AUDIO
![]() |
Archbishop Peter Jensen's Christmas Message 2011 on the centrality of Jesus to human history
|
Andrew Robinson’s helpful article 'Liturgy Schmiturgy' in the April edition of Southern Cross prompts the following reflection about a lesson to be learned from early Christian history about the survival and propagation of the Christian faith. I am thinking of the decades before and after the close of the apostolic age in circa AD 100. The great apostolic leaders had passed on, there was considerable theological confusion due to Gnosticism and other deviant views and, furthermore, the Lord had not returned.
One interesting element in apostolic and early post-apostolic Christianity was a willingness to learn from Jewish practices. Initially, the first Christians were Jews and the Jewish influence in the churches continued throughout the first century, although diminishingly. So Christianity grew out of the soil of Judaism, a Judaism that in previous centuries had survived the fires of persecution on the one hand and the subtle syncretistic seduction of Greek beliefs and practices on the other.
Learning and adapting
The Jews were careful to adopt activities that enabled them to survive in hostile environments, such was their commitments to their beliefs. It was no accident that these early Christians learned from and adapted the practices of the Jews.
•Jews gathered on a fixed day (Sabbath) but so too did the Christians (Sunday).
•The core activity of the synagogue was the reading and teaching of the Scriptures, but this was likewise the basic reason for church meetings, except that to the Old Testament they added readings from the writings of the apostles.
•The Jews translated their Hebrew scriptures into Greek and the early Christians translated their texts in Latin, Syriac, Armenian, etc.
•The synagogues used liturgical forms like the Shema (‘Hear, O Israel...’) and the Benedictions and so too the churches recited their Trinitarian and Christological creeds.
•The Jews created their calendar to commemorate great feasts (e.g., Passover) but so too did the Christians develop their calendar (notably to celebrate Easter).
•Jews remembered their deliverance from Egypt in the annual Passover and Christians recalled their deliverance in the remembrance meal, the Lord’s Supper.
•Jews inducted their children into the covenant by catechetical instruction and so likewise the Christians developed their manuals for instruction prior to the Easter baptisms.
•The Jewish communities understood the need for a succession of teachers in the appointment of great rabbis to preserve the Mosaic tradition, but so too did the Christians appreciate the principle of a succession of strong and orthodox leaders.
•Synagogue rulers and elders governed the synagogues and the churches developed similar offices, though with different names.
•Synagogues exercised discipline of wayward members (often by harsh corporal punishment) and the churches suspended or expelled heretics and the immoral.
In short, in the face of forces that would destroy them the churches consciously or unconsciously looked to the practices of the synagogues as means of survival, and adapted them accordingly.
Their context and ours
The Christians of the second century survived the ravages of persecution and moral syncretism and the destructive influences of Gnosticism and later of Arianism. Despite the opposition they faced they developed forms of welfare assistance for the disadvantaged, including for those who were not Christians. By these and other means they won the attention of Constantine and others and, as it is said, the rest is history. Within two and a bit centuries the tiny Jesus movement became the faith of the Roman Empire.
Today there are groups like the Pentecostals who have grown remarkably. Sydney Anglicans have not witnessed comparable growth but we have an important role to play in Australian Christianity. In particular, we can provide a theological and ecclesiastical stability that will buttress and support Christianity in our nation. An important part of that stability will be our commitment to received practices like use of Bible reading and Bible-based preaching, (contemporary) liturgy, creeds, use of church calendar and the Collects and – not least – willingness to apply constructive church discipline.
There are some who follow these practices out of a love of tradition, a tradition that is often dressed in aesthetic clothing so that these things become ends in themselves. Evangelicals, wary of such an approach, sometimes merely reject such things as a distraction for the central task of making disciples and building them up in the faith. As well, evangelicals in their love of the gospel place great emphasis on preaching and the preacher and pay scant attention to liturgy, sacraments, calendar or the ‘form’ of the meeting of the saints.
