Should the ECUSA apologise

[ahab]

Hi Pmcleanj,

Does this sentence sum up a premise that you believe?

Well yes, I believe the Holy Spirit is of God. Paul for example claims he was taught by Jesus.

 

[julian the apostate]

ahab<<<Yes I agree, I believe Jesus has died once and for all and we are forgiven. There is no condemnation in Christ Jesus. But i dont believe we receive that forgiveness for those sins if we are practicing and promoting those sins. We can only receive the grace and forgiveness by repenting with thanks and joy. We need to remain in Him John 15 and His words in us. How can His words remain in us if we don’t think they are His words but of writers who didn’t understand?

i dont know what the last sentence means, it might not have been refering to me, i also do not understand why everything i now type is in italics,, however

regarding Jesus' words, i agree

Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven

bold type not mine, it is because i cut and pasted, which has returned my font to normal

in any event, this is all antinomian almost, dont judge dont condemn forgive

because you cant repent under the law

the biggest enemy of christendom lies in our own hearts
it is legalism,
if a law had been given that could make us righteous then Christ has died in vain

ahab<<But i dont believe we receive that forgiveness for those sins if we are practicing and promoting those sins

you stopped sinning?

 

[chalice_thunder]

the biggest enemy of christendom lies in our own hearts
it is legalism,
if a law had been given that could make us righteous then Christ has died in vain

This bears repeating.
Thank you, julian!

 

[pmcleanj]

That's once.

I asked whether

If the writings are inspired by the Holy Spirit
then they aren't the understandings of the writers anyway but of God.

is a premise that you believe,

To which you replied

"Well yes, I believe the Holy Spirit is of God."

I didn't ask whether you believed that the Holy Spirit is of God. You are answering a different question from the question that I asked. Answering a different question from the question that was asked, will make having a discussion more difficult.

However, using your answer, and using the formal logic that

• If A=B
• and F(x) is a function of a single independent variable,
• then F(A)=F(B)

and acknowledging that the word "is" is the grammatical operator equivalent to the logical operator "=",

your original premise can be re-written as:

"if the writings are inspired by/of God,
then [the writings] aren't the understandings of the writers but of God."

Does the sentence

if the writings are inspired by/of God,
then the writings aren't the understandings of the writers but of God."

sum up a premise that you believe?

 

[AveMaria]

I just caught up on this thread, and was struck by something regarding the discussion/debate between Anglicans and non-Anglicans.

We're coming from very different places and using language very differently. And we're not hearing or understanding each other.

There is a phrase, often said about Anglicanism, which I think bears repeating:

'Anglicanism is not a set theology but a way of thinking theologically'

Now, back to our regularly scheduled program!

 

[Rev. Smith]

As others have expressed I do not believe that the ECUSA owes the Communion, God or the world an apology for seeking the truth, and acting in good faith on thier understanding of that truth. The "expression of regret" that should be offered is exactly what was asked for (at least as I read it) - an expression of regret for the pain that the Church's actions caused together with a commitment to seek consensus in the future with the rest of the Communion.

I think it is equally important that our conservative brothers and sister churches also express their regrets over the disharmony their actions have caused, from challenging Bishop Robinson through placeing themselves under the authority of African and Asian Bishops. While I hope we can all understand the desire for episcopal oversight that is theologicly compatable, to do so precipitiously sowed at least as much disharmony and discord at the acts of the more liberal communities.

Now onto the selfish question - The Old Catholic jurisdictions are in communion with the Anglican Church - if there is a split in the future, who do you think will "get" us, the liberals? conservatives? Both?

 

[TomUK]

A question i would far rather hear the answer to is who would you be willing to let join you?

 

[Rev. Smith]

A question i would far rather hear the answer to is who would you be willing to let join you?

All are welcome to God's table; anyone professing Christ is welcome to our worship and our sacraments: No questions asked, no "litmus test" for purity or dogma; Those who seek are invited to find within our community.

 

[CSMR]

Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven
in any event, this is all antinomian almost, dont judge dont condemn forgive

Do you believe that Jesus is implying that someone who holds no morality, nor belief in God, and therefore cannot judge or condemn anything, will not be condemned?
This can't be the case, since Jesus is so concerned to preach the law.

A pair of verses that I have only noticed recently cast light on Jesus' meaning.

Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart: thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbour, and not suffer sin upon him.
Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.

I believe that this is the attitude that Jesus is telling us we should have, with the important additional statement: in judging, we recognise the law, which judges us. And in being forgiven, we recognise the mercy, which forgives others.

We should not judge in the sense of hate the other as a sinner and desire wrath upon him. But we should recognise sin, and in love rebuke (which does not imply superiority) and desire to bring God's mercy to the other person.

the biggest enemy of christendom lies in our own hearts
it is legalism, if a law had been given that could make us righteous then Christ has died in vain

That is very true. Christ makes righteous. Nevertheless without the law there is no concept of righteous. Always repentent, always believing; that is what we should be.

