer answer is that his standard is found in Scripture. When the rest of Scripture suggests the "plain" reading is not the complete message, then a deeper message should be sought.

[Dominus Fidelis]

I'm all for context and reading the Bible that way it was written and meant to be read. I'm just saying that some people read 2+2=4 and claim it equals 8 because of political correctness. And those people that do that are often times my friends, so don't think I'm being a jerk or anything. Just saying what I see.

[Treasure the Questions]

The trouble is, Defens0rFidei, that understanding Scripture is not Maths (or even Math, for the Americans).

It's not a matter of having 2+2 and being able to say they equal 4 or any specific number.

Sometimes we don't fully appreciate the context. How many people say women should be subservient to men using the verses sakamuyo mentioned, quite out of context as he said?

Sometimes the meaning of a passage is very obscure. On Saturday I heard it suggested that the term "fishers of men" has more to do with justice for those who oppress the poor and persecute God's people than evangelism. Before you cry "impossible", read references to fish hooks in the Old Testament, e.g. Amos and Jeremiah (I think). I haven't read the verses through, or thought about it much yet - had a busy weekend and got home very late last night.

Then there are the times when passages have more than one meaning: perhaps layers of meaning, and we might only find one of those layers acceptable. Sometimes we overspritiualise things and forget the practical applications.

Above all we tend to confirm meaning that agrees with our preconceived ideas and causes least disruption to our lives.

We need to keep the channels open for God to communicate with us, and not think we know "the Truth". "The Truth" is too big for any of us to know completely - even the world's most brilliant Bible scholar and theologian.

Karin

[praying]

The trouble is, Defens0rFidei, that understanding Scripture is not Maths (or even Math, for the Americans).

It's not a matter of having 2+2 and being able to say they equal 4 or any specific number.

Sometimes we don't fully appreciate the context. How many people say women should be subservient to men using the verses sakamuyo mentioned, quite out of context as he said?

Sometimes the meaning of a passage is very obscure. On Saturday I heard it suggested that the term "fishers of men" has more to do with justice for those who oppress the poor and persecute God's people than evangelism. Before you cry "impossible", read references to fish hooks in the Old Testament, e.g. Amos and Jeremiah (I think). I haven't read the verses through, or thought about it much yet - had a busy weekend and got home very late last night.

Then there are the times when passages have more than one meaning: perhaps layers of meaning, and we might only find one of those layers acceptable. Sometimes we overspritiualise things and forget the practical applications.

Above all we tend to confirm meaning that agrees with our preconceived ideas and causes least disruption to our lives.

We need to keep the channels open for God to communicate with us, and not think we know "the Truth". "The Truth" is too big for any of us to know completely - even the world's most brilliant Bible scholar and theologian.

Karin


I agree and especially with "We need to keep the channels open for God to communicate with us" that is so important and I also, which is why I have a problem with literalism seriously doubt that God wants our understanding of Him not to changee and grow and that is IMHO how you must be if you are a literalist. If it works for you fine but I can't help but think that view causes people to miss out on so much in the validity, importance, and beauty of varying views of spirituality.

[oworm]

We need to keep the channels open for God to communicate with us, and not think we know "the Truth". "The Truth" is too big for any of us to know completely - even the world's most brilliant Bible scholar and theologian.

Interesting thought,so where does that leave Jesus words in John 8:31,32

"To the Jews who had believed him, Jesus said, "If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free."

Or Paul : !Tim4:3
They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth.

Or John:
1JN 2:20But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and all of you know the truth. 21 I do not write to you because you do not know the truth, but because you do know it and because no lie comes from the truth

??

[CaDan]

Interesting thought,so where does that leave Jesus words in John 8:31,32

"To the Jews who had believed him, Jesus said, "If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free."

Or Paul : !Tim4:3
They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth.

Or John:
1JN 2:20But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and all of you know the truth. 21 I do not write to you because you do not know the truth, but because you do know it and because no lie comes from the truth

??

As garden variety prooftexts.

I can do a "phrase search" on my computer, too.

Now, would you care to give an exegesis of the meanings of these verses, considering context, audience, and original language?

current music: REM - 1,000,000

[Treasure the Questions]

Quite, CaDan.

I'm sure I've heard that "truth" doesn't always mean what some of our more conservative friends think it means. However, I haven't anything to hand to help me check it out.

I'm sure Jesus would prefer us to be actively involved with sprinkling some holy salt around in our neighbourhood than spending hours checking the meaning of this or that text.

