Pastor of Aboriginals... DUBBO. NSW. Aust
September 19, 1997.

A friend passed on to me your special report [No. 1] on the Religion and Cultural Diversity Conference, Melbourne, July, 1997. As a pastor who has ministered among Aboriginal people for over thirty years, I was interested to read that in further reports you will report on the conference’s official papers and recommendations on “Finding Sacred Ground:Spiritual Solutions to Aboriginal Disadvantage.” No doubt the conference would have endorsed the current “Rainbow Spirit Theology”. I do not know if you are informed about Rainbow Spirit Theology. A book called “Rainbow Spirit Theology - Towards an Australian Aboriginal Theology” by Rainbow Spirit Elders has recently been published [Copyright Wontulp-Bi-Buya, 1997]. A friend of mine told me that it is readily procurable in Lutheran Bookshops. I purchased a copy from Angus and Robertson. I will enclose a refutation I have written on the book. This will give you an idea what the book is about [if you have not read it].

The Victorian Baptist Witness, July 1997, wrote a favourable book review on “Rainbow Spirit Theology.” [Photo copy enclosed].

Almost all of the Aboriginal Christians I know in the Gilgandra, Dubbo, Wellington area of NSW reject Rainbow Spirit Theology. I know of only one possible exception. An Aboriginal pastor whom I know is planning to refute the book or get his brother to refute it.

I believe that the Rainbow Spirit Theology will take off and be very popular with Aboriginal people because of its cultural and historical connotations. ... I am Imagesly writing to you to make sure you are aware of this theology. Until recent years there were no heresies as dangerous as this one circulating among Aboriginal Churches.

I would be interested to receive a copy of your report which covers the July 1997 Conference’s papers and recommendations on “Finding Sacred Ground: Spiritual Solutions to Aboriginal Disadvantage.” Thanking you. Yours Sincerely in Christ, Geoff Higgins.

Response to... “Rainbow Spirit Theology Towards an Australian Aboriginal Theology” by Geoff Higgins.

Rainbow Spirit Theology appears to have emerged out of the great pain experienced by Aboriginal people. A number of the causes of the great hurt experience are catalogued on pages 48 to 50.

It seems that the writers see the need of an Aboriginal theology to soothe that pain and to give Aboriginal Christians a sense of identity and worth. There are other Aboriginal Christian leaders, such as Pastor Bill Bird, who do not see the need of an Aboriginal theology to bring about healing and reconciliation. We find our identity not in Aboriginal theology, but in Christ. American black preacher, Tom Skinner, was once asked how he was getting on in the fight for equality, identity and dignity. Here is a part of Tom Skinner’s reply:

“For the first time in my life, my friend, I have dignity. I don’t have to fight for it. I am, present tense, a son of God. I don’t have to break my neck to belong to a particular social group to prove it. I don’t have to fight to have certain laws passed in order to have me recognised. I have already been recognised by the Lord of heaven and earth as His Son. “I do not have to go off and fight for social status. Ephesians chapter 4 reminds me that I am seated with Jesus Christ in heavenly places. That puts me on the highest level in all the world. As a member of the family of God, I am actually seated together with Jesus Christ on the highest social level there is in all the world. And I am not about to come down.” (1)

Tom Skinner did not have to go back to Africa to find his roots to have identity. He had it in Christ.

To look for identity in Aboriginal theology, or in “European Theology” is to look in the wrong place. The writers of “Rainbow Spirit Theology” [page 6] write, “God does not speak to us first and foremost through European and Western Theology.” This statement assumes that there is such a thing as “Aboriginal Theology” and such a thing as “European Theology”. However, the word `theology’ comes from two Greek words - “the word” and “God”. Theology is merely a study of the word of God, and, as distinct from tradition, the word of God does not come in various cultural varieties.

On page 7 of Rainbow Spirit Theology, the following statement is made:

“The Jewish people struggled to lift the temple veil that shrouded God as revealed to us in Jesus Christ. We are in the process of lifting the veil to see God, to see Christ in ourselves and our culture. In so doing, we are connecting with peoples in every culture. For Aboriginal people, Christ was behind a curtain. We now need the courage to push our heads through the curtain so that we really can see God in Christ, in our own culture, in our own world, where we are.”

We will not see Christ in white culture or Aboriginal culture or any other culture. It seems that the writers here are wanting a religion similar to Judaism - a national sacralist religion. However, New Testament Christianity is not nationalistic. We find no combination of church and state in the New Testament. In the New Testament we find people of many diverse cultures worshipping together in the one assembly.

