Which is the "absolute" authority?

[Dale Cozby]

No man can serve two masters.
So when personally confronted between what the church( that you accept and acknowledge as the Body of Christ) and what the scriptures teach seem to depart; which will you abide with, teach and preach to others? What the church teaches or what you understand from scriptures and which appears to you to be contrary to what the church teaches?

[Hans Deventer]

No man can serve two masters.
So when personally confronted between what the church( that you accept and acknowledge as the Body of Christ) and what the scriptures teach seem to depart; which will you abide with, teach and preach to others? What the church teaches or what you understand from scriptures and which appears to you to be contrary to what the church teaches?

I don't agree with the initial statement as applicable in this situation. Jesus used it comparing God and the god of money. Which of those would be the church and which is the Bible?

Next, I'll follow the Bible as I understand it, and seek a church that is closest to that understanding. That will obviously never match completely, and also, I am changing (and the church I attend might be too).

[Dale Cozby]

Hey Hans, Can you fix my dyslexia in the title?

[Hans Deventer]

Hey Hans, Can you fix my dyslexia in the title?

Sure!

[Dale Cozby]

I don't agree with the initial statement as applicable in this situation. Jesus used it comparing God and the god of money. Which of those would be the church and which is the Bible?

Next, I'll follow the Bible as I understand it, and seek a church that is closest to that understanding. That will obviously never match completely, and also, I am changing (and the church I attend might be too).

But Hans, if you can't use that statement out of its original context then are you starting to interpret scripture literally?:eek: That it can only apply to money since that is how it was used by Jesus? So it could not be applied to any other form of idolatry as well?

Or is it that you don't like it being applied to the church and scripture?

[Hans Deventer]

But Hans, if you can't use that statement out of its original context then are you starting to interpret scripture literally?:eek: That it can only apply to money since that is how it was used by Jesus? So it could not be applied to any other form of idolatry as well?

Or is it that you don't like it being applied to the church and scripture?

Exactly! Because Jesus uses it to compare a good and a bad master. And you can't have both. But I don't serve the Scriptures and I ultimately don't serve the Church either, and neither are bad.

[Ian Gentles]

I went for "Scripture", as churches change but God speaking through His Word dosent!

http://iangentles.livejournal.com

[Dale Cozby]

Ian that is generally the reason I polled.

Traditions change over time, so the poll is do we change what we view is orthopraxy based on the current position of the church?

Can you think of anything the church teaches that ISN'T found in scripture?
Can you think of anything that IS found in scripture that the church dismisses or marginalizes?

So when faced with the choice of following the scripture or the church.....who trumps?

Usually which ever is the easiest task master.:rolleyes:

[Hans Deventer]

Usually which ever is the easiest task master.:rolleyes:

I truly respect your honesty and transparency, Dale. :basic03

[Ian Gentles]

Ian that is generally the reason I polled.

Traditions change over time, so the poll is do we change what we view is orthopraxy based on the current position of the church?

Can you think of anything the church teaches that ISN'T found in scripture?
Can you think of anything that IS found in scripture that the church dismisses or marginalizes?

So when faced with the choice of following the scripture or the church.....who trumps?

Usually which ever is the easiest task master.:rolleyes:

Church changes all the time why we need a solid guide, and to me that is scriptures. Post Modernism is causing many changes, and flinging up new ideas, so I need scripture to judge these ideas by! Look how ES is now challenged, as we decide what we believe! Am I a Wesleyan or a 20th century Nazarene? Is there a difference? I find Wesley's original teaching more Biblically understandable!

http://iangentles.livejournal.com

[G R 'Scott' Cundiff]

The church and Scripture are corresponding authorities. Here's two pages of discussion on this same topic:
http://www.naznet.com/community/showthread.php?t=12147

[Steven Martinez]

Ian that is generally the reason I polled.

Traditions change over time, so the poll is do we change what we view is orthopraxy based on the current position of the church?

Can you think of anything the church teaches that ISN'T found in scripture?
Can you think of anything that IS found in scripture that the church dismisses or marginalizes?

So when faced with the choice of following the scripture or the church.....who trumps?

