Conference yukon::christian_v7

Copyrighted by Clarinews.  Not to be distributed outside of Digital.

Path: pa.dec.com!decwrl!wupost!looking!bass!clarinews
Comment: Subject mapped from all upper case
Approved: [email protected]
From: [email protected] (Reuter/Greg Burke)
Newsgroups: clari.world.europe.western,clari.news.religion
Distribution: clari.reuters
Subject: Vatican Attacks Literal Interpretation of Bible
Copyright: 1994 by Reuters, R
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 94 9:10:17 PST
Expires: Fri, 25 Mar 94 9:10:17 PST
ACategory: international
Slugword: VATICAN-BIBLE
Priority: regular
ANPA: Wc: 313/0; Id: a0994; Src: reut; Sel: reute; Adate: 03-18-N/A
Lines: 33
Xref: pa.dec.com clari.world.europe.western:5696 clari.news.religion:6061

        VATICAN CITY (Reuter) - The Vatican Friday criticized
literal interpretation of the Bible and said the fundamentalist
approach to Scripture was ``a kind of intellectual suicide.''
         A Vatican document said fundamentalism ``refuses to admit
that the inspired Word of God has been expressed in human
language ... by human authors possessed of limited capacities
and resources.''
         The 125-page document, ``The Interpretation of the Bible in
the Church,'' was written by the Pontifical Biblical Commission,
a group of scholars who assist the pope in the study of
Scripture.
         It noted that a fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible
had been gaining strength. The Vatican is increasingly concerned
about the number of Catholics, especially in Latin America, who
have abandoned the church for fast-growing fundamentalist sects.
         ``The fundamentalist approach is dangerous, for it is
attractive to people who look to the Bible for ready answers to
the problems of life,'' the document said. ``Fundamentalism
actually invites people to a kind of intellectual suicide.''
         Fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible began during the
Reformation, when Protestants showed an increasing concern for
fidelity to the literal meaning of Scripture.
         The document said fundamentalism refused to admit that there
was a human element in the transmission of the Word of God.
         One member of the commission, Jesuit Reverend Joseph
Fitzmyer, said fundamentalists failed to recognize that several
years elapsed between the time Jesus spoke and the time when the
gospels were written.
         ``There was no stenographer, no one with a tape recorder on
at that time,'' said Fitzmyer. ``The reason why fundamentalism
is dangerous is because there comes a time when people who use
that kind of interpretation grow out of it. Then they throw
everything overboard.''

[Notes from the Preface]

The study of the Bible is, as it were, the soul of theology, as the Second
Vatican Council says, borrowing a phrase from Pope Leo XIII (Dei Verbum,
24). This study is never finished; each age must in its own way newly seek to
understand the sacred books.

In the history of interpretation the rise of the historical-critical method
opened a new era. With it, new possibilities for understanding the biblical
word in its originality opened up. Just as with all human endeavor, though, so
also this method contained hidden dangers along with its positive
possibilities.  The search for the original can lead to putting the word back
into the past completely so that it is no longer taken in its actuality. It can
result that only the human dimension of the word appears as real, while the
genuine author, God, is removed from the reach of a method which was
established for understanding human reality.

In the meantime, this methodological spectrum of exegetical work has broadened
in a way which could not have been envisioned 30 years ago. New methods and new
approaches have appeared, from structuralism to materialistic, psychoanalytic
and liberation exegesis. On the other hand, there are also new attempts to
recover patristic exegesis and to include renewed forms of a spiritual
interpretation of Scripture. Thus the Pontifical Biblical Commission took as
its task an attempt to take the bearings of Catholic exegesis in the present
situation 100 years after "Providentissimus Deus" and 50 years after "Divino
Afflante Spiritu."

The Pontifical Biblical Commission, in its new form after the Second Vatican
Council, is not an organ of the teaching office, but rather a commission of
scholars who, in their scientific and ecclesial responsibility as believing
exegetes, take positions on important problems of Scriptural interpretation and
know that for this task they enjoy the confidence of the teaching office. Thus
the present document was established. It contains a well- grounded overview of
the panorama of present-day methods and in this way offers to the inquirer an
orientation to the possibilities and limits of these approaches.

Accordingly, the text of the document inquires into how the meaning of
Scripture might become known--this meaning in which the human word and God's
word work together in the singularity of historical events and the eternity of
the everlasting Word, which is contemporary in every age. The biblical word
comes from a real past. It comes not only from the past, however, but at the
same time from the eternity of God and it leads us into God's eternity, but
again along the way through time, to which the past, the present and the future
belong.

I believe that this document is very helpful for the important questions about
the right way of understanding Holy Scripture and that it also helps us to go
further. It takes up the paths of the encyclicals of 1893 and 1943 and advances
them in a fruitful way.  I would like to thank the members of the biblical
commission for the patient and frequently laborious struggle in which this text
grew little by little. I hope that the document will have a wide circulation so
that it becomes a genuine contribution to the search for a deeper assimilation
of the word of God in holy Scripture.

Rome, on the feast of St. Matthew the evangelist 1993.
Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger

INTRODUCTION

A. The State of the Question Today

The problem of the interpretation of the Bible is hardly a modern phenomenon,
even if at times that is what some would have us believe. The Bible itself
bears witness that its interpretation can be a difficult matter. Alongside
texts that are perfectly clear, it contains passages of some obscurity. When
reading certain prophecies of Jeremiah, Daniel pondered at length over their
meaning (Dn. 9:2). According to the Acts of the Apostles, an Ethiopian of the
first century found himself in the same situation with respect to a passage
from the Book of Isaiah (Is. 53:7-8) and recognized that he had need of an
interpreter (Acts 8:30-35). The Second Letter of Peter insists that "no
prophecy of Scripture is a matter of private interpretation" (2 Pt. 1:20), and
it also observes that the letters of the apostle Paul contain "some difficult
passages, the meaning of which the ignorant and untrained distort, as they do
also in the case of the other Scriptures, to their own ruin" (2 Pt. 3: 16).

[comments on the "historical-critical method", what it means, how it has
arisen, the confusion it has brought, the threat it poses to Christian
doctrine, its materialistic tendences, etc.]

B. Purpose Of This Document

It is, then, appropriate to give serious consideration to the 
various aspects of the present situation as regards the 
interpretation of the Bible--to attend to the criticisms and the 
complaints as also to the hopes and aspirations which are being 
expressed in this matter, to assess the possibilities opened up by 
the new methods and approaches and, finally, to try to determine 
more precisely the direction which best corresponds to the 
mission of exegesis in the Catholic Church.

[skip skip skip, lots of boring stuff on textual criticism etc.]  

[stuff on the "Sociological approach", the "Psychological and Psychoanalytical
Approaches", the "liberationist approach", and the "Feminist approach"]

[next note is the relevant part]

F. Fundamentalist Interpretation

Fundamentalist interpretation starts from the principle that the Bible, being
the word of God, inspired and free from error, should be read and interpreted
literally in all its details. But by "literal interpretation" it understands a
naively literalist interpretation, one, that is to say, which excludes every
effort at understanding the Bible that takes account of its historical origins
and development. It is opposed, therefore, to the use of the historical-
critical method, as indeed to the use of any other scientific method for the
interpretation of Scripture.

The fundamentalist interpretation had its origin at the time of the
Reformation, arising out of a concern for fidelity to the literal meaning of
Scripture. After the century of the Enlightenment it emerged in Protestantism
as a bulwark against liberal exegesis.

