It would be nice if we could throw out the parts of the bible that we don't like and wear our polyester pantsuits, but we all know they are an Abomination.
Upvote
0
Biblical Code Of Conduct - Appilied To Today
- Thread starter mark46
- Start date
B
brightmorningstar
Guest
higgs2,
What was the point of giving those two passages to you if you have thrown them out?
Who are you speaking for. You all may need to throw out bits of the Bible you dont like, but as you have seen we dont need to. Christ's teaching to NT disciples was no need to worry about clothes and what to wear Mark 7, Matt 6.
What was the point of giving those two passages to you if you have thrown them out?
Upvote
0
i'm speaking for you, I know you long for that polyester pantsuit. When Jesus talked about the lilies, He was specifically showing that their holy beauty outshines the devil's pantsuits. I'm sorry, I am sad about it too.
Upvote
0
Well, yes you may and should. But what people don't realize is that you can use nerf balls now. It often ends up to be an afternoon of family fun, and God loves Family Fun. You can find that change in the Holy Biblical Appendix Va section 4.
Oh yeah, and the pew thing, it's in Volume IIIc under "Sitting and What-not".
Upvote
0
First, I reject many of the actions of the ECUSA, and especially the action in its opposition to the Communion's requests.
----------------------------------------------------
I agree that we should follow what Jesus in what he said and did. As my Baptist mentor taught me, we must be sure that our emphasis is correct. We are to seek Jesus, to seek God. We are to allow the Holy Spirit to act through us. We are to act as Jesus would have acted. We are to BE JESUS to the world, doing greater thing than he did. The emphasis on following rules per se is not what the faith is about, IMHO.
This is a far cry from rejecting the importance of tradition, reason and experience. The Holy Spirit uses all of these to teach.
----------
We differ on the doctrine of Scripture. We differ with regard to hermeneutics. Anglican doctrine is that Scripture contains all that we need for salvation. No one here has denied that doctrine.
There is a doctrine of scripture developed in the last 100 years by fundamentalists in response to the heresies of modernism. Unfortunately, IHO, the doctrine as stated would be considered heretical by an Ecumenical Council similar to those we had in the 1st 800 years of the Church.
----------------------------------------------------
I agree that we should follow what Jesus in what he said and did. As my Baptist mentor taught me, we must be sure that our emphasis is correct. We are to seek Jesus, to seek God. We are to allow the Holy Spirit to act through us. We are to act as Jesus would have acted. We are to BE JESUS to the world, doing greater thing than he did. The emphasis on following rules per se is not what the faith is about, IMHO.
This is a far cry from rejecting the importance of tradition, reason and experience. The Holy Spirit uses all of these to teach.
----------
We differ on the doctrine of Scripture. We differ with regard to hermeneutics. Anglican doctrine is that Scripture contains all that we need for salvation. No one here has denied that doctrine.
There is a doctrine of scripture developed in the last 100 years by fundamentalists in response to the heresies of modernism. Unfortunately, IHO, the doctrine as stated would be considered heretical by an Ecumenical Council similar to those we had in the 1st 800 years of the Church.
Upvote
0
B
brightmorningstar
Guest
higgs2,
Nope. You are speaking about what you think others are saying.
He was showing disciples need not worry about what they wear, His teaching warning of mockers was elsewhere.
Upvote
0
I agree with Polycarp's comments earlier in this thread.
In the end, the fundamentalist doctrine of Scripture brings Scripture almost to the point of divinity, confusing it with the 2nd person of the Trinity. Their treatment of Scripture as Logos to be followed in its every word is very similar to the Muslim (rather than Christian) view of Scripture, but even Muslims do not confuse Scripture with God.
The 21st century US fundamentalist view is very different than the doctrine of Scripture as manifested from the beginning until this day. Scripture cannot be seen both the way that Justin Martyr and Augustine saw it and also the way the fundamentalists see it.
--------------------------------------------------------
PERSONALLY, I accept the original fundamentalist statement in response to the modernism of the 1890's.
-------------------------------
as wiki says, there was a priest who refused to accept the virgin birth. The Presbnyterian Church thought it necessary to state the 5 fundamentals of the faith.
from wiki
Nevertheless, the committee reported, and the General Assembly passed the Doctrinal Deliverance of 1910. This Deliverance declared that five doctrines were "necessary and essential" to the Christian faith:
This set of statements almost immediately became a an anti-intelectual, pre-millenialist and literalist movement. With 15 years, we had the Scopes trial. US fundemantalism continued from this tree resulting in the right-wing political organization we have today.
There are many US evangelicals who have opposed this movement and who accept the original fundamentals. Inerrancy is not a new doctrine at all. The RCC and EO have believed this through the centuries. But then came the corruption of the doctrine.
In the end, the fundamentalist doctrine of Scripture brings Scripture almost to the point of divinity, confusing it with the 2nd person of the Trinity. Their treatment of Scripture as Logos to be followed in its every word is very similar to the Muslim (rather than Christian) view of Scripture, but even Muslims do not confuse Scripture with God.