What can go wrong
This may have several unwelcome consequences. One is the ‘cult of the preacher’ with the equivalent devaluing of the congregation, the ‘church of God’. (This diocese is deeply committed to the theology of ‘local church’) Another is that the emphasis on the existential, the ‘now’ can leave a lesser sense of our past (‘where we have come from’) or our future (‘where we are going’). The amazing survival of Judaism due to Jewish tenacity to their ‘traditions’ is worth pondering. Evangelical emphasis on the ‘now’ might mean an impact ‘today’ but little or none for ‘tomorrow’.
Of course, such things as a liturgy that requires Bible reading and reminds us the need for divine forgiveness, creeds that reinforce what we believe, a calendar expressed in special prayers to remind us of great doctrines on are merely vehicles, which of course need always to be articulated in contemporary terms. Yet they are very useful vehicles and in the long term better than no vehicles.
These are turbulent times but that is true to a greater or lesser degree of all historical eras. It is the nature of life. As in every age we face a twofold challenge. On one hand, we are to ‘make disciples’ and, on the other, we are to ‘contend for the faith’, that is, defend and preserve it. In our passion for the first we must not disregard the second. The lessons the early Christians learned from the Jews are worth learning again. There are practices and structures that have served us in the past and which, as we fill them with evangelical content, will help carry forward into the future.


Sola Scriptura was unknown to both early Christians and the Jews.
The Christian Church combined both the Temple and the Synagogue.
Examination of the early Church shows a Church at variance with Sydney Anglicanism, as regards the purpose of the Liturgy, the real objective of Christ in the Eucharistic elements , prayers for the dead etc
The Eucharist was the main Sunday service and bread and wine..not unfermented grape juice was used.
It was seen as the fulfilment of the prophecy of Malachi, " the clean oblation" to be offered by the Gentiles throughout the world.
Contrariwise, one suspects they wouldn't be too familiar with a certain rather hasty mode of the laity receiving one Species which to me looks like an assembly-line.
Robert raises issues of worship and church governance that have also troubled me, not least in the global Anglican communion.
"We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration [i.e., has received baptism] and is thereby living as Christ enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Saviour was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus" (First Apology 66 [A.D. 151]).
Read then what St Augustine of Hippo ( so often appropriated by Evangelicals ) states
"I promised you [new Christians], who have now been baptized, a sermon in which I would explain the sacrament of the Lord’s Table. . . . That bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the body of Christ. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ" (Sermons 227 [A.D. 411)
Whatever else might be said, the early Church took John 6 literally. In fact, there is no record from the early centuries that implies Christians doubted this interpretation.
For an evangelical examining the early Church, is as tough as a Mormon investigating the archaeological evidence for the Book of Mormon.
The fact is that " the strong and orthodox leaders" Bishop Paul claims existed , believed doctines at variance with modern Sydney Anglicanism. these are not just peripheral issues, but core gospel issues such as baptismal regeneration, prayers for the dead, a real eucharistic presence in the elements,the sacrificial nature of teh Eucharist, the indisolubility of marriage,priestly anointing of the sick etc
"And I confess one baptism for the forgiveness of sins."
Years ago I read a saying attributed to St Augustine that "I would not believe the holy Gospels if it were not for the authority of the Holy Catholic Church." I once scoffed but now I know what he was getting at. Who decides what is in and out? Who is the authority? The early Church seems to have been more Catholic than I ever knew.
The following quote from Phillip Jensen’s recent paper on ‘The Authority of the Bible’ is particularly relevant to many matters raised in this discussion.
‘....the authority of the Bible will not be maintained unless it is maintained alone. Recognizing the subsidiary roles of reason, experience and church in our understanding and application of the Scriptures it is still crucial to establish that there is no alternative or equal authority to the Scriptures. The Bible is sufficient for making God's mind known in order that Christian people can live in obedience to Him - in all cultures, in all ages, until the Lord returns. Nothing that has been left out is of any significance or importance. Nothing that has been left out should be laid upon the consciences and wills of other people. Nothing that has been left out can become normative for Christian life.
cont...
