|
Post by irvinegrey on Jul 9, 2013 14:01:21 GMT -5
I am unashamedly an evangelical Christian and regardless of What Hat’s view there are lots of highly respected theological scholars who are strongly evangelical. What Hat writes, ‘Grey's theological background has little use today, although sometimes I fear that we are slipping back into theocracy and fundamentalism and that all the intellectual gain of the post-modern era will be lost.’ This is totally subjective and judgemental from one who has yet to read the book.
But then I can expect little better from one who has discovered John Hick, a man who has a low view of the historical Jesus. I agree with the John Newton when he wrote:
What think ye of Christ? That’s the test, to try both your state [spiritual condition] and your scheme [theological system]. You cannot be right in the rest, unless you think rightly of Him.
Claims to hold a ‘scheme’ of truth and to be in a ‘state’ of grace become vulnerable where one’s Christology – that is, one’s thoughts about the person and place of Jesus of Nazareth, whom Christians since Pentecost have called Christ (Acts 2:36-41) – is suspect.
As to the place of evangelicalism in the Christian church, this is best expressed by my fellow Northern Ireland man, Alister McGrath, an ordained Anglican minister and former professor at Oxford:
Evangelicalism is historic Christianity. Its beliefs correspond to the central doctrines of the Christian churches down through the ages, including the two most important doctrines of the patristic period: the doctrine of the ‘two natures’, human and divine, of Jesus Christ and the doctrine of the Trinity
|
|
|
Post by Mary on Jul 9, 2013 15:59:22 GMT -5
One wonders if What Hat can give an objective view without bias when he has clearly stated his bias. He gives a theology degree no more credit than some 5th graders. His bias is leaning clearly one way.
A man who stays true to his conviction is surely more trustworthy than one who waves about changing his beliefs like the wind as Hicks has done. One would hope that by the time someone is 60 that they would have come to some conclusion of what they believe and not still be carried away with the latest doctrines of men unlike say 5th graders who have not had the opportunity to explore life and come to any conclusion.
Ephesians 4:14 that we should no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness.....
Hick doubts the virgin birth and the divinity. I don't think he knew what he believed.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jul 9, 2013 18:19:41 GMT -5
I am unashamedly an evangelical Christian and regardless of What Hat’s view there are lots of highly respected theological scholars who are strongly evangelical. What Hat writes, ‘Grey's theological background has little use today, although sometimes I fear that we are slipping back into theocracy and fundamentalism and that all the intellectual gain of the post-modern era will be lost.’ This is totally subjective and judgemental from one who has yet to read the book. But then I can expect little better from one who has discovered John Hick, a man who has a low view of the historical Jesus. I agree with the John Newton when he wrote: What think ye of Christ? That’s the test, to try both your state [spiritual condition] and your scheme [theological system]. You cannot be right in the rest, unless you think rightly of Him.Claims to hold a ‘scheme’ of truth and to be in a ‘state’ of grace become vulnerable where one’s Christology – that is, one’s thoughts about the person and place of Jesus of Nazareth, whom Christians since Pentecost have called Christ (Acts 2:36-41) – is suspect. As to the place of evangelicalism in the Christian church, this is best expressed by my fellow Northern Ireland man, Alister McGrath, an ordained Anglican minister and former professor at Oxford: Evangelicalism is historic Christianity. Its beliefs correspond to the central doctrines of the Christian churches down through the ages, including the two most important doctrines of the patristic period: the doctrine of the ‘two natures’, human and divine, of Jesus Christ and the doctrine of the TrinityI think the quotes you have cited are pretty much all irrelevant today, so it is nothing personal against you. I know you agree with me that there is much in historic Christianity which defiles the teachings of Christ, but I also believe with Ruether that the violent history of the church is rooted in orthodoxy. T.S. Eliot has remarked that Christianity has been remarkably resilient in revising itself in order to stay alive, and I have no doubt this is happening again. This is why we need men and women like Hick, Ruether and Borg. I believe I'm also correct in thinking that your version of Christianity is a dying one. Just like Middle Ages Catholicism ran its course, so has Reformation Protestantism. The 2x2s represent an initial thrust in a new wave, perhaps a bit too reactionary, and unfortunately, the pest that is hierarchy has once again reared its ugly head. But at least it is a start.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jul 9, 2013 18:28:59 GMT -5