It was only in the Old Testament that people could not see through the veil. At the death of Christ, the veil that reImagess today is the veil of unbelief [2 Corinthians 3:14]. Whenever anyone turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away, and we, with unveiled faces, all reflect the Lord’s glory, [2 Corinthians 3:16-18].

Freedom comes not from Aboriginal theology, but from Christ. And so Tom Skinner could write: “I know what it’s like to be discriminated against. I know what it’s like to wake up in the morning and look into the mirror and be reminded that you’re a negro, considered by many segments of society as an inferior. I know what it’s like to have the stares of society as an inferior. I know what it’s like to be free. To be a black man, but to be free. To have the colour of my skin different, but to have my soul liberated. I know what it is to be a son of God, a joint heir with Jesus Christ, seated together with Jesus Christ in heavenly places, in the highest social level there is in the world. I’m a black man, but I’m a free man”

Rainbow Spirit theology [page 11] says,

“European Missionaries were mistaken when they claimed that they had been sent to reveal God to spiritually blind Aboriginal Australians. God, the creator Spirit, was already here. Our Aboriginal culture was already spiritual, more overly so than the European culture of those who invaded Australia. God was already speaking to us through the law revealed in the land. The New Testament letter to the Hebrews talks of God speaking in many and various ways to our ancestors [Hebrews 1:1].”

There were no more religious [“spiritual” ?] people than the Jews. Yet Jesus told these “highly spiritual” people, in John 9:39-41, that they were blind. We only see when we come to Christ. It could not be denied that the Jews had a “spirituality”, but they were still blind. Hebrews 1:1 is interpreted by the following verse, verse 2, which says that “in these last days God has spoken to us by his Son.” Was the great commission a big mistake? Recovery of sight for the blind only comes through Christ. [Luke 4:18-19].

The supreme revelation of God comes to us not through Aboriginal culture, nor through European Culture, but through Christ.

On page 12, Rainbow Spirit Theology says, “Aboriginal culture is spiritual”. I am spiritual. Inside me is spirit and land, both given to me by the Creator spirit. There is a piece of land in me, and it keeps drawing me like magnet to the land from which I came. Because the land, too, is spiritual. The land owns me. The only piece of land I can claim a spiritual connection with - a connection between me and the land - is the piece of land under the tree where I was born.”

Is a person spiritual because he is an Aboriginal, or is he spiritual because he is in union with Christ?

The Apostle Paul, before his conversion, was a very religious man. Did he consider his religiosity to be spirituality? No! He said, “The law is spiritual, but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin.” All of Paul’s spirituality left him still unspiritual in God’s eyes. Is the land spiritual? The Bible says not. 1 Corinthians 15:45-49 says -

“The first man Adam became a living being, the last Adam, a life giving spirit. The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual. The first man was of the dust of the earth, the second man from heaven. As the earthly man, so are those who are of the earth, and as is the man from heaven, so also are those who are of heaven. And just as we have borne the likeness of the earthly man, so shall we bear the likeness of the man from heaven.”

The earth is not spiritual. The earth is earthy. Adam is not spiritual. Adam is earthy. Those in Adam are not spiritual. They are earthy. They may be highly religious, but they are earthy. It is only Christ and those who are Christ’s who are spiritual. In our natural state we bear the likeness of the man of earth. It is only through union with Christ that we will bear the likeness of the spiritual man.

It can be argued that we are created in the image of God. However, that image is marred. Our natural spirituality is not acceptable to God. That form of spirituality which i acceptable to God is that spirituality belonging to people restored by union with Jesus Christ.

On page 13, Rainbow Spirit Theology says that by returning to the symbol of the Rainbow Spirit [Serpent], Aboriginal people will be helped to rediscover their spiritual identity. Apart from union with Christ we have no spiritual identity. It is only in Christ that we discover spiritual identity.

On page 34, Rainbow Spirit Theology says “The Creator Spirit not only gives life and spirit to human beings but locates the spirit of each person in a place which becomes that individual’s country. We believe that the spirit of a person, as much as the body, is therefore linked to the land.”

If this were true, what happens to people who emigrate? This is a concept that is totally foreign to Scripture. Plain ‘superstition’.

If this supposition were true, then Abraham should have been wanting to get back to Ur of the Chaldees. However, he wasn’t. Abraham was “looking forward to that city with foundations, whose architect and builder is God.” Hebrews 11:10.