Although our theology will shape our lives, so it is important to have the basics right.

It's a matter of balance.

Karin

[Dominus Fidelis]

I agree with not following our own personal inclinations in order to interpret Scripture. That's kind of my point.

[oworm]

I agree with not following our own personal inclinations in order to interpret Scripture.
I agree.........The Spirit of God is perfectly capable of doing it for us :
JN 16:13 But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth.

[oworm]

As garden variety prooftexts.

I can do a "phrase search" on my computer, too.

Now, would you care to give an exegesis of the meanings of these verses, considering context, audience, and original language?

current music: REM - 1,000,000
Sorry but that would draw me into breaking a forum rule whereby i would be debating on a fellowship forum and drawing the topic off course. I merely quoted the texts to show "Treasure the questions" that it is infact possible for believers to "Know the truth" the knowledge of which brings freedom.
since the thread title is worded "A word about our founder. (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=9060029#post9060029)" i thought it appropriate to include these texts to show that God does infact desire that we "Know the truth"

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

But what does "The truth" mean in these verses?

In John's gospel, Jesus says He is the truth - not that certain propositions about Him are truth, but that He specifically is truth.

Given that, then "knowing the truth" means "knowing Jesus". The Spirit leading us in "all truth" means the Spirit leading us to Christ.

Words don't always mean the same things. They don't mean the same to modern modernist minded people (and we all tend to think in modernist ways in our culture) as they did to people 2000 years ago.

And exegesis is more than quoting a verse and acting as if it was written specifically to you in this day and age.

[Treasure the Questions]

Sorry but that would draw me into breaking a forum rule whereby i would be debating on a fellowship forum and drawing the topic off course. I merely quoted the texts to show "Treasure the questions" that it is infact possible for believers to "Know the truth" the knowledge of which brings freedom.
since the thread title is worded "A word about our founder. (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=9060029#post9060029)" i thought it appropriate to include these texts to show that God does infact desire that we "Know the truth"
This is where it is important to bring experience and commonsense into the debate, O-Worm. It's blatantly obvious that various Spirit-filled Christians do not always agree about the truth, so we need to question what the text might mean. Is it contradicting what reason tells us, or does it mean something a bit different from what might appear obvious at first sight?

I think Karl has thrown some very helpful light on the subject. Thank you, Karl. You're doing a good job there, contending for sanity.;)

Karin

[Toney]

Biblical scholars use the term ipsissima verba, which means the exact words of someone, usually Jesus.

In reading scripture, I find it helpful to know if the quotes attributed to Jesus are ipsissima verba; whether the words are something that Jesus likely said, or if those words were put in Jesus' mouth by the writer to make or clarify a point.

It's a small matter. The experience of God is quite distinct from the words used to describe such an experience.

"I am the way, the truth and the life," is not ipsissima verba according to most biblical scholars, btw.

[seebs]

I agree with not following our own personal inclinations in order to interpret Scripture. That's kind of my point.

Corporate discernment is generally an improvement, certainly... But I think our track record makes it pretty clear that, on the whole, we don't really know. And yes, I'm aware of those passages. And I do expect to be led into all truth... But that's a process, and I've got a long way to go yet.

[oworm]

This is where it is important to bring experience and commonsense into the debate, O-Worm. It's blatantly obvious that various Spirit-filled Christians do not always agree about the truth, so we need to question what the text might mean. Is it contradicting what reason tells us, or does it mean something a bit different from what might appear obvious at first sight?

I think Karl has thrown some very helpful light on the subject. Thank you, Karl. You're doing a good job there, contending for sanity.;)

Karin
I wasnt aware we were having a debate and i thought it broke forum etiquette to debate on a fellowship forum?
Ah well anyway,no worries, i posted earlier why i quoted the texts so that will suffice. God bless:)

[Treasure the Questions]

Not sure what the rules are but we Liberal Christians seem to be having plenty of friendly debates amongst ourselves, here. If you're not a Liberal Christian perhaps you shouldn't be joining in. You'll have to decide for yourself, unless a moderator steps in and lets you know.

Certainly you'll need to change your style of debate, as quoting Scripture out of context and without an intelligent explanation is not the Liberal Christian way.

Shalom:)

Karin

[oworm]

Not sure what the rules are but we Liberal Christians seem to be having plenty of friendly debates amongst ourselves, here. If you're not a Liberal Christian perhaps you shouldn't be joining in. You'll have to decide for yourself, unless a moderator steps in and lets you know.