One wonders if What Hat can give an objective view without bias when he has clearly stated his bias. He gives a theology degree no more credit than some 5th graders. His bias is leaning clearly one way. A man who stays true to his conviction is surely more trustworthy than one who waves about changing his beliefs like the wind as Hicks has done. One would hope that by the time someone is 60 that they would have come to some conclusion of what they believe and not still be carried away with the latest doctrines of men unlike say 5th graders who have not had the opportunity to explore life and come to any conclusion. Ephesians 4:14 that we should no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness..... Hick doubts the virgin birth and the divinity. I don't think he knew what he believed. Mary, I said "people with a 5th grade education" not fifth graders. And that wasn't meant to rub theologians, but I do know some very wise and intelligent people with a 5th grade education, or the like. Now it happens that I am 60, and my beliefs have been changing and evolving as far back as I can remember. And currently, there is nothing in my knowledge or set of beliefs that is not subject to revision based on new information or a successul counter-argument. I have to add that Hick has written quite a large number of books for a man that doesn't know what he believes.
|
|
|
Post by emy on Jul 9, 2013 19:59:04 GMT -5
I found the following commentary from Christopher Carroll Smith's essay to be interesting and relevant to Grey's analysis. But others perceive a causal relationship between rigid orthodoxy and Christianity’s violent history and so conclude that the revision of that orthodoxy is a Christian ethical mandate. This is the position, most notably, of pluralist theologian Rosemary Radford Ruether. “Theologically,” Ruether observes, “anti-Judaism developed as the left hand of Christology.”[19] The problem for orthodox Christology is further exacerbated by the fact that its full, normative realization of authentic humanity occurred in a white male, potentially legitimizing sexism and racism.[20] Reuther therefore rejects the finality and atonement of Christ, preferring to treat him as a norm and/or paradigm of liberation and the cross as a political assassination and act of oppression on the part of the authorities. Ruether understands this view of Jesus to be deeply rooted in the historical content of his prophetic and liberating teaching, but also to arise in the encounter of that teaching with the ethical realities of our present existence.[21] She is arguably therefore both deeply Christian and deeply postmodern. Think you could translate that into dummy-speak??
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jul 9, 2013 20:16:50 GMT -5
I found the following commentary from Christopher Carroll Smith's essay to be interesting and relevant to Grey's analysis. But others perceive a causal relationship between rigid orthodoxy and Christianity’s violent history and so conclude that the revision of that orthodoxy is a Christian ethical mandate. This is the position, most notably, of pluralist theologian Rosemary Radford Ruether. “Theologically,” Ruether observes, “anti-Judaism developed as the left hand of Christology.”[19] The problem for orthodox Christology is further exacerbated by the fact that its full, normative realization of authentic humanity occurred in a white male, potentially legitimizing sexism and racism.[20] Reuther therefore rejects the finality and atonement of Christ, preferring to treat him as a norm and/or paradigm of liberation and the cross as a political assassination and act of oppression on the part of the authorities. Ruether understands this view of Jesus to be deeply rooted in the historical content of his prophetic and liberating teaching, but also to arise in the encounter of that teaching with the ethical realities of our present existence.[21] She is arguably therefore both deeply Christian and deeply postmodern. Think you could translate that into dummy-speak?? LOL. Sure as it is just jargon which can be unpacked into ordinary English. Many modern theologians now believe that Christianity's violent history is the result of forcing people to experience and believe Christianity in a highly specific way (orthodoxy). So these non-orthodox theologians believe that changing from the orthodox mode of belief has to be done, it is the absolute right thing to do. A reunderstanding of Jesus' life is the only way to end the violence that Christianity has caused through the ages. A notable theologian who thinks along these lines is Rosemary Radford Ruether, who believes that hatred of the Jews developed out of this kind of narrow orthodox belief. [Note - because this is a summary of the work of these thinkers, you don't get all the reasoning behind their conclusions. For that you have to read their work.] The problem with understanding Jesus as God, or Jesus as God incarnated on this earth has served the interests of a white male dominated society and has helped to legitimize sexism and racism. Because of these results in our society, Ruether rejects the idea of atonement through mere belief or knowledge of Christ Jesus preferring to treat him as an example/ paradigm of freedom and life and, she treats the Cross as the world crucifying Jesus because the life he offers interferes with the world's politics and Jesus teaching and example speak against various powerful vested interests' desire to oppress humanity for their own selfish benefit. Ruether sees all this in how Jesus taught and lived 2000 years ago, but also sees the relevance of his life and example to the ethical problems of present day life, our lives. So that makes her views both deeply Christian and deeply postmodern, that is relevant to our present times.