On page 37, Rainbow Spirit Theology states,

“We believe that the land of Australia is the land once allotted to Aboriginal Australians, not the European Invaders.” However, there is a considerable weight of documented evidence to show that the Aboriginal people were not the original inhabitants of Australia. The evidence confirms that the original inhabitants were a race of small -statured, pigmy-like people called the negritos [also referred to as the Tasmanoids or the Oz people]. I refer you to the following reading on this matter:

# “What an Experience” by Will Sharpe. This book includes a very clear photo of negrito people living in North Queensland. # “Australia In Old Maps” by Eric Whitehouse. # Report by N.B. Tindale and J.B. Birdsell on Harvard University Expedition conducted in 1938-1939 in conjunction with the University of Adelaide. # Book written on the negrito language by Professor of Linguistics in Canberra. # “The Aboriginie” by Douglas Lockwood, Rigby Ltd., 1971. # “The Wilderness Coast” by Glenville Pike. # “The Australian Aboriginies”, Norman B. Tindale and Beryl George. # “The End of Dreaming”, by Ingrid Drysdale and Mary Durack, Rigby, 1974.

It would appear that the writers of Rainbow Spirit Theology have resorted to the Charlie Brown method of interpreting the Bible. Charlie Brown was lying on the floor reading the Bible one day. Susie said to him, “What are you doing there, Charlie Brown?”. “I’m looking for Bible verses to support my pre-conceived notions”, replied Charlie Brown. It would seem that the writers have done likewise.

An example is their interpretation of John chapter 1, where they equate Jesus with the Rainbow Spirit as follows: “Accordingly John’s Gospel would make sense to us if we paraphrased the first versus as follows: “In the beginning was the Rainbow Serpent, deep in the land. And the Rainbow Spirit was with God, the Creator Spirit, and the Rainbow Spirit was God. The Rainbow Spirit was in the beginning with God. The Rainbow Spirit emerged from the land, transformed the land and brought all things into being on the land. With the Rainbow Spirit came life, and the life is the light of all people.”

This is indeed a fanciful interpretation of John chapter 1. However the Jesus of this interpretation is not the Jesus of the Bible. He is another Jesus. 2 Corinthians 11:4.

The claim is made on page 38 of the book that it in the Aboriginal ceremonies that “preserve our connections with the Creator Spirit.” *What of the ceremonies that are cruel and barbaric such as female circumcision? *What about the vindictive pay-back system? *Is it by these that connections with the Creator Spirit are preserved?

On page 39 the book says, “These spiritual forces are linked with our spirit-filled ancestors who walked the land.” *What spirit were the ancestors filled with? If they were filled with the Holy Spirit, then the gospel is not necessary.

The book mentions the fertility rites as being a good thing, but those of us who have studied the writings of anthropologists know that they were perverse and evil. One would not speak in public about some of the practices that went on.

There are places where the book fails to discern between Christianity and white culture. For example, on page 24, the book says, “While European missionaries were pointing our eyes to heaven above, their European brothers were stealing the land under our feet below. Or, as another participant said, “Before we said `Amen’ our land was gone.”

There were actually missionaries like Miss Annie Locke who stood up to the government on behalf of the Aboriginal people, and bore the consequences, On the other hand, there were regrettable practices carried on by missionaries, which I, and other christisan workers would want to distance ourselves. It is regrettable that more Christian work was not done among Aboriginal people in the Aboriginal dialects. It is true, as the book claims, that Aboriginal people should have had the gospel in their own language. Even though Greek was the Lingua Franca of the day, the people on the day of Pentecost all heard the wonderful works of God being spoken of in their own dialects. I do not think that Aboriginal Christians should demand that white Christians should meet certain conditions in order for reconciliation to take place. Rather, the outlook of Pastor Bill Bird will be more effective - that of mutual repentance and humble asking of forgiveness.

Time would forbid me going into more detail in responding to this book. There are countless issues which have been raised. To assume that we can come to God through our culture is like saying that Europeans can come to Christ through the Masonic Lodge. Every culture is a mixture of good and bad. Because of our sinful human natures we do not naturally obey the laws of God. The Hews had the Law, but they did not keep it. Their ceremonies were only shadows of things to come. Colossians 2:17.

The reality is found in Christ, not in ceremonies.

