Biblical Code Of Conduct - Appilied To Today

[mark46]

It is clear to me that Scripture contains all that is necessary for salvation (justification) and that these teachings are without error. As Church, we have clarified some of our understandings through the Nicene Creed and the Apostle's Creed.

It is clear to me that Jesus gave us 2 commands and the Great Commission. He gave us the Lord's Prayer and the Beatitudes as bases for our prayer and lives.
===========================
My issue is with regard to the rules and specific thou shalts and thou shalt nots. Many in CF (and even here) seem to beleive that Scripture is THE rule book, and that Reason and Tradition are just trying to understand the rules of Scripture. These folks seem to beleive that there is indeed nothing new for the Spirit to teach us and that all was revealed and known in biblical times, about all subjects regarding our actions (ethics and morals).
I ahve been told here that the very idea that any item of morality or ethics might change is anathema.

The other extreme is that Scripture (and especially the letters to Churches) are only relevant if we understand what the verses meant to the individual churches and what they might mean to us today, given how the Holy Spirit speaks to us through the Tradition of the Church, through Reason and though our own Experience.
=================================

Where do you all stand?

For me, it seems that the world we live in is indeed different and the Spirit has taught us much over the centuries regarding so many things. Most obvious issues are slavery, the role of women, and divorce. But these are only the 20th century examples.

Should pick and choose among OT rules that we like or dislike? Should do the same in the NT? How many are ready to ban women from wearing gold or to ban men from having long hair? Of course, we seem to free intrpret Scripture as is convenient. Pastors are to be men of one wife. This is one verse. Surely it is true.
===========================
How far off is this view of Scripture and why?

WE BELIEVE

A CHRISTIAN IS A BORN-AGAIN BELIEVER IN THE LORD JESUS CHRIST WHO:

1. Maintains an immovable allegiance to the inerrant, infallible, and verbally inspired Bible;
2. Believes that whatever the Bible says is so;
3. Judges all things by the Bible and is judged only by the Bible;

 

[Martingale]

sounds like a strawman to me.

 

[MKJ]

I guess the Catholics and Orthodox are not Christians?

 

[mark46]

It is meant as a strawman. But< IMHO, it only after this strawman is discarded can we truly discuss Scripture in a meaningful way.

sounds like a strawman to me.

 

[Martingale]

It is meant as a strawman. But< IMHO, it only after this strawman is discarded can we truly discuss Scripture in a meaningful way.

why's that? there shouldn't be anyone here who considers the strawman as real.

 

[Naomi4Christ]

I don't think the OP understands those on the evangelical side of the church.

 

[Polycarp1]

I don't think the OP understands those on the evangelical side of the church.

...or anyone on any of the other sides either, IMO.

Turning the Bible into the measure of all things, on some human-invented propositions about it, is worse than error. Turning the three-legged stool into a one-legged prop is contrary to wshat Anglicanism is about. I note in passing the fallacy of the excluded middle.

As for that last formula, no matter how I construe it, I get rank heresy. And that, I can prove from, you guessed it, the Bible.

 

[higgs2]

This is where I stand. Anyone who has cotton clothing mixed with polyester does not understand the Biblical Code of Conduct and their soul is in danger.

 

[MKJ]

This is where I stand. Anyone who has cotton clothing mixed with polyester does not understand the Biblical Code of Conduct and their soul is in danger.

I am not so much a fundamentalist. I think that as long as they stay away from Polyester pant-suits they are ok. But that may be my Anglo-Catholic concern with aesthetics showing itself.

 

[higgs2]

I am not so much a fundamentalist. I think that as long as they stay away from Polyester pant-suits they are ok. But that may be my Anglo-Catholic concern with aesthetics showing itself.

I think it's clear from scripture that Polyester Pantsuits must be burned and the ashes inspected by a priest, then the wearer must undergo a month of cleansing before being allowed back in community.

 

[Martingale]

This is where I stand. Anyone who has cotton clothing mixed with polyester does not understand the Biblical Code of Conduct and their soul is in danger.

doesn't understand fashion sense either.