Therefore whatever spiritual experiences, church traditions or rational reflections teach us, beyond the realm of Scripture, are unimportant in Christian living. Those who do not want to live under the authority of the Bible, frequently do not deny the authority of the Bible but rather add an alternative authority to the Bible. This alternative authority teaches them other "truths" than those found in the Bible and which soon take on an importance and prominence in Christian thinking and understanding that will undermine the Bible. It is not just that the Bible is authoritative, but also that the Bible alone is authoritative.’
Who decides when and what "the Spirit" has truly spoken?
There are no clear stipulations laid down in the biblical texts about which compositions actually constitute the officially "God-breathed" canon. It's all a matter of consensus, usage and tradition - that which "seems right"; a sort of hand-me-down collegiate hunch.
"The Bible" is the product of "the Church". So a singularly, ultimately, absolutely authoritative "Bible" implies a "Church" that is the singular, ultimate, absolute arbiter of what's true about God.
And yet "the Church" (in its numerous inflections) is all too human, as history has shown.
To offset this irksome fact, evangelicals like Phillip Jensen place "the Bible" in a perfectly sealed package on a pinnacle, as if its composition somehow transcends the fury and the mire of human veins. And Catholicism insists all the more strongly on the unassailable magisterium of "the Church", which supposedly endures intact and irrepressible despite the fury and the mire of human (even papal) veins.
Duelling chicken-and-egg absolutisms. Human, all too human.
Surely Jesus would ahave handed the Apostles a written legacy and be recorded as saying these are my words and your only authority.
The fundamental flaw is human subjectivity.
The New Testament took centuries to compile and it was the Church which finally determined the canon.
There is no Scripture affirnming the sole authority of Scripture.
An example of the flawed reasoning...can be found that Evangelicals cannot agree as to whether our Lord allowed re-marriage after divorce.
Furthermore it is only by tradition that Evangelicals know that the reference in First Corinthians to baptism for the dead is not a Christian practice. the words of St Paul seem fairly neutral on the issue.
As a Catholic I know that this is not part of the deposit of Faith..which is safe gaureded by the Church.
In regard to history, the church fathers were unanimous about Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture being the authority. They did not teach the bible-alone. Chesterton reckons that to be steeped in history is to cease being protestant. I think he's right.
Robert E - the true descendant is the Catholic Church. Read Ignatius of Antioch, Clement of Rome, Ireaneus, the Didache and you will see an unbroken line of succession as well consistency of doctrines. You will never see the bible-alone or faith alone taught.
Do you believe the following is God’s word to you?
1 John 2: 26-29
I write these things to you about those who are trying to deceive you. But the anointing that you received from him abides in you, and you have no need that anyone should teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about everything, and is true, and is no lie—just as it has taught you, abide in him.
And now, little children, abide in him, so that when he appears we may have confidence and not shrink from him in shame at his coming. If you know that he is righteous, you may be sure that everyone who practices righteousness has been born of him.
Di
Of course I do. Do you? Do you believe John 6 - ...unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood you have no life in you? Do you believe that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation (2 Peter 1:20); do you believe that not everything that Jesus did is written down (John 21:25) and do you believe that the sole rule of faith is the bible when the bible tells us when a disagreement arises amongst the brethren that you are to go to the church because what is bound on earth will be bound in heaven etc (Matt 18:17-18)?
If you are trying to catch me out it wont work because I read scripture daily and study it. I'm not afraid to have a text taken out of context thrown at me.
How do you believe debate and inquiry in this context should be conducted if not by asking questions and seeking to understand the scriptures?
How was the section of scripture I mentioned out of context?
Di
To answer your last question I would have to know why in particular you were quoting it.
Obviously teaching is esential to the Christian life, because our Lord commissions a teaching Church and admonishes persons to listen to his voice through his Apostles. It is beautifully put in St Matthew's Gospel..
