Home | Forum | Arcade
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Covenanter
Joined: 28 Aug 2006
Posts: 1446
|
 Posted: Sat Aug 04, 2007 10:10 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| bobbyc wrote: | Methinks Cov has a bee in his bonnet concerning the(any) relationship between Israel and The Church as they pertain to prophecy and especially endtimes prophcies.  |
This thread is for discussing principles of interpretation. The literal/spiritual principle was raised by Dave as a "newbie" for the purposes of discussion. Are such questions best discussed in abstract, or in matters where the principles of interpretation do cause divisions? Should we give full weight to the literal reading of the Old Covenant Scriptures, or should we follow the inspired New Covenant interpreters?
_________________
May the God of peace, who through the blood of the eternal covenant brought back from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great Shepherd of the sheep, equip you with everything good for doing his will ... (Hebrews 13:20-21) |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
bobbyc
Joined: 23 Sep 2006
Posts: 1345
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 05, 2007 5:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
Except it's not simply a literal/spiritual divide about prophecies is it? The whole principle of "literal inerrancy" pertains to taking scripture at face value and despite your insistence that prophecies concerning Israel represent the biggest issue | Quote: | | between those who claim to understand Scripture literally & those they accuse of spiritualising [it] |
I would argue that the biggest issue between literalists and non-literalists does actually centre around Creation although it's probably true to say that there's a considerable overlap between those who believe in six days of creation and those who believe in a doctrine of the rapture. It's there that your own 'obsession' about the future role of Israel in God's plans comes into play but only as an adjunct of understanding endtimes prophecies. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Covenanter
Joined: 28 Aug 2006
Posts: 1446
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 05, 2007 7:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| bobbyc wrote: | Except it's not simply a literal/spiritual divide about prophecies is it? The whole principle of "literal inerrancy" pertains to taking scripture at face value and despite your insistence that prophecies concerning Israel represent the biggest issue | Quote: | | between those who claim to understand Scripture literally & those they accuse of spiritualising [it] |
I would argue that the biggest issue between literalists and non-literalists does actually centre around Creation although it's probably true to say that there's a considerable overlap between those who believe in six days of creation and those who believe in a doctrine of the rapture. It's there that your own 'obsession' about the future role of Israel in God's plans comes into play but only as an adjunct of understanding endtimes prophecies. |
There is no suggestion in the New Covenant Scriptures that the creation narrative should be "interpreted." Certainly the significance of the narrative is stated, but assigning a significance to sinless creation of man, the sabbath, the trees, temptation & the fall, etc, in no way precludes a literal understanding.
Contrariwise, the promises to Abraham & his descendants are declared to be fulfilled in Jesus, and all believers in him are counted in regardless of ethnicity.
Luke 2:29 “Sovereign Lord, as you have promised,
you now dismiss your servant in peace.
30 For my eyes have seen your salvation,
31 which you have prepared in the sight of all people,
32 a light for revelation to the Gentiles
and for glory to your people Israel.”
Gal. 3:26 You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, 27 for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
_________________
May the God of peace, who through the blood of the eternal covenant brought back from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great Shepherd of the sheep, equip you with everything good for doing his will ... (Hebrews 13:20-21) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
-theophilus-
Joined: 24 Sep 2006
Posts: 562
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 05, 2007 7:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Covenanter wrote: |
1. What do you mean by "united" ? Are those who challenge a corrupt church & separate from it not united to the true church? Or are those continuing in corruption themselves separated from the true church? |
A corrupt Church is not the true Church. As you typed the above you probably had in mind a particular "corrupt church", a church that I belong to. So let's move on.
| Covenanter wrote: | | 2. Fruits of love, or fruit of the Spirit? Love is one of 9 fruit. |
Yes, sorry, I meant that the fruit of the Spirit. This is what makes something Holy, set apart.
| Covenanter wrote: | | 3. Where is that one place? The Bible itself, or Rome, or Constantinople, or Jerusalem, or Geneva? |
The one place is the Church, i.e. it must be physical and visible. It must be definable. It is not restricted to a place, but it has boundaries. Those boundaries are within the heirarchy of the (visible) Church, and those who put faith in her. Faith in her having, as the bride of Christ, all the teachings of Christ.
| Covenanter wrote: | | 4. That rules out the Bible. |
My original meaning was that if Christ is the foundation of our faith, teaching must trace itself back to the Incarnation. The Bible is not ruled out on this basis. And neither is the Church. In fact the Bible is part of the Church, as her members wrote it, guided by the Holy Spirit.