In this book, one looks in vain for fundamental Christian Doctrines such as: 1. The Holy character of God. 2. The heinousness of the human sin of all people [not just the white invaders]. 3. God’s wrath and impending judgement. 4. The impossibility of being justified by works. 5. The bankrupt nature of all religion apart from Christ. 6. The necessity of the new birth. 7. The substitutionary sacarifice of Christ. 8. Justification by faith through Grace alone. 9. The uniqueness of Biblical Christianity. The book fails to take into account the depravity of the natural man and his inability to please God until transformed by the gospel. The book is a classic example of syncretism. In over thirty years working among Aboriginal people I have not encountered a heresy more dangerous than this one.

Notes:
(1) Black and Free by Tom Skinner, copyrightt 1968, Zondervan Publishing House.
(2) Ibid, pages 126, 127.

WHILE Mabo, Wik and land claims disturb the minds of many in the white Australian community, Gympie Imagesstream churches -have organized a multi-cultural joint service of celebration-and reconciliation featuring key Aboriginal church leaders. The service, followed by supper, will take place tomorrow, July 6, 6.30pm at Surface Hill Uniting Church, Channon Street, and is sponsored by the Catholic,

Anglican, Uniting, Lutheran Churces and the Salvation Army. Considerable community inferest is expected. Chief speakers -will be- Reverend George Rosendale, who is well known in nearly all Aboriginal communities right through Cape York, the Gulf and beyond, and Deacon Jenny Thompson who is a cultural and spiritual health worker and healer at the Cherbourg Aboriginal community near Murgon.

Rev. Rosendale is Lutheran, while Deacon Thompson is Anglican.

The theme of the event will be “Aboriginal Spirituality, Land Rights and the Christian Faith.”

Rev.Rosendale dedicated himself to the service of God after he unexpectedly became One of the first known survivors of a taipan snake bite.

Deacon Thompson, of Aboriginal and Afro- American descendency, with her family, was a victim of the White Australia Policy, as her father’was forced to leave the country. As author and lecturer, Rev. Rosendale is the “spiritual elder” of an inter-church think-tank that meets regularly to develop a truly Aboriginal “Rainbow Spirit Theology” (the title of his new book) in order to end the old Western Christian, missionary ”colonialism”

Pastor Kirk: Because of what I am, an Aboriginal minister of the Gospel, I feel that, alongside government policies of self-development, there must be a strong, virile, evangelical church. Where we have strong Christian churches in Aboriginal communities, these places shine out as communities. Take this spiritual atmosphere away, and all the government programs have been proved to fail. We must have a strong spiritual base. I am not talking about a traditional spiritual base, but a Biblical base. Aboriginal culture, in its traditional form, is a perversion of what is taught in Scripture,
according to Romans, ch. 1.

Editor: Will Christianity affect the Aboriginie socially and economically?

Pastor Kirk: If it is going to affect him at all, it will affect him for the good. Christianity can only bring enhancement and fulfillment in the life of a community or of the individual. God reaches the individual to reach the family. He reaches the family to reach the community. He reaches the community to reach the nation. The call of Christ comes to the individual, “Take up your cross and follow Me.” That is where it all begins.

Editor: Do you think there is a need to develop a black theology?

Pastor Kirk: There is no such thing as a black theology. The Gospel is neither black nor white, eastern or western. Traditional Aboriginal culture, as all culture, must be prepared to change. No culture, Aboriginal or otherwise, is static. The Aborigine must be prepared to change with developing Australia if he is to come out on top. If he doesn’t he will succumb to degradation. The Aborigine will not find enhancement through returning to traditional Aboriginal religion, as many believe. There is a great difference between “religion” and Christianity. Religion is man trying to grope his way to God. Christianity is the direct opposite - God seeking and finding man. “There is only one mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus.” The Aborigine has been seeking to appease the spirit world for millenniums. He is an animist - a worshipper of spirits - as opposed to the Holy Spirit as revealed in the Old and New Testaments.

Editor: Is there any evidence that Christianity is really working among Aboriginal people?

Pastor Kirk: Yes, with a capital “Y”. There are urban and tribal Aborigines who are living victoriously for Christ all over Australia, without traditional hang-ups. We are free from the gods of our fathers.

Editor: What of the claim that white Christians have degraded the Aborigine?

Pastor Kirk: It is not the white man that has affected the Aborigine. It is man’s sinful nature, and the sins resulting from this sinful nature - that is the problem. The answer is neither to be found in the white man’s “religion” nor the black man’s “religion”, but in a living relationship with Christ. The Lord Jesus said, “If the Son shall make you free, you shall be free indeed.” This is the kind of freedom we need, and this is the kind of freedom that gives the demanded rights.

Editor: Do you think Christianity is on the move among Aboriginal people today?