18 Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age
Debates over the relationship between Scripture and Tradition are good to have. However (with the feeling that I am about to bang my head against a 500-year old brick wall), may I suggest some mutual concessions that will enable current (and future) discussions to get out of Groundhog Day:
Evangelicals will admit that there are no proof-texts for sola scriptura and will refrain from defending a doctrine of Scripture in isolation from adequate christology and ecclesiology.
Catholics will refrain from caricaturing Evangelicals as being non-conversant with Tradition and will admit that (without necessarily agreeing) numerous serious defences of the Protestant doctrine of Scripture have been made and that sola scriptura isn't something that Phillip Jensen dreamed up in the shower.
If anyone agrees to the above I'll eat Benedict XVIth's hat. The big one.
I'll refrain from "caricaturing" evangelicals as being non-conversant with Tradition when I see an evangelical being conversant with it. I'm yet to see it. Perhaps Luke you may be the one shining light. I'm not necessarily speaking about this forum. The real caricature lies in the belief that Catholics treat scripture as second rate to Sacred Tradition. Like you, I feel my head banging on that 500 year old brick wall.
I'm aware of the history concerning the 500 year old doctrine of sola scriptura and that Jensen had nothing to do with.
If you really wanted discussion to be fruitful your last comment wasn't the place to start.
Protestants would be fools to ignore history and I see no reason why they should or would even want to. The Bible teaches that everything is in God’s sovereignty. This is a wonderful comfort. There is nothing that we can look back on that will cause us to turn away from Christ. There is no fear of finding out any truth from the past.
And further comfort is given in knowing that in Christ, we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace, which he lavished upon us, in all wisdom and insight making known to us the mystery of his will, according to his purpose, which he set forth in Christ as a plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth. (Ephesians 1)
We never need to fear learning truth from anywhere if it’s true, including history. As Christians we have enormous liberty of spirit in this regard. If it’s bad news about the way people behaved in the past, that is never a surprise. If it’s what God has spoken in the past, then how wonderful that he has spoken and we must listen. And we are assured no matter how much evil happened/happens that God is always working out his purposes. (Romans 8).
cont...
Salvation history is of course of special significance. Even in the death of his son, God was working his purposes. Acts 2: "Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs that God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves know— this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men. God raised him up, loosing the pangs of death, because it was not possible for him to be held by it.â€
The Christian can Biblically appeal to their experience, their church’s teaching and their reason to understand and explain their behaviour (1 Corinthians 11:13-14, 1 Corinthians 10:32, 2 Timothy 2:7). Indeed it is impossible to live solely and only under the authority of the Bible as reading is a matter of rationality, and the Bible has been printed by an institution and it is about the experiences of life.
...... But there comes a point in each theological position where one has to choose between the competing authorities of Church, Bible, Reason or Experience. Which will you choose when your experience disagrees with the scriptures? Or when your reason disagrees with your church? Or when your church disagrees with your experience? It is at that point that the line is drawn between the competing authorities.
Donna, what is it in such statements that annoys you? I’m trying to see how your logic fits in with scripture. You’ve agreed in the past that the church is to submit to Christ.
When people have the Spirit of God they have knowledge. Just as they were assured that if the truth that they had heard was abiding in them then they were abiding in the Son and the Father, so too it is for us. We have the truth because of the anointing of the Holy Spirit. We are to let what we have heard from the beginning (the gospel) abide in us. This was and is enough for eternal life. His Spirit teaches them and us about everything. This is our final authority – the word of God/Christ, which is the sword of the Spirit.
Also from 1 John:
2:20 But you have been anointed by the Holy One, and you all have knowledge. 21I write to you, not because you do not know the truth, but because you know it, and because no lie is of the truth.
2:24 Let what you heard from the beginning abide in you. If what you heard from the beginning abides in you, then you too will abide in the Son and in the Father.