Certainly you'll need to change your style of debate, as quoting Scripture out of context and without an intelligent explanation is not the Liberal Christian way.

Shalom:)

KarinOf course you are correct. As a non Liberal im prohibited from debating. Thats why i asked questions like "How does that square" etc...............

Actually its kind of difficult to define my position as i consider myself Fundamental about the fundamentals. Conservative about things that need to be conserved and liberal in my holistic approach to outreach/evangelism. Tie all that together with the fact that im also Reformed and Calvinistic in my theology and you get a fair old melting pot.

And yes i have been known to lack intelligence on occasion. Thankfully the Lord is no repecter of cranial capacity:)

[CaDan]

Of course you are correct. As a non Liberal im prohibited from debating. Thats why i asked questions like "How does that square" etc...............

Actually its kind of difficult to define my position as i consider myself Fundamental about the fundamentals. Conservative about things that need to be conserved and liberal in my holistic approach to outreach/evangelism. Tie all that together with the fact that im also Reformed and Calvinistic in my theology and you get a fair old melting pot.

And yes i have been known to lack intelligence on occasion. Thankfully the Lord is no repecter of cranial capacity:)

Yeah, yeah, yeah . . .

But what kind of ice cream do you like? That's what we're really concerned about around here. We're pretty ecumenical about frozen treats, but it is nice to know people's preferences! :)

current music: Daniel Amos - So Far So Good

[oworm]

We're pretty ecumenical about frozen treats, but it is nice to know people's preferences! :)
Actually i prefer interdenominational. Ecumenical can get a bit messy when it starts to heat up!:P :)

[Toney]

/me quietly observes that all ice cream gets messy when it's heated up and wonders how interdenominational frozen treats taste.

[oworm]

* Toney quietly observes that all ice cream gets messy when it's heated up and wonders how interdenominational frozen treats taste.
Well you need the usuall fundamental ingredients with a conservative amount of sugar...................dont want the stuff to be so sweet that its sickly. Of course you need liberal amounts in your ice cream bowl.
Now the real secret is to let it melt to a point where you can whip it up into a nice consistency. you know you've reached that consistency when you can draw the spoon straight up and out of the mix leaving a little peak.
Please note that doing this with ecumenical ice cream doesnt work too well as the peak tends to collapse and the whole thing becomes a gooey mess:P

[Toney]

Please note that doing this with ecumenical ice cream doesnt work too well as the peak tends to collapse and the whole thing becomes a gooey mess:P

Ah, yes! False ecumenical ice cream. A mess indeed.

[Dominus Fidelis]

I agree.........The Spirit of God is perfectly capable of doing it for us :
JN 16:13 But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth.

That was said to the Apostles, wasn't it? It was the Apostles that got the Spirit at Pentacost. It was the apostles that laid hands on Mathias to take Judas' place as an Apostle. (Bishop)

And if every spirit filled Christian is guided by the Spirit, why are there so many different interpretations? Is the spirit confused?

[Treasure the Questions]

And if every spirit filled Christian is guided by the Spirit, why are there so many different interpretations? Is the spirit confused?
'Cause we're all works in progress. We are being transformed by the renewing of our minds. It takes a while for Holy Spirit to work on our deep-seated prejudices and to re-educate us, contradicting any false messages we have received in our lives. To complete the process takes more than a lifetime.

[seebs]

And if every spirit filled Christian is guided by the Spirit, why are there so many different interpretations? Is the spirit confused?

No, but we are. But... Sometimes, the weird folks on the fringe are the ones listening to the Spirit, and the mainstream is just listening to what their parents told them. And sometimes it's the other way around. All you can do is pray, and discern slowly and cautiously.

[oworm]

That was said to the Apostles, wasn't it? It was the Apostles that got the Spirit at Pentacost. It was the apostles that laid hands on Mathias to take Judas' place as an Apostle. (Bishop)
So was it only the apostles who recieved the holy spirit. Are not all believers indwelt by the Holy Spirit in your opinion?

[praying]

And if every spirit filled Christian is guided by the Spirit, why are there so many different interpretations? Is the spirit confused?

Do you think the Holy Spirit guides us all in the exact same manner? I don't and I also agree with seebs if anyone is confused it is us.