_________________
ICXC NIKA! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Covenanter
Joined: 28 Aug 2006
Posts: 1446
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 05, 2007 8:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| -theophilus- wrote: | | Covenanter wrote: |
1. What do you mean by "united" ? Are those who challenge a corrupt church & separate from it not united to the true church? Or are those continuing in corruption themselves separated from the true church? |
A corrupt Church is not the true Church. As you typed the above you probably had in mind a particular "corrupt church", a church that I belong to. So let's move on.
Not at all, Theo. 50 year ago I eagerly attended Lenten Bible Lectures led by the Anglican Bishop of Winchester. He taught that Peter was not the author, & did not seem interested in what was written. Within 6 months I was out of the C of E. The Fellowship of Independent Evangelical Churches to which our church is affiliated, came into being to unite scattered groups of Christians who had come out of the denominations as they abandoned the Scriptures & embraced higher criticism & evolution.
| Covenanter wrote: | | 2. Fruits of love, or fruit of the Spirit? Love is one of 9 fruit. |
Yes, sorry, I meant that the fruit of the Spirit. This is what makes something Holy, set apart.
| Covenanter wrote: | | 3. Where is that one place? The Bible itself, or Rome, or Constantinople, or Jerusalem, or Geneva? |
The one place is the Church, i.e. it must be physical and visible. It must be definable. It is not restricted to a place, but it has boundaries. Those boundaries are within the heirarchy of the (visible) Church, and those who put faith in her. Faith in her having, as the bride of Christ, all the teachings of Christ.
We're almost in agreement :) Change "her" to "Christ." The anabaptists suffered from the reformers' concept of the invisible church existing within the visible church. We consider that as far as possible, the visible & invisible church should be the same.
| Covenanter wrote: | | 4. That rules out the Bible. |
My original meaning was that if Christ is the foundation of our faith, teaching must trace itself back to the Incarnation. The Bible is not ruled out on this basis. And neither is the Church. In fact the Bible is part of the Church, as her members wrote it, guided by the Holy Spirit.
Again we agree.
|
_________________
May the God of peace, who through the blood of the eternal covenant brought back from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great Shepherd of the sheep, equip you with everything good for doing his will ... (Hebrews 13:20-21) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bobbyc
Joined: 23 Sep 2006
Posts: 1345
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 05, 2007 8:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Covenanter wrote: | | There is no suggestion in the New Covenant Scriptures that the creation narrative should be "interpreted." Certainly the significance of the narrative is stated, but assigning a significance to sinless creation of man, the sabbath, the trees, temptation & the fall, etc, in no way precludes a literal understanding. |
Although I admit that my own response is based in part on previous comments you have made I get the impression that you are advocating a belief in the literalness (i.e. taking it at face value) of Genesis. You have also previously mounted the argument that as soon as one begins to explain a text then it is being interpreted. Surely you are not going to argue that taking a text at face value is not explaining it and so is not an interpretation of said text.
Dave wanted to know why in some quarters it is seen as a necessary act of faith to believe in scriptural texts literally (at face value). One of the texts most commonly cited by literalists/inerrantists is Genesis 1-3. Certainly organisations like Answers in Genesis and Biblical Creation Ministries spring from churches and individual Christians who espouse six days of creation, the reality of Adam and Eve as individuals, even real trees with real fruit perhaps, as prime examples of their belief that the Bible should be read literally. My own answer to him would be that it is not at all necessary to read the entirety of scripture at face value despite the evidence of his own experience that this is precisely what some Christians do themselves and expect others to do in their turn. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Covenanter
Joined: 28 Aug 2006
Posts: 1446
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 06, 2007 8:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
Bobby,
I am not denying the need to interpret all Scripture, nor denying that I interpret both the creation narrative in Genesis & the scientific data used to teach evolution & a 15 billion age for the universe according to the pattern given in Genesis.
There is, of course, no proof of the evolution of life from totally inanimate objects, nor of the development of our beautifully ordered planet from inanimate disorder. Unless, of course, you use Max Bygraves' line, "I've arrived, & to prove it I'm here!" The same logic proves creation.