|
|
|
Post by emy on Jul 9, 2013 23:24:22 GMT -5
Thanks! And, as stated in the summary, I rather like how she thinks.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jul 10, 2013 11:17:55 GMT -5
There definitely needs to be a move away from orthodox religion I believe. It is the source of division and violence. We just need to look at the divisions between Judaism and Islam and Christianity. All three basically use the same book/books as their sacred book and look at the violence and unrest between the 3 religions. They all claim Abraham as the father of their religion yet in today's world they are killing each other. I call them the 'One God' religions. They seem to have the most rigid mindset of the religious world imo. Each one of them believe 'it's our way or no way' and they're willing to kill for their beliefs. Dangerous when looked at in this light.
However, the day to day people in these religions are usually good devout people who do not want to harm others. The trouble is the religions are set up so that they cannot allow for anyone else being right. If they do, then they feel they have to admit they might be wrong and that's not an option. So, a kinder, gentler more inclusive view of religion that I see developing is a welcome sight to a person like me who looks in at religion from the outside. Now if we could just get the leaders of these religions to understand their way is just one way, not the only way, then we'd be so much better off as 'humanity'.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2013 17:41:17 GMT -5
What a good read - a lot of food for thought there.
I agree entirely with what Happy Feet has said (although he said it far more eloquently than I could). I also think that Mr Grey needed a good editor to remove some of the references to "the homeless ministry" and the "church in the home", Yes, make the point but don't keep banging on about it ad infinitum.
It is with regret that I have to agree with what Mr Grey says about secrecy and illegality. Having established that the workers don't pay income tax, it was a shame he didn't go a step further to ask why, in the UK, the workers don't submit annual tax returns when the law clearly requires them to (and imposes severe penalties for non-compliance). A job half-done Mr Grey.
The whole business of the new convention in England, which Mr Grey mentions, fills me with disgust. We have moved from a culture of transparency and honesty to a culture of secrets and lies. We ought to be deeply ashamed.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2013 17:01:10 GMT -5
What a good read - a lot of food for thought there. I agree entirely with what Happy Feet has said (although he said it far more eloquently than I could). I also think that Mr Grey needed a good editor to remove some of the references to "the homeless ministry" and the "church in the home", Yes, make the point but don't keep banging on about it ad infinitum. It is with regret that I have to agree with what Mr Grey says about secrecy and illegality. Having established that the workers don't pay income tax, it was a shame he didn't go a step further to ask why, in the UK, the workers don't submit annual tax returns when the law clearly requires them to (and imposes severe penalties for non-compliance). A job half-done Mr Grey.The whole business of the new convention in England, which Mr Grey mentions, fills me with disgust. We have moved from a culture of transparency and honesty to a culture of secrets and lies. We ought to be deeply ashamed. The law does not require the workers to submit annual tax returns. I understand people who are self-employed must do this if their earnings are above the earnings threshold (being raised soon to £10,000 per annum). People who are employed by an employer usually fall under the scope of the PAYE system, i.e. Pay As You Earn, in which employers deduct the income tax before the employee receives their earnings. It could be argued that the workers are employed by the "Work" or system, but in reality the workers "earnings" will fall well short of the threshold upon which income tax must be paid. However, board and lodgings, meals provided and use of vehicles, etc., free of charge, would in most circumstances be classed as "earnings," and thus become taxable, if the overall amount of earnings exceeded the threshold on which tax must be paid. In the past these probably fell below taxable limits, but maybe nowadays things would be different. In reality no one knows what an individual worker receives on an annual basis. However, I do not think they are "screwing" the system.