The actual term *fundamentalist* is connected directly with the American
Biblical Congress held at Niagara, N.Y., in 1895. At this meeting, conservative
Protestant exegetes defined "five points of fundamentalism": the verbal
inerrancy of Scripture, the divinity of Christ, his virginal birth, the
doctrine of vicarious expiation and the bodily resurrection at the time of the
second coming of Christ. As the fundamentalist way of reading the Bible spread
to other parts of the world, it gave rise to other ways of interpretation,
equally "literalist," in Europe, Asia, Africa and South America. As the 20th
century comes to an end, this kind of interpretation is winning more and more
adherents, in religious groups and sects, as also among Catholics.

Fundamentalism is right to insist on the divine inspiration of the Bible, the
inerrancy of the word of God and other biblical truths included in its five
fundamental points. But its way of presenting these truths is rooted in an
ideology which is not biblical, whatever the proponents of this approach might
say. For it demands an unshakable adherence to rigid doctrinal points of view
and imposes, as the only source of teaching for Christian life and salvation, a
reading of the Bible which rejects all questioning and any kind of critical
research.

The basic problem with fundamentalist interpretation of this kind is that,
refusing to take into account the historical character of biblical revelation,
it makes itself incapable of accepting the full truth of the incarnation
itself. As regards relationships with God, fundamentalism seeks to escape any
closeness of the divine and the human. It refuses to admit that the inspired
word of God has been expressed in human language and that this word has been
expressed, under divine inspiration, by human authors possessed of limited
capacities and resources. For this reason, it tends to treat the biblical text
as if it had been dictated word for word by the Spirit. It fails to recognize
that the word of God has been formulated in language and expression conditioned
by various periods. It pays no attention to the literary forms and to the human
ways of thinking to be found in the biblical texts, many of which are the
result of a process extending over long periods of time and bearing the mark of
very diverse historical situations.

Fundamentalism also places undue stress upon the inerrancy of certain details
in the biblical texts, especially in what concerns historical events or
supposedly scientific truth. It often historicizes material which from the
start never claimed to be historical. It considers historical everything that
is reported or recounted with verbs in the past tense, failing to take the
necessary account of the possibility of symbolic or figurative meaning.

Fundamentalism often shows a tendency to ignore or to deny the problems
presented by the biblical text in its original Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek
form. It is often narrowly bound to one fixed translation, whether old or
present-day. By the same token it fails to take account of the "rereadings"
(*relectures*) of certain texts which are found within the Bible itself.

In what concerns the Gospels, fundamentalism does not take into account the
development of the Gospel tradition, but naively confuses the final stage of
this tradition (what the evangelists have written) with the initial (the words
and deeds of the historical Jesus). At the same time fundamentalism neglects an
important fact: The way in which the first Christian communities themselves
understood the impact produced by Jesus of Nazareth and his message. But it is
precisely there that we find a witness to the apostolic origin of the Christian
faith and its direct expression. Fundamentalism thus misrepresents the call
voiced by the Gospel itself.

Fundamentalism likewise tends to adopt very narrow points of view. It accepts
the literal reality of an ancient, out-of-date cosmology simply because it is
found expressed in the Bible; this blocks any dialogue with a broader way of
seeing the relationship between culture and faith. Its relying upon a
non-critical reading of certain texts of the Bible serves to reinforce
political ideas and social attitudes that are marked by prejudices--racism, for
example--quite contrary to the Christian Gospel.

Finally, in its attachment to the principle "Scripture alone," fundamentalism
separates the interpretation of the Bible from the tradition, which, guided by
the Spirit, has authentically developed in union with Scripture in the heart of
the community of faith. It fails to realize that the New Testament took form
within the Christian church and that it is the Holy Scripture of this church,
the existence of which preceded the composition of the texts. Because of this,
fundamentalism is often anti-church, it considers of little importance the
creeds, the doctrines and liturgical practices which have become part of church
tradition, as well as the teaching function of the church itself. It presents
itself as a form of private interpretation which does not acknowledge that the
church is founded on the Bible and draws its life and inspiration from
Scripture.

The fundamentalist approach is dangerous, for it is attractive to people who
look to the Bible for ready answers to the problems of life. It can deceive
these people, offering them interpretations that are pious but illusory,
instead of telling them that the Bible does not necessarily contain an
immediate answer to each and every problem. Without saying as much in so many
words, fundamentalism actually invites people to a kind of intellectual
suicide. It injects into life a false certitude, for it unwittingly confuses
the divine substance of the biblical message with what are in fact its human
limitations.

[continued]

. . .

B. The Meaning of Inspired Scripture 
1. The Literal Sense

It is not only legitimate, it is also absolutely necessary to seek to define
the precise meaning of texts as produced by their authors- -what is called the
"literal" meaning. St. Thomas Aquinas had already affirmed the fundamental
importance of this sense (S. Th.  I, q. 1,a. 10, ad 1).

The literal sense is not to be confused with the "literalist" sense to which
fundamentalists are attached. It is not sufficient to translate a text word for
word in order to obtain its literal sense.  One must understand the text
according to the literary conventions of the time. When a text is metaphorical,
its literal sense is not that which flows immediately from a word-to-word
translation (e.g. "Let your loins be girt": Lk. 12:35), but that which
corresponds to the metaphorical use of these terms ("Be ready for
action"). When it is a question of a story, the literal sense does not
necessarily imply belief that the facts recounted actually took place, for a
story need not belong to the genre of history but be instead a work of
imaginative fiction.

The literal sense of Scripture is that which has been expressed directly by the
inspired human authors. Since it is the fruit of inspiration, this sense is
also intended by God, as principal author. One arrives at this sense by means
of a careful analysis of the text, within its literary and historical
context. The principal task of exegesis is to carry out this analysis, making
use of all the resources of literary and historical research, with a view to
defining the literal sense of the biblical texts with the greatest possible
accuracy (cf "Divino Afflante Spiritu: Ench. Bibl.," 550).  To this end, the
study of ancient literary genres is particularly necessary (ibid. 560).

[later in the conclusion] 

When fundamentalists relegate exegetes to the role of translators only
(failing to grasp that translating the Bible is already a work of
exegesis) and refuse to follow them further in their studies, these
same fundamentalists do not realize that for all their very laudable
concern for total fidelity to the word of God, they proceed in fact
along ways which will lead them far away from the true meaning of the
biblical texts, as well as from full acceptance of the consequences of
the incarnation. The eternal Word became incarnate at a precise period
of history, within a clearly defined cultural and social
environment. Anyone who desires to understand the word of God should
humbly seek it out there where it has made itself visible and accept
to this end the necessary help of human knowledge. Addressing men and
women, from the beginnings of the Old Testament onward, God made use
of all the possibilities of human language, while at the same time
accepting that his word be subject to the constraints caused by the
limitations of this language. Proper respect for inspired Scripture
requires undertaking all the labors necessary to gain a thorough grasp
of its meaning. Certainly, it is not possible that each Christian
personally pursue all the kinds of research which make for a better
understanding of the biblical text. This task is entrusted to
exegetes, who have the responsibility in this matter to see that all
profit from their labor.

I get the distinct impression that the media, in their strong bias against
fundamentalism, picked up on this particular part of the document in order to
push their own agenda and discredit evangelicals, whom I regard as strong
allies of the Catholic Church.  Perhaps this is even an attempt to cause
division between the Catholic Church and the evangelicals, who have found more
and more common ground as this society sinks into moral ruin.

The media neglected to point out the condemnation in the same document of
liberal interpretations of Scripture and modern exegetical techniques (such as
the historical-critical method and textual criticism) which are so often use to
destroy the truths of the Christian faith, and many of which are used to
justify what we perceive as the anti-Christian agenda of the media.  Most of
the document is used to address these various false exegetical methods, and
I think that in this regard, many evangelicals would certainly agree with the
document's criticisms, and would find it a refreshing change from the "liberal
Protestant" exegetical approach which fundamentalism (and evangelicalism) was a
reaction to.