[Treasure the Questions]

No, but we are. But... Sometimes, the weird folks on the fringe are the ones listening to the Spirit, and the mainstream is just listening to what their parents told them. And sometimes it's the other way around. All you can do is pray, and discern slowly and cautiously.
Very wise words.:amen:

[Dominus Fidelis]

So was it only the apostles who recieved the holy spirit. Are not all believers indwelt by the Holy Spirit in your opinion?

Believers get certain graces from the Spirit, no doubt. But I don't think all believers are given the graces to lead and interpret the Scriptures when a confusion arises. That is why a heirarchical, visible Church was founded on St Peter, imo.

[Toney]

Believers get certain graces from the Spirit, no doubt. But I don't think all believers are given the graces to lead and interpret the Scriptures when a confusion arises. That is why a heirarchical, visible Church was founded on St Peter, imo.

DoF, Greetings! (Better that you are here than that I am there.)

Do you think that the invention of the printing press and education of the heathen masses changed that at all?

[Treasure the Questions]

Do you think that the invention of the printing press and education of the heathen masses changed that at all?An excellent question.:thumbsup: Hope DoF gives it the consideration it deserves.

[Dominus Fidelis]

DoF, Greetings! (Better that you are here than that I am there.)

Do you think that the invention of the printing press and education of the heathen masses changed that at all?

Changed the fact that Jesus founded a Church with authority to bind and lose and that would stand up to the "gates of Hell?"

No, I don't think it changes that fact.

Although the widespread availability of the Scriptures in the common language makes personal interpretation a lot easier, yes.

[Toney]

Although the widespread availability of the Scriptures in the common language makes personal interpretation a lot easier, yes.

Okay. Working with this part, does biblical scholarship (hermeneutics, etc.), in your opinion, make interpretation (exegesis, etc.) of the scriptures more accurate?

[oworm]

Okay. Working with this part, does biblical scholarship (hermeneutics, etc.), in your opinion, make interpretation (exegesis, etc.) of the scriptures more accurate?
I think that depends who the scholars are. Some scholars i know in our divinity faculties here in Scotland would deny the virgin birth, the divinity of Christ and the bodily ressurection of Christ which goes against what scripture says!

[Treasure the Questions]

Although the widespread availability of the Scriptures in the common language makes personal interpretation a lot easier, yes.
Does it, I wonder, or does it just mean we take an "expert's" interpretation on trust, without questioning it and without bothering to investigate for ourselves?

Karin

[oworm]

Does it, I wonder, or does it just mean we take an "expert's" interpretation on trust, without questioning it and without bothering to investigate for ourselves?

Karin
I think its always good to go the Berean way:

Acts 17 :11The brothers immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea, and when they arrived they went into the Jewish synagogue. Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so.

1JN 4:1 Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.

[CaDan]

Okay. Working with this part, does biblical scholarship (hermeneutics, etc.), in your opinion, make interpretation (exegesis, etc.) of the scriptures more accurate?

Play nice, now! :)

I see a former Anglican priest in the not-too-distant future of this thread! Maybe with the initials MG? :)

[Dominus Fidelis]

Okay. Working with this part, does biblical scholarship (hermeneutics, etc.), in your opinion, make interpretation (exegesis, etc.) of the scriptures more accurate?

Not necessarily. I used to argue with a guy on another forum that thought himself some sort of biblical scholar and he would quote all these other "scholars" to come up with some really strange stuff.

This is where the gifts of the Spirit come into play. This is where an authoritative magesterium with those gifts come into play.

All IMO, of course.

[Toney]

Not necessarily. I used to argue with a guy on another forum that thought himself some sort of biblical scholar and he would quote all these other "scholars" to come up with some really strange stuff.

This is where the gifts of the Spirit come into play. This is where an authoritative magesterium with those gifts come into play.

All IMO, of course.

This is where we differ. IMO, any 'authoritative magsterium' :priest: has an overriding interest in protecting its institutional power. While I will agree that not all biblical scholars are objective all the time, and admittedly some surely fancy peculiar agendas, I explicitly trust the Spirit to guide me and grudgingly would place that full trust an institution, a corporate viewpoint, or an individual purporting to have that Spirit in a hammerlock; the Spirit of Truth is not so ungracefully contained.

However, I do not disparage the stage of spiritual growth when a soul is well served by his or her hammerlocks. Been there, done that.

[Dominus Fidelis]

So you dont believe in an authoritative Church anymore, Toney?

[Toney]

So you dont believe in an authoritative Church anymore, Toney?