The 21st century US fundamentalist view is very different than the doctrine of Scripture as manifested from the beginning until this day. Scripture cannot be seen both the way that Justin Martyr and Augustine saw it and also the way the fundamentalists see it.
--------------------------------------------------------
PERSONALLY, I accept the original fundamentalist statement in response to the modernism of the 1890's.
-------------------------------
as wiki says, there was a priest who refused to accept the virgin birth. The Presbnyterian Church thought it necessary to state the 5 fundamentals of the faith.
from wiki
Nevertheless, the committee reported, and the General Assembly passed the Doctrinal Deliverance of 1910. This Deliverance declared that five doctrines were "necessary and essential" to the Christian faith:
- The inspiration of the Bible by the Holy Spirit and the inerrancy of Scripture as a result of this.
- The virgin birth of Christ.
- The belief that Christ's death was an atonement for sin.
- The bodily resurrection of Christ.
- The historical reality of Christ's miracles.
This set of statements almost immediately became a an anti-intelectual, pre-millenialist and literalist movement. With 15 years, we had the Scopes trial. US fundemantalism continued from this tree resulting in the right-wing political organization we have today.
There are many US evangelicals who have opposed this movement and who accept the original fundamentals. Inerrancy is not a new doctrine at all. The RCC and EO have believed this through the centuries. But then came the corruption of the doctrine.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
B
brightmorningstar
Guest
Mark1,
Did you not accept the criticism I made? Surely if Jesus taught to obey all He commanded then that’s more than just the beatitudes and the summing of the law and prophets?
The love for Christ is manifest in doing what He taught and did. That’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?
Well I am not saying this of you, but that’s what the liberals say, and then promote things that Jesus said was not following Him. Otherwise I agree with you.
Whose experience and whose tradition and reason? The Holy Spirit guides us in truth and reminds us of all Jesus said and did. Agreed? So I go along with you so far as any experience, reason of tradition doesn’t contradict the NT teaching.
Do we? How could we differ on doctrine of scripture?
except the ECUSA of course.
Did you not accept the criticism I made? Surely if Jesus taught to obey all He commanded then that’s more than just the beatitudes and the summing of the law and prophets?
The love for Christ is manifest in doing what He taught and did. That’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?
Upvote
0
B
brightmorningstar
Guest
Strange when 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 " for people to think His teaching divine rather than He. The only reason I can think one might wish to downplay the teaching of the one who is the truth is where they dont like all the teaching.
Jesus is the truth the way and the life, no-one has suggested His word replaces Him, but if He is the truth then His teaching is the truth.
Nonetheless He says His words are spriit and life and those that do what He teaches live in Him and He in them. No indication of His words replacing Him, on the contrary He lives in people by His Spirit when they obey His teaching.
Upvote
0
Are you sure? I mean, don't you think that lilies outshine polyester pantsuit? And think about this, lilie's are God's creation, pantsuits are the creation of humann beings. It's like the tower of Babel, but with lots of polyester.
Upvote
0
It is certainly possible. Let us say that we knew only the 2 commands, the great commission, the beatitudes and the lord's prayer. Let us presume that we prayed these and parayed abou these everyday (I'll add the Jesus Prayer for good measure. Let us further presume that we participated in worship each Sunday without understanding any other Scripture.
Could we be more conformed to Christ each day? Well, of course we could! The Holy Spirit would speak to us and teach us when we prayed.
That being said, I do believe that following the specific words of Jesus is useful in our sanctification.
Could we be more conformed to Christ each day? Well, of course we could! The Holy Spirit would speak to us and teach us when we prayed.
That being said, I do believe that following the specific words of Jesus is useful in our sanctification.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
B
brightmorningstar
Guest
higgs2,
Do you not wear clothes of different fibre following OT law in your church? Its not an Anglican thing you know.
Do you wear lillies? Are you sure? Yes of course I am sure, just like James 2 and 1 Tim 2, the teaching on clothes is not about what type one wears.
Do you not wear clothes of different fibre following OT law in your church? Its not an Anglican thing you know.
Upvote
0
B
brightmorningstar
Guest
Mark1,
It certianly isnt. One cant conform to something by taking the opposite.
Christ's teaching as you see is to make disciples and teach them to obey all He taught, so lets say these are not very mature Christians and may fall into error by not knowing very much about Christ.
Upvote
0
I our Church we concentrate on avoiding pantsuits altogether. I think you would have to agree that James and Timothy were both against polyester pantsuits. I would hope that Anglicans would avoid such fashion faux pas, good grooming *is* an Anglican thing.
Upvote
0
B
brightmorningstar
Guest
higgs2,
Liberaliticus 18:20 "a man shall not wear a pansuit."
Well its a well know passage...
Liberaliticus 18:20 "a man shall not wear a pansuit."
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Similar threads