_________________
May the God of peace, who through the blood of the eternal covenant brought back from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great Shepherd of the sheep, equip you with everything good for doing his will ... (Hebrews 13:20-21) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
davelarge
Joined: 13 Jul 2007
Posts: 219
Location: Left a bit... Right a bit...
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 07, 2007 5:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
So, I think what we've found here is that although we agree on the need to interpret the bible (at least with reference to other parts of the bible), we don't agree on how to determine the interpretive method for each section. That opens up a whole new can of worms!
Although the question of prophecy fulfilment in relation to Israel is an interesting one, I don't think I'm going to get drawn here. We could take it to the Israel board though, if you like?
| -theophilus- wrote: | | The one place is the Church, i.e. it must be physical and visible. It must be definable. It is not restricted to a place, but it has boundaries. Those boundaries are within the heirarchy of the (visible) Church, and those who put faith in her. Faith in her having, as the bride of Christ, all the teachings of Christ. |
You've not really answered the question about the relationship between the individual's study of the bible, and the Church as the repository of knowledge about doctrine and theology. Would you care to comment about where the individual's struggle fits in to the picture?
_________________
Penguin-powered |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
-theophilus-
Joined: 24 Sep 2006
Posts: 562
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 07, 2007 7:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| davelarge wrote: |
| -theophilus- wrote: | | The one place is the Church, i.e. it must be physical and visible. It must be definable. It is not restricted to a place, but it has boundaries. Those boundaries are within the heirarchy of the (visible) Church, and those who put faith in her. Faith in her having, as the bride of Christ, all the teachings of Christ. |
You've not really answered the question about the relationship between the individual's study of the bible, and the Church as the repository of knowledge about doctrine and theology. Would you care to comment about where the individual's struggle fits in to the picture? |
Well before I was replying to Covenanter, which is why I didn't address our question though I'm happy to do it now.
The Bible can, and perhaps should, be read as a conversation between the individual and God. But I would think that the struggles produced by this are personal rather than universal. For example, the Fall of Adam is not just a historical (or even allegorical) event, it is the the story of our fall. This is why Genesis is read in churches during the period of Lent, leading up to Easter. What "the Fall" means to an individual will differ, because the Fall affects each of us in a different way, and all of us have our personal demons. In the same way, the redemption we receive from Christ's crucifixion is also a personal one, and what we are actually saved from differs for different people. Of course, everything in between the Fall and the Crucifixion can be read in the same way. This is how the Bible speaks to us.
This is probably not what you had in mind. I suspect you probably wanted to know what happens when our own doctrinal understanding differs from the Church. However, in light of the above, I think we have more than enough to gain from the Bible on a personal level without "struggling" with whether the Fall was a literal event, whether the Rapture will happen or not, or whether Mary remained an ever-Virgin. If we are looking to "study" the Bible in this way I believe we will gain less than if we just read it daily and ponder on how the verses can apply to our personal lives.
_________________
ICXC NIKA! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
-theophilus-
Joined: 24 Sep 2006
Posts: 562
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 07, 2007 7:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="Covenanter"] | -theophilus- wrote: | | Covenanter wrote: |
1. What do you mean by "united" ? Are those who challenge a corrupt church & separate from it not united to the true church? Or are those continuing in corruption themselves separated from the true church? |
A corrupt Church is not the true Church. As you typed the above you probably had in mind a particular "corrupt church", a church that I belong to. So let's move on.
Not at all, Theo. 50 year ago I eagerly attended Lenten Bible Lectures led by the Anglican Bishop of Winchester. He taught that Peter was not the author, & did not seem interested in what was written. Within 6 months I was out of the C of E. The Fellowship of Independent Evangelical Churches to which our church is affiliated, came into being to unite scattered groups of Christians who had come out of the denominations as they abandoned the Scriptures & embraced higher criticism & evolution. |
My apologies.
Well yes, in this case we are in agreement and can both see what was taught as false. However, for me, the false teaching is a consequence of the church's falling away rather than the cause. From an Orthodox point of view, when the CofE seperated from Papal authority it did a "good thing" as the Catholics are considered to be schismatic. However, seperating from a schismatic church does not automatically bring that church back into communion, and into the apostolic succession. The CofE still remains out of communion with the Orthodox because after seperating from the Catholic church, it didn't seek ways to reunite with the "True church." Being a national church, it thus became hopelessly isolated.