 

[julian the apostate]

csmr<<< Do you believe that Jesus is implying that someone who holds no morality, nor belief in God, and therefore cannot judge or condemn anything, will not be condemned?
This can't be the case, since Jesus is so concerned to preach the law.

oddly enough, that person would at the very least be the servant who would be subject to less stripes, but since all people have an innate sense of morality that person may be hard to find, but if such a one could be found to exist they would be better off than the merely religous

we are not under the law we are under grace- there is no law
if we seek to be justified by the law we are severed from grace

for us to judge gives a wrong place to the law, it puts us under it- we think it gives life,it gives death in condemnation, we cannot stand this so we judge others - it is a bitter thing

- if we judge we are no longer doers of the law but judges

as long as we kid ourselves that we are under the law and are able to keep it , we automatically involve ourselves in thousand of little bits of license every minute of every day - as we excuse or condemn ourselves based on our rather imperfect concept of what the law is

csmr<<< This can't be the case, since Jesus is so concerned to preach the law.

Jesus the lawgiver? no Jesus the grace giver,
seems most of what he said about the law basically boiled down to we dont even begin to understand it in the first place much less keep it

the law has led you to believe you are a sinner, congratulations join the club - but once Christ has come the law is gone

we now know we are sinners by rejecting the kindness and friendship of God

otherwise the bible is reduced to the most unwieldy cumbersome sticky confusing self-help manual ever invented , whose sole purpose is to make people feel good about following to the best of their understanding what the heck is in there

not exactly the love of God shed abroad in our hearts, and living waters and so on
not to mention good news

the way you have received it so walk in it

 

[ahab]

Hi Julian the Apostate,



I don’t know which of us has the worst alias, apostate or that dreadfully bad king Ahab.

Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven

Absolutely, but we don’t people when we rebuke sin do we?

in any event, this is all antinomian almost, dont judge dont condemn forgive because you cant repent under the law

No I would say it wasn’t antinomian in the slightest.

the biggest enemy of christendom lies in our own hearts it is legalism, if a law had been given that could make us righteous then Christ has died in vain.. you stopped sinning?

No. You stopped repenting and confessing?



It is about “Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death.”

I am free not to sin in Christ Jesus and empowered by the Holy Spirit to avoid the cage of legalism, and the swamp of licence. Halleuiah

 

[ahab]

Hi Pmceanj,



Please accept my apology, you are correct in that I didn’t answer the question exactly. Let me clarify. Yes, if the writings are inspired by the Holy Spirit then they aren't the understandings of the writers anyway but of God. That is because the Holy Spirit is of God.




Let me clarify further as to exact answers and questions.The word Bishop Griswold used isnt even understood by all on this thread in exactly the same way and there differing definitions for it in the dictionary. However the word he used isnt what the scriptures condemn anyway. One can hardly expect the NT writers to have understood something we aren’t clear on. The point is however is, is the scripture from the Holy Spirit or from all the different writers understanding? We after all differ in our views on this issue, but the different OT and NT writers over all those centuries didn’t differ.

 

[ahab]

Hi AveMaria,

I just caught up on this thread, and was struck by something regarding the discussion/debate between Anglicans and non-Anglicans.

The Anglican communion is very broad. Anglicans are coming from different places as we see from the reason for the Eames Commission. Lambeth 1.10 is the Anglican standard.

 

[NewToLife]

In my opinion no apology should be made unless it is truly heartfelt and I suspect that if that were the case the actions concerned would not have occurred anyway.

I was previously a member of the CofE and think that this issue delineates quite clearly how the liberal and conservative wings of Anglicanism no longer truly understand one another. The liberal wing in particular has heavily misjudged the conservatives on this matter, it appears that they believe that this issue is similar to the ordination of women and that if they went ahead a few hardcore coservatives would leave to become catholic and the others would simply learn to accept the new status quo. However, this is unlikely to happen with the ordination as bishops of active homosexuals simply because to accept such a practise demands that the conservatives implicitly endorse that which they see as sinful, they are effectively being asked to betray their faith by the liberal wing which does not understand this at all.

As an ex Anglican I have to say that I doubt that the two positions on this matter can maintain any kind of meaningful communion together. Someone is going to leave, the only real questions are who leaves and when do they go?

 

[ahab]

Hi newtolife,



Yes I agree in that I am a sure the expression of regret of hurt to the rest of the communion is indeed heartfelt.

As an ex Anglican I have to say that I doubt that the two positions on this matter can maintain any kind of meaningful communion together. Someone is going to leave, the only real questions are who leaves and when do they go?

Nevertheless, Bishop Eames and the commission have, it appears, pronounced the boundary of unity for the communion. If there is a moratorium as a result of this report to adhere to Lambeth 1.10, then the talk of who may be ‘leaving’ is clarified by a line in the sand of Lambeth 1.10 as it stands.

Any promotion contrary to Lambeth 1.10 at as stands at present therefore, can now recognised as being a sign of leaving communion. IMO.