That would be silly: an authoritative Church exists. But to the point, I do not believe in an infallible Church, nor have I ever. More to the point, I do not submit myself to any man-made institution, rather to God Himself. I do not worship a church, in other words (please don't get riled - I'm not implying that you do!). To do so, I should say, would be idolatrous. :(

[seebs]

I personally don't think any single institution is the authoritative church; I think it is the complex interplay of institutions which is the Body of Christ, and that, over time, these institutions will be lead into all truth.

[Treasure the Questions]

I don't think Jesus intended to found an institution, but to show us a way to live. Institutions tend to stifle true faith and encourage legalism and religiosity. The traditional teachings of the church can be useful to help explain how Jesus wants us to live, but we must be careful to distinguish what Jesus taught and what the hierarchy of the Church has taught down the ages in order to control the masses.

I believe in the priesthood of all believers, so anyone who truly believes in Jesus as the Christ and who is "tuned in" to him is able to speak authoritatively in my opinion, although we must test everything ourselves and check that it does not contradrict anything that Jesus taught.

Karin

[Dominus Fidelis]

That would be silly: an authoritative Church exists. But to the point, I do not believe in an infallible Church, nor have I ever. More to the point, I do not submit myself to any man-made institution, rather to God Himself. I do not worship a church, in other words (please don't get riled - I'm not implying that you do!). To do so, I should say, would be idolatrous. :(

Ok, I agree with you about submiting to man-made institutions. That is why I submit to the one I believe Jesus founded on St Peter, just as He said He was doing in the Gospel. Jesus is not just a man, so I submit.

Where did the Church He founded go Toney? Did it disappear? Where is it now?

[Dominus Fidelis]

I personally don't think any single institution is the authoritative church; I think it is the complex interplay of institutions which is the Body of Christ, and that, over time, these institutions will be lead into all truth.

Thats a warm fuzzy, nice thing to say, and I'd love to accept that, but I see the opposite occuring. As more Churches break away from the initial schisms of 1054 and the Reformation in the 1500's, confusion and differing opinions grow more and more.

The Spirit of truth is leading this to happen? In direct contradiction to the Gospel that says to tolerate NO schisms?

[Dominus Fidelis]

"Institutions tend to stifle true faith and encourage legalism and religiosity."

Thats fine, but what did He say about binding and loosing power given to the Apostles? Do you believe we all have the power to be our own authority and have our own legalism?

[Treasure the Questions]

"Institutions tend to stifle true faith and encourage legalism and religiosity."

Thats fine, but what did He say about binding and loosing power given to the Apostles? Do you believe we all have the power to be our own authority and have our own legalism?
To follow Christ means to be wary of legalism and try to avoid it. As followers of Christ we inherit the legacy of the Apostles. Christ is our authority, and we look to the gospels to see what he teaches. As the body of Christ, dependant on each other (the True Church is the body of all believers, btw) and accountable to each other.

The answer lies neither in fundamental legalism nor in liberal licentiousness, but in following Christ. This requires us to think hard and pray hard, to wrestle with Scripture and to fight (in a loving and non-violent way) all that hinders the Kingdom of God being established in the here and now, both in ourselves and in the world around us.

Karin

[Dominus Fidelis]

So the binding and loosing given to the Apostles means nothing?

[Treasure the Questions]

So the binding and loosing given to the Apostles means nothing?
I think it means different things to different people. What significance do you place upon it?

K

[Toney]

So the binding and loosing given to the Apostles means nothing?

Frankly, it scares me -- or at least the interpretation given to that statement by many of the faithful does.

DoF, to post at LC means two things. One, our members are by definition free thinkers. I respectfully ask you to respect that fact. Secondly, you must eat ice cream here. It is not an option. What flavour do you prefer?

A little background. DoF and I had our differences at OBOB, and also our agreements. He is still rather angry with King Henry VIII. As an Episcopalian (first), I rather like the fellow. Ironically, the Pope once gave Henry the title Defensor Fidei when he was very, very good; excommunicated him when he was very, very bad.

Let me say this about the Church, the Rock and Peter. The play on words only works in Greek: Petros (Peter) - little bitty pebble; Petra - really big rock. Jesus and the apostles spoke Aramaic, not Greek.

[McCravey]

Ok, I agree with you about submiting to man-made institutions. That is why I submit to the one I believe Jesus founded on St Peter, just as He said He was doing in the Gospel. Jesus is not just a man, so I submit.

