The Sunday Telegraph brings news of some surprising comments by the Dean of St Albans, the Very Rev Jeffrey John. He disputes the doctrine that Jesus Christ died for sin.
They quote him as describing this teaching as ‘repulsive as well as nonsensical’. To him, the point of the crucifixion of Jesus was for him to ’share in the worst of grief and suffering that life can throw at us’.
The doctrine of the crucifixion as atonement for sin is the central message of Christianity. If the Sunday Telegraph report is true, these comments challenge the basis of Christianity, and amount to heresy.
As to the treatment of heretics, the Bible is clear: ‘A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject’.
Let the Church warn Jeffrey John about his divisive teaching. And if he persists, let them warn him again. If, after the second warning, he pays no heed, let him be excommunicated. If he wants to preach ‘another doctrine’, let him do so from outside the Church.
April 1st, 2007 at 10:21 am
Is this not an April Fools joke?
April 1st, 2007 at 12:15 pm
Misses the point of redemption completely. The price of Original Sin was too high to be paid by man. Only God made Man could redeem The Orginal Sin. In that sense Christ was the Second adam, who made good he errors of Adam.
We are of course to interpret Adam’s sin allegorically, but To suggest Christ did not die to redeem man from sin, is to completely negate the concept of salvation through the grce of God.
April 1st, 2007 at 1:31 pm
[…] unknown wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptLet the Church warn Jeffrey John about his divisive teaching. And then warn him again. If, after the second warning, he pays no heed, let him be excommunicated. If he wants to preach ‘another doctrine’, let him do so from outside the … […]
April 1st, 2007 at 1:36 pm
The Catholic church has always been riddled with these types, more recently P2 and Opus Dei. The Anglican church has had its own, from David Jenkins, who said G-d couldn’t move matter, to this one now. JC spoke of this in the parable of the wheat and the tares. some of the tares grow tall.
April 1st, 2007 at 2:09 pm
James, Opus Dei is very far from this position. Opus Dei is fairly ingrained in conventional theology of the Thomist variety, much more so than the Jsuits who often embraced liberation theology in a big way in the 70s.
Opus Dei of all Catholic organisations is almost certainly the one which maintains the teachings of the ages in it’s purest form.
April 1st, 2007 at 6:58 pm
Jailhouse, can’t be April Fools, although I wish it were. Somehow I doubt the Sunday Telegraph would knowingly defame a churchman by suggesting he had said something as grave as this, if he had not. And not even for April Fools.
April 1st, 2007 at 7:00 pm
James, the parable of the wheat and the tares, thank you for pointing that out. An apt illustration of the current situation.
Joe, your view about opus dei is similar to mine.
April 1st, 2007 at 8:17 pm
A much maligned organisation, Bel.
The truth as often, is more prosaic. I think a lot of the bad press about them stems from the Franco connection.
April 2nd, 2007 at 1:27 am
Bel I went back to Chruch recently. I have no faith really but have gone through a process of elimanting other ways of thing none of which approach what life is. I have an open mind then and a hope that I could connect somehow with something beyond the the now and the world.
I cannot hand in my brains though and asked if I believed any of these tenets I would have to say no.
I think there should be a place and acceptance of honest doubt. Incidentally if I were going to choose a religion I would be a Jew. I heard a Rabbii say once
” You can`t belive ? Don`t worry , he doesn`t mind “
April 2nd, 2007 at 9:47 pm
Hey Bel,
Have you been following this? (off topic sorry).
http://www.seangabb.co.uk/flcomm/flc158.htm
I read Kruger’s first article on Fraternity, Liberty and Equality and found it sounded “alright” but a bit difficult to understand. Glad I’m not the only one who thought so!
April 3rd, 2007 at 12:07 pm
Hi Biodun,
yes I had just read Sean Gabb’s article and was thinking about it when I saw your comment. I didn’t read Kruger’s article, so I had an incomplete picture while reading Gabb’s analysis. I thought he was unduly harsh, but maybe I might change my mind when I read Kruger’s article.
I have no patience for people who use opaque terms to express themselves (as Gabb was accusing Kruger of doing), but even so, I found Gabb’s analysis rather nit-picking. He was right to attack the flimsy analysis in Kruger’s work, also right in my opinion, to point out errors etc, but there was an insulting undertone to Gabb’s article that left me wondering.
For what it’s worth, who’s to say I won’t feel the same way as Gabb when/if I read the Kruger article. I can imagine his annoyance at ploughing through such an article, if it really was as flimsy and pretentious as he said it was.