 

[mark46]

I agree 100% with your analysis of the fundamentalist view on Scripture. I don't like to use the "h" word, but as you said this view can certainly be construed as heretical.
----------------------
I thought my post was clear I guess not. As Matingale pointed out, I set up a strawman with the "WE BELIEVE" at the end of the post. Those are from the fundamentalist board. It is the fundamentalist position on Scripture. As Matingale said, no one here should find this in any way acceptable.
------------------'
The reason for my post was that I thought that some of the recent post here were bordering on considering Scripture the only source of Truth, relegating Reason and Tradition to a very minor role. I wanted clarification.
-------------------
WITH REGARD TO MY VIEWS STATED IN THE BEGINNING OF THE POST
Why do you believe that these show such a musunderstanding of evangelical Anglican doctrine. I might understand why the Angl-Catholic part of the COmmunion might think that I did not mention sacraments, but I thought that the evengelical side would be fine with my statement, repeated below for convenience.

It is clear to me that Scripture contains all that is necessary for salvation (justification) and that these teachings are without error. As Church, we have clarified some of our understandings through the Nicene Creed and the Apostle's Creed.

It is clear to me that Jesus gave us 2 commands and the Great Commission. He gave us the Lord's Prayer and the Beatitudes as bases for our prayer and lives.

...or anyone on any of the other sides either, IMO.

Turning the Bible into the measure of all things, on some human-invented propositions about it, is worse than error. Turning the three-legged stool into a one-legged prop is contrary to wshat Anglicanism is about. I note in passing the fallacy of the excluded middle.

As for that last formula, no matter how I construe it, I get rank heresy. And that, I can prove from, you guessed it, the Bible.

 

[brightmorningstar]

Where do you all stand?

For me, it seems that the world we live in is indeed different and the Spirit has taught us much over the centuries regarding so many things. Most obvious issues are slavery, the role of women, and divorce. But these are only the 20th century examples.

Should pick and choose among OT rules that we like or dislike? Should do the same in the NT? How many are ready to ban women from wearing gold or to ban men from having long hair? Of course, we seem to free intrpret Scripture as is convenient. Pastors are to be men of one wife. This is one verse. Surely it is true.
===========================
How far off is this view of Scripture and why?

Its miles off.

Firstly Jesus didnt give us just two commands and the beattitudes, He gave His disciples a new command to love each other as He loved to show the world they are His disciples. Yes sure He also gave the two commands which summed up the law and prophets, and the beattitudes. But He also taught to obey all He commanded, ie John 14, Matthew 28, 2 Cor 10:5 etc.

Liberal theology seems to be the confused and tossed about every wind of teaching. All means all rather than two or three most important. The Creed is a summary, in that summary its says true God and of all things seen and unseen.
I only ever hear about picking and choosing from liberal theology, there is no concept in the 'conservative'/orthodox but rather a holistic understanding.

We make everything conform to Christ.

 

[brightmorningstar]

Concerning clothing of mixed fibre. This was given in the OT covenant, in the NT Covenant with Christ, Christ's teaching is not to worry about what to wear (Mark 7, Matt 6) in that respect. There is teaching on dressing sensibly but its not law. My experience is that even atheists can distinguish there were two covenats with different requirements. Most posters here are from the US and Europe, few representing the vast majority of Anglicans quite how there can be confusion over OT law such as wearing clothes of mixed fibre I dont know.

This topic comes up a good deal. One might accuse Christians of picking and choosing OT law if one doesnt realise the two covenants and one doesnt appreciate how Christ can fulfill one by a new one. But when liberal theology brings this topic up it never answers the question itself as to whether it follows all the OT law or none. If it doesnt neither it picks and chooses and thus why would it be unsure of whether to wear clothing of mixed fibre when Christ's NT teaching says one no longer has to avoid it?

 

[Martingale]

Concerning clothing of mixed fibre. This was given in the OT covenant, in the NT Covenant with Christ, Christ's teaching is not to worry about what to wear (Mark 7, Matt 6) in that respect. There is teaching on dressing sensibly but its not law. My experience is that even atheists can distinguish there were two covenats with different requirements. Most posters here are from the US and Europe, few representing the vast majority of Anglicans quite how there can be confusion over OT law such as wearing clothes of mixed fibre I dont know.