|
|
|
Post by Grant on Jul 12, 2013 19:47:10 GMT -5
If the workers were to add all their perks they would be well above the threshold. Surely they are not so ignorant that they do not know what the law is in regard to this. Not an issue really because if they do not pay their debt in this life they will surely pay it in the next. My overall impression is that due to the dishonesty about their history and dishonest dealings which includes using teaching English as a way of getting into a country they have no fear of God. What is equally interesting is that after a life time of paying no taxes many end up in tax funded care homes when they retire from the work.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 13, 2013 7:39:20 GMT -5
Ram - I am no expert on tax. I work in a different area. But as a self-employed person in the UK, I have to submit a tax return every year. The HMRC website makes it crystal clear who is required by law to submit an annual return and one category is "ministers of religion (of any faith)". And it is clear, from visiting that website that this requirement applies whether there is tax due or not.
What is the status of the workers for tax purposes? I don't have enough knowledge in this area to comment. But I would find it difficult to see that they are employees. Where is the contract of employment? But that is irrelevant unless I have missed some fundamental point. It is clear (I think) that if you fall within one of the stipulated categories, you are required by law to submit a return regardless of whether you are an employee or self-employed.
My concern is - why are we breaking the law of the land here? I would appreciate comments from someone who knows more about tax than I do.
|
|
|
Post by irvinegrey on Jul 13, 2013 10:37:12 GMT -5
What a good read - a lot of food for thought there. I agree entirely with what Happy Feet has said (although he said it far more eloquently than I could). I also think that Mr Grey needed a good editor to remove some of the references to "the homeless ministry" and the "church in the home", Yes, make the point but don't keep banging on about it ad infinitum. I agree entirely. However, if this simply had been a book, I could have made the point of the vital place that 'the homeless ministry' and the 'church in the home' has for the movement but this was my thesis published unedited. Had I edited or changed it for the book, however slightly, I was leaving myself open to the charge that I did not show the entire thesis that led to my final conclusion. The next book will be an improvement!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2013 10:51:27 GMT -5
Ram - I am no expert on tax. I work in a different area. But as a self-employed person in the UK, I have to submit a tax return every year. The HMRC website makes it crystal clear who is required by law to submit an annual return and one category is "ministers of religion (of any faith)". And it is clear, from visiting that website that this requirement applies whether there is tax due or not. What is the status of the workers for tax purposes? I don't have enough knowledge in this area to comment. But I would find it difficult to see that they are employees. Where is the contract of employment? But that is irrelevant unless I have missed some fundamental point. It is clear (I think) that if you fall within one of the stipulated categories, you are required by law to submit a return regardless of whether you are an employee or self-employed. My concern is - why are we breaking the law of the land here? I would appreciate comments from someone who knows more about tax than I do. Self employed people in the UK have to fill in an income tax return every year because only they , or their accountants, know their actual income. With PAYE the employer who knows how much the employee is paid, deducts the relevant tax at source. As for Ministers of Religion, I was unaware of this legal requirement. Perhaps most are not in PAYE schemes (i.e. the church pays them but does not deduct the tax), or maybe it is accepted that Ministers receive other benefits in lieu of payment, e.g. housing, electricity, fuel, water, cars etc., which qualify as "earned income." Originally all PAYE persons had to submit an tax return annually, but the system is so streamlined nowadays that only very occasionally do the Inland Revenue send them out to be filled in. Back in the mid-1980's I heard that legal advice had been sought in the UK with regards to income tax matters and that back then it was calculated that workers were well below the threshold for paying income tax. I don't know how this fits in with any legal requirement to submit a tax return? Of course the level of earned income may well be much higher than it was back then also. I don't know the up to date practice but I understand in former times the workers did seek legal advice with regards to these matters.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2013 12:46:17 GMT -5
Ram - as I have said, I am no expert in this field. All I know is what I read on the HMRC website. If they have taken advice and that advice supports their stance, that is fine. There does seem to be a lack of transparency here though.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 15, 2013 15:58:54 GMT -5
Ram - as I have said, I am no expert in this field. All I know is what I read on the HMRC website. If they have taken advice and that advice supports their stance, that is fine. There does seem to be a lack of transparency here though. "Lack of transparency" just might qualify for the understatement of the year. I'm only going by what I was told. I have no idea whether or not it is correct. Until I hear differently I am merely giving them the benefit of the doubt. You may well be far more accurate with your views than I am?