It is also important to note that the kind of fundamentalism criticized by the
document is in reality rarely found among evangelical Christians.  Whether the
media is to blame, or the authors of the document itself, for the misleading
terminology, this will be used as a weapon in the P.R. war both against
evangelicals and orthodox Catholics, who are already being labelled -- both by
the media and by heterodox Catholics -- as "fundamentalists."

Nevertheless I do believe that the criticisms made by the document are mostly
valid, even if they may be falsely ascribed to those who do not hold them.  And
the Catholic exegetical approach does differ from the evangelical exegetical
approach in various ways, some of which are in fact illustrated by the
criticisms I've cited.

As for the rest of this topic, you can use it to vent your disagreements with
the media, with the Commission's criticisms, or in general to discuss whether
the form of fundamentalism criticized by the Commission is in fact one held by
many members of this conference, or whether it is justly criticized.

Anyone who wants the whole document, send me mail and I can send it to them.

Eric

    I read the Vatican doc first, and I certainly would not consider myself
    a fundamentalist by the definition that is implied/used in it.  I hope
    they don't think that everyone labeled as "fundamentalist" (which in
    some cases I think means that you believe the Bible talks about a real
    God) thinks like that.  It seems to be a poor choice of words.
    Then I read the clarinet article.  Wow.  That seems to be blatant
    misrepresentation by the media.
    
    Thanks Eric!

Phil's note made me more carefully compare the article with the source.  I'm
also not in a hurry to get this out, now, and I can sit down and think more
about it.  I'm going to take their quotes and compare them with the text,
complete and in context.

"The Vatican Friday criticized literal interpretation of the Bible and said the
fundamentalist approach to Scripture was ``a kind of intellectual suicide.''"

Misleading. The definition of fundamentalism the document uses differs from
this definition.  The document says, ``by "literal interpretation" it
understands a naively literalist interpretation, one, that is to say, which
excludes every effort at understanding the Bible that takes account of its
historical origins and development. ''  Note that this is very different from a
"literal interpretation" of the Bible.  Elsewhere the document says:

     According to "Divino Afflante Spiritu," the search for the literal sense
     of Scripture is an essential task of exegesis and, in  order to fulfill
     this task, it is necessary to determine the literary genre of texts (cf.
     "Enchiridion Biblicum," 560), something which the historical-critical
     method helps to achieve. 

     1. The Literal Sense

     It is not only legitimate, it is also absolutely necessary to seek to
     define the precise meaning of texts as produced by their authors--what is
     called the "literal" meaning. St. Thomas Aquinas had already affirmed the
     fundamental importance of this sense (S. Th. I, q. 1,a. 10, ad 1).

     The literal sense is not to be confused with the "literalist" sense to
     which fundamentalists are attached. It is not sufficient to translate a
     text word for word in order to obtain its literal sense. One must
     understand the text according to the literary conventions of the time.
     When a text is metaphorical, its literal sense is not that which flows
     immediately from a word-to-word translation (e.g. "Let your loins be
     girt": Lk. 12:35), but that which corresponds to the metaphorical use of
     these terms ("Be ready for action"). When it is a question of a story, the
     literal sense does not necessarily imply belief that the facts recounted
     actually took place, for a story need not belong to the genre of history
     but be instead a work of imaginative fiction.

     The literal sense of Scripture is that which has been expressed directly
     by the inspired human authors. Since it is the fruit of inspiration, this
     sense is also intended by God, as principal author. One arrives at this
     sense by means of a careful analysis of the text, within its literary and
     historical context. The principal task of exegesis is to carry out this
     analysis, making use of all the resources of literary and historical
     research, with a view to defining the literal sense of the biblical texts
     with the greatest possible accuracy (cf "Divino Afflante Spiritu:
     Ench. Bibl.," 550). To this end, the study of ancient literary genres is
     particularly necessary (ibid. 560).

So it is quite clear that a "literal interpretation" of Scripture is _not at
all_ criticized.  Indeed, it is called "necessary."  What is rejected is a
simplistic, literalist interpretation.  They made the same error the document
explicitly said not to make.

"A Vatican document said fundamentalism ``refuses to admit that the inspired
Word of God has been expressed in human language ... by human authors possessed
of limited capacities and resources.''"

This is very interesting.  The text omitted by the ellipsis is the clause "and
that this word has been expressed, under divine inspiration, by ..."  Notice
how the Reuters version makes it sound like the Catholic Church is saying that
Scripture is purely human: human language written by human authors of limited
ability.  To the contrary, it merely says that the Bible is divinely inspired
by expressed in human form, much in the same way that God was expressed in
flesh through the Incarnation.  Here is the whole paragraph:

     The basic problem with fundamentalist interpretation of this kind is that,
     refusing to take into account the historical character of biblical
     revelation, it makes itself incapable of accepting the full truth of the
     incarnation itself. As regards relationships with God, fundamentalism
     seeks to escape any closeness of the divine and the human. It refuses to
     admit that the inspired word of God has been expressed in human language
     and that this word has been expressed, under divine inspiration, by human
     authors possessed of limited capacities and resources. For this reason, it
     tends to treat the biblical text as if it had been dictated word for word
     by the Spirit. It fails to recognize that the word of God has been
     formulated in language and expression conditioned by various periods. It
     pays no attention to the literary forms and to the human ways of thinking
     to be found in the biblical texts, many of which are the result of a
     process extending over long periods of time and bearing the mark of very
     diverse historical situations.

"``The fundamentalist approach is dangerous, for it is attractive to people who
look to the Bible for ready answers to the problems of life . . . 
Fundamentalism actually invites people to a kind of intellectual suicide.''"

What the document meant by this is expressed, again, by the omitted phrase: "It
can deceive these people, offering them interpretations that are pious but
illusory, instead of telling them that the Bible does not necessarily contain
an immediate answer to each and every problem." Hence what is criticized is not
the notion in itself that the Bible has answers to life, but that it has the
answer for absolutely everything and for every case.  Explaining the comment
about "intellectual suicide", it continues, "It injects into life a false
certitude, for it unwittingly confuses the divine substance of the biblical
message with what are in fact its human limitations."

Hope this helps folks see how the article is misleading.

Eric

Ah, good news.  AP also published an article, and this one is substantially
more accurate and balanced -- it emphasizes the Bible as divinely inspired,
correctly identifies the subject of the criticism, and also mentions the
liberal aspects of biblical exegesis the document condemned.

This article is also copyrighted and may not be distributed abroad.

From: [email protected] (AP)
Newsgroups: clari.news.religion
Distribution: clari.apo
Subject: Vatican Hits Fundamentalism
Keywords: Europe
Copyright: 1994 by The Associated Press, R
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 94 11:00:19 PST
ACategory: international
Slugword: Vatican-Bible
Priority: regular
ANPA: Wc: 335/0; Id: V0510; Src: ap; Sel: -----; Adate: 03-18-N/A
Codes: APO-1103

	VATICAN CITY (AP) -- A new Vatican document on how to interpret
the Bible condemns the fundamentalist approach as distorting,
dangerous and possibly leading to racism.
	The 130-page document, presented Friday, is the Roman Catholic
Church's latest commentary on trends in Biblical study. Some of its
language is unusually harsh, reflecting the challenge that
fundamentalism poses to the church.
	`Without saying as much in so many words, fundamentalism
actually invites people to a kind of intellectual suicide,'' said
the document, written by the Pontifical Biblical Commission.
	``The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church'' also takes a
dim view of the feminist and liberation theology approaches to
studying scripture, although it says those methods -- along with
semiotic and psychoanalytical approaches -- can contribute some
understanding of the Bible.
	The publication affirms the validity of studying biblical texts
from historical and literary points of view, as long as scholars do
not lose sight of the Bible as a document of faith and God's word.
	The commission authors saved their harshest language for
Christian fundamentalist denominations, which have been posing a
growing challenge to the church, particularly in Latin America.
	The document grants that fundamentalists, who take the words of
the Bible as literal truths, are right to ``insist on the divine
inspiration of the Bible'' and certain ``biblical truths.''
	But that's about all it gives the fundamentalist approach.
	``Its relying upon a non-critical reading of certain texts of
the Bible serves to reinforce political ideas and social attitudes
that are marked by prejudices -- racism, for example -- quite
contrary to the Christian gospel,'' the pamphlet says.
	``The fundamentalist approach is dangerous, for it is attractive
to people who look to the Bible for ready answers to the problems
of life.''

