Albannach writes, “…look at this accusation of blasphemy. Of course the accusation is justified and within the narrow bounds of this site’s ‘Rules of Engagement’ it is understandable.”

Hopefully, anyone who links to my reply to his assertions that God’s crime is our creation and that God ‘created’ a Son to offer up to pay the price for God’s crime of mass murder will read the entire conversation spread over several posts on an Atonement thread.

I believe I gave Albannach the benefit of the doubt on the blasphemy count, suggesting perhaps his rhetoric was a ploy (“a trick up his sleeve”) to enliven debate and dramatize his point. Now that I rethink his comment about God ‘creating’ a Son, I might rethink putting his name in my Heresy book. Just kidding right? I hoped challenging his rhetoric would give him opportunity to clarify his argument and evidence.

In this more recent post Albannach likens me to a cyber-Inquisitor and ignores a reasonable and courteous request (I thought) to explain his thinking and offer his thoughts on a portion of scripture defending penal substitution and my “take” on that snippet of scripture (Colossians 2:10-14). It was on, after all, an Atonement thread. I realize everyone has issues with time and can’t be on all threads at all times, but he did respond once, though not as effectively or comprehensively as I had hoped he might, particularly with respect to St. Paul’s statements in Colossians.

( On a personal and emotional level I ‘feel’ a bit like the minority of one, an orthodox anglican with an apparently “stratospheric” view of scriptures and the Church and accused of reviving the rack and thumb screws. Perhaps I should lament the narrow bounds of the “Rules of Engagement”.)

As I now understand Albannach’s opinion:

1. Christianity went astray early on in a proto-church muddle.
2. Christianity lacks standing and respect in the community because of an over reliance on its theology which is nothing more than
a. inherited opinion
b. based on always debatable interpretations
c. of a historically challengable written source.

This rather sweeping assesment is not without merit on its face. Is it the final word on these matters? I have a different assesment.

Christianity has gone astray rather recently, in the last century or so, on two fronts. On one hand, the concept of a salvation and a Christian faith based on the individual and his or her personal feelings, opinions and experiences has replaced the concept of a salvation and Christian faith walked out in a corporate experience within the Church. On the second front there has been a consistent devaluation of the reliability and authenticity of the scriptures, particularly with respect to the new testament. Part of this has been aimed at St. Paul, a most likely target because of his tremendous contributions to a cohesive theology and his controversial positions on many subjects.

I am unclear about inherited opinion theology. I believe there have been instances of persons untutored in Christianity and non-Christians alike who have read the scriptures and have become Christians adopting something very like orthodox theology, though in most cases they would not have been able to put a scholarly name to their particular beliefs (penal substitution and so forth). It seems to me the doctrines, the theology, are contained within the sriptures and are there for the taking. These cases seem more like Holy Spirit illumination rather than beliefs based on inherited opinion.

I am not sure how constantly debatable all things really are. Certainly there are some things which are fixed and unchangeable. St. Paul reminds the church in Corinth what he had taught them perhaps as much as a decade earlier. Christ died for our sins according to scripture, he was buried and rose again the third day according to scripture and that he was seen on numerous occasions, to numerous people, many of whom were alive. Paul says this is the gospel he preached to them, it’s what they believed and it’s what would save them if they continued steadfast. This is a clear, concise gospel with an appeal to the old testament and to tangible evidence of people still walking around who could be asked if they did or did not see the resurrected Jesus.

Respecting the historically challenged written record, I believe there are a number of conservative, orthodox scholars who regard the written record as quite reliable and have published their findings and opinions.

I am sceptical of a theology that is based in our opinions alone, freed from the scriptures and the consensus of a long line of theologians back to the apostles and prophets. Yet, I believe this is what Albannach is attempting. He is profound at times and many of his observations are perceptive and challenging. For all that, his opinions seem rooted in an inflexible rejection of scripture as a foundation or starting point for discussion.

Albannach proposes an answer to why the church lacks standing and respect in the community at large. I have an opinion as well and I believe scripture also tells us why.

I believe the scriptures offer an assement of mankind and of individuals which is not congenial to the community’s current sensibilities. If the Church maintains its fidelity to the scriptures it will stand in opposition to much of the community’s morals, ethics and spirituality which are, if not inimical to Christianity, at best, indifferent to it. In a misguided attempt to be “seeker” friendly much of the Church has abandoned difficult teachings unpalatable to the community. Because much of the Church has attempted to accomodate the community’s sensibilities, it now finds itself salt without savor having thrown overboard its rich deposit of orthodox teaching, preaching and holy living.

Jesus said, “These things I command you, that ye love one another.

If the world hate you, ye know it hated me before it hated you. If ye were of the world, the world would love his own; but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.

Remember the word that I said unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you; if they have kept my saying, they will keep yours also.

But all these things will they do unto you for my name’s sake, because they know not him that sent me. If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin; but now they have no cloak for their sin.

He that hateth me hateth my Father also. If I had not done among them the works which none other man did, they had not had sin: but now have they both seen and hated me and my father.

But this cometh to pass, that the word might be fulfilled that is written in their law, They hated me without a cause.”
 John:17-25

Alario