I too am quite happy to be labeled a non-Evangelical by Evangelicals. I try to avoid being included with most groups whose schools descriptions end with 'ism'. I much prefer the term evangelistic as a description of my churchmanship. .
I don't get into the scientific problems too much. Such as why didn't all the seawater fish or maybe the fresh water fish die in the great flood. I sort of like the biblical textual problems the most. And is it acceptable to start a sentence with "and" ?
The same inerrantist principle applies to those as to the scientific problems: when two verses appear to contradict one another, the plain sense of one of them “must” be denied. So Jehoiachin didn’t “reign” for those extra 10 years, he “co-reigned.” And Jesus “must” have been speaking metaphorically or hyperbolically when he prophesied that “not one stone (in the Temple) would be left upon another,” since portions of the outer wall remain intact to this day. Or when passages contain what appear to be unnecessary repetitions, each repetition “must” be communicating a distinct lesson not contained in the other. And so on. Denying the plain sense of the problematic verse is always the solution. The difficult part is coming up with a framing narrative to justify the denial, and that’s where you see the creativity of the traditional commentaries really shine. There’s no substitute for reading the commentaries themselves. It’s their treatment of grey areas that makes them fun to read. However, as time goes by, the progress of sustained investigation has made many of the old explanations less plausible, which takes us back to the original problem. What happens to the precedent of co-regency in the reign of David and Solomon, for example, if there’s no consensus that one or both of them were actual historical persons?
Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed… Brethren, if any of you do err from the truth, and one convert him; Let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins. (James 5:12/ Morning Prayer Readings Tuesday after Trinity 19)
I don't see this bit in any versions of James 5:12 that I have perused. Or come to think of it none of it looks familiar to James 5:12.
Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us, Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word; It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed. (Feast of St. Luke eve, Luke 1:1-4)
Ok this is a testable theory. Consider Lk 6:17 when Jesus is about to deliver the beatitudes. 17 He went down with them and stood on a level place. A large crowd of his disciples was there and a great number of people from all over Judea, from Jerusalem, and from the coastal region around Tyre and Sidon, Jesus is on a level area often referenced as a plain. Now if Luke is correct is Matthew wrong when he writes. ? Now when Jesus saw the crowds, he went up on a mountainside and sat down. His disciples came to him, and he began to teach them. (Mat 5:1&2) Was Jesus on a level area or a mountain? Incidentally Luke is more generous in his beatitudes. He has Jesus blessing the poor, in other versions you have to be poor in spirit. ------------------ How does Luke's perfect understanding stack up when he says? "When the hour came, Jesus and his apostles reclined at the table. And he said to them, “I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer. (Lk 22:14&15) And then John in Jn18:28 says Then the Jewish leaders took Jesus from Caiaphas to the palace of the Roman governor. By now it was early morning, and to avoid ceremonial uncleanness they did not enter the palace, because they wanted to be able to eat the Passover. Was Luke or John (or both or neither) wrong about the Passover meal?
Since many have undertaken to set down an orderly account of the events that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed on to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, I too decided, after investigating everything carefully from the very first, (or for a long time), to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the truth concerning the things about which you have been instructed. It is very clear from the wording of what St Luke actually says here that there were already many accounts circulating concerning the events surrounding Jesus of Nazareth, (some of them even apparently already conflicting with each other in some details). His account is self confessed as being an amalgamation of many of these accounts. Luke was not an eyewitness to any of them. He relied upon the accounts of others to piece together the information made available to him. He selected and edited that information, including only that which he considered would constitute an accurate account of events, which presented what he personally considered was necessary for helpful instruction. He does not actually claim 'perfect understanding', 'certain corroboration of facts' or comprehensive presentation of ALL the 'facts' / 'testimonies', he had at his disposal. His statement here was never intended to establish a theory of Biblical Inerrancy. Only as an explanation of how his data was obtained and his reason for presenting it the way he has. .