Usually which ever is the easiest task master.:rolleyes:

1. Things not found in Scripture that we teach in the Church of the Nazarene
Trinity
2. Things found in Scripture not practiced by the Church of the Nazarene
Slavery
Consuption of Alcohol


All of these things are found in the New Testament yet the Church of the Nazarene speaks against them. Remember that Scripture is cannot be divorced from the scandal of particularity in that the Scriptures were written in a particular time, to a particular people in a particular place. I believe that the Holy Spirit is the ultimate authority and that the Holy Spirit reveals Herself to us in various ways such as the Bible (the most often way in my opinion), the Church, our own experiences and reasoning. Plus I think we need to be careful when we call the Bible "God's Word." The Word of God, as revealed in Scripture is Jesus Christ (John 1) and not the Bible. We must respect the authority of Scripture without falling to the temptation of serving it, since we serve our Triune God

[Barbara Moulton]

1. Things not found in Scripture that we teach in the Church of the Nazarene
Trinity
2. Things found in Scripture not practiced by the Church of the Nazarene
Slavery
Consuption of Alcohol


All of these things are found in the New Testament yet the Church of the Nazarene speaks against them. Remember that Scripture is cannot be divorced from the scandal of particularity in that the Scriptures were written in a particular time, to a particular people in a particular place. I believe that the Holy Spirit is the ultimate authority and that the Holy Spirit reveals Herself to us in various ways such as the Bible (the most often way in my opinion), the Church, our own experiences and reasoning. Plus I think we need to be careful when we call the Bible "God's Word." The Word of God, as revealed in Scripture is Jesus Christ (John 1) and not the Bible. We must respect the authority of Scripture without falling to the temptation of serving it, since we serve our Triune God


You refer to the Holy Spirit in the feminine? That intrigues me. Why?

[Roland Hearn]

I'm sorry Dale it is a bad poll, it so utterly does not take into consideration the Wesleyan perspective of revelation. This is a great poll for a Southern Baptist but you didn't include an option for those of us that belong to the Church of the Nazarene.

You have set us up for failure. How can a person possible say scripture over the church as the absolute authority without leaving themselves open to the challenge of subjectivism and isolation? How can a person possibly answer that the church is without being accused of being anti scripture and a papist? How can you possibly answer the third and fourth option without being accused of egocentricity? Wesley would say true revelation and hence authority comes from effectively blending of scripture, tradition, reason and experience. So put that option in and I will be able to answer the poll.

[Steve Walsh]

Wesley would say true revelation and hence authority comes from effectively blending of scripture, tradition, reason and experience. So put that option in and I will be able to answer the poll.

I agree with Roland's thoughts and with his hesitation to commit because of the artificial nature of the question (BTW I chose Scripture).

Actually, Wesley insisted on the primacy of Scripture with the other three legs of the "quadrilateral" chair (reason, tradition and experience) as confirming of scripture. See Donald Thorsen's Wesleyan Quadrilateral: Scripture, Tradition, Reason and Experience As a Model of Evangelical Theology (1990) [http://www.amazon.com/Wesleyan-Quadrilateral-Scripture-Experience-Evangelical/dp/0975543539/ref=pd_sim_b_title_6],
and Wesley and the Quadrilateral: Renewing the Conversation (1997)(edited by Stephen Gunter) [http://www.amazon.com/Wesley-Quadrilateral-Conversation-Scott-Jones/dp/0687060559/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1198460448&sr=1-2] For those who don't have their own copies, you can use the Look inside feature on amazon to read these books!

Note the cover of Thorsen's book which graphically illustrates the relationship between the four sources of authority for authentic Wesleyans.

The wikipedia article helps clarify the argument.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wesleyan_Quadrilateral]:
"[Albert] Outler theorized that Wesley used four different sources in coming to theological conclusions. The four sources are:
Scripture - the Holy Bible (Old and New Testaments)
Tradition - the two millennia history of the Christian Church
Reason - rational thinking and sensible interpretation
Experience - a Christian's personal and communal journey in Christ

In practice, at least one of the Wesleyan denominations, The United Methodist Church, asserts that “Wesley believed that the living core of the Christian faith was revealed in Scripture, illumined by tradition, vivified in personal experience, and confirmed by reason. Scripture [however] is primary, revealing the Word of God ‘so far as it is necessary for our salvation.’” (The Book of Discipline of the United Methodist Church-2004, p. 77).
...
It must be understood, however, that for Wesley, Tradition, Reason, and Experience do not form additional "sources" for theological truth, for he believed that the Bible was the sole source of truth about God, but rather these form a matrix for interpreting the Bible. ...

Each of the "legs" of the Wesleyan Quadrilateral must be taken in balance, and none of the other three apart from scripture should be viewed as being of equal value or authority with scripture. None of these should be taken in isolation without the balancing effect of the others, and always Scripture should have the central place of authority."