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Jul 24, 2013 20:03:50 GMT -5
Mainstream theological theory closes around a SINGLE belief system. Modern cultural theory is PLURALISTIC and does not close around a single belief system. That is the essence of atheism, that mind and reality proceed from multiple, random sources. According to this canard, ideological coherency and absolute must be accidental and incidental, but never causal.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Jul 24, 2013 21:04:48 GMT -5
I found the following commentary from Christopher Carroll Smith's essay to be interesting and relevant to Grey's analysis. But others perceive a causal relationship between rigid orthodoxy and Christianity’s violent history and so conclude that the revision of that orthodoxy is a Christian ethical mandate. This is the position, most notably, of pluralist theologian Rosemary Radford Ruether. “Theologically,” Ruether observes, “anti-Judaism developed as the left hand of Christology.”[19] The problem for orthodox Christology is further exacerbated by the fact that its full, normative realization of authentic humanity occurred in a white male, potentially legitimizing sexism and racism.[20] Reuther therefore rejects the finality and atonement of Christ, preferring to treat him as a norm and/or paradigm of liberation and the cross as a political assassination and act of oppression on the part of the authorities. Ruether understands this view of Jesus to be deeply rooted in the historical content of his prophetic and liberating teaching, but also to arise in the encounter of that teaching with the ethical realities of our present existence.[21] She is arguably therefore both deeply Christian and deeply postmodern. If Jesus is a normative paradigm of liberation, those who identify with him are identifying with something final and atoning.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Jul 24, 2013 21:49:18 GMT -5
I found the following commentary from Christopher Carroll Smith's essay to be interesting and relevant to Grey's analysis. But others perceive a causal relationship between rigid orthodoxy and Christianity’s violent history and so conclude that the revision of that orthodoxy is a Christian ethical mandate. This is the position, most notably, of pluralist theologian Rosemary Radford Ruether. “Theologically,” Ruether observes, “anti-Judaism developed as the left hand of Christology.”[19] The problem for orthodox Christology is further exacerbated by the fact that its full, normative realization of authentic humanity occurred in a white male, potentially legitimizing sexism and racism.[20] Reuther therefore rejects the finality and atonement of Christ, preferring to treat him as a norm and/or paradigm of liberation and the cross as a political assassination and act of oppression on the part of the authorities. Ruether understands this view of Jesus to be deeply rooted in the historical content of his prophetic and liberating teaching, but also to arise in the encounter of that teaching with the ethical realities of our present existence.[21] She is arguably therefore both deeply Christian and deeply postmodern. What would society be like if it hadn't been for Christianty's violent history? What manner or paradigm of liberation would we be discussing today if it hadn't been for the RCC and EOC? Can we identify Jesus' paradigm of liberation apart from God's Providence?
|
|
|
Post by Greg on Jul 24, 2013 21:53:38 GMT -5
Mainstream theological theory closes around a SINGLE belief system. Modern cultural theory is PLURALISTIC and does not close around a single belief system. That is the essence of atheism, that mind and reality proceed from multiple, random sources. According to this canard, ideological coherency and absolute must be accidental and incidental, but never causal. Exactly. Psst. What did he say?
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jul 25, 2013 10:14:08 GMT -5
That is the essence of atheism, that mind and reality proceed from multiple, random sources. According to this canard, ideological coherency and absolute must be accidental and incidental, but never causal. Exactly. Psst. What did he say?LOL, you too! In English Lee for me with the tiny mind!!
|
|
|
Post by Persona non grata on Jul 25, 2013 11:38:55 GMT -5
Conclusion Irvine Grey opens his Conclusion chapter by stating "This is a complex movement, highly secretive in nature and extremely difficult to define because of the lack of continuity in their beliefs." He then makes points about exclusivity and the erroneous impression that the movement gives of continuance from New Testament times.