Also as you imply, it tends to be liberals against the orthodox, traditional, evangelical etc rest, as the theology dictates the position on the relationship between the Holy Spirit and scripture.

 

[pmcleanj]

Yes, if the writings are inspired by the Holy Spirit then they aren't the understandings of the writers anyway but of God. That is because the Holy Spirit is of God.

Yes, I agree that "the Holy Spirit is of God" is a necessary condition in order for this logical premise to hold (and in fact, it is probably more orthodox to say, with Athanasius, that the Holy Spirit *is* God). However, that is not a sufficient condition to support your logical premise.

The premise contains a conditional statement, and a consequential statement. Each comprises three components: a subject, a verb, and an object. Like this:

IF.. [the writings] [are inspired by]......... [the Holy Spirit]
THEN [the writings] [are the understanding of] [God]


The premise holds only if each component of the first statement is equivalent to each component of the second. We can see trivially that the subjects are equivalent, as they are formally identical. We have agreed that the objects are equivalent. Where we disagree, and where Karl Liberal Backslider disagrees, is that the verbs are equivalent. Using an OED equivalence gives and substituting it in gives

IF.. [the writings] [are prompted by divine influence of]..... [God]
THEN [the writings] [are the intelligence and apprehension of] [God]

The formal equivalence between the two verbal phrases is still not obvious.

Perhaps you can persuade us as to why we should agree that "are inspired by" and "are the understanding of" should be held to be equivalent.

 

[ahab]

Hi Pmcleanj,

You have missed the point about as completely as is possible. Firstly the word Bishop Griswold said the NT writers didnt understand isnt what the NT writers have written about anyway.
But having tried to cast doubt on what is written lets remeber that as John says he has seen and heard "I tell you the truth, we speak of what we know, and we testify to what we have seen, but still you people do not accept our testimony." and "The man who saw it has given testimony, and his testimony is true. He knows that he tells the truth, and he testifies so that you also may believe. " Another of those people is Paul. Paul says "But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!" and "I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ. "
You see it is not something man has even made up, ours is to believe or not.
Perhaps you can persuade the majority of the Anglican Communion as to why a Bishop should doubt the gospel given by God?

 

[pmcleanj]

That's twice

Hi Pmcleanj,

You have missed the point about as completely as is possible. Firstly the word Bishop Griswold said ...

I may have missed the point, or you simply may not have made your point.

You may have noticed that some people have trouble communicating with you. I have noticed that. I am trying to address the trouble, by dealing with what you say in small segments. I am not dealing with your comments regarding Bishop Griswold. I am dealing with your premise that

"if the writings are inspired by the Holy Spirit then they aren't the understandings of the writers anyway but of God."

I contend that this statement represents inspired Scripture as something other than what it is.

Your premise can hold true only if the verb clauses "are inspired by" and "are the understanding of" have equivalent meaning. My understanding of the two clauses is that they are not equivalent. I checked the words in the OED, and by my reading the OED doesn't represent them as being equivalent. If you can help me understand why they should be taken to be equivalent, then I can move on to the next point in your chain of reasoning. Otherwise there is no point in moving on, as the chain is broken at its first link.

Why should the verb clauses "are inspired by" and "are the understanding of" be taken to have equivalent meaning?

 

[ahab]

Hi Pmcleanj



It’s a breakdown in communication, I agree with you there, and sadly indicative of the divide in the communion.

"are inspired by" and "are the understanding of" are indeed not precisely equivalent and neither is the Holy Spirit limited to merely inspiration or merely understanding, nor is the Holy Spirit of man, but of God. Bishop Griswold is talking about man’s understanding, what most of the Anglican communion is talking about God’s revelation.

The truth about the scripture is that Paul says what he preached is not something that man made up but received it by revelation from Jesus Christ. So same-sex sex is condemned by Paul because he has been revealed this by Jesus. As there are different definitions and understandings of the meaning of the modern word ‘homosexuality’ we don’t even need to know what Bishop Griswold means by it, the NT writers don’t talk about homosexuality but same-sex sexual acts which they did know about and the pronouncement on it is revelation from God not man.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Hi Pmcleanj



It’s a breakdown in communication, I agree with you there, and sadly indicative of the divide in the communion.

"are inspired by" and "are the understanding of" are indeed not precisely equivalent and neither is the Holy Spirit limited to merely inspiration or merely understanding, nor is the Holy Spirit of man, but of God. Bishop Griswold is talking about man’s understanding, what most of the Anglican communion is talking about God’s revelation.

The truth about the scripture is that Paul says what he preached is not something that man made up but received it by revelation from Jesus Christ. So same-sex sex is condemned by Paul because he has been revealed this by Jesus. As there are different definitions and understandings of the meaning of the modern word ‘homosexuality’ we don’t even need to know what Bishop Griswold means by it, the NT writers don’t talk about homosexuality but same-sex sexual acts which they did know about and the pronouncement on it is revelation from God not man.

I think that makes it three times. Why will you not address the point?