tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22041433.post3882901710628732878..comments2023-03-07T06:52:53.887-08:00Comments on Turning Things Upside Down: Response to Fort Worth Canon Theologian’s AttackUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22041433.post-61708588209379444962008-07-16T08:29:00.000-07:002008-07-16T08:29:00.000-07:00A. S. Haley has made as good a case as possible, I...A. S. Haley has made as good a case as possible, I think, for the use of Jude 1.3 as referring to an early set of beliefs passed on by Jesus. I'm grateful that he has provided a link to his argument in the previous Comment.<BR/><BR/>I disagree with his statement: "The conclusion these writers intend one to reach is that the "faith" we have today is a much-compromised, man-made composite of competing and contradictory versions that flourished in different places at different times, and that it consequently can bear little, if any, relation to the so-called "original," which no longer exists in any form and which no one can describe today with any accuracy."<BR/><BR/>I believe the data presented by David Rhoads in "The Challenge of Diversity" that there were, certainly around the time of Jude, a dizzying array of theologies about God, depictions of Jesus, views of the work of Christ, experiences of the Spirit, ethical styles, worship patterns, community structures, and understandings of salvation. The New Testament collection reflects only a sampling of this diversity, a sampling that survived through writing." (p. 16)<BR/><BR/>What we have done as church has been to test and winnow that vast array. Some of that was done by appeal to apostolic witness (so and so knew x, who knew y, who was very close to Peter), some by the test of consistency and some through Biblical scholarship. <BR/><BR/>I firmly believe that when Bishop Duncan asserts that his own views about the Christian faith are identical to a set of beliefs referenced by Jude he is either a Gnostic (pretending to have a special knowledge no one else has) or is woefully ignorant of the life of the early church. He, apparently, is asking us to believe that Jude was referring to a set of beliefs about modern marriage, sexual identity, Johannine theology, and the filioque clause. He and others have misused Jude as a rallying cry for their own beliefs, but in doing so have misrepresented the enormous diversity in the New Testament and in the early church.Thomas B. Woodwardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08742944114518979523noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22041433.post-40711491423128689232008-07-16T07:17:00.000-07:002008-07-16T07:17:00.000-07:00Fr. Woodward, we are speaking about different pass...Fr. Woodward, we are speaking about different passages. You have reference to Titus 1:3, while I was speaking of the phrase "the faith once delivered to the saints" as that occurs in Jude 1:3. In Titus, the Greek is "episteuthen" (a verb form); in Jude the word is "pistis" (a noun). Both come from the same root, however.<BR/><BR/>I would be interested in your understanding of the passage in Jude, because I think that is the one more frequently cited by those who refer to "the faith once delivered to the saints." Not as a boast or a plug, but so that you will be aware of my views, I have written on this topic <A HREF="http://accurmudgeon.blogspot.com/2008/06/on-faith-once-delivered-to-saints.html" REL="nofollow">here.</A>A. S. Haleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05108498446058643166noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22041433.post-81049243058238617692008-07-15T12:08:00.000-07:002008-07-15T12:08:00.000-07:00The section talking about that is here - the url i...The section talking about that is <A HREF="http://episcopalmajority.blogspot.com/2007/08/undermining-episcopal-church-part-2.html" REL="nofollow">here </A>- the url is cut off in your comment.PseudoPiskiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12070541512355253553noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22041433.post-13169854757407457502008-07-15T10:17:00.000-07:002008-07-15T10:17:00.000-07:00I neglected to provide the url for the section in ...I neglected to provide the url for the section in The Undermining of the Episcopal Church which deals with the use of the phrase "the faith once delivered to the saints." It is:<BR/>http://episcopalmajority.blogspot.com/2007/09/undermining-of-episcopal-church-part-4.htmlThomas B. Woodwardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08742944114518979523noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22041433.post-42202194284051329632008-07-15T10:14:00.000-07:002008-07-15T10:14:00.000-07:00a.s. haley, Thanks for your comments. I do want ...a.s. haley,<BR/> Thanks for your comments. I do want to respond to your take on Titus 1:3.<BR/> My analysis is based on reading and study I've done over the years. Unfortunately, when I retired I gave away almost all of my commentaries and other resource materials. I do think you will find more than adequate support for my position in standard brand commentaries. I will do my best at our public library here in Santa Fe (which is much stronger in The Course on Miracles than it is with Christian Biblical Commentaries).<BR/> I have done my best with Arndt and Gingrich's "A Greed-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature" and have come to the conclusion that the Greek in Titus does not support either of us -- it seems that it does not prove either of us right. The word used in the Greek text is episteuthen -- which most likely means "understanding" and not the Pauline "faith" or "faith in Jesus."<BR/> I don't think a case can be made for any content (teaching about divorce, resisting evil in this and not that way, the obligations of the Law or of Love) referenced in Titus 3.1 -- especially when you look at literal translations of the text, as in the American Standard Bible.<BR/> I am certain no case can be made for the kinds of content projected onto Titus 3.1 by bishops Iker, Schofield and others who reference this text. I do not question their intentions, but anacronism is a kind word to describe their effort here.<BR/> All the best,<BR/> Tom WoodwardThomas B. Woodwardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08742944114518979523noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22041433.post-77088435797720565562008-07-15T05:55:00.000-07:002008-07-15T05:55:00.000-07:00Fr. Tom,Thanks for posting these. To read your res...Fr. Tom,<BR/>Thanks for posting these. To read your responses is helpful. <BR/><BR/>Christopher Cantrell+Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22041433.post-42361985012347335362008-07-14T23:09:00.000-07:002008-07-14T23:09:00.000-07:00Fr. Woodward, you say:"I do poke fun at those who ...Fr. Woodward, you say:<BR/><BR/>"I do poke fun at those who parade around the notion of 'the faith once delivered to the saints.' The term, when first used, refers, of course, to the Hebrew Scriptures, not to authors of the New Testament. I stand by my clear exposition that those who use the phrase use it not to proclaim early doctrine, but their own peculiar (often very peculiar) notion of a Christianity as they would like it to be."<BR/><BR/>I fail to understand your reading of Jude 1:3 (and I cannot find on the site, as you say, the original text of your remarks). Surely the author of that text did not use the term "<I>pistis</I>" to refer to the legacy of the Hebrew scriptures; nor, as you say, does it refer to any of the texts of the New Testament as such. Instead, the Greek term (<A HREF="http://www.biblestudytools.net/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?search=4102&version=nas" REL="nofollow">Strongs #4102</A>) refers almost always in the New Testament to the faith of (or of the disciples in) our Lord and Savior. When the author speaks of it as "entrusted to the saints," he is talking about the teachings of Christ as they had <I>first</I> been given to the disciples, and then passed down to him toward the end of the first century A.D. To read the text (as many do) to refer to some unknowable and idealized form of early Christianity is admittedly anachronistic; but the author of Jude definitely had some specific legacy in mind with the word as he used it. Since it was so recent when he wrote about it, we are bound to respect his referent as having substance with regard to the doctrine he was aware of at the time, and it is our task today to uncover that referent as best we can, with the tools that we have at hand. To fob his reference off onto the Old Testament seems, with all due respect, to be an equally anachronistic projection on your part, and to send seekers after "the faith once delivered" off on entirely the wrong path.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com