The difficulty is (of course) that scripture is not propositional truth. It was written in context and needs to be both decontextualised and re-contextualised. That's where tradition, reason and experience helps better understand God's revelation in the Bible. BTW, lest it be forgotten in our individualistic age, by experience Wesley meant the collective experience of the church (perhaps along the lines of the collective Christian conscience of the Nazarene Manual).

We often criticise the Roman Catholic Church for holding Scripture and Tradition as co-authoritative, but in reality it was the Church that determined which books were included in the Bible (and thus authoritative). They believe that the Holy Spirit who guided the authors of the Bible, and who guided the church in deciding the canon, is active today and helps the church in its interpretation. Also, we hold to the wisdom of at least the first four ecumenical councils (and probably even the next three as well). Wesley was a great respecter of the early church and regularly "plundered" their teachings.

Where reason, tradition and the experience of the christian community coalesce around an interpretation of scripture, we can be more certain that our understanding of God's revelation in the scriptures is correct. The juxtaposition of various models (not just western church) but also the emerging church (in the postmodern context and globally) should help us better approximate God's revelation.

[Steven Martinez]

You refer to the Holy Spirit in the feminine? That intrigues me. Why?

Old habbits die hard I guess. In Greek the word pneuma is a Neuter Noun that is neither male nor female. I hate using "It" to describe the person of the Holy Spirit and since we have a Father and a Son, I like to add the femine touch. I think God is above gender but we can add some femine aspects since Jesus did when He describes God as a widow in Luke 15. Just something I picked up along the way.

[Greg Farra]

Old habbits die hard I guess. In Greek the word pneuma is a Neuter Noun that is neither male nor female. I hate using "It" to describe the person of the Holy Spirit and since we have a Father and a Son, I like to add the femine touch. I think God is above gender but we can add some femine aspects since Jesus did when He describes God as a widow in Luke 15. Just something I picked up along the way.

But since the Holy Spirit is not referred to as she, but he, should we go beyond what is written? You may not have a feminest agenda, but there are many who do. Such as this :herchurch.org

I believe we should leave the assignment of gender descriptions of God to the scripture, rather than ourselves.

[Steven Martinez]

But since the Holy Spirit is not referred to as she, but he, should we go beyond what is written? You may not have a feminest agenda, but there are many who do. Such as this :herchurch.org

I believe we should leave the assignment of gender descriptions of God to the scripture, rather than ourselves.

In Greek the pronoun is not male or female it is nueter. In English all we have for a Nueter posessive Pronoun is "its" or "itself." Since the Holy Spirit is a person and not an "it" we would have to choose a masculine or femine pronoun. Since it is a matter of choice I choose female. Of course if you go Hebrew then the word Ruach which is one of words used for breath or Spirit is femine so using a femine pronoun would be appropriate for gender description from the Scripture.

[Dale Cozby]

I'm sorry Dale it is a bad poll, it so utterly does not take into consideration the Wesleyan perspective of revelation. This is a great poll for a Southern Baptist but you didn't include an option for those of us that belong to the Church of the Nazarene.

You have set us up for failure. How can a person possible say scripture over the church as the absolute authority without leaving themselves open to the challenge of subjectivism and isolation? How can a person possibly answer that the church is without being accused of being anti scripture and a papist? How can you possibly answer the third and fourth option without being accused of egocentricity? Wesley would say true revelation and hence authority comes from effectively blending of scripture, tradition, reason and experience. So put that option in and I will be able to answer the poll.


Thank you Roland, You have encapsulated my thoughts well.
The whole purpose of this thread was to do just that.

The mix and match = "reason"
God speaking directly = "experience"
church =" Tradition"

I wanted to pose it in a way to make us think about what we truly rely on the most when we must call on discernment to know the correct path to walk and how we use that against others or scoff at others in a negative way when someone departs from us on thier "formula for divine guidance".

No matter which answer you give to this question you make yourself a target.

Judging from the poll, even for all the discussion on Naznet, we still hold scripture as revealed to us by God as the ultimate source.

Not many of us are comfortable saying "God told me" as our direct source of guidance.

Some do accept the church and all her criticisms of scripture as helpful in understanding God's path for them, but ulimately, it appears no one is willing or brave enough to say they trust the church above directly reading and personally interpeting the scriptures for themselves.