 Thanks Eric for this interesting piece of news and actually, though I'de
 be classified as a "renegade" (or worse) Catholic, I would agree with
 most of the article and in fact would completely agree with an essential
 point that the Church is trying to make, and that is that many bible
 interpreters know as "fundamentalist (rightly or wrongly)" do not take
 into consideration the dynamics of the passage of time as it relates to
 culture and language.

 When the Church speaks of the danger of the "fundamentalist approach" and 
 their "intellectual sucide",  I wonder if they had in mind the disasters
 which befell the followers of David Koresh, Jim Jones, etc... who were 
 labeled as  "fundamentalists" because of their literal and "apocalyptic" 
 interpretation of prophecy.

                      Hank 

	I think it's safe to say I'm not a fundlementalist.... :-)


Glen

    re: .10
    
    ...that depends on how you define "safe"...
    
    re: fundamentalism in general
    
    I think I used to be what you might call a liberal very early on in my
    walk.  Years later, I had swung that pendulum into what you might call
    fundamentalism.
    
    Frankly, I find both extremes on this scale frightening.  Neither
    requires much thought and both lead to the kind of mindless expressions
    of "faith" (really, the antithesis of faith IMO) we've seen over the
    years such as the "christian/'new age'" movement (liberalism) and
    "those who don't baptize the way *we* do aren't saved" (legalism/
    funadmentilism).
    
    Liberalism doesn't typically esteem the Word while fundamentalism
    typically demands a single interpretation of it, which if questioned,
    immediately brands the questioner a heretic.
   
    Like I said, I've been on both ends of that spectrum and like neither.
    
    FWIW
    
    Steve

I think the attack on "fundamentalism" goes way too far.

First off, it seems to have identified fundamentalism with
a particular type of exegesis - one that always ignores the
culture and the times.  Being a seminary-trained evangelical
where interpreting using this methodology would simply have
resulted in poor grades (as it was contrary to what we were
taught), I have a hard time believe that this is the primary
methodology of fundamentalists (although, at times, it
certainly is possible to slip into this).

Secondly, I thought the report spends a lot of time *ignoring*
God's true rolel in the writing of Scripture.  What possible
difference does it make if Scripture was written immediately
as Jesus was speaking or 30 years later *IF* God breathed
the Scripture and kept it from error?  In reality, truth is
truth is truth is truth.  There is no difference that makes
a significant difference in the truth presented.  There seems
to be an intentional seperating of *God's* role in writing
Scripture.  Did God breathe the Scripture or not?  Did God
keep the authors from writing error or not?  These are the
foundational questions which the authors have chosen to imply
Biblically incorrect answers too.

I agree with the report that tradition is sometimes not given
enough weight during interpretation.  However, I fear that the
Roman Catholic church would give it too much weight, to the
point where it accepts something as true because of tradition
even when a strong Biblical case can be made that it is not
true.

Collis

> Secondly, I thought the report spends a lot of time *ignoring* God's true
> rolel in the writing of Scripture.  What possible difference does it make if
> Scripture was written immediately as Jesus was speaking or 30 years later
> *IF* God breathed the Scripture and kept it from error?  There seems to be an
> intentional seperating of *God's* role in writing Scripture.  Did God breathe
> the Scripture or not?  Did God keep the authors from writing error or not?
> These are the foundational questions which the authors have chosen to imply
> Biblically incorrect answers too.

I quoted specifically the sections on fundamentalism and not the section on the
inspiration of Scripture; the whole document is 3,000 lines long.

It certainly defends and supports the notion that Scripture is God breathed and
completely and entirely free from error.  I'll see if I can find some quotes.

I believe the traditional Catholic approach to the inspiration of Scripture is
that it perfectly joins both the human and the divine; just as Christ was both
fully God and and fully man, and not deficient in either regard, a hypostatic
union of God and man, the Sacred Scriptures are both authored by God and hence
divine, but expressed in human language and in human form.  Thus it would
reject both the notion that Scripture was not inerrant (the analogue of the
Arian incarnational heresy), and the notion that Scripture was dictated word
for word like a channeled writing (the analogue of the Docetist incarnational
heresy).

It says, "Fundamentalism is right to insist on the divine inspiration of the 
Bible, the inerrancy of the word of God and other biblical truths included in
its five fundamental points."

And speaking of the necessity of finding the literal sense, "The literal sense
of Scripture is that which has been expressed directly by the inspired human
authors. Since it is the fruit of inspiration, this sense is also intended by
God, as principal author."

And again, "The fathers look upon the Bible above all as the Book of God, the
single work of a single author. This does not mean, however, that they reduce
the human authors to nothing more than passive instruments; they are quite
capable, also, of according to a particular book its own specific purpose."

Regarding the Catholic view of the Scriptures in general, the Second Vatican
Council said in its decree on Divine Revelation,

  11. Those divinely revealed realities which are contained and presented in
  sacred Scripture have been committed to writing under the inspiration of the
  Holy Spirit.  For holy mother Church, relying on the belief of the Apostles
  (see John 20:31; 2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Peter 1:19-21; 3:15-16), holds that the books
  of both the Old and New Testaments in their entirety, with all their parts,
  are sacred and canonical because written under the inspiration of the Holy
  Spirit, they have God as their author and have been handed on such to the
  Church herself [1].  In composing the sacred books, God chose men and while
  employed by Him [2] they made use of their powers and abilities, so that with
  Him acting in them and through them [3], they, as true authors, consigned to
  writing everything and only those things which He wanted [4].

  Therefore since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers
  must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of
  Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without
  error that truth which God wanted put into the sacred writings [5] for the
  sake of our salvation.  Therefore "all Scripture is divinely inspired and has
  its use for teaching the truth and refuting error, for reformation of manners
  and discipline in right living, so that the man who belongs to God may be
  efficient and equipped for good work of every kind" (2 Tim. 3:16-17, Greek
  text).

  12. However, since God speaks in sacred Scripture through men in human
  fashion [6], the interpreter of sacred Scripture, in order to see clearly
  what God wanted to communicate to us, should carefully investigate what
  meaning the sacred writers really intended, and what God wanted to manifest
  by means of their words.

. . .

  13. In sacred Scripture, therefore, while the truth and holiness of God
  always remains intact, the marvelous "condescension" of eternal wisdom is
  clearly shown, "that we may learn the gentle kindness of God, which words
  cannot express, and how far He has gone in adopting His language with
  thoughtful concern for our weak human nature" [11].  For the words of God,
  expressed in human language, have been made like human discourse, just as the
  word of the eternal Father, when He took Himself the flesh of human weakness,
  was in every way made like men.

