| May 2012 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||
| 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 |
| 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 |
| 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | ||
click on a date to see all the day's entries
About TitusOneNine
Old Titusonenine site (Jan04-May07)Kendall's Bio
Kendall's e-mail (replace -at- with @)
"Elves" e-mail (blog admin)
A free floating commentary on culture, politics, economics, and religion based on a passionate commitment to the truth and a desire graciously to refute that which is contrary to it….
"He must hold firm to the sure word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to confute those who contradict it."
--Titus 1:9, Revised Standard Version
Blog Tips & Info
Info to help you learn your way around the new blog, and posts where you can report problems or offer suggestions
Mobile-friendly view (blog headlines): Click HerePrint-friendly view of all articles: Click Here
Recent Comments Page:
Click Here
Registration & Login Help
Blog Tips Series
Categories
The above list is limited to "parent" categories. To see the entire category index and select specific sub-categories, click on "Full Category Index"
Full Category Index
Monthly Archives
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007

Anglican / Episcopal RSS Feed
©2012 Kendall S. Harmon. All rights reserved.
TitusOneNine Links Page
I. Anglican / Episcopal Resources & Links
1. Important Documents
documents are in chronological order, most recent first
Also, don't miss:
2. Websites & Blogs
A. Official websites
B. Anglican / Episcopal News
C. Anglican / Episcopal Blogs
By no means exhaustive. Let us know what we've missed
Previous versions of Titusonenine:
NORTH AMERICAN ANGLICANS:
Reasserters' Blogs:
Reappraisers' Blogs
INTERNATIONAL ANGLICAN BLOGS & BLOGGERS
BLOGGING BISHOPS (US & Overseas)
II. General Resources & Links
YET more links coming soon...! including Non-Anglican links
From the diocese of new Westminster:
The Anglican Communion described in 1930 at the Lambeth Conference: "...a fellowship, within the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, of those duly constituted dioceses, provinces or regional Churches in communion with the See [Diocese] of Canterbury..."
In other words, "dioceses, provinces, or regional Churches" are in the Anglican Communion if they are "duly constituted" and Canterbury wants to be in communion with them.
In practice, how you can tell whether you're still on the good side of the See of Canterbury seems to work out as being invited by the Archbishop of Canterbury to the Lambeth Conference.
It's up to the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Most Rev. Rowan Williams, to decide who to invite. Up till now at least, the Archbishops of Canterbury have invited everyone, except in very rare instances of competing bishops in the same geographical area.
There's nothing said about heads of the various national Anglican Churches, the Primates, helping the Archbishop of Canterbury decide who's to come - although the present Archbishop of Canterbury in some statements seems to have suggested he might seek advice.
To turn to history, it was North Americans who got us into this strange situation in the first place.
It was an American bishop from Vermont who originally had the idea of a Lambeth Conference. But it was Canadian Bishops, who in 1865 urgently asked for the then 144 bishops in the Anglican Communion to meet at Lambeth in 1867.
Read it all. Please note that the author fails to give adequate attention to the way in which the controversy focused on how to work with and understand Holy Scripture. As Bishop Colenso wrote:
the Pentateuch, as a whole, cannot personally have been written by Moses, or by anyone acquainted personally with the facts which it professes to describe, and, further, that the (so-called) Mosaic narrative, by whomsoever written, and though imparting to us, as I fully believe it does, revelations of the Divine Will and Character, cannot be regarded as historically true.
Filed under: * Anglican - Episcopal Anglican Provinces Anglican Church of Canada Lambeth 2008 * Christian Life / Church Life Church History * Theology Theology: Scripture