I read Luke's statement to mean-there have been various accounts written about Jesus and he was now writing the definitive story. I agree with this, but I believe Pub Banker thinks it is thus.
He may have been. Remember two things: each of the Gospels were written several years (indeed decades) after the death of Jesus. Could the recollection be perfect? Highly uncertain, but we all agree (my apologies, the founders all agreed and the majority of AngloCatholics accept) the writings of the Bible are divinely inspired. Secondly, it is highly unlikely Luke, who of course traveled everywhere before settling in Greece (?) would have read any of the other Gospels prior to his rendition. But was his definitive? There were probably so many oral histories being passed around in Greece that he wanted to set the record straight since he witnessed, as an Apostle, it. So would has been authoritative?I would suggest that it was. May I also remind you I am not a theologian nor steep in Biblical studies. In as such, it is important for me that I don’t try to frame my understanding in today’s context of a modern society with its mores, technology, and the like. I humbly suggest others do the same.
I dislike this term- divinely inspired, what does it mean? My English teacher could have inspired me to write fiction and non fiction books . But it doesn't mean she would approve of my possible efforts, " I found true love on a roller coaster" and " An exciting journey through the manufacturing of brown paper" There is evidence that Luke may have read Mark. Check out the "Q" hypothesis. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_source So where Luke's account appears to differ to Matthew's and John's is it still "Authoritative (whatever that means)? Or are the other versions authoritative? How then do you frame your understanding?
Just like any other orthodox Anglo-Catholic does: the canonical Holy Scriptures, the three ancient Creeds, the Seven Ecumenical Councils, the consensus of the Church Fathers, and the Holy Tradition of the ancient and Undivided Church of the first millennium.
Interestingly, I came across this photo today and from yesterday’s Litany: That it may please thee to give to all thy people increase of grace to hear meekly thy Word, and to receive it with pure affection, and to bring forth the fruits of the Spirit; We beseech thee to hear us, good Lord. That it may please thee to bring into the way of truth all such as have erred, and are deceived; We beseech thee to hear us, good Lord. That it may please thee to strengthen such as do stand; and to comfort and help the weak-hearted; and to raise up those who fall; and finally to beat down Satan under our feet; We beseech thee to hear us, good Lord… Now pray for me, a sinner.
I have watched this thread, quietly, wondering, and also a little distracted by some medical issues, and a side barrow historical rabbit hole I have been down. Apologetics per se should not be a problem to any of us. Paul engaged in it before the Aeropagus, though it seems perhaps without genius results. Christian apologetics combines Christian theology, natural theology, and philosophy in an attempt to present a rational basis for the Christian faith, to defend the faith against objections and misrepresentation, and to show that the Christian doctrine is the only world-view that is faultless and consistent with all fundamental knowledge and questions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apologetics#Christianity Any theological position that is prepared to embrace reason, tradition, and the world around us, is going to involve some form of apologetics. Equally, of course, this does not mean that Apologetic is valid, some are clearly wandering off. I think sometimes we get confused. I was listening to an argument of geocentricity, which in fairness I found less than convincing. Christians are not required to hang their brains in the Narthex on their way into Church. I kind of prefer Anselm's approach (sometime ABofC) which argued that is science and theology were followed with integrity they would reach the same conclusion.
I agree that Apologetics have played an important role in the theological discussion. But believe we must and any effort to require proof is not Catholic. If my idea is “unreasonable” (pun intended), reason the two major creeds: the Apostles and the Nicene. How do you reason any of that? You can’t.
I am not sure what this sentence means, and if you intended Upper Case C - as in that portion of the Church in communion with the Bishop of Rome, or a lower case c - as in the church universal. And either way, I still do not understand what you mean. Could you please clarify?
Thanks for that, however, you still have not clarified what you mean, and I am left wondering. Are you suggesting that the Nicene Creed is a reasonable or an unreasonable account of what we believe? And I guess context is always important, and the context of Arianism and Manicheanism certainly help us understand some of what the Creed has to say. However, I do not want to put words in your mouth, so I look forward to your explanation.