  21. The Church has always venerated the Scriptures just as she venerates the
  body of the Lord, since, especially in sacred liturgy, she unceasingly
  receives and offers to the faithful the bread of life from the table both of
  God's Word and of Christ's Body.  She has always maintained them, and
  continues to do so, together with sacred tradition, as the supreme rule of
  faith, since, as inspired by God and committed once and for all to writing,
  they impart the Word of God Himself without change, and make the voice of the
  Holy Spirit resound in the words of the prophets and Apostles.  Therefore,
  like the Christian religion itself, all the preaching of the Church must be
  nourished and regulated by sacred Scripture.  For in the sacred books, the
  Father who is in heaven meets His children with great love and speaks with
  them; and the force and power in the word of God is so great that it stands
  as the support and energy of the Church, the strength of faith for her sons,
  the food of the soul, the pure and everlasting source of spiritual life.
  Consequently these words are perfectly applicable to sacred Scripture: "For
  the word of God is living and active" (Heb. 4:12) and "it has power to build
  you up and give you your heritage among all those who are sanctified" (Acts
  20:32; see 1 Thess. 2:13).

[to be continued]

From other sources, Pope Pius X in his Syllabus of Errors condemned the
proposition, "Divine inspiration does not extend to all of Sacred Scriptures
so that it renders its parts, each and every one, free from every error."

And from Humani Generis, of Pope Pius XII, 12 August 1950:

               22.   To  return,  however,  to  the  new opinions mentioned
     above,  a  number  of  things  are  proposed or suggested by some even
     against the divine authorship of Sacred Scripture.  For some go so far
     as to  pervert the  sense of the  Vatican Council's[8] definition that
     God is the author of Holy  Scripture,  and  they put forward again the
     opinion,  already  often  condemned,  which asserts that immunity from
     error extends only to those parts of the Bible that treat of God or of
     moral and religious matters.  They even wrongly speak of a human sense
     of the Scriptures, beneath which a divine sense, which they say is the
     only infallible meaning, lies hidden.  
 
However, if one wishes to address the question, does this document expound and
defend strongly enough the Catholic doctrine of the complete inerrancy of
Scripture, its inspiration, authority, infallibility, and divine authorship,
one might indeed find it lacking.  I agree that I would have liked to have seen
a stronger statement of these things. Yet its intent was primarily to address
errors in interpreting it, these factors already having been clearly
established by the church.  The fact that it lacks a vigorous assertion of
these doctrines, however, does not mean that we do not believe them.

Eric

    What is fundamentalism?
    
    I go to an INDEPENDENT FUNDAMENTAL BAPTIST CHURCH... what does this
    mean to you?  Do you automatically brand me with the term legalist?  Do
    you automatically place the connotation of racist, bigot or
    close-minded on my person?
    
    Let me be clear, that NONE of those interpretations comes close to what
    is truly FUNDAMENTALISM.  Fundamentalism can be coined in this phrase,
    
                           "Back to the Basics"
    
    Sound familiar?  It should, President Bush had this theme during his
    Presidency.  [almost wrote pregnancy! :-)]
    
    You can find zealots in any camp....  Let's be careful that
    FUNDAMENTALISM doesn't get confused with something it isn't.
    
    I believe the Word of God to be God breathed and inerrant.
    I believe that salvation is through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ.
    I believe that baptism is a symbol of our faith in Christ and adds
    to the church.
    I believe that Christians were first called so in Antioch as they began
    to live separate lives from the world.
    I believe that women should be keepers at home [when possible] as that
    is the highest calling of a woman. I believe that a woman should submit
    to the authority of her husband.
    I believe that men should labor to provide for their families.  I
    believe that men should submit to the authority of God and love their
    wives as Christ loved the church and gave His life for it.
    I believe that drugs, alcohol, cigarettes and yes, obesity to be a sin
    against the temple of God.
    I believe that women should be modest in their apparel.
    I believe that men should be modest in their apparel.
    I believe that music is important in our lives, as God has commanded us
    to sing.  I believe that music should be representative of Christ.
    I believe that God is not a respector of persons, for *all* have
    sinned.
    I believe that every Christian is called to the Great Commission.
    
    I probably believe a whole lot more then just the above.. but that is
    an example of what a FUNDAMENTAL INDEPENDENT BAPTIST church believes.
    
    

 Well, another Fundamental Independant Baptist chiming in..I would agree
 with what Nancy wrote...admittedly I haven't read all of the postings
 in this note.





Jim

  In the extract of the letter that Eric posted (493.3) "fundamentalism" was 
  equated to the Niagara Bible Conference in 1895, which decreed the 5 points
  of fundamentalism. This was in response to the newly emerging view of the
  scriptures which eventually developed into neo-orthodoxy. Since that time 
  many things have been added, and there is (as far as I know) no real guardian 
  of fundamentalism, mainly because there is so much disagreement between-
  among them (such as the KJV only folks).

  Generally speaking though, anyone or any church which puts their stamp of
  approval on the general content of the 1895 Niagara Bible Conference and 
  specifically the five points and (additionally) follows the CI Schofield 
  view of biblical "dispensationalism" and is pre-trib, pre-mill, in my 
  understanding, is  a "fundamentalist". 

  They may individually be involved in varying degrees of legalism and may 
  consider others who do not adhere strictly to their fine-tunning "outside
  the fold".

                         Hank
  

    Oh yeah I forgot, I'm a KJV only folk! :-)
    
    

    Oh and BTW Henry,
    
    I believe that anyone who tries to make the way to Heaven on any other
    venue then Jesus Christ alone is not saved.
    
    Other then that, how you worship, whether you speak in tongues or not,
    doesn't mean anything to me... that is not important.  What is
    important is in what do you place your faith.

 Re 439.19 Nancy

 Nancy, KJV only folks view the KJV English as being inspired...
 that the english *defines* the greek.

 Do you remember the exchanges with Marshall?

 Do you believe that or do you mean you prefer the KJV over all other
 translations?

                  Hank

      Hi Nance,
    
        I think that was just a terminology disconnect.  I wouldn't
        worry about it.  What's important is the meaning behind the
        terms.
    
                                                    Tony

    I remember very little about Marshall, he departed soon thereafter I
    arrived on the scene... sound  suspicious?  God must've wanted someone
    to carry the torch for the KJV. :-) :-) :-)
    
    
    

> First off, it seems to have identified fundamentalism with a particular type
> of exegesis - one that always ignores the culture and the times.  Being a
> seminary-trained evangelical where interpreting using this methodology would
> simply have resulted in poor grades (as it was contrary to what we were
> taught), I have a hard time believe that this is the primary methodology of
> fundamentalists (although, at times, it certainly is possible to slip into
> this).

I agree that it basically constructs a straw man, and in a way smears all
evangelical Christians with the same brush.  I was disappointed and embarrassed
when I originally read it.  I realize that very few evangelical Christians
use the kind of exegesis they identified as "fundamentalist."

In this regard, it is a demonstration of a certain amount of prejudice and
ignorance.

> I agree with the report that tradition is sometimes not given enough weight
> during interpretation.  However, I fear that the Roman Catholic church would
> give it too much weight, to the point where it accepts something as true
> because of tradition even when a strong Biblical case can be made that it is
> not true.

As someone who has thoroughly and exhaustively examined all such cases and
arguments originally from a skeptical evangelical position similar to yours, I
can identify with the difficulty you find, but I have to conclude that there is
nothing taught as divinely revealed truth by the Catholic Church which is
fundamentally contrary to the Scriptures.  There are lots of interpretations of
Scripture which contradict Catholic doctrine, but I have found that none of
these interpretations stand up against close scrutiny.  Indeed I know many
people besides myself -- including anti-Catholic Biblical scholars -- that have
argued themselves into the Catholic Church through their study of Scripture.