|
2. alfonso wrote:
I believe the Pentateuch is totally trustworthy. This may or may not line up with what everyone thinks of as “historically true”, but as far as I’m concerned, Scripture, including the Pentateuch, is indeed just that, historically true. June 15, 6:51 am | [comment link] |
|
3. alfonso wrote:
As I re-read the entry, it sounds as if Kendall rejects the historicity of the Pentateuch. Is that a mis-read? June 15, 6:57 am | [comment link] |
|
4. Dave B wrote:
Alfonso, yes you did mis-read, the opening part states ” Bishop Colenso wrote:”, and then the quote about the pentateuch followed. Some times when I peruse (sp?) and article I do this June 15, 7:17 am | [comment link] |
|
5. alfonso wrote:
I guess I was confused. It seemed that Kendall had written in italics, (and it seemed to me, with approval) “as Bp. Colenso wrote:” I can understand Kendall qualifying in some way his take on Genesis 1, for example, but I didn’t expect he’d agree with Colenso. June 15, 7:33 am | [comment link] |
|
6. Virgil in Tacoma wrote:
Many evangelicals (McGrath, for instance) don’t ascribe complete historical accuracy to the Pentateuch. Genesis 1 is not an empirically/scientifically valid account of our creation, but an account written from the perspective of ‘traditional memory.’ In standard Anglican tradition biblical faithfulness has never equated with authorship or a empirically/literal exegesis of scripture, but with a utilitarian notion that ‘scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation…(Articles). June 15, 10:00 am | [comment link] |
|
7. ann r wrote:
Interesting that when Jesus refers to the Pentateuch he prefaced it with “Moses said” or “You have it from Moses.” I’ve always assumed the Jesus knew best. June 15, 5:00 pm | [comment link] |
|
8. Br. Michael wrote:
Virgil, pray tell us what genre the first three chapters of Genesis are? You are assuming that it is in the genre of a modern scientific textbook, but it is unlikely that the people at the time would have read it that way. Your are trying to impose a 20/21st Century way of thinking on an ancient text. Instead it would seem to be more profitable in trying to discover what Moses was trying to convey to his readers at the time. |
|
9. Harvey wrote:
Scripture records that Moses grew up in the court of the Egyptian king and rose to a position of power. As such he either could read and write or gathered a host of people around him that could. I would postulate that ancient writings were available to him to allow writing Genesis. The other four books came into existence during his lifetime. Our Lord did not hesitate to quote from them before His crucifixtion and certainly used them after He arose. I would much rather make mistakes in ignorance of His word and be corrected by Him, as He walked with two sorrowing believers, than to be found in great error if I chose to trash the documents. June 16, 8:01 am | [comment link] |
|
10. Virgil in Tacoma wrote:
#8…Br. Michael…Actually, I’m holding that many evangelicals don’t hold the first chapters of Genesis as an empirical/scientific account of creation, that Moses didn’t write the Pentateuch, and that the text of Genesis 1 reflects an historical memory of a creation myth. #9…...If Jesus were truly human, then he was not as such omniscient. He would have held the tradition at the time of Mosaic authorship. Further, we need to realize that Jesus’ words regarding Moses were written by authors after Jesus’ time and may not reflect a “transcript” of those words. June 16, 10:44 am | [comment link] |
|
11. libraryjim wrote:
There is nothing in either history or archaeology that disproves the mosaic authorship of the Torah. As such, I’m inclined to believe that Moses either wrote it directly or had scribes to whom he transcribed the narrative. Very few Biblical scholars now actually hold to Wellhausen or his disciples any more, except for those teaching in acdemia and seminaries. |
|
12. Virgil in Tacoma wrote:
#11…libraryjim…The fact that there is no historical (if we leave out the internal evidence from the Pentateuch itself) or archaeological evidence that disputes Mosaic authorship, doesn’t prove that Moses was the author, or that Moses even existed. The only evidence for Moses’ actually being an historical figure is his ‘effect’ on later tradition. If Moses did have any role in the creation of the Pentateuch, it was as an editor or redactor. As such he brought together various diverse and contradictory material without much of an attempt to harmonize it. However, internal evidence indicates that there are many literary elements that reveal post-Mosaic (assuming the traditional dating for Moses’ involvement) in the text. Also, the Documentary Theory is hardly a dead horse. It has been evolving constantly since its classical form in Graf/Wellhausen, and so is weaker than it once was, but it still has much explanatory power, although it needs to be combined with the other methods (i.e. form criticism, etc.) If one wants to research this down to its toenails, which is where the evidence is revealing, I would recommend starting with entries in The Jewish Encyclopedia. The only other theory I see as showing promise, as an alternative to the Documentary Theory, is the one proposed by Umberto Cassuto. But one needs to realize that he also questioned Mosaic authorship. June 18, 11:51 am | [comment link] |
|
13. libraryjim wrote:
My comment stands. Tradition ascribes the Torah (I prefer the Hebraic term) to Moses, nothing in history or tradition contradicts that, therefore, it is an authorship theory that can be accepted without fear of contradiction. And regarding Genesis, so what if he ‘merely recorded the oral stories’? That doesn’t take away from his position as writer, even if his role was editor. I can accept that. But that also in no way detracts from his also being the author of Deuteronomy, etc. June 18, 11:59 am | [comment link] |
|
14. libraryjim wrote:
Oh, and by thge way, your statement above “If Jesus were truly human, then he was not as such omniscient” leaves out an important fact: He was also truly divine as well. June 18, 12:00 pm | [comment link] |
|
15. libraryjim wrote:
AND met with Moses and Elijah on Mt. Tabor during the transfiguration (witnessed by James, John and Peter). While we don’t know what the conversation involved, it didn’t seem to be Moses saying to Jesus “OH, by the way LORD, I didn’t write the Torah. Please don’t say I did anymore.” lol June 18, 2:42 pm | [comment link] |
Next entry (above): Bishop Wallace Benn welcomes consecration of Dr Atwood
Previous entry (below): NY Times: Anglican Demand for Change Is Rebuffed by Episcopalians
Return to blog homepage
Return to Mobile view (headlines)


A very interesting article. I wonder if any reasserters now DO think that Moses wrote the Pentateuch and that it is historically true. What do people actually mean when they claim “Biblical Faithfulness”?
June 15, 6:44 am | [comment link]