John finishes the epistle by reminding them that:
1 John 5:20 And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, so that we may know him who is true; and we are in him who is true, in his Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life. 21Little children, keep yourselves from idols.
Di
The practical implication of sola scriptura is a fragmented incohernt Protestantism, of which evangelicalism is a house divided. You can't even agree on divorce and re-marriage...let alone whether a woman should preach.
Our Lord would not leave his Word to the subjective interpretation of fallible men ( to be sifted by satan), he left a teaching Church, to be there until the end of time, infallibly proclaiming the truth to each succeeding generation. This is essential if Christianity is to be credible. He left one to confirm the brethren, with an unfailing faith.
A fact realised at the Council of Chalcedon, when the bishops chanted," Peter has spoken through Leo."
For instance English Anglicans of his ilk have banded together into a group called Reform, and have produced a Covenant ( see it on their website).Members of Reform cannot agree as to what our lord taught as regards divorce and re-marriage, and so they leave it out in their section on marriage!
They hide their difference, by leaving it out! Yet in the clause on Holy Scripture they argue that it is sufficient to solve doctrinal disputes!
So what is sinful adultery in one Reform parish , it is a fresh chance and Biblical marriage in another!
Such a system of determining truth cannot possibly come from Him, who is Truth incarnate. That is why I abandoned Evangelicalism.
Jensen's requirement to choose between Church and bible. There was always the teaching authority in the Old and Jesus continued that into the new when he gave the apostles the authority to bind and loose. Jesus refers to Moses seat. That seat was the teaching authority. Salvation history never survived on the written word alone. Protestants have added the word alone too many times with drastic results. Jensen's article is flawed also because he does not represent Catholicism in truth. His reference to statues shows no understanding of its biblical legitimacy. But that's another issue.
How can you explain away those denominations who differ on such vital issues as baptism; speaking in tongues and that being the manifestation that you have the Holy Spirit; women ordination etc. What do you say about a Christian man (Anglican) marrying a Baptist and for him not being recognised as saved unless he is re-baptised by full immersion. This man was clearly a Christian in every sense of the word, yet they did not recognise it. And what about Pentecostals who believe you don't have the Holy Spirit unless you speak in tongues.
How do you explain those issues away when both those denominations' premise is the bible alone.
You said, The fact is that Dean Jensen's writing is flawed because even amongst his brethren and colleagues , there is disagreement about what Scripture actually means.
Surely that there is disagreement is an inappropriate way of determining whether truth has been spoken or not regarding Christ. Truth is found in abiding in His word. John 8: So Jesus said to the Jews who had believed in him, "If you abide in my word, you are truly my disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free."
I’ve made further comments on unity below.
Donna, I know what you mean about unity! Disunity really is a very horrible, dreadful thing amongst those of Jesus’ followers. When I became a Christian in my teenage years I had a driving passion to see the church united and be all at peace. I suppose I was imagining a little piece of heaven on earth. God has handled my life very wisely in the face of my stubbornness and naivety over the years and I know that no church, institution, denomination etc will ever be perfectly united because of the rebellious nature of our minds and hearts, such as mine!
I think God teaches us in scripture that truth will both unify and divide and so we can be united in sin. The Tower of Babel was a great case of united humanity concerned for the glory of man rather than God’s glory. Unity in rebellion!
It is also necessary, but very sad, that at times there is a need for division, as Paul reminds in 1 Corinthians 11: But in the following instructions I do not commend you, because when you come together it is not for the better but for the worse. For, in the first place, when you come together as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you. And I believe it in part, for there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized.
cont...
Philippians 2:
So if there is any encouragement in Christ, any comfort from love, any participation in the Spirit, any affection and sympathy, complete my joy by being of the same mind, having the same love, being in full accord and of one mind. Do nothing from rivalry or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves. Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others. Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
Apostle Peter (1 Peter 3) calls for unity of mind and humility of mind:
Finally, all of you, have unity of mind, sympathy, brotherly love, a tender heart, and a humble mind. Do not repay evil for evil or reviling for reviling, but on the contrary, bless, for to this you were called, that you may obtain a blessing.
cont...