Grey draws attention to the emphasis put on the homeless ministry and to meetings in homes, two things that the movement claims are as taught by Jesus. It seems Grey himself doesn't put a lot of value on the teachings of Jesus, when he writes "In contrast, the New Testament writers make little reference to the teachings of Jesus. Dunn makes this point when he writes, 'Paul and the other letter writers in the New Testament show no interest whatsoever in the life of Jesus as such and bother to quote only a minimal handful of sayings spoken by Jesus during his earthly ministry.' "
Grey believes that the workers and the members of the fellowship have "limited principles of interpretation" and that this leads them to doctrines and practices that "lack a clear mandate from Scripture." He claims that the founders "built their doctrines on single obscure texts" and that the followers "have blindly emulated what was taught as revelation." Given the value that Grey puts on understanding the Bible completely, it is strange that he considers it obscure.
In Grey's opinion "They need to clear their minds of selected proof-texts and focus on what the Bible actually says." This in itself is excellent advice to any Christian. The irony is that it comes from one who depends so heavily, not on what the bible actually says but rather, on the interpretations of various theologists such as John Stott, J. I. Packer, and Alister McGrath, and on the 'Apostles Creed.'
Grey claims that the 2x2s "restrict the Bible to the few texts that support their ministry and fail to recognise the importance of the major doctrines of the Christian faith. These are the doctrine of the Trinity and the doctrine of the divinity of Christ, both of which they explicitly or implicitly reject." He then goes on to quote a couple of obscure statements, apparently made by workers Everett Swanson in 1969 and Leo Stancliff in 1980. While these two statements, copied from a website, appear to support his claim, Grey completely ignores the importance of the doctrine proclaimed through the hymns in Hymns Old and New, or of the answers given by overseer Willie Hughes in a letter written to Lutheran Pastor C. A. Wiebush in 1931. Both the hymn book, as an authorised publication, and Hughes' letter, as a considered, written testimony are much more relevant and credible sources than a few remarks made in individual sermons.
As in the other sections of his book, Grey does make a number of points that are good for us to reflect upon. He writes "For example, their doctrine of the church amounts to nothing more than the church that meets in the home and no alternative is countenanced." While I disagree with what he says here, rather than argue this point with Grey, I see more benefit in questioning myself about my doctrine and its extent.
Here's another good statement he makes: "If this movement really believes that they are the only true form of Christianity then it would be reasonable to expect them to spread their message with zeal."
Using Bebbington's model of classical evangelicalism, Grey concludes that the 2x2s fall short of being evangelical and he classifies them as a 'New Religious Movement'. He then immediately discounts that term as being irrelevant to his thesis because apparently the NRM label can't be applied to theological reflections. It's all a bit confusing it seems as though the label 'cult' is one that theologists are comfortable with. Grey reasons that, although "cult is often a designation given to a movement simply because of a personal disagreement with its beliefs and practices" and that it can be considered a derogatory term; for the purpose of his research he applies it using James Sire's definition: 'Any religious movement that is organizationally distinct and has doctrines and/or practices that contradict those of the Scriptures as interpreted by traditional Christianity as represented by major Catholic and Protestant denominations, and as expressed in such statements as the Apostles' Creed.'
So while Grey may offer a plausible argument for labeling the movement a cult, I can find nothing other than personal prejudice that would cause him to call it a dangerous one.
The final paragraph in Grey's thesis reads: "One simple and important definition of a cult of Christianity is, 'therefore for orthodox Christianity, cults of Christianity are groups that while claiming to be Christian deny central doctrinal tenets such as the Trinity and the deity of Jesus Christ. They deviate from the doctrinal norms set forth in the Bible and historical creeds of Christendom.' This research has shown that the movement rejects central doctrines such as the Trinity, the deity of Christ and could not affirm historical creeds. Therefore, the only reasonable conclusion one can reach is that the 2x2 movement is a cult and a particularly dangerous one."