I find that relying on the Body of Christ, "the Church of the living God, the
pillar and foundation of the truth" (1 Tim 3:15), necessary for biblical
exegesis, because the multiplicity of gravely contradictory exegetical
conclusions among the evangelical churches demonstrates the fundamental
fallibility of that exegetical approach.  Since Christ revealed to us all truth
(John 16:13) and promised both to teach us all things and call to remembrance
all that he taught (John 14:26), it is not possible for a Christian to hold
that we can only know with infallible certainty a few core doctrines of the
Christian faith: Christ has revealed to us for all time ("once for all handed
onto the saints", Jude 3) all of the doctrines of the Christian faith, and has
to have given us an infallible way of knowing with certainty all the doctrines
which he taught while here among us: this includes an infallible means of
interpreting the Scriptures.  Believing in the infallibility of Scripture is of
little use if one does not have an infallible means of understanding and
interpreting the Scriptures when crises arise concerning the meaning of its
contents and doctrines.

I believe that the apparent contradictions between the Catholic faith and the
Scriptures -- like the apparent contradictions within Scripture brought up by
atheists and agnostics -- are due only to misinformation, a lack of honest,
exhaustive study, and poor examples of church-going people; and, regrettably,
in some cases, also an unwillingness to accept the truth no matter where it
might be found, and no matter how much it may oppose the nature of the flesh.

Eric

Oh, wow, Marshall -- do I remember him!

I think his church probably fits what the Pontifical Bible Commission was
thinking about ...

Ironically enough, if you go by the original 5-point definition, then all
orthodox Catholics would, by definition, be fundamentalists.

Eric

   Re 439.20 Nancy    (Henry?)

   The meaning of "legalism" probably deserves and has no doubt had more
   than one string of notes attached to it.

   Technically speaking legalism means the practise of a system of laws
   to achieve salvation. 
  
   But, and Since the banner of note 439.20 asks "is this legalism to you"

   My opinion is this :

   Anyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ is saved, I dont care what 
   they add to it (baptism, snake handling, tongues,etc, etc) as long as 
   they dont subtract anything from it.

   Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God... I John 5:1.

   and OBTW : Jehovah Witnesses believe this, Roman Catholics, Mormons
              Baptist, Methodists, Episcopalians, etc...believe this

   Christian legalism to me means adding anything to the essential belief 
   in Christ whether deeds or doctrine in an attempt to please God, be pious,
   be well thought of, etc. But if the Faith is there, then these deeds or 
   doctrine are "extra luggage" but not deadly. Now someone may say, but if 
   the faith was there, then they wouldn't add these things. Well, I believe 
   the human spirit lets go when they depart and go back to the Father. the 
   throws of death will cause any legalist to drop his luggage and cry out 
   to the Lord.

                 Henry   

    Henry, Hank... Honey [no that's not appropriate]! :-)
    
    If salvation = Faith in Christ and all that He is
    
    then
    
    Salvation = Faith + works + tradition + Joseph Smith + whatever
    
    IS NOT salvation.
    
    

   Well, like I said  "My opinion is this : "

   How about the passage which says (paraphrase) their works will be burned
   but they shall be saved, yet so as by fire.
   
   > Henry, Hank... Honey [no that's not appropriate]! :-)

   Nancy, this is a *public* notes file...   :-) 

             Hank
             

The question here seems to devolve on the precise meaning of 
'Fundamentalist', or 'fundamentalist'.

The essence of fundamentalism is that the fundamental truth is expressed in 
the Bible, the Word of God, as is the basis of this conference.  Beyond 
this, everything must be tested against the Word of God.  

Within this umbrella, there are many denominations who, in attempting to 
be faithful to the precise Word of God, would interpret certain Biblical 
passages differently, yet not necessarily differ on basics.

There are others who would take their understanding of scripture outside 
what the majority of denominations understand, even in the area of basics, 
which most would see as cults.

I understand that 'Fundamentalist', as a title, was applied to a certain
group who took a very specific interpretation of scripture, which very few 
(if any) would concur with today.  I believe this group used the Bible to 
justify, for instance, slavery.  I don't think we're concerned with thath 
particualr group (be it sect, cult, or denomination), but I think we need 
to eliminate it right out, as many people seem to have the specific and the 
general confused.

While I haven't yet had time to absorb all the replies in this string, I 
felt we should clarify where we stand on the basic issues.

 - 'Back to basics' is a no-no in the UK just now.  It was recently waved
as an empty political catch-phrase, with everything meaningful as a basis 
then being denied, as failures in the politicians were brought out in the 
press.  So I won't use that phraee!


� Fundamentalist interpretation starts from the principle that the Bible, being
� the word of God, inspired and free from error, should be read and interpreted
� literally in all its details. 

Almost ok - but you have to remember that there is clear picture language, 
which clarifies detail (like a living parable).  It does use the full scope 
of language, including metaphor and simile...

� But by "literal interpretation" it understands a naively literalist
� interpretation, one, that is to say, which excludes every effort at 
� understanding the Bible that takes account of its historical origins
� and development. 

I know of no principle which would take such a blinkered view as this.

� It is opposed, therefore, to the use of the historical-critical method, 

This appears to edging towards the support of higher criticism.

'Lower' Biblical criticism takes the Bible as inspired.  If there are 
passages which cannot easily be reconciled, or which appear to conflict 
with extra-Biblical evidence, lower criticism would seek for a 
reconciliation, even if it meant waiting for clearer understanding, or more 
evidence.

'Higher' Biblical criticism takes the Bible as uninspired.  It places it on 
the same level as any man's opinion.  If it finds any ideas which conflict 
with the Bible (even the understanding of an individual - where the mind 
boggles at a miracle), it rejects the Biblical truth, waters it down, or 
endeavours to explain it away.

Those who wish to put any other authority on a par with the Bible would
reject the total inspiration of the Bible on any basis, as does the above
quote, referring to it as non-scientific, etc.  However, ultimately such a 
view boils down to placing man's opinion above God's revelation.

Much of the criticism of fundamentalism stems from trying to find 
human reasoning and limitations behind a God-inspired document.  As though 
God were developing His ideas - learning through humanity - rather than 
teaching, and building an integrated 'whole' of salvation.

In the attempt to discredit the [protestant] authority of the Bible, it 
would appear that the document quoted exaggerates and distorts the 
fundamentalist position.  As Eric indicates this is but a small portion of 
a much larger document, possibly the media were content to pick on 
something they thought contraversial enough to stir some interest or 
division.

Meanwhile, the example Nancy gave in .15 lists a number of principles her
particular church draws from a literal interpretation of the Bible,
starting with its divine inspiration.  Some of these are vital to
salvation, some are important, some are debatable (though I think I go
along with them myself!). 

But time has once again fled...

						God bless
							Andrew

Hank, re .21 ....

� Re 439.19 Nancy

� Nancy, KJV only folks view the KJV English as being inspired...
� that the english *defines* the greek.

Not strictly.  The ones I know generally consider the Textus Receptus as 
the inspired source, available throughout the day of grace.  No other 
version has relied solely upon this source, and as such is considered 
suspect (generally because of the influence of Origen).  

Some would also consider the use of 'thee' and 'thou' as essential.  Some, 
for reverence, some for clarity of where singular / plural are intended.

The latter point made the New King James unacceptable for some.

The Authorized Version, for them, is the only one which has made an attempt 
to translate the Bible from the *source* they consider authoritative.



							Andrew

>> It is opposed, therefore, to the use of the historical-critical method, 

> This appears to edging towards the support of higher criticism.