Finally we do mix and match, but no one wants to make it sound like they sit in judgement picking and choosing scriptures or the church..... so we just do it quietly at home and think over and accept which ever teaching is reasonable and easy to swallow , or get our mind around.

I enjoy reading your thoughts though.

BTW I deliberately left out the choices:
"Other"
and
"All" or "none of the above"

Trying to force the contemplatives into making a clear choice.:basic05

PS. Roland, I am a bit hurt that you think it utterly failed in taking the Wesleyan position into account.... I had the Wesleyan postion in my mind when I made it.

[Bruce Carriker]

But Hans, if you can't use that statement out of its original context then are you starting to interpret scripture literally?:eek: That it can only apply to money since that is how it was used by Jesus? So it could not be applied to any other form of idolatry as well?

Or is it that you don't like it being applied to the church and scripture?

There is a middle ground between fundamentalist literalism and intentionally taking texts out of there context to serve whatever purpose you wish. One of the things the profs tried to teach us in homiletics is that you can't begin to know what the text says in today's context if you don't first know what it said originally.

I think there is also a difference between understanding the text in it's original context and APPLYING that understanding in a contemporary context; as opposed to RE-INTERPRETING Scripture to say something it never said to begin with.

[Bruce Carriker]

I disagree with Stew on his choice of pronouns, but I don't disagree with his reasoning. I use the masculine when I preach for the simple reason that is quite obvious here in this thread - if you use the feminine, lots of people will hear nothing else you've said. All they do is talk about the preacher referring to the Holy Spirit as "She".

As Stew has pointed out, and I'm sure we all agree, God transcends gender. But if our English language choices are he, she, or it, surely we avoid "It", don't we?

[Bruce Carriker]

I'm with Roland and the others. I don't think there is an "absolute", and unless I missed something in Bible college and seminary, we don't believe that as Wesleyans, either. Whatever happened to the combination of reason, experience, Scripture, and tradition? That's what we learned. Has that been changed?

There is certainly a balancing act that must be done here. We have all seen churches where one or the other bases has risen to prominence, and then all sorts of wierd things happen. We have the extreme charismatic position, where everything is about experience. We have seen times in history, especially in Catholicism, where tradition was everything. Particularly in the modern, Enlightenment era, we saw reason overwhelm everything else, the result being heresies like Jefferson's "Bible", where all references to Jesus' divinity and miracles were edited out. And most of us are familiar with the fundamentalist literalism that leads so easily to legalism. When any area becomes "ABSOLUTE", heresy will eventually follow, usually sooner than later.

I will allow that I could be mistaken, but I believe that it's all those things, combined with the leading of the Holy Spirit, that reveal God to us today.

[Dale Cozby]

There is a middle ground between fundamentalist literalism and intentionally taking texts out of there context to serve whatever purpose you wish. One of the things the profs tried to teach us in homiletics is that you can't begin to know what the text says in today's context if you don't first know what it said originally.

I think there is also a difference between understanding the text in it's original context and APPLYING that understanding in a contemporary context; as opposed to RE-INTERPRETING Scripture to say something it never said to begin with. I think..."No man can serve two masters" is pretty clear and doesn't need too much contextualization to understand.

So what does that mean to you? To me it means no one can have two ultimate authorities over him. There is always a chain of command, a set of priorities, etc...with someone or something at the top, whether we want it to be that way or not. I think that is the gest of the meaning both then and now.
Please show me how it is misused from that context here.

[Bruce Carriker]

Dale,

I don't believe that "no man can have two masters" means that we elevate one of the avenues of God's revelation of himself to us over the others. As others have pointed out, the different means of revelation work together to show us God.

"No man can serve two masters" was not about serving the Scriptures or serving tradition. It was about serving God or serving the world.

Although we may...and do...err from time to time in our reasoning, in applying our experiences, in understanding Scripture, and in our treatment of tradition, ULTIMATELY it is God leading us through the Holy Spirit that shows us truth...not the artificial choices you placed before us. And even when we err, if we are faithfully seeking, I believe God corrects us.

[Dennis Bratcher]

I believe we should leave the assignment of gender descriptions of God to the scripture, rather than ourselves.

This needs some clarification.

I often hear arguments against what some perceive to be feminism by appealing to biblical uses of masculine pronouns (the Southern Baptist affiliated Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, for example). But such arguments are misleading since they do not take seriously the difference between biological gender, which is how we tend to think and speak in English, and grammatical gender, which is how most other languages function.

