Thanks for Bosco Peters’ article. I’m currently reading Diarmaid MacCulloch’s ‘Lower than the angels’. Both are very helpful as I ponder my intercessions for the forthcoming ‘Bible Sunday’.
And his exposure of that nonsensical get-out beloved of a certain sort of Christian, ‘The Bible is infallible as originally given’ ‘ – which is about as useful hermeneutically as a chocolate fireguard – is most welcome!
I’m somewhat surprised to discover one line from my conversation with FrDavidH lifted out of context and used in Colin’s essay as a sort of symbol for all the things he hates about contemporary Anglicanism. Maybe I’m wrong, but I’d always assumed that if you were going to use a quote from someone like that, it was common courtesy to let them know, or even ask if they were okay with it. To clarify: my line about ‘bog-standard Anglicanism’ was simply meant to convey my opinion that using the Bible ‘as a basis for our beliefs’ was not particularly evangelical… Read more »
I tend to agree with what Colin writes in his article. But I also agree that using your quotation as a basis for his thoughts is somewhat puzzling. There is no connection between what he writes and what you said . The context is entirely different.
Not criticising anyone here, Tim, or Chris, but by pure coincidence I also used the phrase recently, in something I wrote about C S Lewis’ ‘Mere Christianity.’
In the field of engineering its not unknown for completely unconnected people – for example Hoysinger and Walschearts, to simultaneously come up with virtually the same devices – and the same must be true of phraseology!
John, if you will read Colin’s piece you will see that he is specifically quoting my use of the phrase in my conversation with FrDavidH. He says, ‘“Sounds like bog-standard Anglicanism to me” is a quote by Tim Chesterton on a recent Thinking Anglicans thread.’
I did indeed read the piece – and, as I said, have used the same expression myself. Maybe he was mistaken to refer to you by name; at least it proves that he read and remembered your comment.
Adrian Clarke
29 days ago
Which bible translation is inspired? The one that inspires you the most. It is the meal not the menu that counts.
Adrian, Bosco’s article isn’t about which translation is inspired. It’s about the differences in the biblical canon between the various branches of the Christian family.
And how completely arbitrary our biblical canon is. Why is the Didache not in it? Why are the epistles of Clement not included? Why are the revelations to Margaret Mary Alacoque not included? Is the book of Joshua really inspired scripture? Esther?
And of course, the approach you obviously favour is very similar to the Eastern Orthodox approach, which I believe sees the scriptures as a part of Holy Tradition. How the revelations to a 17th century French nun could be included in the foundational documents of a body that began in the first century AD is rather hard to fathom. That they can be added to the ever-growing body of Holy Tradition is easier to envision.
Morning, Tim. I regret to say I know almost nothing about the Eastern Orthodox branch of the faith (despite there being a church up the road here in Bournville), save that they use a different calendar to us, but accept they can see things differently to us; the faith has a very wide range of traditions, as you’d expect. As I understand it, the biblical canon is the faith’s essential foundation stone – and you’d expect new thoughts to develop in the intervening centuries that amplify or extend the canon. They were selected for various, very good reasons (particularly when… Read more »
Which, indeed, are many. I believe there are big differences between the way that Protestant Christians and Hebrew scholars order the books of the First Testament too, but both regard them with respect. To me, that’s the important issue.
Thanks for Bosco Peters’ article. I’m currently reading Diarmaid MacCulloch’s ‘Lower than the angels’. Both are very helpful as I ponder my intercessions for the forthcoming ‘Bible Sunday’.
And his exposure of that nonsensical get-out beloved of a certain sort of Christian, ‘The Bible is infallible as originally given’ ‘ – which is about as useful hermeneutically as a chocolate fireguard – is most welcome!
I’m somewhat surprised to discover one line from my conversation with FrDavidH lifted out of context and used in Colin’s essay as a sort of symbol for all the things he hates about contemporary Anglicanism. Maybe I’m wrong, but I’d always assumed that if you were going to use a quote from someone like that, it was common courtesy to let them know, or even ask if they were okay with it. To clarify: my line about ‘bog-standard Anglicanism’ was simply meant to convey my opinion that using the Bible ‘as a basis for our beliefs’ was not particularly evangelical… Read more »
I tend to agree with what Colin writes in his article. But I also agree that using your quotation as a basis for his thoughts is somewhat puzzling. There is no connection between what he writes and what you said . The context is entirely different.
Thank you, FrDavidH.
Not criticising anyone here, Tim, or Chris, but by pure coincidence I also used the phrase recently, in something I wrote about C S Lewis’ ‘Mere Christianity.’
In the field of engineering its not unknown for completely unconnected people – for example Hoysinger and Walschearts, to simultaneously come up with virtually the same devices – and the same must be true of phraseology!
John, if you will read Colin’s piece you will see that he is specifically quoting my use of the phrase in my conversation with FrDavidH. He says, ‘“Sounds like bog-standard Anglicanism to me” is a quote by Tim Chesterton on a recent Thinking Anglicans thread.’
I don’t think Unadulterated Love stretches to an apology.
I did indeed read the piece – and, as I said, have used the same expression myself. Maybe he was mistaken to refer to you by name; at least it proves that he read and remembered your comment.
Which bible translation is inspired? The one that inspires you the most. It is the meal not the menu that counts.
Adrian, Bosco’s article isn’t about which translation is inspired. It’s about the differences in the biblical canon between the various branches of the Christian family.
And how completely arbitrary our biblical canon is. Why is the Didache not in it? Why are the epistles of Clement not included? Why are the revelations to Margaret Mary Alacoque not included? Is the book of Joshua really inspired scripture? Esther?
I don’t think it’s ‘completely arbitrary’.
And of course, the approach you obviously favour is very similar to the Eastern Orthodox approach, which I believe sees the scriptures as a part of Holy Tradition. How the revelations to a 17th century French nun could be included in the foundational documents of a body that began in the first century AD is rather hard to fathom. That they can be added to the ever-growing body of Holy Tradition is easier to envision.
Morning, Tim. I regret to say I know almost nothing about the Eastern Orthodox branch of the faith (despite there being a church up the road here in Bournville), save that they use a different calendar to us, but accept they can see things differently to us; the faith has a very wide range of traditions, as you’d expect. As I understand it, the biblical canon is the faith’s essential foundation stone – and you’d expect new thoughts to develop in the intervening centuries that amplify or extend the canon. They were selected for various, very good reasons (particularly when… Read more »
Which, indeed, are many. I believe there are big differences between the way that Protestant Christians and Hebrew scholars order the books of the First Testament too, but both regard them with respect. To me, that’s the important issue.
Bosco gives a summary of the differences in his excellent article.