David W.

I agree with you it is problematic, sometimes it seems like you are damned if you do and damned if you dont. My thought on that issue are, i recall many years ago, when i was a child a person saying to me, about someone who had hurt me very badly, i mean seriously hurt me, that they thought i would want to dance on their grave. I thought about it , it would seem like a natural response to the cruel acts i had endured, but i was already by this time a christian, my reply was no, i just wanted them to acknowledge what they had done, i actually wanted to love them as jesus loved me, but i knew i could not, because they would not accept it. So for years i struggled with the concept of if i did not forgive i could not love and that meant i did not love jesus. Then someone (theres always a someone) helped me by saying first and foremost the person did not have to accept my forgiveness, it was a state of my heart, that i knew in my heart that i had forgiven, and i can say in that instance it worked, i felt at peace. Which sort of questions the concept that forgiveness needs to be received in order to be given, also i was not really sure as to whether you needed to love someone in order to forgive them. I did not love this person but i did not hate them either, it was all a bit non plus really. I think it is possible to love Jesus and not your neighbour, there is a difference between being actively hostile towards someone and simply not loving them. Forgiveness does not have to mean love, i dont think, it just has to mean acceptance. Loving Jesus is a right pain sometimes, its such a tough call. But i could not live without Jesus as a reference point, it is hard enough with it cant imagine life without it. Jesus probably thinks the same, he is probably saying shes a right pain that Angela, but i created her and i knew her before she was born i am part of her. See we were taught when we take communion, to lay our cards on the table in repentance, and forgiveness is part of that, we are taught that if we hurt our neighbour we also hurt jesus, because they are also his creation. Then we have the concept of loving the person  sinner not the sin, alongside thou shalt not judge. Complicated it sure is, these are not academic issues they are matters of relationship, with Christ and others.

Angela

WATERANGEL,

I did not say you personally didn’t love Jesus or the Bible, I was contesting that what you said was problematic.

I agree that obedience can only come with clear understanding and indeed in the example you gave, scripture supports both women preaching and not preaching. But what I meant was one might say they love Jesus and then one discovers they hate their neighbour but claim that is ok as its their interpretation. The western world has increasing numbers of people claiming they love God but not as Christ described loving Him entailed.

Well my thought on that are, I love Jesus and the bible, but i am human and not divine. God uses people we do not expect to teach doesn't he, we learn from the people and places we least expect to learn from. Obedience, can only come with clear understanding. Some men say women should not preach, some say they should, they are all using the same bible and they are all inspired by God to say what they say. You say potato i say patarto. If a truck is coming and a woman says dont cross the road or you'll get ,squashed,do you pray and ask god first ?do you not cross because a woman instructed you,? or do you stay where you are? and say thankyou lord for sending that lady to save me?

Angela

WATERANGEL,

Two comments are problematic. Whilst I understand the gospel isn’t the law but the spirit…  

“If your heart is with Christ even if you interpret the gospel literally wrong some times, Jesus knows. Jesus commanded us to build one another up, we can only do that if we share the common denominator of Jesus, we can only do that if we share Jesus, the inticacies of life and sin it has to be said , is what prevents most of us doing that sometimes, we bring our own understanding of the gospel and try and mould others into opur understanding rather than letting Jesus be the shaper. Many well meaning theologians do this, they so deperately want the "real" understanding of the gospel, that they overlook the individuality of it in a corporate setting.”

Whilst Jesus knows the heart, He and His NT witness also repeated that to love Him is to obey what He teaches, and those who do not obey what He teaches do not love Him. Furthermore He said His words are spirit and life.  So “interpreting the gospel literally wrong at times”. which is your words and not His, would according to His words be not loving Him.

I would be interested in your thoughts on that

Bowman

I entirely agree with you? Jesus is the standard, and Jesus is the rule. So in order to be "Christlike" that does of course mean we need to be the "embodiment of Christ" ie we need to walk with Jesus in every aspect of our lives, Whilst walking with Jesus in our everyday lives, we have the challenge of seeing people the way Jesus would see them. Jesus saw the whole person . He saw them inside out, the true motivation of a person would always become apparent under certain circumstances.

If your heart is with Christ even if you interpret the gospel literally wrong some times, Jesus knows. Jesus commanded us to build one another up, we can only do that if we share the common denominator of Jesus, we can only do that if we share Jesus, the inticacies of life and sin it has to be said , is what prevents most of us doing that sometimes, we bring our own understanding of the gospel and try and mould others into opur understanding rather than letting Jesus be the shaper. Many well meaning theologians do this, they so deperately want the "real" understanding of the gospel, that they overlook the individuality of it in a corporate setting.