> 'Lower' Biblical criticism takes the Bible as inspired.  If there are 
> passages which cannot easily be reconciled, or which appear to conflict 
> with extra-Biblical evidence, lower criticism would seek for a 
> reconciliation, even if it meant waiting for clearer understanding, or more 
> evidence.

> 'Higher' Biblical criticism takes the Bible as uninspired.  It places it on 
> the same level as any man's opinion.  If it finds any ideas which conflict 
> with the Bible (even the understanding of an individual - where the mind 
> boggles at a miracle), it rejects the Biblical truth, waters it down, or 
> endeavours to explain it away.

I'm not sure I accept these definitions.  I agree that higher criticism is
worthy of criticism for a number of reasons -- in fact, that was one of the
main purposes of this document, to criticize those exegetical methods that
downplay the inspiration of Scripture and attempt to look at it as merely a
human document.  It does a good job of refuting this secular means of
interpreting the Bible without reference to its divine inspiration and
authority.

But the Catholic Church takes the position that St. Paul takes, viz., that
whatever is good and noble in a particular system, appropriate it and use it.
Higher criticism _does_ have some redeeming qualities, and it is wrong to
regard as suspect anything that appears to come even close to it.  We should
cling to what is good and reject what is bad, without throwing the baby out
with the bath water.

But even ignoring that, I think that the "historical critical" method simply
means understanding the divinely inspired Scriptures in the context of history
-- the customs and practices of first century Palestine in understanding the
New Testament, the traditions and culture of the Jews in the Old Testament time
period.  This is simply good sense.

> Those who wish to put any other authority on a par with the Bible would
> reject the total inspiration of the Bible on any basis, as does the above
> quote, referring to it as non-scientific, etc.  However, ultimately such a 
> view boils down to placing man's opinion above God's revelation.

I don't think so.  The Bible was not meant as a scientific manual.  When the
Psalmist said, "The earth stands forever, not to be moved," it is not stating a
scientific "truth" that the sun revolves around the earth: it was using poetic
imagery.  I'm sure few of us would argue that.  I find it ironic that many
Christians who attempt to crucify the church over the Galileo affair don't
realize that the reason Galileo was condemned was because he was perceived as
attacking the divine inspiration of Scripture.  The church has learned, as a
result in part of that affair, that Scripture is not always to be interpreted
in a literal sense regarding scientific matters.  This is a part of the point
of the document.

Scripture must be understood the way God intended it to be understood, and
not in any other way.

Eric

    Re 439.29

> Hank, re.21 ....

> Not strictly...
  
  Hi Andrew, if you go into ATLANA::CHRISTIAN_V6 note 156.332 and following
  especially .332, .344, you will see that Marshall (a KJV Only person) 
  insists on the word  "easter" in Acts 12:4 rather than "passover" (pascha) 
  as it has  normally been translated for several millenia and 28 out of 29 
  other places in the NT. I used this verse as a lithmus test for the question 
  presented to Marshall "does the english of the KJV define the greek?" His 
  answer(s) and insistance of "easter" substantiated a virtual "yes".

  Marshall is not the only one of these brethren who claim that the english
  defines the greek. There is a local KJV only church in New England which
  is prolific in its writings concerning the 1611 KJV. I'll give anyone the
  name offline if they wish to contact them for literature. 

  Personally, I view the KJV as the very best,(but flawed here and there)
  english translation available. My belief is that the greek and Hebrew 
  collation (AV) behind the 1611 KJV english is the reconstructed Word of
  God (every yod, dagesh and iota).

  As an aside, Note 156.360-361 in V6 gives the historical documentation as to
  the error of "easter" in the KJV in Acts 12:4.
  The focal point of this note, is not the use of "easter" in Acts 12:4.
  But to save some feelings, please read that note and if some one wants
  to resurrect (pun? :-) ) the subject, so be it.

                   Hank

Hi Eric,

The key factor in higher criticism is that it puts man's opinion above the 
Bible.  It effectively does not consider the Bible to have any God-given
authority which transcends that of man's reason - it gives 'reason' credit
for not being fallen.  This is wrapped up in all sorts of persuasive
arguments (which are very appealing to reason ;-} ), but ultimately
relegates the authority of the Bible to a place which is below the
limitations of the critic.

The inclusion of historical context, culture, etc in the understanding of 
the Bible is not inconsistent with lower criticism, and the implication 
that it is is just an attempt to misrepresent the approach.  Sincere 
Biblical scholars from many areas have extended our understanding of the 
scriptures - and of our God - by finding out more about the circumstances 
in which it was written.

Incidentally, the Bible contains both poetry / pictorial language, and
scientific fact which was way beyond the science of the day.  Understanding
'which is implied where' is not higher criticism, but rightly dividing the 
Word of God.

� Scripture must be understood the way God intended it to be understood, and
� not in any other way.

I think we would all agree with this one !

Hi Hank,

I had a time out of the conference for much of Marshall's later dialogue;
He was atypical of the 'Authorized-onlies' that I have come across, and I
wouldn't consider his approach as 'the usual' for those who see the AV as
the only 'true' Bible.  However - far be it from me to speak for them; if
anyone wishes to represent that view, it's better done from the vantage
point of their conviction.  There are advantages and disadvantages with
most versions.  Some are better for study, some for reading, or public
worship.  There's also a degree of personal preference there... ;-) 

I hope to come back, but the UK day has endded, and I must wend my way hope 
now. 'bye for now,

						God bless
							Andrew

Perhaps not in line with this note (I couldn't read it all but read
a piece of Eric's comments):

As I have said many times and will keep on saying, Us vs. Them is
not Catholic vs Protestant, or Calvinism vs. Wesleyanism...  folks,
Us vs. Them is Christ vs. AntiChrist.  Anything that seeks to cause 
division among Christians is antichrist.  Put this in your pipe and
smoke it for a long while (I know, I don't smoke, either; just let
this sink in, folks).

Christ vs antichrist; christian vs. antichristian
Let's get it straight,

Hi Mark, 

I've been very aware in reading the source articles here that they, the
media, represent the major antagonism, and their interest lies in fomenting
difference and disagreement.  This is why the debate has moved on, rather,
to the basis of our approach to the Word of God.  The media articles which
highlight the criticism of a paper fantasy of fundamentalism, are using as
their lever, the heart of Christianity; the very part they cannot
understand, because they cannot accept that God's wisdom is [infinitely]
greater than man's, and exhibited in His Word.

Hence the have to attack at the point of the authority of scripture.  It 
results in an interesting underlining (rather than undermining) of how the 
Bible is perceived here...

						God bless
								Andrew

To balance the report in .1 ...