As I say, false teaching is a consequence of this - losing a sense of the faith of the church (universal in space and time), and perhaps over reacting in its measures to seperate as much as possible from the Catholics.
_________________
ICXC NIKA! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
davelarge
Joined: 13 Jul 2007
Posts: 219
Location: Left a bit... Right a bit...
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 07, 2007 7:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
| -theophilus- wrote: | | From an Orthodox point of view, when the CofE seperated from Papal authority it did a "good thing" as the Catholics are considered to be schismatic. However, seperating from a schismatic church does not automatically bring that church back into communion, and into the apostolic succession. The CofE still remains out of communion with the Orthodox because after seperating from the Catholic church, it didn't seek ways to reunite with the "True church." Being a national church, it thus became hopelessly isolated. |
Given that the formation of the C of E had more to do with a man with a big ego wanting to sleep with a woman he wasn't supposed to, I doubt there is any real spiritual significance to the actual split.
Of course, what has happened in the intervening seven-hundred-odd years is a different matter.
I'll come back to your points about the bible later - but they are fascinating. Thanks 8¬)
davelarge
_________________
Penguin-powered |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jtheb
Joined: 21 Jun 2006
Posts: 1451
Location: second childhood
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 07, 2007 7:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
The odd thing with Henry was that through the rest of his life he seemed to be catholic.
Among other things he left a lot of money to pay for masses etc for him after his death.
_________________
The effectiveness of a posting is inversely proportional to its length.
C.S.Craig |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Covenanter
Joined: 28 Aug 2006
Posts: 1446
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 07, 2007 8:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
| davelarge wrote: | So, I think what we've found here is that although we agree on the need to interpret the bible (at least with reference to other parts of the bible), we don't agree on how to determine the interpretive method for each section. That opens up a whole new can of worms!
Although the question of prophecy fulfilment in relation to Israel is an interesting one, I don't think I'm going to get drawn here. We could take it to the Israel board though, if you like?
|
I'd prefer to discuss it here. I'm concerned with the principles, not the details. If the OC prophecies are to be taken literally, apart from the way they are interpreted in the NC Scriptures then there are many related questions & points of argument. Scofield dispensationalism puts the church are into a "parenthesis" after which God resumes his dealings with Israel as a nation. The NC Scriptures see the Gentiles grafted into Israel, so that prophetic Israel becomes the church, comprising one body of Jew & Gentile in Christ.
_________________
May the God of peace, who through the blood of the eternal covenant brought back from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great Shepherd of the sheep, equip you with everything good for doing his will ... (Hebrews 13:20-21) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Covenanter
Joined: 28 Aug 2006
Posts: 1446
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 07, 2007 9:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| jtheb wrote: | The odd thing with Henry was that through the rest of his life he seemed to be catholic.
Among other things he left a lot of money to pay for masses etc for him after his death. |
Henry was concerned with himself being the head of the church & used the reformers as necessary to get church leaders on side. I don't think it is useful to discuss Henry's role further.
_________________
May the God of peace, who through the blood of the eternal covenant brought back from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great Shepherd of the sheep, equip you with everything good for doing his will ... (Hebrews 13:20-21) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
davelarge
Joined: 13 Jul 2007
Posts: 219
Location: Left a bit... Right a bit...
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 07, 2007 9:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| jtheb wrote: | The odd thing with Henry was that through the rest of his life he seemed to be catholic.
Among other things he left a lot of money to pay for masses etc for him after his death. |
It's my understanding that initially the C of E was indistinguishable from the Catholic Church in theology, the only difference was that it had a different (earthly) boss. My knowledge of the history isn't good enough to know where the reformers fit in, so I'll not comment on that.
| Covenanter wrote: | | The NC Scriptures see the Gentiles grafted into Israel, so that prophetic Israel becomes the church, comprising one body of Jew & Gentile in Christ. |
Isn't this roughly what the council in Jerusalem between Peter and Paul that is recorded in Acts was about?
Could you provide a link to something introductory on Schofield dispensationalism as my knowledge is not good. Thanks 8¬)
Oh, and one final question. Are you using 'Old Covenant' and 'Old Testament' (and also 'New Covenant' and 'New Testament') synonymously, or is there a subtle difference that I'm not picking up on?
davelarge
_________________
Penguin-powered |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