1 Corinthians 2: The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. The spiritual person judges all things, but is himself to be judged by no one. "For who has understood the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?" But we have the mind of Christ.
I suggest that the article: ‘The Elusive Pursuit of Unity’ perhaps addresses the same issues concerning unity that you raise.
Di
Because if you are, how do you explain the evidence that the Pope is a Satanist:
http://burningbabylon.wordpress.com/2009/02/22/pope-flashes-satanic-hand-sign/
No representative of Jesus Christ would make this sign which is known the world over to be a satanic sign. And don't talk to me about the deaf sign language. I have had it up to 'here' with the deaf sign language.
Yes I believe the Catholic Church is the true Church and that it safegaurds the authentic gospel. However , through no fault of their own, there are many Christians outside her fold. Many of whom , show up Catholics. These souls will be ultimately judged by the way they responded to God's Grace leading them to the truth. However Dianne you should never forget the words of our Lord, " Not all those who call Lord , Lord, will enter the Kingdom of Heaven , but only those who do the Will of my Father."
Our Lord also affirms, " if you love me, you will keep my commandments. " Sadly you can't even discern what are His Commandments are.
Finally, do you see it as acceptable that on a serious issue of divorce and re-marriage that there can be two "valid "contradictory interpretations?
With regard to divorce, in my opinion there cannot be two valid contradictory interpretations. Scripture gives clear teaching on the use of relationships to honour God within the Church. However, it is possible that there can be more than one valid application of the teaching of Scripture depending on the pastoral situation. Divorce is always a tragedy but not necessarily sinful. The fact that some Protestant groups do not have a "clear teaching" on divorce may reflect their pastoral judgment that they do not want to apply the same rule to an abused wife as to a philandering husband.
Denominations who have doctrinal differences still find that submitting themselves to the teaching of scripture, even if applied objectively, has no effect in unifying them to things such as baptism. The fact remains that the Old Covenant was a shadow of the New and the Chair of Moses safeguarded the deposit of faith that the Jews had at the time. Jesus tells us in the New covenant that if we disagree with one another then search the scriptures objectively and you will all be united - Not. Jesus tells us to go to the church. Well what church do I go to. Anglicans - anglo-Catholic, Calvinists (5 pointers, 4 pointers) hypercalvinists; Baptists are even more different and then you have the Pentecostals.
The Church isn't there so much to judge error but to be the safeguard of the deposit of faith - that which has been handed down by the apostles. It's not some sort of governing authority that dreams up doctrine at will. The relationship between Tradition and Sacred Tradition is:
"Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing and move towards the same goal. Each of them makes present and fruitful in the Church the mystery of Christ, who promised to remain with his own "always, to the close of the age'". CCC Article 2 para 80
So it's not an either/or proposition but a both/and one.
I think these verses are powerful on marriage and divorce. Eph 5:25-28; Matt 19:4-6; 1 Cor 7:10-11; 1 Tim 5:8; 1 Cor 7:13-13; 1 Cor 7:39.
Lovely scripture quotes, however, I think my question deserves an answer. How do you solve the problem of critical doctrinal issues between denominations. Pentecostals believe that you do not have the Holy Spirit unless you speak in tongues. Baptists insist that adult baptism only is valid. Catholics take John 6 literally whilst others don't. These aren't just cultural issues, these are issues concerning salvation. Those verses could be used by both opposing parties and you would still get nowhere.
I agree God created the Church and the bible..but he used the Church as his instrument to bring about the formation of the Bible. How do you know for instance , why the Book of Hebrews is scriptural and the Epistle of Barnabas is spurious?
It was St Augustine of Hippo who beautifully put it when he said," I would not believe the Gospels, unless it were for the Catholic Church."
