To all posters.

We have gone a long way off course from the original article's content by Peter Sellick. I've been part of the going off course.

Why don't we debate/discuss the last paragraph of Sellick's article?

<<Forster worries that since the resurrection is the cornerstone of Christian belief, (I agree) then if it was found not to have happened then the Church will fall. The irony here is that the Church has already fallen. All Nicene denominations that I know of have a critical shortage of priests/ministers who serve smaller and smaller congregations. The Church is spurned by educated men and women because it is presented by Evangelicals as a collection of beliefs that, ironically, do not connect with our experience of the world. These beliefs trail questions behind them too numerous to count. This means that the Church loses its authority because it is plainly irrational. Modern epistemology, applied to biblical texts, produces nonsense and trails unsolvable questions in its wake. The damage to the Church is inestimable.>>

The context of that paragraph outlines a position that belief in the church and church teachings are irrational. That such beliefs do not connect with our experiences and senses. Based on this the argument is that the church has fallen already, not that it will fall if the reserection of Jesus is proven wrong.

However, I would give a counter argument to this. The observation that Christianity hasn't fallen should be enough to reconsider the previous assessment. Perhaps there is more rationality to the teachings, or there is more confirmed through experiences then the assessment concludes saying that it is irrational and does not line up with experiences. Perhaps there is another factor to consider? Either way the conclusion points to the church to have already fallen. But if Christianity and the church haven't fallen, then that shows that the conclusion made a mistake somewhere in it's reasoning.

If looking at the world as "factual" is the downfall of the church, and the outlook of facts spread since the 18th century; then why does Christianity still have enough believers in it to be one of the top religions.

There's something missing in the logic, because the conclusion doesn't fit the observation we have in the world today. The church hasn't fallen. For better or worse (depending on one's views) Christianity and it denominations, still makes it's mark on the world around us,

NNS,

I didn't follow where you were heading in your last reply. Sells' beef is with the Evangelical church of Gospel proclaiming Christianity.

He stated: <<The Church is spurned by educated men and women because it is presented by Evangelicals as a collection of beliefs that, ironically, do not connect with our experience of the world. These beliefs trail questions behind them too numerous to count. This means that the Church loses its authority because it is plainly irrational.>>

So the non-evangelical church is the rational one?

Sells, your own denomination refutes your view that the Church is spurned by educated men and women. The Sydney Diocese is not only the largest but it is thoroughly Evangelical and is not rejected by educated people. Try getting into Moore College, Sydney.

Dr Paul Barnett, former bishop of North Sydney, is an ancient historian and historian of early Christianity. His many publications demonstrate he is thoroughly educated.

The same applies to the late Dr Leon Morris who taught for many years at the Evangelical Anglican Ridley College in Melbourne.

This doesn’t mean all Evangelicals are of the educated class but there are very educated people who are Evangelicals.

The idea that my Evangelical beliefs do not connect with the experience of the world is nonsense. I've been an Evangelical for over 50 years and my Christian world view not only shows the reality of the contemporary world but also enables me to share Jesus compassionately with people and be involved in service to others.

Sells, you claim Evangelical beliefs trail lots of questions. Your Barthian world view prohibits your seeing the importance of the Gospel and the value of a high view of the authority of Scripture.

Seems to me your issues are with the content of Evangelical beliefs vs the modernist/postmodernist theology that empties liberal Anglican churches. It doesn't seem to enter your mind these beliefs are not connecting with the people and they leave Anglican liberal churches in droves.

The shoe’s on the other foot. Liberal Christianity drives people out of the church and also its ministers.

Sells,

<<"It is of first importance to grasp that 'facts', like wigs and snuff boxes, were the invention of the eighteenth century." He meant by this that "facts" only took on importance after the work of the English empiricists Francis Bacon (1561-1626) and John Locke (1632-1704).>>

The Oxford Dictionary online (2019. s.v. fact) provides this definition of a fact, ‘A thing that is known or proved to be true’. So Facts were true long before the English empiricists.

Was it a fact that the English Bishop of London, Nicholas Ridley, revered by Anglicans, was burned at the stake as one of the Oxford Martyrs on 16 October 1555?

Is it factual that the Council of Nicaea was held in AD 325? The Encyclopaedia Britannica’s entry (2019. s.v. Council of Nicaea) is for ‘Council of Nicaea (Definition & Facts), See: http://www.britannica.com/search?query=Council+of+Nicaea.

What? Facts as early as AD 325.

Are Jesus’ death and resurrection facts?

Is the green colour of grass a fact?

Is it factual we live on earth? I live in the greater Brisbane area. Is that a fact? Empiricism is not the only way to determine factuality.

In your article you speak about the rational/irrational. Is it rational to believe that ‘"facts" only took on importance after the work of the English empiricists’ in the 17th century?

You’ve created a straw man. We have facts all around us and they’ve been there since the creation of the heavens and the earth.

Dear OzSpen,

I never claimed that my worldview was biblical.

(actually, I believe that the views of none in this forum, including yours, are biblical, unless someone believed that, based on Joshua, the sun revolves around the earth)

By definition ALL Scripture is God-breathed, yet the question remains, which books/scrolls/chapters/verses are scripture and which aren't, also which books started off as scripture but were subsequently tainted by filthy secular hands.

There's still one possibility, which we cannot prove or disprove, that some God-breathed scripture is non-factual (such as the book of Job which according to Jewish tradition was written by Moses as fiction) or even factually-incorrect - for how can our limited human mind understand the ways of God?

To Sellick's paragraph:

The Church is there to inspire and support those who want to follow Jesus. Its primary role is not to provide information, unless that is practical information on how to follow Jesus. Since there are plenty of other institutions around for disseminating general information, the Church cannot compete on that. Fortunately it does not need to.

Hence, denominations ought to be judged on their success in bringing people to God through Jesus, rather than on the correctness of the information they teach.

---

Dear Not_Now.Soon,

First a few links:
http://simania.co.il/bookdetails.php?item_id=1650
http://simania.co.il/bookdetails.php?item_id=690860
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B009ZSOY78/ref=dbs_a_def_rwt_hsch_vapi_taft_p1_i0
http://lutherwasnotbornagaincom.wordpress.com/2014/06/13/only-the-levites-left-egypt-in-the-exodus

«Christian Faith depends heavily on Jewish faith»

It need not and better not be so, because then Christian faith is vulnerable and undermined whenever we find faults in Jewish faith.

Fortunately it is possible to read/interpret the new-testament in ways that do not depend on Judaism.

What's so great for a Christian bible-believer about the Jewish faith anyway? It prevents Jews from recognising Jesus!

«that not one word from the scriptures will pass away»

"not a stroke of a pen, will disappear from THE LAW until everything is accomplished."

THE LAW! Jesus knew perfectly what the Law is while you're only speculating that it's equivalent to the whole old-testament as we know it today.

Good fellowship is the solid foundation for spiritual endeavour.
What good is rationality if it fails to protect you from sins?

To OzSpen.

My main points were to address the crucial point in that paragraph. (The point that the other points were supporting). That is that "the church has fallen." The way I see it, if the conclusion is wrong, then the leading logic that point to that conclusion must be in error, or missing something of the situation to come to the wrong conclusion.

As far as I can tell the church (in any defination of the term), has't fallen.