Where did the Church He founded go Toney? Did it disappear? Where is it now?

That church was founded on Peter's revelation.

It was the revelation that was the rock.

It is the revelation that makes us a part of the rock.

[Dominus Fidelis]

Frankly, it scares me -- or at least the interpretation given to that statement by many of the faithful does.

DoF, to post at LC means two things. One, our members are by definition free thinkers. I respectfully ask you to respect that fact. Secondly, you must eat ice cream here. It is not an option. What flavour do you prefer?

A little background. DoF and I had our differences at OBOB, and also our agreements. He is still rather angry with King Henry VIII. As an Episcopalian (first), I rather like the fellow. Ironically, the Pope once gave Henry the title Defensor Fidei when he was very, very good; excommunicated him when he was very, very bad.

Let me say this about the Church, the Rock and Peter. The play on words only works in Greek: Petros (Peter) - little bitty pebble; Petra - really big rock. Jesus and the apostles spoke Aramaic, not Greek.

I'll take two scoops of truth, thanks.

:)

And I don't have anything against you Toney. I don't even remember arguing with you but one time!

And yes, King Henry VIII and I have issues.

[Dominus Fidelis]

That church was founded on Peter's revelation.

It was the revelation that was the rock.

It is the revelation that makes us a part of the rock.

It was the revelation and St Peter. It was a pun. I could back this up with many statements of the Church throughout history stating this fact, and I doubt you could come up with anything before the Reformation to support your position.

[Toney]

I'll take two scoops of truth, thanks.

:)

And I don't have anything against you Toney. I don't even remember arguing with you but one time!

And yes, King Henry VIII was a fat selfish *******. ;)

Nor I against you. I respect catechism weilding Catholics as long as they sport no false piety. Two scoops of truth? DoF, can you handle the truth? ;)

/me asks CaDan if he has any truth left.

[CaDan]

Let me say this about the Church, the Rock and Peter. The play on words only works in Greek: Petros (Peter) - little bitty pebble; Petra - really big rock. Jesus and the apostles spoke Aramaic, not Greek.

I kinda suspect it might have meant "rock"-HEAD. Peter comes across as a bit . . .well . . . dense in the Gospels! :)

[CaDan]

It was the revelation and St Peter. It was a pun. I could back this up with many statements of the Church throughout history stating this fact, and I doubt you could come up with anything before the Reformation to support your position.

/me reviews post
/me looks at his collection of Hans Küng
/me reviews post
/me looks at thread topic

Y'know, I'm just not gonna get into this one here. :)

[Toney]

Second verse, same as the first.

Gotta run. Later.

[Treasure the Questions]

I wonder if DoF can tell us what the Aramaic for Peter, pebble and rock are.

[Toney]

I wonder if DoF can tell us what the Aramaic for Peter, pebble and rock are.

Probably not. But The Thadman can! I asked 'Steve-O', an Aramaic scholar, to clue us in. Here is his PM reply (Steve sports the Magen David faith icon [Jewish], therefore he is not allowed to post to this thread):

"There is only one word for "rock" in Aramaic of the 1st Century, and that was kifâ'. Calling someone kifâ' (rock) was quite an insult, as someone with a "heavy heart" (yaqeer levâ') in Aramaic was almost like calling someone a "retard" in colloquial English (Luke 24). Jesus took this nickname "Rocky" and, with a pun, (excusing mine) "built him up" (even if Peter was quick to anger, and not very bright)."

As we all know, Catholics intepret Mt. 16:18 ('Thou art Peter and on this rock...') as Jesus endorsing the following:

1. A Church or a new religion
2. Simon Peter as the first Pope
3. Granting the Church (Roman Catholic) the authority to "bind and loose."

I disagree in varying degrees with all three points, and I consider myself a good Catholic. But there really is little reason to debate these issues and as CaDan has suggested, this is not the proper thread anyway.

[Treasure the Questions]

You're right there was another thread elsewhere that was discussing what "the rock" was referring to, and furhter debate should continue there.

Thanks for your reply, though Toney. Interesting answer, although I'm not sure it makes things any clearer.

Karin

[Toney]

To summarize from The Life and Times of Jesus Messiah (Edersheim), and to leave behind the Chair of St Peter nonsense inasmuch as I, for one, find it exceedingly difficult to accept that Jesus would use a pun to appoint the first 'Pope' of or to establish a new religion. What Jesus precisely meant in Aramaic as recorded by the synoptics, written or translated into Greek, Latin, English, etc. and later redacted, sadly has become lost to polemical and apolegetic Christianity.