Pastor Kirk: I do believe the Gospel is having a marked effect across Australia. In recent years, through the ministry of the Aboriginal Evangelical Fellowship, entire family groups have been affected on a large scale for the first time. In the old days the women would flock into the churches, but now we see men taking their place in the local churches.

The tribal and urban support given to the A.E.F. national convention at Pt. Augusta (S.A.) is an evidence that there is acceptance and support of the Gospel being proclaimed to Aboriginal people. The nomination and election of Christian leadership to the national Aboriginal Council is an undeniable evidence that the Aboriginal people see the Christian representative as a more worthy alternative to the radical, anti-Christian leadership. The growth among tribal people is very noticeable.

Editor: What do you make of the big return to tribal religion these days?

Pastor Kirk: I don’t think that Aboriginal leaders of any consequence were the prime movers in this direction. The push in this direction, I believe, has been initiated by white anthropologists, humanists, and others who are seeking to salve their consciences from the atrocities meted out to Aborigines in earlier times. Much of the supposed Aboriginal sympathies along these lines is just an echo of these sentiments.

Editor: Don’t you think Christianity and traditional religion could be made to harmonize?

Pastor Kirk: No! Much of traditional religion is contrary to Bible teaching. Christians must practice separation. The New Testament says that old things must pass away when the new comes (2 Cor. 5:17). We must walk in newness of life.

Editor: What about the view, expressed lately, that God has given the people the old ceremonies?

Pastor Kirk: Much of the dreamtime of the Aborigine up until the introduction of the Gospel to them, was a nightmare. The serpent in Genesis 3:15 is not fully identified until Revelation, where he is called the “old” serpent. He has been in the business a long time. The old serpent is the devil. Much of the old ceremony is engineered by him, not by God.

October 23, 1997.
The Editor,
New Life,
P.O. Box 267,
Blackburn, Vic. 3130.

Dear Sir,

In an interview published in New Life [1/10/81] Aboriginal Christian Leader, the late Pastor David Kirk, addressed the following question:

“Do you think there is a need to develop a black theology?”

In response, Pastor Kirk replied,

“There is no such thing as a black theology. The Gospel is neither black or white, Eastern or Western. Traditional Aboriginal culture, as all culture, must be prepared to change. No culture, Aboriginal or otherwise, is static.....The Aborigine will not find enhancement through returning to traditional Aboriginal religion, as many believe. There is a great difference between “religion” and Christianity. Religion is man trying to grope his way to God. Christianity is the opposite - God seeking and finding man. “There is only one mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus. The Aborigine has been seeking to appease the spirit world for millenniums. He is an animist - a worshipper of spirits - as opposed to the Holy Spirit as revealed in the Old and New Testaments.”

The book further claims that

“European Missionaries were mistaken when they claimed that they had been sent to reveal God to spiritually blind Aboriginal Australians. God, the Creator Spirit, was already here. Our Aboriginal culture was already spiritual, more overtly so than the European culture of those who invaded Australia. God was already speaking to us through the law revealed in the land. The New Testament letter to the Hebrews talks of God speaking in many ways and various ways to our ancestors” [page 11].

On page 12, the book “Rainbow Spirit Theology” says,

“Aboriginal culture is spiritual. I am spiritual. Inside me there is spirit and land, both given to me by the Creator Spirit. There is a piece of land in me, and it keeps on drawing me like a magnet to the land from which I came...”

Is the land spiritual? The Bible says not. 1 Corinthians 15:45-49 says, “The first man Adam became a living being, the last Adam, a life giving spirit. The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual. The first man was of the dust of the earth, the second man from heaven. And just as we bear the likeness of the earthly man, so shall we bear the likeness of the man from heaven.”

The earth is not spiritual. The earth is earthy. Adam is not spiritual. Adam is earthy. Those in Adam are not spiritual. They are earthy. They might be highly religious, but they are earthy. It is only Christ, and those who are Christ’s who are spiritual. In our natural state we bear the likeness of the man of earth. It is only through union with Christ that we bear the likeness of the spiritual man.

It could be argued that we are created in the image of God. However, that image is marred. Our natural spirituality is not acceptable to God.

On page 13, “Rainbow Spirit Theology” says that by returning to the symbol of the Rainbow Spirit [Serpent], Aboriginal people will be helped to rediscover their spiritual identity. However apart from Christ we have no spiritual identity.

