| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 944.1 | Isn't every faith "particular"? | LGP30::FLEISCHER | without vision the people perish (DTN 223-8576, MSO2-2/A2, IM&T) | Fri Jul 01 1994 10:33 | 27 |
| re Note 944.0 by George L. Carey, Archbishop of Canterbury:
> But we have to say with Paul
> as he preached to the adherents of other faiths in Athens: "Whom therefore
> ye ignorantly worship, Him declare I unto you" (Acts 17:23). This is the
> scandal of particularity with which we must live. Christians cannot yield
> this un-negotiable element in their faith. Only in a personal relationship
> with Jesus Christ can God be fully known, worshipped, and obeyed.
Of course, one must examine what is the "element of faith"
being declared in the quote from Acts. Paul specifically
says that the people he addressed *are* worshiping the true
God.
The element of faith in that Scriptural quote is that Paul is
declaring God to the listeners, that Paul has (some) true
knowledge of God.
As far as "this un-negotiable element in their faith" -- is
any element of faith "negotiable"? Why would any element of
faith have to be negotiated? Faith is faith -- if mine is
not identical to yours, does this imply that something must
be "negotiated" in order to achieve some end? Are Buddhists,
Hindus, Muslims, or various animists demanding any
negotiations? Are Christians? Isn't this a straw horse?
Bob
|
| 944.2 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Fri Jul 01 1994 10:49 | 18 |
| >does this imply that something must be negotiated
Many both within and outside Christianity are calling for Christians to give
up the scandal of particularity and cease proclaiming that Christianity is
the one and only full revelation of God, and required of all to be believed.
Speaking against the call to give up this particularity, several of the
bishops of the Episcopal Church together with clergy and laity have issued
a call to Apostolic Mission. This is an extract from that statement:
While the world's religions and philosophies undoubtedly contain truths
amid their profound errors, we believe that Jesus is the full revelation
of God, that all persons need to come to know Him and to receive His
forgiveness and be conformed to His image. In and through the Gospel Jesus
both critiques, corrects, and supplements all of our partial views and
convictions. "There is no other name given under Heaven whereby men must
be saved." Therefore, we are to be His witnesses to all persons,
locally, regionally, nationally, and internationally.
|
| 944.3 | beyond | LGP30::FLEISCHER | without vision the people perish (DTN 223-8576, MSO2-2/A2, IM&T) | Fri Jul 01 1994 11:41 | 20 |
| re Note 944.2 by COVERT::COVERT:
> Many both within and outside Christianity are calling for Christians to give
> up the scandal of particularity and cease proclaiming that Christianity is
> the one and only full revelation of God, and required of all to be believed.
The quote of Paul in Acts used by the archbishop doesn't
support the "one and only full" part of the above statement.
In particular, what supports "required of all to be
believed"? It is a wild extrapolation to claim that "There
is no other name given under Heaven whereby men must be
saved" implies that the entirety of Christian doctrine
(*whose* Christian doctrine, I might add?) is required of
all.
I think that you have stepped considerably beyond the
Biblically justifiable in this statement.
Bob
|
| 944.4 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Fri Jul 01 1994 12:55 | 8 |
| > I think that you have stepped considerably beyond the
> Biblically justifiable in this statement.
"No one comes to the Father except through me."
"There is no name under heaven by which we are saved other than Christ Jesus."
/john
|
| 944.5 | | AIMHI::JMARTIN | | Fri Jul 01 1994 14:20 | 7 |
| Bob:
John 14:6 also came to mind after reading .3. To not believe the
claims of Christ would mean that the mob in Jerusalem was justified in
crucifying Jesus for Blasphemy.
-Jack
|
| 944.6 | think it through | LGP30::FLEISCHER | without vision the people perish (DTN 223-8576, MSO2-2/A2, IM&T) | Fri Jul 01 1994 16:39 | 34 |
| re Note 944.5 by AIMHI::JMARTIN:
> John 14:6 also came to mind after reading .3. To not believe the
> claims of Christ would mean that the mob in Jerusalem was justified in
> crucifying Jesus for Blasphemy.
Non sequitur 1: to not believe the claims of Christ would
mean to not believe the claims of Christ. To give an
example: the person in the office next to me does not
believe the claims of Christ -- does this mean that the mob
in Jerusalem was justified in crucifying Jesus for Blasphemy?
Non sequitur 2: the claim by the archbishop (or was it the
other source quoted by John) was that "Christianity", and not
just the claims of Christ, must be believed. From my 45-year
association with Christianity, there are a whole lot of
things taught as Christianity that were not directly claimed
by Christ. (In fact, in John 14:6 Jesus tells us that the
truth that saves is specifically he himself and not any other
truth -- the truth that saves is the living God and not a set
of doctrines. THIS IS THE GOOD NEWS! It is as dismal to
believe that you are saved by accepting just the right
doctrine as it is dismal to believe that you are saved by
your own works!)
Remember: I'm not saying that Christianity is valueless nor
that Christianity has nothing that other doctrines don't
have. I'm simply challenging the far stronger, and thus less
supportable, statements that *all* of Christianity must be
accepted and that Christian doctrine contains all true
knowledge about God (i.e., if it's in another doctrine and
not in Christianity, then it must be false).
Bob
|