tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4332139268702707957.post7345932292483747319..comments2023-08-10T19:27:13.498+12:00Comments on Hermeneutics and Human Dignity: 1 Corinthians 6: the most important passage? (Pt 2)Peter Carrellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4332139268702707957.post-61834199154573907722010-06-29T19:34:58.439+12:002010-06-29T19:34:58.439+12:00Hi Anonymous,
I would be interested in having othe...Hi Anonymous,<br />I would be interested in having other evangelicals respond to your point here.<br /><br />It would be worth asking of the text here whether Paul had moichos=remarriage after divorce in view here.Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4332139268702707957.post-63801428221857748892010-06-29T19:22:08.881+12:002010-06-29T19:22:08.881+12:00If, as you say, you regard these verses as serious...If, as you say, you regard these verses as serious – “about salvation itself, and the possibility that making the wrong ethical choice can lead to loss of salvation”, why does evangelical discussion focus on the word in the text that, under God’s inspiration, is unclear? Why is the focus not, for example on moichois (moichos), where the translation of “adultery” is, under God’s inspiration, clear? Mt 5:32: “But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.” cf Mt 19:9 Mk 10:11-12 Lk 16:18 It seems to me that the evangelical “concern” for the salvation of homosexuals is mendacious when there is no similar concern for the clearer danger to the salvation of remarried heterosexuals and the ministers who take these weddings.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4332139268702707957.post-63015260808910587322010-06-24T19:38:54.861+12:002010-06-24T19:38:54.861+12:00“I suggest we take care not to get too anxious ove...“I suggest we take care not to get too anxious over the meaning of the Greek words used, malakoi and arsenokoites, as though if we can prove they mean X and Y but not Z then Z is 'in the clear'.” This is a very important and helpful insight.<br /><br />Unfortunately you do not let this translate into the start of your helpful post. <br /><br />Instead, you use a translation that is most probably false. You are right, we don’t know what arsenokoites means. It is highly unlikely to mean the translation you use. No English translation prior to 1946 used homosexual here. When early Greek speaking Christian preachers condemned homosexuality, they did not use arsenokoites. John Chrysostom preached in Greek against homosexuality, but he never used arsenokoites for homosexuals, and when he preached on 1 Corinthians 6:9 he did not mention homosexuals! <br /><br />So –we come to the end of your list of passages, and not a single one is clear about condemning committed same sex couples. You are perfectly correct to now attempt to turn that around and seek biblical passages supporting committed same sex couples. Sounds like time to make applications to St John’s for funding for another series of Huis. Maybe including on a Pacific island this time.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4332139268702707957.post-46586055291204351062010-06-24T18:12:29.094+12:002010-06-24T18:12:29.094+12:00Hi Michael,
A churchwide committee needs to send o...Hi Michael,<br />A churchwide committee needs to send out a range of resources in a situation such as this. All will not be agreeable to all, and some may not be agreeable to the resourcer!<br /><br />Yes, you are right re a careful building upwards from creation.<br /><br />The citation you give demonstrates a general problem I think with some approaches to trying to offer a sound theological argument in favour of change: the argumentation is of insufficient quality to be persuasive :)Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4332139268702707957.post-76655399450916497912010-06-24T16:50:35.090+12:002010-06-24T16:50:35.090+12:00HI peter... As soemone who is attending the Hi nex...HI peter... As soemone who is attending the Hi next week i have been reading with interest your posts and the ongoing discussion around them.. I have a question though, surely the theological principles arounf interpretation must start with an understanding of humanity as God's creation. i noted one of the article that was suggested via the email was http://www.anglican.ca/primate/ptc/galilee/3-deller.htm<br />which i believe you suggested (on behalf of the committee having spent the best part of four hours reading it I was not inmpressed. His reading of scripture discounts 1000 years of church and jewish history.<br />i though this paragraph summed up everything that is wrong with it...<br />"Understanding the institution of marriage in the Old Testament as a fundamental manifestation of the fallen state of humanity, captive to patriarchy and the embodiment of its worst abuses and manifestations, captivated by the power and seductive force of religion, and subject to historical and social evolution in form and norms, yet also occasionally the locus of the mystery of the workings of God’s grace and salvation..."<br />Surely if there is to be any conversation base principles need to be considered, and the scriptures surrounding creation and fall have to be looked at before we can even claim to make sense of the other texts.<br />The article linked does not do it justice and dare i say it is full of holes, prejudice, and discounst not only Scripture, but tradition, and reason...<br />jsut wondered what your thoughts were on this?Michhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13187983293788772779noreply@blogger.com