From:  (Nigel B. Mitchell)
Newsgroups: aus.religion.christian,aus.religion
Subject: Re: NEWS: Sex and the Archbishop
Date: Tue, 04 Aug 1998 03:06:50 GMT


Hi, Darren,

I have snipped and rearranged some of this to make it more
manageable. I hope I have not misrepresented anything you meant
to say - if so, please let me know.


On Tue, 4 Aug 1998 11:36:06 +1000, "Darren R Middleton" wrote:

>If my elders brought before Mrs Jane Citizen (non believer) and said she had
>committed adultery ie would respond with the rebuke & exhortation Jesus did.
>If I heard ome of my elders bragging about sexual relations with his
>father's wife I would (with the other elders) remove him from eldership,
>membership and seek to encourage the man to a point of godly sorrow that led
>to repentance & restoration.

On reflection, I would act in exactly the same way in the cases
cited above.

Recalling that this marathon thread began with a discussion of
the Church's attitude to homosexuality, I still maintain that it
is a matter of judgement and interpretation which of the two
responses above might properly apply to any or all of the
following:

A non- Christian gay couple who lived next door.
A gay person who was a member of the church and who was suffering

discrimination or persecution in the workplace.
A church worker who admitted having a gay relationship
An openly practising homosexual person who offers for ordination.

>With all due respect Nigel if you think this pericope teaches us about
>capital punishment and then sexual sin you have IMHO not understood. As I
>have said this was a trap (see Graemes post for a full explanation) and so
>Jesus highlight the falleness of all and illustrates that he has come to
>reconcile not condemn & judge (2nd coming).

Graeme's two posts on the woman taken in adultery are hardly any
use. According to Graeme the story undoubtedly is a true story,
but it is also undoubtedly not part of scripture. Graeme waxes
eloquent on the definition and derivation of the Greek words in
the text, conveniently forgetting that if the conversation took
place at all, it is most likely to have been in Aramaic. Graeme
also thinks that the story is illustrative of the evil designs of
Jesus' opponents - whereas I think it is illustrative of the
love, grace and forgiveness of God. We are probably both right,
but there is a hugh difference in perspective and priorities.

If the event in John 8:1-11 was a trap, how does that change the
facts? The woman had committed a crime which was punishable by
death. The mad described in 1 Cor 5 had also committed a crime
which was punishable by death. 

I notice that in response to my question:
>>Where do you stand? Do you think that the Church should call for
>>the death penalty against those (believers or not) who commit
>>adultery and/or incest?

You wrote:
>No Nigel, the judicial law of Israel is not binding on us (although in
>principle it is often helpful). We are bound by a much stricter law, the law
>of Christ and his understanding of the moral law.

If that is the case, what justification could you have for
supporting capital punishment? 

>Thou shall not murder would apply to abortion (unlawful killing) Euthanasia
>(unlawful killing) but war & capital punishment are slightly more compels.
>There is such a thing as a just war (ie Israel and the promised land) but
>there are unjust wars, the diff between them is often clouded. Capital
>Punishment is far clearer, it is prescribed in Genesis as a creational
>ordinance apart from the judicial law of Israel.

In a society where abortion and euthanasia were legal, would you
have a different opinion?

Most of the crimes for which capital punishment is prescribed in
the scriptures are cultic and sexual. Do you think that capital
punishment should be applied in this way today?

>>The KJV and the RSV both translate the word in the commandment
>>"kill", not "murder". There may be others. The term is ambiguous.
>
>I did not know the RSV translates it killing! the KJV is not a translation I
>often refer to.

I was actually surprised to find that the NRSV and NIV both have
"murder". Obviously recent scholarship has moved in that
direction.

Wth reference to the development of the canon:
>>Then why did the process take so long?
>
>Essentially it only took a couple of generations, but there were some
>disputes, however, its authority *was* recognised and is Scripture now.

The earliest list of the canon of scripture which coincides
exactly with the canon of today was published by Athanasius in
367. Before and after that, other lists abounded, and it was not
until 382 that a council of the Church made a ruling, which had
to be reaffirmed in 495 and at the council of Trent following
further debate. That is hardly 'a couple of generations'.

I also wonder where you stand on disputed passages like John
8:1-11 and the alternate endings of Mark. Are they included in
the canon - and how do you decide? There is also the whole matter
of the apocrypha...


>>There were different lists
>>of tha canon of the NT circulating for nearly 300 years after the
>>ressurection. Bishops, synods and individual theologians
>>published their own lists, and consensus was eventually received.
>>I agree that the whole process took place under the guidance of
>>the Holy Spirit, as does everything in the Church, but do you
>>think that the human beings who took part in this process had
>>personalities, thoghts of their own, etc. Were they fallible?
>
>Of Course *they* are fallible, they does not mean they made a mistake
>though, only that they are capable of making a mistake.

I thought you were arguing that they were incapable of having
made any mistakes... ie infallible. I would say that if they were
capable of making mistakes, then it is safe to assume that they
did. The evidence of textual variants and minor contradictions
certainly supports such a view.

>>Idolatry involves taking something that humans have made, and
>>investing it with the power of God and/or treating it as though
>>it were God.
>
>No, but God's Word...

... which came to us through the work of authors, translators,
etc. and the Church.

>
>>I believe that when people use terms like
>>"infallible, saving, perfect, all-powerful" of the written text
>>of the Bible, they are involved in idolatry.
>
>
>Then half of the Baptist Churches, all Credal Anglicans, Brethren, C of C,
>all Presbyterians (not to mention the historical position of all reformation
>Churches ) etc are idol worshipers according to you. Now, that's a bit rich
>coming from a man who said he could be at home in the Catholic Church (hail
>Mary!).

Actually, one of the reasons I am not a Roman Catholic is that
conservative Catholics make _exactly_ the same claims for the
Pope and the magisterium of the Church as conservative
evangelicals make about the Bible. I believe they are wrong for
_exactly_ the same reasons.

>Now, if we took your logic full circle... you place your trust in man
>(Church - consensus) which do you think is more obedient.. following
>Scripture or men!

Given that scripture was written, translated, authorised, copied,
...etc. by human beings, the choice is not God vs human, but
scripture read in the light of tradition, with reason and
understanding, vs scripture all by itself. 

>>>My reference to faith concerned your lack of faith in the revealed will of
>>>God, and my observation that this is the diff between our positions (as
>>>opposed to your inference that it was intelligence).
>>
>>My faith is in God, through Jesus Christ his son, in the power of
>>the Holy Spirit. I do not 'believe in' the Bible - that would be
>>idolatry, as I have explained above, but I do regard the Bible as
>>the cornerstone of the witness and tradition of the Church, which
>>is the Body of Christ and which teaches us the faith.

I left the last part in case you missed it last time.

Cheers


N+

Nigel B. Mitchell