Many modern languages have grammatical gender as part of the structure of the language. That means that all nouns (and pronouns used for them) in those languages must be either masculine or feminine, or in some languages neuter usually for specialized cases. However, this does not relate directly to biological gender but is a grammatical and syntactical feature of the language, a product of how the language developed within history and culture.

In all three biblical languages (Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek), nouns have grammatical gender that is not always directly related to biological gender. In the Hebrew and Aramaic of the Old Testament, nouns are either masculine or feminine, while Greek also has a neuter gender (used for abstractions, collectives, etc.). Unlike English, the biblical languages also require that verbs have gender since they must match the nouns or pronouns that serve as subjects.

So, for example, a few words in Hebrew like “horse” or “son” can be either masculine or feminine depending on affixes (in Hebrew, the basic word is masculine and is modified to show feminine: sus=horse; susah=female horse or mare). In other words, the grammatical gender can relate to biological gender. But this is not always the case, since the default grammatical gender is masculine and is used for mixed groups or where it is unimportant or unnecessary to specify biological gender in a passage. So for example, one cannot deduce that only men are present or being addressed because nouns, pronouns, and verbs are all masculine.

Other nouns, like the words “people” (masculine) or “land” (feminine) are always grammatically gendered in a single gender. These represent the majority of nouns in Hebrew (Greek works differently, but in analogous ways). In these cases, the grammatical gender is totally unrelated to biological gender (in some languages, “land” is masculine).

All this simply means that there is no assignment of gender by God in Scripture; there are only the specific features of biblical languages used by people who lived in the cultures in which those languages were the medium of communication. And all three of those languages function differently than English, which does not use grammatical gender at all except in poetry or metaphor (for example, referring to ships as “she”). And yet those features must be translated into English and into different grammatical structures. It is that difference that creates problems for us. That calls us to be diligently aware of the differences and the implications they might have on how we read and understand Scripture.

Bottom line: we cannot make general arguments one way or the other about biological gender from the way gendered nouns or pronouns are used in Scripture, since we are dealing with both cultural, linguistic, and translation issues in such cases.

Grace and Peace,

Dennis Bratcher

[Dennis Bratcher]

I think..."No man can serve two masters" is pretty clear and doesn't need too much contextualization to understand.

So what does that mean to you? To me it means no one can have two ultimate authorities over him. There is always a chain of command, a set of priorities, etc...with someone or something at the top, whether we want it to be that way or not. I think that is the gest of the meaning both then and now.
Please show me how it is misused from that context here.

All Scripture needs contextualization. To assume that it does not is to cut the Bible loose form its grounding in human history and make it abstract, like ancient myths. From Genesis 1, Scripture works very hard to avoid doing that very thing. The result is a witness to God incarnated within human language, culture, and history, with all the particularity and contextualization that implies. That means that a verse cannot be lifted out and reapplied without understanding that context on some level, especially the literary context in which that verse occurs.

The misuse is in the change of the application from the contrast between "God" and “wealth,” that is, between two competing loyalties to which one would commit one’s life, to a contrast between a particular theological conception of authority and a supposedly contrasting way of conceptualizing authority (presented here in a false dichotomy). It is not about setting “priorities” of authority, but about commitment to God (6:21, 6:33: “. . . strive first for the kingdom of God and his righteousness. . .”).

The only “ultimate authority” that I have heard most people talk about here is God, which fits with this passage. To try to force the passage to be about competing truth claims related to religious authority as processed through certain theological assumptions and filters (the agenda revealed in the use of “absolute”) is a misuse of the text.

Grace and Peace,

Dennis Bratcher

[Greg Farra]

This needs some clarification.

I often hear arguments against what some perceive to be feminism by appealing to biblical uses of masculine pronouns (the Southern Baptist affiliated Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, for example). But such arguments are misleading since they do not take seriously the difference between biological gender, which is how we tend to think and speak in English, and grammatical gender, which is how most other languages function.

Many modern languages have grammatical gender as part of the structure of the language. That means that all nouns (and pronouns used for them) in those languages must be either masculine or feminine, or in some languages neuter usually for specialized cases. However, this does not relate directly to biological gender but is a grammatical and syntactical feature of the language, a product of how the language developed within history and culture.

In all three biblical languages (Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek), nouns have grammatical gender that is not always directly related to biological gender. In the Hebrew and Aramaic of the Old Testament, nouns are either masculine or feminine, while Greek also has a neuter gender (used for abstractions, collectives, etc.). Unlike English, the biblical languages also require that verbs have gender since they must match the nouns or pronouns that serve as subjects.