There was a Jewish legend that Abraham sat at the "gate of Gehenna (Hades) to prevent all who had the seal of circumcision from falling into the abyss." Likewise, Abraham also was called 'rock', tsur; one of the fathers upon whom the world was founded. Jesus is clearly another 'rock'.

Church in its Jewish context would have been understood simply to represent religious unity among Jesus' followers within Judaism.

BTW, the book I cited (both enormous volumes) is available at NetLibrary (http://www.netlibrary.com/EbookDetails.aspx), which is based near Denver.

[Dominus Fidelis]

You're right there was another thread elsewhere that was discussing what "the rock" was referring to, and furhter debate should continue there.

Thanks for your reply, though Toney. Interesting answer, although I'm not sure it makes things any clearer.

Karin

Perhaps Toney would like to take his argument into OBOB where he can and I can both legally argue it, since we both claim to be Catholics.

[Toney]

Perhaps Toney would like to take his argument into OBOB where he can and I can both legally argue it, since we both claim to be Catholics.

Nope.

[Polycarp1]

The portrait of Peter in the Gospels (as opposed to what he did in Acts and later) is one of a man who was fiercely loyal to Jesus, devoted to Him, but something of a dolt, requiring careful explanation of everything. (And this is principally derived from Mark, who is said to have based his Gospel largely on Peter's reminiscences and sermons -- Peter no doubt humbly portraying himself as the "foil" to Jesus's wisdom.) With the coming of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, Peter becomes insightful and masterly. But the "Rocky" image of kifa or cepha makes sense -- Jesus is engaging in a bit of wordplay. Though it's 2000 years anachronistic, imagine Him taking Stallone's Rocky Balboa character and saying that He will found His church on the loyalty and determination of Rocky, giving him the insight that he will need.

[Toney]

The portrait of Peter in the Gospels (as opposed to what he did in Acts and later) is one of a man who was fiercely loyal to Jesus, devoted to Him, but something of a dolt, requiring careful explanation of everything. (And this is principally derived from Mark, who is said to have based his Gospel largely on Peter's reminiscences and sermons -- Peter no doubt humbly portraying himself as the "foil" to Jesus's wisdom.) With the coming of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, Peter becomes insightful and masterly. But the "Rocky" image of kifa or cepha makes sense -- Jesus is engaging in a bit of wordplay. Though it's 2000 years anachronistic, imagine Him taking Stallone's Rocky Balboa character and saying that He will found His church on the loyalty and determination of Rocky, giving him the insight that he will need.

Loyalty, determination and, as you suggest, the humility of Jesus (Ph 2:8). As Paul instructed the Philippians, "Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility consider others better than yourselves (2:3).

The play on words follows Peter's Confession: the recognition of Jesus as Messiah and it also is a spiritual reality check -- "...this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. (Mt 16:17).

Although Peter's Confession is found in all three synoptics, it may be worth noting that only Matthew's contains the Rocky pun.

[Dominus Fidelis]

"Although Peter's Confession is found in all three synoptics, it may be worth noting that only Matthew's contains the Rocky pun."

And your point is....

[nyj]

*nyj takes a well-worn ballcap from his back pocket, uncrumples it and places it on his head. You notice it has a large M on the front of it.

***Moderator Cap On***

Ok folks, let us tone down the rhetoric which has plagued the last page of this thread. Things have been peaceful so far, let us keep it that way. Thank you.

***Moderator Cap Off (for now)***

[Toney]

Thank you, nyj. This is a problem with which you are familiar.

DoF, I have no point save that it "may be worth noting." Implicit in that point is that it may not be worth noting.

Please appreciate that our little community here at Liberal Churches was granted this safe haven to escape anti-heresy mongers and fundamentalists who don't seem to play well with others. I ask you to please appreciate that. And I bid you peace and farewell and offer prayers of hope for you on your spiritual journey and ask that you pray for us as well.

[Abiel]

nice OP

[Izdaari]

Secondly, you must eat ice cream here. It is not an option. What flavour do you prefer?
Literally, Ben & Jerry's Chunky Monkey. That's banana (real bananas, not any artificial flavors) with big chunks of chocolate.

Figuratively, I like moderate Lutheranism, neither too liberal nor too conservative, preferably topped with Emerging Church sauce.

^_^