If we look at Jesus closer what did he do? he set the scene of what life could be like? He gave people the instructions of how to achieve it, when his death came he said i will still be with you, and he was and is in spirit and the spirit is passed on from generation to generation, but unlike chinese whispers the message has stayed the same, though the interpretation has changed according to circumstance, Jesus had the same message for the woman at the well, as he did the Roman soldier, he had the same message for the isrealites, as he did the palastinians greeks cypriots egyptians and others, they all heard it differently but it was the same word. Yes Jesus is the rule and the standard, they are offered for receipt, the choice ever being individual and many individuals make one fellowship, worldwide known as the fellowship of believers..I hope you dont think i got it wrong, it means a lot to me being able to translate the gospel into a form which is accessible in the first instance the depth usually comes later, through sharing. Being Christlike probably means that some of the time we will be a little perplexed by the way he works, Jesus was a little confused as to why people did not accept him.

Angela 

Do we not have to say that Christ does command his followers as well as invite them to obey him?

Phil-- Yes, and I am sure that Ross Douthat would, in this context, agree with you and St John. What Douthat is trying to fend off is a bad habit of retrojecting medieval voluntarism and modern legal positivism back into such canonical texts as the one that you quote, so that divine commands appear to be merely capricious. Benedict XVI made a similar argument at Regensburg-- God does not become more divine when we push him away from us in a sheer, impenetrable voluntarism; rather, the truly divine God is the God who has revealed himself as logos and, as logos, has acted and continues to act lovingly on our behalf. Given that God is consistent, the language of command is reasonable.

Bowman

The quote you give has a lot of truth in it. But the greek word translated as ‘commandments’ in this passage from John’s gospel (my bold and highlight) is also so translated by Marshall. So do we not have to say that Christ does command his followers as well as invite them to obey him?

14:15

If ye love me, keep my commandments.

14:16

And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;

14:17

Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

14:18

I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.

14:19

Yet a little while, and the world seeth me no more; but ye see me: because I live, ye shall live also.

14:20

At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you.

14:21

He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.

Phil Almond

Virtue is not something that’s commanded by God, the way a magistrate (or a whimsical alien overlord) might issue a legal code, but something that’s inherent to the Christian conception of the divine nature. God does not establish morality; he embodies it. He does not set standards; he is the standard. And even when he issues principles or precepts through revelation (as in the Ten Commandments or the Sermon on the Mount) he isn’t legislating in the style of Hammurabi or Solon. Instead, he’s revealing something about his own nature and inviting us to conform ourselves to the standards that it sets.

Ross Douthat, "What Has Jerusalem To Do With Athens?," Evaluations, The New York Times, 22 May 2012.

Comments?

Yes i have thought about it, I have clarified definitions and understand being as diplomatic as i can that heresy has certain leanings usually because of the alliance associated with it. Jesus was accused of heresy, and economic decline has been blamed on heresy. As heresy is defined as going against the rules and regulations of the established rules (manmade rules) of the church(the closed wall church of material substance), we can be sure that the divide and rule comes into play, our dilemma then is have we heard clearly enough, to do what God has commanded us to do, taking away all status and gender issues "its me just me oh Lord" Do we know what God wants us to do? can we really be sure we have discerned Gods will. The answer is in Romans. "and the strong shall care for the weak" or "do not make your brother/sister/fellow Christian stumble."

In line with the title of the thread heresy would possibly be seen as the liberal side of Christianity in the old testament traditional view, but in the new testament heresy would be about Jesus and failing to "love as i have loved" or" failing to forgive" that is if we believe the church is their for the purpose of meeting in fellowship to worship Jesus. I guess that makes us all heretics, because we all question the rules of the church and dogmatic responses to humanity.

As i said previously it is not "the wisdom" of science or theology or sociology or even politics that is the problem but the implementation of the received wisdom. Its a bit like Chinese whispers it does not always end where it begins..

Angela

I remember a question on a Church History examination paper, many years ago. "'Heresy is almost always conservative.' Discuss"

Think about it.

How true for us all Bowman

Some people fail to see that Love comes in many guises, in the case of the scientist, it is the love of discovery of beginnings for the purpose, of healing and answers to the human race and evolution. Robert Winston is a well respected man, he faced his doubters and critical appraisers, but he is a good man who wanted to ease suffering for many, Many scientist are the same certainly the ones i know are. YET we always have to watch out for those with ill intent, and those who cause unnessesary suffering. Science with Jesus is a beautiful mix enhancing creation on every level, hopefully they hold on to that when the critics come their way.

Science on its own is not capable of Love it is inanimate and defies emotion, however, the results of the creation of science can make discoveries, which then as a result cause emotion Good and Bad. So i would never for instance worship science, but because of science i am able to love in the same way as i am able to worship in love through my belief in Jesus. Jesus taught us to Love and science has medically prolonged my life, which by now would have been extinguished a long time ago.

If i had been a jehover witness i would be dead because although God gave doctors and science to heal , i would not have had the blood i needed to live. In this instance we can see God and science working side by side.

But apart from all that what is the interpretation of the truth about Love??

Of cause this now leaves another question for me to ask, evangelicals obviously believe the word is true, but how many of them have had medical intervention? So they believe in a cwertain amount of science, so can they be traditional or would they be considered as liberal?

Angela

Lord, in my zeal for the love of truth, let me not forget the truth about love -- St. Thomas Aquinas