So, for example, a few words in Hebrew like “horse” or “son” can be either masculine or feminine depending on affixes (in Hebrew, the basic word is masculine and is modified to show feminine: sus=horse; susah=female horse or mare). In other words, the grammatical gender can relate to biological gender. But this is not always the case, since the default grammatical gender is masculine and is used for mixed groups or where it is unimportant or unnecessary to specify biological gender in a passage. So for example, one cannot deduce that only men are present or being addressed because nouns, pronouns, and verbs are all masculine.

Other nouns, like the words “people” (masculine) or “land” (feminine) are always grammatically gendered in a single gender. These represent the majority of nouns in Hebrew (Greek works differently, but in analogous ways). In these cases, the grammatical gender is totally unrelated to biological gender (in some languages, “land” is masculine).

All this simply means that there is no assignment of gender by God in Scripture; there are only the specific features of biblical languages used by people who lived in the cultures in which those languages were the medium of communication. And all three of those languages function differently than English, which does not use grammatical gender at all except in poetry or metaphor (for example, referring to ships as “she”). And yet those features must be translated into English and into different grammatical structures. It is that difference that creates problems for us. That calls us to be diligently aware of the differences and the implications they might have on how we read and understand Scripture.

Bottom line: we cannot make general arguments one way or the other about biological gender from the way gendered nouns or pronouns are used in Scripture, since we are dealing with both cultural, linguistic, and translation issues in such cases.

Grace and Peace,

Dennis Bratcher


I am quite aware that God has no gender, but my point is that God has generally been referred to in the mausculine. If anyone wants to see where the feminization of God leads, please use the link in my original post.

[Roland Hearn]

PS. Roland, I am a bit hurt that you think it utterly failed in taking the Wesleyan position into account.... I had the Wesleyan postion in my mind when I made it.

I'm sorry Dale, I felt set up and I hate that feeling. I probably shouldn't have been so harsh in my accusation. I sure wish you could have said something like, leaving our Wesleyan perspective aside which way do you tend toward... or something like that.
Roland

[Dennis Bratcher]

I am quite aware that God has no gender, but my point is that God has generally been referred to in the mausculine. If anyone wants to see where the feminization of God leads, please use the link in my original post.

I think you missed the point. I did not suggest that God has no gender. That was not the issue. I pointed out that there are linguistic reasons why masculine nouns and pronouns (and adjectives) are used in Scripture that have nothing to do with biological gender, and therefore nothing to do with any "feminization of God" if something else is used in a different language and context.

In any case, if God has no gender, what difference would it make what gender pronoun is used to describe him? Perfect example. That masculine pronoun “him” (or “her”) is necessary in English, not because we are talking in terms of biological gender, but because we must use gendered pronouns when referring to persons. In English, neuters are only used in English for inanimate objects. So that was not a theological statement one way or the other. That was my point. The issue is much more pronounced in biblical languages because all nouns have gender, not just pronouns.

In all four languages, it just happens that masculine is the default grammatical or syntactical gender for all kinds of cultural and historical reasons. We are just now realizing the problem with that when we read Scripture and assume that it is something different than grammar and culture.

As far as the link, what in the world does any radical group (and it is a radical group) on either side have to do with proper interpretation of Scripture? Have you seen any of the masculinist theology on the web? Most of that, not just from fringe groups but from major denominations, would make that site sound tame. Extremes on either side provide no evidence for anything other than the existence of extremes.

Grace and Peace,

Dennis Bratcher

[John Kennedy]

This 'de facto Congregationalist' thinks the 'Wesleyan quad' should have been an option. It's certainly the one I would have chosen. IMO the 'sola scriptura' aldherents rely far more on reason, tradition, and experience than they care to admit. Their refusal to acknowledge this is one of the reasons I can only give their views limited credibility.

[Greg Farra]

Dennis,

I think I did get your point. I realize that a lot goes into interpretation, including language differences. What I'm concerned about is creating God into an image we're comfortable with, rather than one that has stood the test of time.Can you tell me if calling the Holy Spirit 'her' is something that the church has done on a consistant basis throughout the ages?

The link I gave you was not some fringe group. That is a church in good standing with the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, the denomination where I used to be a part. While some Nazarene pastor calling the Holy Spirit 'she' may be totally innocent, I''ve seen where it can lead.

And on a light note, well, one person of the Godhead is malein the flesh! :)

Have a great Christmas,
Greg