This topic comes up a good deal. One might accuse Christians of picking and choosing OT law if one doesnt realise the two covenants and one doesnt appreciate how Christ can fulfill one by a new one. But when liberal theology brings this topic up it never answers the question itself as to whether it follows all the OT law or none. If it doesnt neither it picks and chooses and thus why would it be unsure of whether to wear clothing of mixed fibre when Christ's NT teaching says one no longer has to avoid it?

except on internet forums, is this really an issue?

 

[Cjwinnit]

Judges all things by the Bible and is judged only by the Bible;

I was about to say "Epic Fail" but perhaps "fail of biblical proportions" is more accurate.

Jesus is the Judge. We are judged by Christ.

 

[mark46]

I agree 100%.

I was about to say "Epic Fail" but perhaps "fail of biblical proportions" is more accurate.

Jesus is the Judge. We are judged by Christ.

 

[mark46]

1) Your position seems consistent with the WE BELIEVE statements 2 and 3 in the original post.

2) You seem to mix obeying every command of Scriptrure with being conformed to Christ. No amount of obedience to commandments can do that,

3) I agree with your position with regard to having a holistic God-centered prespective.

Andd just BTW, to conservative evangelicals, almost all who do not have the same doctrne as they do are "liberals". So, I am not sure what you mean when you talk about liberal theology. Was Augustine a liberal? Justin Martyr? Surely their view of Scripture would be be called "liberal" my many today. Often we use "liberal theology" to apply to thoswe who do not accept the faith and its Creeds. That is an unnecessary and confusing use on a Christian board where all are presumed to be Christians.
=====================================================================

The Holy Spirit teaches us through our Tradition, Reason and Experience. I would think that with Scriptural view of American evangelicals we would still have slavery and women wouldn't be working or voting.

Its miles off.

Firstly Jesus didnt give us just two commands and the beattitudes, He gave His disciples a new command to love each other as He loved to show the world they are His disciples. Yes sure He also gave the two commands which summed up the law and prophets, and the beattitudes. But He also taught to obey all He commanded, ie John 14, Matthew 28, 2 Cor 10:5 etc.

Liberal theology seems to be the confused and tossed about every wind of teaching. All means all rather than two or three most important. The Creed is a summary, in that summary its says true God and of all things seen and unseen.
I only ever hear about picking and choosing from liberal theology, there is no concept in the 'conservative'/orthodox but rather a holistic understanding.

We make everything conform to Christ.

 

[brightmorningstar]

Martingale,

except on internet forums, is this really an issue?

Well I see it often being cited by secular liberals, so yes its worth knowing what the popular cultural criticisms of Christianity are.

 

[brightmorningstar]

Mark1,
Did you not accept the criticism I made? Surely if Jesus taught to obey all He commanded then that&#8217;s more than just the beatitudes and the summing of the law and prophets?

2) You seem to mix obeying every command of Scriptrure with being conformed to Christ. No amount of obedience to commandments can do that,

The love for Christ is manifest in doing what He taught and did. That&#8217;s what passages like John 14-15 say, those who love Him do what He commands. I fail to see how it is possible to be conformed to Christ by not seeking to obey His teaching and thus not loving Him. Do you not agree?

Andd just BTW, to conservative evangelicals, almost all who do not have the same doctrne as they do are "liberals".

not sure what you mean here, in the example we have discussed the doctrine of the Anglican communion is Lambeth 1.10 isn&#8217;t shared by the ECUSA leadership which is usually referred to as liberal. It doesn&#8217;t matter so much that one calls it &#8216;liberal&#8217;, but it doesn&#8217;t have the majority Anglican doctrine. So I am not sure what you mean when you don&#8217;t seem to understand what liberal theology is being referred to.

The Holy Spirit teaches us through our Tradition, Reason and Experience. I would think that with Scriptural view of American evangelicals we would still have slavery and women wouldn't be working or voting.

Jesus promised the Holy Spirit would guide us in truth and remind us of all He said and did, no mention of our tradition, reason or our experience. If our tradition, reason and experience isnt based on and in line with the NT then its not of the Holy Spirit.