Subject: Re: Graeme’s comments re: "heretics"
Date: Sat, 7 Aug 1999 11:46:32 +0800
From: "Nigel Mitchell" <>
Organization: St George
Newsgroups: aus.religion.christian

Graeme: 

>>>> As am example of how it is a method by which it protects itself from 
>>>>> false doctrine, no one of the assemblies would ever permit an Bishop 
>>>>> Spong or Dean Shepherd in the door to bring his apostate hell-bent
>>>>> heresy. 

Nigel: 

>>>> I know that Dean Shepherd will be flattered to be mentioned in such 
>>>> august company. 

Graeme: 

>>> Two heretics together. 

Nigel:

>> "Heretic" is a serious charge to lay against someone who is called to 
>> minister in the Church, and whose ministry is recognised and affirmed by 
>> the congregation amongst whom they minister. 

Graeme: 

> It is a serious charge, and one which must be laid when it occurs. I make no 
> apologies for it. 

I don’t really expect you to apologise for it, but justifying the charge and your
authority to make it might be useful.

> It would be interesting to know how you would define being "called" to 
> minister in the church. ...

I suggest you read Spong’s first book, "This Hebrew Lord", in which he
gives his personal testimony of how he came to be a Christian, and how he received his
call to the ordained ministry.

I know that my own calling was from God, and not my own decision. I have shared my
testimony of that here several times before, so I won’t bore you with it again unless
you want me to.

> If you understood one of the portions of scripture you dismiss as "myth", 
> i.e. Genesis 1-11, you would understand the theological truth about good. 
> Note there were two parts to the tree of the knowledge of good and evil - 
> one of them was good. The good of that tree is also evil because it is 
> Satanic policy, part of which is to whitewash the devil’s world. The only 
> good which God accepts is divine good. 

You do understand that a "myth" can be true, don’t you Graeme.
"Myth" as that word is used by Biblical scholars, means a story about the
interaction between human beings and the divine. Jewish and Christian Myths convey
important truths, and you are incorrect to claim that because I designate some bilical
stories as "myth" that I thereby dismiss them.

Your allegorical interpretaion of the tree of good and evil conveys truth. I do not
disagree with your interpretation. It does not require the existence of an actual tree to
be "true".

>> I realise that this harks back to our other discussion, so you may want to 
>> answer it there rather than here, but according to your "all Churches are
>> autonomous" understanding of scripture, on what basis does a member of one 
>> church have the right to call the pastor of another church "heretic", as 

>> you are doing here? I realise you could say "because they teach contrary 
>> to the Bible", but what you really mean is "because they interpret the 
>> Bible differently to me". 
> No that is only part of the reason. The major reason is that, like yourself, 
> they dismiss the teachings of the Bibloe and its authority. Classic example: 
> You say that Genesis 1-11 is myth. Clearly it is not, you just have rejected 
> it and do not understand it. In reality it is one of the most important and 
> exciting portions of scripture and it is to be taken literally. So this 
> example is a demonstration of the basis of sand upon which you and all 
> liberals build your understanding of the Bible. It doesn’t work. 

See above on "myth". I am surprised that a man like you can have such
learning as you seem to have, and yet think that "myth" = "untrue".

There are many Christians in the world who have faith in God, believe the Gospel, and
live in the hope of eternal life, without believing that Genesis 1-11 describe actual
events. Are you prepared to stand in judgement on us all, simply on the basis of your
interpretation of the Bible?

> Besides, to understand scripture requires being saved, born-again, because 
> the Holy Spirit is the teacher of the Word, as John tells us in his Gospel. 
> The Holy Spirit does not reside in the unbeliever and, as 1 Corinthians 2 
> tells us, the unbeliever cannot understand the Word because it is 
> foolishness to him. The unbelieving liberal is left with his only resource, 
> his own human rationalism, and this is totally inadequate for understanding 
> scripture in any way at all. 

So I take it you are not a supporter of the Gideons or the Bible society.

> It has always interested me Nigel that in all of your posts to arc I have 
> never seen you deal with the foundation doctrines of the Word, such as, for 
> example, redemption, reconciliation, expiation, propitiation. These are the 
> very foundation of the Christian faith. You, like all liberals, will not
> deal with that (frequently this is because liberals don’t understand them 
> anyway), but your constant theme is pulling the scriptures apart and finding 
> fault with them, plus the emphasis on the social gospel which is not the 
> gospel of redemption at all. 

Well, we will have to disagree on that.

Jesus seems to agree with me, though, because he spent a lot of time talking out love
of neighbour, bringing healing and wholeness to the poor and oppressed, etc., and no time
at all talking about propitiation and expiation. 

The things you describe are church doctrines based on the Bible. I am more interested
in the Bible itself, and how people use it to come to believe and live the Gospel.