The true Church of Christ cannot teach doctrinal error as that would be the gates of Hell prevailing against it. The issue of divorce and re-marriage shows how unscriptural Protestant doctrine of sola scriptura fails to pass the test. It rests on an assumption and not upon Scripture. Either re-marriage is adultery or allowable. it is not a question of pastoral judgement.
Some Evangelicals believe the Bible teaches the indisolubility of the marriage covenant and others that it can be put asunder. Both read the Bible and claim they obey its teaching!
At the end of the day it is just a fallible subjective interpretation of Scripture. Is it any less "valid" than the gay evangelical finding no reference to the condemnation of Homosexulaity in the New Testament or a Seventh Day Adventist seeing no justification for Sunday worship.
Truly Satan has sifted you like wheat.
Completely agree with you about God using the Church to declare which texts are Holy Scripture and which are not. I admit that my position is made possible by the wisdom of those saints in ages past who made a collective judgment based on the evidence available to them as to what constituted apostolic and Spirit-inspired Word. However, I believe that when they made this judgment they were in agreement as to what they were prepared to submit to as final authority, not what they were prepared to "authorise".
I believe that re-marriage may be adultery and if I had the case of someone who was primarily "at fault" in a divorce wanting to remarry I would have to see some pretty serious evidence of repentance before I would consent to give my blessing. We must beware of making verses such as Matt 19:9 bear more than were originally intended. Even if we allow the extra clause (and there seems to be reasonable evidence for doing so) the judgment seems to apply equally to either a man or woman who initiate the breaking of a marriage covenant without just cause in order to marry another person and so commit adultery (I believe that the plain reading of Mark 10 supports this). It does not address the case of the second person, the one who has been "wrongly divorced" because of a lack of just cause. In my view this person may remarry without being guilty of adultery because they were not responsible for the original marriage covenant being broken.
I think you may not be appreciating the nuances of what is being said about ‘bible alone’. This is not a denial of reason, experience and church as we seek to understand and apply scripture but the scriptures are the cream at the top of milk – they are the authority because they are the very word of God.
cont...
Why are there differences? disagreements? in relation to understanding scripture?
* Some refuse to submit to Jesus, even though they search the scriptures for eternal life (John 5)
* Some oppose the gospel and need refuting from scripture (Acts 18)
* Some turn from the gospel and turn to a different gospel (Galatians 1)
* Some believe false teachers (‘fierce wolves’) – they devour the flock – this brought Paul to tears (Acts 20)
* The ignorant and unstable twist scriptures (2 Peter 3)
* People do not endure sound teaching and so listen to teachers who teach what suits their passions, so people turn away from truth and follow myths (2 Timothy 4)
* False prophets arise from within God’s people and also false teachers, who secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master, bringing on themselves swift destruction. (2 Peter 2)
* Sometimes it can be over food and drink and festivals. Which days, if any, are held special. We are told we have liberty in these areas but should live in faith and so that others may be saved.
These are some of the reasons for disunity. The Bible is full of warning to all of us to be careful and watchful and to keep to sound doctrine, rightly handling the word of truth.
In this book a letter is written to the churches warning them of their sin and their need to repent. So sadly we are to expect difficulties in our churches that must be confronted. Apostle Paul had to correct Apostle Peter at one stage.
There is nothing perfect about the church or its understanding in regards to knowing God’s mind. We must therefore pray and teach one another and not be hoodwinked by wrong teaching and practice in any church. Rather we are to listen to teachers who teach God’s word. Discernment is needed and God has not left his adopted people alone but given us His Spirit.
Di
You still do not answer the question that the Bible is open to misinterpreattion by Evangelicals and therefore doctrinal confusion on issues like re-marriage. You simply repeat the arguments of the pro re-marriage point of view.
I don't think I am missing any nuances at all, if there are any to be had here. I think what you fail to recognise the difference between sin in the church and the teaching authority given by Christ to the apostles to protect that deposit of faith. If Jesus tells his disciples to do whatever they tell, only don't do as they do, then we have sure hope that Christ protects His Church from error.