Article 5919 of clari.news.religion:
Path: nntpd.lkg.dec.com!pa.dec.com!decwrl!looking!bass!clarinews
Approved: [email protected]
From: [email protected] (AP)
Newsgroups: clari.news.religion,clari.news.features
Distribution: clari.apo
Subject: Catholics, Evangelicals Unite
Keywords: U.S. news and features
Copyright: 1994 by The Associated Press, R
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
X-Supersedes: <[email protected]>
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 94 12:30:09 PST
Expires: Tue, 19 Apr 94 13:30:09 PDT
ACategory: usa
Slugword: Religion
Priority: regular
ANPA: Wc: 841/0; Id: V0613; Src: ap; Sel: -----; Adate: 03-29-N/A; Ver: 0/1
Codes: APO-1110
Lines: 88
Xref: nntpd.lkg.dec.com clari.news.religion:5919 clari.news.features:6437

	NEW YORK (AP) -- They toiled together in the vineyards of the
movements against abortion and pornography, and now leading
Catholics and evangelicals are asking their flocks for a remarkable
leap of faith: to finally accept each other as Christians.
	In what's being called a historic declaration, evangelicals
including Pat Robertson and Charles Colson joined with conservative
Roman Catholic leaders Tuesday in upholding the ties of faith that
bind the nation's largest and most politically active religious
groups.
	They urged Catholics and evangelicals to increase their efforts
against abortion and pornography and to lobby for value-laden
education, but to no longer hold each other at theological arm's
length and to stop aggressive proselytization of each other's
flocks.
	``As evangelicals and Catholics, we dare not by needless and
loveless conflict between ourselves give aid and comfort to the
enemies of the cause of Christ,'' said the signers of
``Evangelicals and Catholics Together: The Christian Mission in the
Third Millennium.''
	John White, president of Geneva College and former president of
the National Association of Evangelicals, said the statement
represents a ``triumphalistic moment'' in American religious life
after centuries of distrust.
	``I really do think it is a historic moment. I don't know of any
other time in history when these two communities have stood
together, spoken together'' on matters of faith, White said.
	The consultation was started in 1992 by Colson, the former
Watergate figure who founded the international Prison Fellowship
ministry, and the Rev. Richard Neuhaus, director of the Institute
on Religion and Public Life in New York. The document, which does
not represent an official stance of any denomination, was drafted
during the next two years by a group of evangelical and Catholic
scholars. Forty people had signed the document by Tuesday.
	On the Catholic side, endorsers include Archbishop Francis
Stafford of Denver, Bishop Carlos A. Sevilla of the Archdiocese of
San Francisco and prominent theologians such as Neuhaus and Michael
Novak, recent winner of the Templeton Prize for Progress in
Religion.
	Other evangelical endorsers include the heads of the Home
Mission Board and Christian Life Commission of the Southern Baptist
Convention, the nation's largest Protestant denomination, and Bill
Bright, founder of Campus Crusade for Christ.
	In the last generation, it has become common for evangelicals
and Catholics to work together on issues such as abortion,
pornography, vouchers for religious education and voluntary school
prayer. But evangelical leaders often placated their most
conservative members with the assurance the alliance was only for
practical ends.
	What's different in the statement is the effort to turn the
theological swords honed over centuries of conflict into a
recognition of the common faith.
	``We together, evangelicals and Catholics, confess our sins
against the unity that Christ intends for all his disciples,'' the
statement says.
	The statement does not gloss over theological differences
between the two groups, including whether the Bible should be
interpreted on its own, as many evangelicals believe, or whether
church tradition and leaders also play an interpretive role.
	But the statement also declares evangelicals and Catholics
affirm the central beliefs in the resurrection and divinity of
Christ.
	``All who accept Christ as Lord and savior are brothers and
sisters in Christ,'' the declaration says.
	Addressing a major source of tension between Catholics and
evangelicals in the United States, Eastern Europe and South
America, the declaration says ``it is neither theologically
legitimate nor a prudent use of resources'' to proselytize among
active members of another Christian community.
	What has brought the two communities to this point, some of the
signers said, are the experiences of worshiping together in the
charismatic movement and working together in political causes such
as the anti-abortion movement.
	Evangelicals can no longer consider Catholics as ogres or
antichrists, said Mark Noll, a historian at Wheaton College.
	``In the best American fashion, activism has led to
reflection,'' Noll said.
	Robertson, a religious broadcaster who founded the Christian
Coalition, said the perceived moral crisis facing the nation today
mandates closer cooperation.
	But evangelical leaders expect some fallout.
	``Well, I'm putting the storm windows and doors on,'' said
Colson, adding that even mentioning Mother Teresa in speeches gets
him in trouble with some evangelicals who condemn any ties with
Catholics.
	Still, he thinks people in the pews are ready to embrace
Catholics as partners in faith.
	``More people are going to call up and say, `Praise the Lord you
did this' than will be upset,'' he said.

Article 5918 of clari.news.religion:
Path: nntpd.lkg.dec.com!nntpd2.cxo.dec.com!pa.dec.com!decwrl!looking!bass!clarinews
Approved: [email protected]
From: [email protected] (The Associated Press)
Newsgroups: clari.news.religion
Distribution: clari.apo
Subject: Religion Mission - Excerpts
Keywords: U.S. news and features
Copyright: 1994 by The Associated Press, R
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 94 12:30:17 PST
Expires: Tue, 19 Apr 94 13:30:17 PDT
ACategory: usa
Slugword: Religion-Excerpts
Priority: regular
ANPA: Wc: 275/0; Id: V0617; Src: ap; Sel: -----; Adate: 03-29-N/A
Codes: APO-1110
Lines: 32

	Excerpts from ``Evangelicals and Catholics Together: The
Christian Mission in the Third Millennium.''
	------
	As evangelicals and Catholics, we dare not by needless and
loveless conflict between ourselves give aid and comfort to the
enemies of the cause of Christ.
	------
	All who accept Christ as Lord and Savior are brothers and
sisters in Christ. Evangelicals and Catholics are brothers and
sisters in Christ.
	------
	To propose that securing civil virtue is the purpose of religion
is blasphemous. To deny that securing civil virtue is a benefit of
religion is blindness.
	------
	Abortion is the leading edge of an encroaching culture of death.
The helpless old, the radically handicapped, and others who cannot
effectively assert their rights are increasingly treated as though
they have no rights.
	------
	We are determined to assume our full share of responsibility for
this ``one nation under God,'' believing it to be a nation under
the judgment, mercy and providential care of the Lord of the
nations to whom alone we render unqualified allegiance.
	------
	There is a necessary distinction between evangelizing and what
is today commonly called proselytizing or ``sheep stealing.'' We
condemn the practice of recruiting people from another community
for purposes of denominational or institutional aggrandizement. At
the same time, our commitment to full religious freedom compels us
to defend the legal freedom to proselytize even as we call upon
Christians to refrain from such activity.

    RE:last 2
    Praise God, its about time !

    Amen !

     Jim

    This week a US Caholic organisation, Word of God, rom Ann Arbor,
    Michigan (?) has been holding a conference here on the Cote d'Azur.  On
    Tuesday evening I went to the evening session of worship where the
    speaker was Ralph Martin.  Apart from one quote from the Pope ("I want
    to stop being balanced and shout about the news of Jesus Christ"),
    there was no way of knowing I wasn't at a typical protestant
    charismatic meeting - same music, same actions, same message, same
    Lord!  And it was great to find people there from all sorts of different
    local churches, as well people from all over the USA.
    
    The Lord' imagination is so much bigger than mine...
    
    God bless,			Richard.

> Apart from one quote from the Pope ("I want
>    to stop being balanced and shout about the news of Jesus Christ"),
>    there was no way of knowing I wasn't at a typical protestant
>    charismatic meeting - same music, same actions, same message, same
>    Lord!  And it was great to find people there from all sorts of different
>    local churches, as well people from all over the USA.

I have a tape of Ralph Martin from a regional charismatic Catholic conference
this past year, and he is indeed an incredible teacher!  I wholly agree with
your assessment -- it sounded like a frenzied revival meeting, with Amens
and Alleluias everywhere, and powerful teaching and proclamation of the Word of
God.  He was EXCITED!

Ralph Martin founded the Word of God community in Ann Arbor Michigan, which
is an ecumenical charismatic covenanted Christian community with related
communities all over the country, one of which I was a part of in Pittsburgh.
He is a major leader in the Catholic Charismatic movement, and has written a
few books (or at least one).

I like to give this tape of him to my Evangelical friends to show them that
being on fire by the Holy Spirit for the Gospel and the Word of God is not
unknown in the Catholic Church!

Eric