>> Or is there some objective authority which tells us how to correctly 
>> interpret the Bible, against which we can test Spong, Shepherd, Hunt, 
>> Mitchell, Uncle Tom Cobbley and all? 
> The Bible can be interpreted correctly. Any believer who teaches the Word of 
> God must have the proper training. This is imperative. In the first place he 
> must study systematic theology to get the doctrinal framework of the Bible. 
> You have admitted to me that you have not studied systematic theology, you 
> had other preferences. Therefore you are behind the 8-ball from the start - 
> that is, if you are in fact a born-again believer (which I do not know). The 
> next and equally important factor is a knowledge of the oroginal languages 
> of scripture, and not just a working knowledge either. This is terribly 
> important. Unless these tools are used to dig the truth from the scripture 
> the Bible teacher has to rely almost completely on the writings of others, 
> who may well be wrong, and therefore the errors are repeated - as you have 
> demonstrated by your reference to other liberals who are wide of the mark. 
> But apart from these things a Bible teacher must have the spiritual gift, 
> and this is something which cannot be developed, it is a sovereign choice of 
> God the Holy Spirit. 

My question was, is there any objective standard by which you, or I, or anyone else can
judge between your interpretaions of the scriptures, and mine, and Spong’s, etc.? The
answer you have given only works if we accept as a prior asumption that your
interpretation is correct.

>>>> I have met both men and sat under their teaching. Have you? 
> I have heard Spong at length here in NZ. He is a heretic. He doesn’t even 
> believe in the resurrection. Without the resurrection no human being has any 
> hope at all. 

I have heard Spong preach and teach on the ressurection, and I have read his book
"The resurection: Myth or reality". He certainly does believe in the
ressurection, and it is a powerful influence and source of hope in his life. 

Let me ask you this; What is more important, the ressurection as a historical event, or
the ressurection as a present reality in which we experience the presence of the risen
Lord in our lives here and now, and look forward with hope to living in his nearer
presence for all eternity?

>>>> There are elements in the teaching of both men with which I disagree, 
>>>> but I believe them both to be godly men and good pastors in the ministry 
>>>> to which God has called them. 

> And how do you know God has called them? Does God call heretics? false 
> teachers? Come on now! 

Are you suggesting that God only calls people who are perfect?

> Godly? In what sense? 

In the sense that they are men of compassion, who preach, teach and live the Gospel.

>> OK, let me be more specific. I have heard both men preach and teach from 
>> the scriptures, and whilst I disagree with both men on some matters of
>> biblical interpretation and chuirch life I believe them overall to be good 
>> pastors, teachers and Christian leaders. 

> I cannot see how they can possibly be. 

Well, you will just have to take my word for it, or not, ... as the case may be.

>>> You have espoused plenty of false doctrine in arc and I personally do not 
>>> regard you as an authority on anything to do with the Bible. 

>> You are entitled to your opinion, but I would suggest that according to 
>> any objective standard my academic studies, experience, calling and 
>> knowledge make me _at least_ as qualified as you to make such judgements. 

> That is your big mistake. Academic study does not guarantee a knowledge of 
> the truth. Academic study is a necessity for any Bible teacher who teaches 
> the truth, but academic study is useless in the Christian realm if it is the 
> study of error and if the person is not a saved believer. 

Graeme, if the Bible is inerrant etc. as you claim, how only a very small minority of
people hold that view after they study it in an academic environment, subjecting it to the
same kind of scrutiny that is used for other historical documents, ideas and world views? 

It seems that the inerrancy of the Bible is not in any way self-evident. Quite the
reverse, in fact. 

> It is not an arrogant statement for me to say cetagorically to say that you 
> are nowhere near as qualified as me to "make such judgements." You aren’t 
> even in the same ball park Nigel. Again, that is not arrogance, it is the 
> truth. 

And here was I thinking you didn’t have a sense of humour.
>> The article you are holding contains a few sentences taken out of context 
>> from an article in the diocesan magazine, which in turn was based on a 
>> sermon the Dean preached on Advent Sunday. 

> Did he refer to Jesus as an "underachiever"? Now tell me, yes or no. 

IIRC he said that some, who expected the second coming to take place during their
lifetimes, thought that.

> Did he refer to Jesus’ second coming as a myth? Yes or no. 

Yes. See above about "myths".

> Did he not say that there was but one coming of Christ? Yes or no. 

No. That he did not say.

> Did he not reduce the mission of the church to changing "things for the 
> better"? Yes or no. 

No. I know that he regards "changing things for the better" as a part of the
role and mission of the Church, but he did not and would not describe it as the whole
mission of the Church.

cheers

-- 

N+

Nigel B. Mitchell