Notice in Acts 15 Peter makes a declaration over much debate and after his pronouncement, the assembly kept silence. Peter has spoken, the matter is closed. If the Holy Spirit can use fallible men to write the infallible Word of God, then the Holy Spirit can also speak through His apostles and successors to be the voice of Christ on earth.
To say the Church is not perfect contradicts scripture. The Church is Christ's bride. Do you think He would have a bride marred by error and doctrinal disputes?
The question of disunity still remains and will remain unless we can admit that the doctrine of sola scriptura is an unscriptural proposition.
The scriptures do not allow remarriage even if the spouse is not at fault. If I divorce because my husband bashes me and remarry a Christian man, he commits adultery because he marries a divorced person. There is never 100% fault to be laid on one person - its all very subjective. The marriage covenant is so powerful that an unbelieving spouse is sanctified through the believing spouse. Wow!
> Your Pope is a Satanist:
http://burningbabylon.wordpress.com/2009/02/22/pope-flashes-satanic-hand-sign/
> Roman Catholics have hacked thousands of Christians to death with whatever implements they could get their hands on in centuries gone by.
> Roman Catholic priests are required to be celibate and are therefore sexually repressed. It is unnatural to require a representative of the gospel of Jesus Christ to repress their God-given sexuality by remaining unmarried.
> The Roman Catholic Church has the highest incidence of paedophilia of any Christian denomination worldwide. This abomination has brought enormous disrepute upon the entire Body of Christ in the eyes of unbelievers worldwide.
I can scarcely believe that you guys would come on to this site to try to convert Anglicans to join the Roman Catholic Church which is a spiritual basket case.
Di: one problem I have had for a while is that, historically, the Church (35AD) came before the Bible (400AD), and the Church determined what books were canonical and which were not. It was not like a Bible was beamed down from Heaven. Accordingly, the question then becomes which Church was that authority that gave us the Bible? I do not think Sola Scriptura is enough when that was not possible for at least 400 years – and if SS is right, then we do not have real Christians until 400AD when he have a Bible. That seems wrong to me. Catholics have a lineage that I have found increasingly attractive, notwithstanding my own problems with Catholic views on Mary and the like. Please help.
All: when that citation of 2 Timothy 3:16 is used, is not the “All Scripture†referred to, given the time of writing, the Old Testament? And which Old Testament as we and Catholics fight over which books are canonical. Was St Paul a Septuagint man or was he a Jamnia man?
Andrew Mackinnon: As for priestly celibacy, Christ was celibate and preached it for those who could do it: Matthew 19:12. That is my understanding of the celibacy rule.
Paul states in 1 Timothy 4:1-3 that forbidding people to marry is the fruit of "deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons".
Jesus was not 'polite' and neither am I, especially since the world is currently being torn apart by lies. In any case, I haven't said anything impolite.
Some Christians like you are so sensitive that if we all bowed before your commands such as the one in the second sentence of your post, the church would never get anywhere.
You have no authority to tell me what to do.
I understand. You, yourself, DO have the authority to tell me what to do.
Also, I think Andrew is the only poster who is shouting and using capitals. Is his shouting OK because he is on the evangelical team?
I understood Paul Barnett was advocating that we can learn from past practices. I assumed that our conversations were addressing by what authority we evaluate early church practices. The discussion is exploring the theological framework by which we should assess practices.
Is it ok to continue discussing this aspect?
Di
We do not have to "deal with the Catholic Church's claims to be that Church" to discuss the piece Paul has written (or in fact what it sprang from). That is another debate.
As for your right to comment, the policy says "The community primarily exists for the use of members of Sydney Anglican churches and their extended network" and I should think that squarely includes you!
Di - Sure. But let's face it, every discussion we have could come down to protestant vs catholic, if we let it. I'd ask our catholic friends to argue those issues when an article has that intent.
Luke's comment at #30 is apposite.
Commenting is now closed and some comments have been removed by the moderator.