The writers of the book also say,

“Accordingly John’s gospel would make sense if we paraphrased the first verses [of chapter 1], “In the beginning was the Rainbow Spirit, deep in the land. And the Rainbow Spirit was with God, the Creator Spirit, and the Rainbow Spirit was God. The Rainbow Spirit emerged from the land, transformed the land and brought all things into being in the land. With the Rainbow Spirit came life, and the life is the light of all people.”

“Much of the dreamtime of the Aboriginie, up until the introduction of the gospel to them, was a nightmare. The serpent in Genesis 3:15 is not fully identified until Revelation, where he is called the “old” serpent. He has been in the business a long time. The old serpent is the devil. Much of the old ceremony is engineered by Him, not by God. The answer to the serpent is the seed of the woman [Eve], the Lord Jesus Christ.”

Yours faithfully,
Geoff. Higgins.

Dear....,

Thank you for your letter of March 27th, 1992, in relation to the matter of the Fraternal’s authority and basis of operation. Thank you for informing me that the doctrinal basis on which the Fraternal meets and operates is the Nicene Creed.

If you refer to my original letter written on December 3, 1991, you will observe that I mentioned two issues on which there would need to be agreement in a Fraternal before I would be happy to be involved.

The first issue I mentioned was the issue of “authority”. I related that in relation to doctrine and practice, from my standpoint, the Church’s sole authority must be the Scriptures alone — “Sola Scriptura”. I quoted from the Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 1, Article VIII, which says, “The Old Testament in Hebrew and the New Testament in Greek ... was ... being immediately inspired by God, and, by His singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, and therefore authentical; so as, in all controversies of religion, the Church is finally to appeal to them.”

Also article X, which declares, “The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.” The Nicene Creed does not address the issue of the Church’s authority for doctrine and practice.

The second issue which I raised was the issue of “How can we have a righteousness which is acceptable to God?”, or “How are we justified?” I quoted Martin Luther’s statement that: “Salvation is by Grace alone, Through Faith alone, In Christ alone, To the glory of God alone.” For me to feel at home in a fraternal, that fraternal would need to confirm the following truths, as clearly taught by the Apostle Paul in Romans 3:20 to 5:20:

1] The righteousness by which we are made acceptable to God is that righteousness which is credited to our account when we believe savingly on Jesus Christ. Romans 4:5-8, 13.

2] The faith through which we are made acceptable to God is that faith which has as its object the blood of Christ shed on our behalf in his substitutionary death. Romans 3:25.

3] That righteousness by which we are made acceptable to God is credited to us as an undeserved gift, and is in no way owing to us. Romans 4:4; 6:23.

4] No one cane have a righteousness acceptable to God by self effort (works). Romans 3:20, Ephesians 2:8,9; Titus 3:4,5. 5] Salvation is by grace alone. Romans 3:20,22,24,28; 4:5, Ephesians 2:8,9.

Once again the Nicene Creed does not satisfactorily address the issue of justification.

It states

“We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins”;
which is an unqualified statement which is rather ambiguous.
Whereas the Nicene Creed does say
“for us and for our salvation he came down from heaven”, and
“for our sake he was crucified”,
It does not clarify if it is on the grounds of his crucifixion and substitutionary death alone that we are justified, nor how justification is appropriated.

Personally, I find the Nicene Creed an inadequate basis on which to operate as a fraternal.

The above mentioned issues are not the only fundamental issues which would need to be faced if I were happy to rejoin the fraternal, but they are an issue of paramount importance to me.

You mentioned in your letter to me the importance of respecting each other’s view if that view relates to an issue which is of secondary importance, such as one’s view of eschatology. However, when the issue in question is a question such as “What is the nature of saving faith?”, “How can we have a righteousness which is acceptable to God?” etc. etc. how can we agree to differ if we are convinced that the Bible gives an authoritative and clear cut answer to the question?

When we are faced with a question such as “How can we have a righteousness which is acceptable to God?”, the view we have on authority will determine how we answer that question. If we believe that the Bible alone is the authority for doctrine we will answer the question by relating it to Scripture.

However, if we believe, say, that Church tradition is of equal authority to the Scriptures, then we will answer it differently.

These issues are not superficial, but fundamental, as I see it. I trust you will understand my position.. I appreciate the fact that the members of the Fraternal have taken the time to discuss the content of my previous letter.

Thank you, once again, for your letter.

Yours sincerely,
Geoff. Higgins.
 

 `Despatch' Magazine & "Beauty for Ashes" Booklet
Childrens Devotions also access daily email devotions
bi-monthly  Mini-Despatch
 

.

   despatch@mail.cth.com.au