All in all, it can be said that Grey's major contention with the movement is his claim that they reject the Trinity and thus inextricably (according to him), the deity of Jesus Christ. That he has completely failed to take into account the sharing of the emblems is a major flaw in his thesis. As a study of theology, he could have considered whether the movement views it as a sacrament, becoming the divine body and blood, or as an ordinance, in honour of the Saviour's sacrifice. Instead Grey chose not to consider it at all. The omission of such a significant ritual raises a serious question about the validity of his conclusion.
|
|
|
Post by Persona non grata on Jul 25, 2013 11:41:46 GMT -5
Since reading Irvine Grey's book and considering the conclusion that he makes, I've come to a conclusion myself; this one from another book of far greater value than Grey's (I'm sure Irvine will agree):
Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man. Ecclesiastes 12:13 (KJV)
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Jul 25, 2013 20:27:06 GMT -5
That is the essence of atheism, that mind and reality proceed from multiple, random sources. According to this canard, ideological coherency and absolute must be accidental and incidental, but never causal. Exactly. Psst. What did he say?He said that you cannot interpret reality by chaos, only by purpose, except reality be two-fold, local and superlative. As the local filters into the superlative, order emerges again.
|
|
|
Post by Persona non grata on Jul 26, 2013 11:52:35 GMT -5
Here's Irvine's response to my post about his conclusion. This explains his use of the term dangerous and his omission of the sacrament from his thesis. I repost it with his permission.
"Just a very quick and brief response to your posting. I will try and get a fuller one to you. Why dangerous? Any movement that claims to be the sole medium of salvation and teaches that one can only profess through hearing the message from a worker is certainly dangerous. Couple that with the number of professing folk that I talked with, members and exes who on their own admission told me that their professing was simply acknowledging at the end of a mission or convention that they wanted to follow Jesus and join the meetings. When asked about repentance, a key constituent, in the plan of salvation they told me that this had never been mentioned to them. To me these folk are led into a false sense of eternal security and this is dangerous. As to the sacrament, I was never privy to the event nor was anyone prepared to discuss its significance so therefore it would have been difficult to address the subject intelligently. As to using the hymnbook as a barometer of the movement’s beliefs and teachings, this was something I was not prepared to do since there was a mix of hymns by those that the movement would perceive as ‘hirelings’ and others by those in the movement. Even when I did ask why the change of word in When I survey the Wondrous Cross, I was unable to get an answer. In fairness I was unable to get clarity on many topics that I discussed with workers and current members , for example, on a simple definition of the Gospel." Irvine Grey, 25 July 2013
|
|
|
Post by fred on Jul 27, 2013 3:45:40 GMT -5
Most 2x2's are not comfortable in a formal theological discussion, nor are they able to indulge in a deeper discussion in some of the aspects of theology. I don't know how the question was framed, nor the conversation surrounding it, or the numbers surveyed.
How the author came to the following conclusion is beyond me, except to say that it seems like a preconceived notion.
If you have ever sat in a gospel or convention meeting you could not miss the preaching that indicates that man must cease from his sinful ways and turn to God recognising that only in Him is salvation. See, not one mention of 'repentence' yet the concept being taught quite clearly.
The author has missed the bus as well in assessing that they have a "false sense of eternal security". The sense of eternal security is not well understood in their teaching and is more likely to be taught against, believing that this will be decided as we depart our mortal bodies.
I've not read the book, but if this is a sample of the conclusions reached, for me, it is not worth the read.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jul 27, 2013 6:01:05 GMT -5
He said that you cannot interpret reality by chaos, only by purpose, except reality be two-fold, local and superlative. As the local filters into the superlative, order emerges again. Psst. Can someone put this into plain English please?
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Jul 27, 2013 8:19:37 GMT -5
He said that you cannot interpret reality by chaos, only by purpose, except reality be two-fold, local and superlative. As the local filters into the superlative, order emerges again. Psst. Can someone put this into plain English please?Sure: People who don't believe in God cannot understand the world around them because they cling to the idea that it's all random.
|
|