quote:

---

<snip> My latest Matthias Media project is on how to communicate the gospel to Roman Catholics. <snip>

---

quote:

---

You guys don't like to let things like this slip by, do you? Oh well, fair enough, the issues are quite significant. I think on that at least we can agree.

---

quote:

---

What issues are quite significant GC? What do you mean by that? If you could just let me know then I'll know if I'm prepared to agree with what you're saying we can agree about.

---

quote:

---

There are differences between us all, on that I will agree.
But I can't agree that my Roman cousins need to have the Gospel communicated to them: all those I know live it far better than I could ever hope to. But this is getting perhaps Purgatorial.

---

quote:

---

Oh, I didn't mean you had to agree with me; just agreeing that the questions were important would be enough for me.
The sorts of things dealt with by the ecumenical creeds, the Athanasian creed and the Reformation questions about how we are made right with God are the things I'm thinking about.
Purgatorial indeed, Ian!

---

quote:

---

You guys don't like to let things like this slip by, do you? Oh well, fair enough, the issues are quite significant. I think on that at least we can agree.

---

I personally would really like to know what these significant issues are and why we can agree on that fact.
 

---

Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on :
 
Here is a link to the Oz thread for non Australian interested parties, starting at Gordon's post that sparked things off.

Be warned, there is a lot of extraneous material there...what can I say, us Aussies love to talk to each other
 

---

Posted by AdamPater (# 4431) on :
 

quote:

---

Gordon Cheng posted:
My latest Matthias Media project is on how to communicate the gospel to Roman Catholics. <snip>

---

Matthias Media is about to publish the Missal? Or is it the Catechism?
 

---

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
As part of the necessary extensive research for his project, obviously Gordon has to study closely many Catholic sources, must read deeply into the history and documents of the Church all the way back to the earliest times, has to experience prayers like the rosary himself, and of course must attend Catholic mass multiple times. Clearly Gordon wouldn't want to write about something he has not got the first clue about. Once he comes into extensive contact with the Truth of Catholicism and the beautiful Catholic spirituality, it it inevitable that we will convert to Roman Catholicism and become a shining example for all - like so many zealous converts before him. Hence I commend him heartily for this undertaking and wish him all the best for his endeavour - and a speedy welcome back home. Bravely go where many Protestant have gone before - to Rome.
 

---

Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on :
 

quote:

---

Matthias Media is about to publish the Missal? Or is it the Catechism?

---

Anybody interesting in contributing ideas to Evangeline Media for an outreach program to share the gospel with the non-christian branches of Evangelical Anglicans do feel free to PM me.

I've got some Christian tracts I'm going to distribute outside St Matthias next Sunday

Ok I'm quittin now I promise. Gordo has got enough attention from baiting us

[ 09. February 2006, 04:47: Message edited by: Evangeline ]
 

---

Posted by Foaming Draught (# 9134) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
....... has to study closely many Catholic sources, must read deeply into the history and documents of the Church all the way back to the earliest times, has to experience prayers like the rosary himself, and of course must attend Catholic mass multiple times........

---

Ah, I know of someone who fits the bill. German chap called Martin. Fine fellow.
 

---

Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :
 



I'd also like to note, as I did on the Oz thread, that us Orthodox have once again been overlooked in the "sub-Christian" stakes. Can someone from MM be assigned to save us?
 

---

Posted by Puppycat (# 4941) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ian Climacus:



I'd also like to note, as I did on the Oz thread, that us Orthodox have once again been overlooked in the "sub-Christian" stakes. Can someone from MM be assigned to save us?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Left at the Altar:
I'm unsaved. Does that mean I get an icon too?

---

You are an icon.
 

---

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
A directed effort to poach faithful from another denomination is IMHO entirely counter-productive to spreading the gospel in societies in which most citizens are non-Christian, or in our case, post-Christian. It diverts resources, time, and commitment on both sides: of the poachers, but if the poaching becomes significantly successful, of those who are being poached and generally will start to defend.

The only possible way in which this can be motivated is with a neolithic understanding of salvation as entirely binary with regards to one's own denomination: those who are part of one's denomination are saved, all others not. In that case, "other Christians" are with certainty not saved and are as much a target as anyone else. Perhaps they are even a better target, because they may require less "work per head saved", as they may not need as much convincing about Christian truths. However, if one admits that "other Christians" are on average more likely than non-Christians or post-Christians to be already saved - simply because they do know the gospel at least partly - then obviously it's better to direct one's efforts at those more obviously in need.

All that said I see no problem with simply making publically available one's position, even by contrasting one's teaching to that of other denominations. To provide information to those from other denominations who are already seeking to improve their Christian life is not an offense just because it could lead to a conversion. But that information should then be accurate and fair, and it should not be forced onto others with aggressive marketing methods. There's a difference between opening your arms wide and pushing hard.

So, in order to judge whether I find Gordon's project offensive, I would really have to see the final result and how it is "marketed". I have no objection in principle to him presenting his interpretation of the gospel in contrast to Roman Catholicism. I do not worry about a fair comparison, for I'm confident about the outcome...
 

---

Posted by Dee-nz (# 5681) on :
 
Gordon thats naughty!!!

Make some controversial comments and then be to busy to have the conversation.


 

---

Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Custard.:
I think that Christians should tell each other the good news. What's the problem?

---

Cheesy, I think I can safely say, well with 99.95% certainty at least, that Matthias Media is not interested in sharing experiences with their "sub-Christian"(*) friends and learning from them. There are interested in showing who is right [them] and who is wrong [the Romans].

Ingo makes good points [as always]. Though surely a full and proper investigation would lead to Orthodoxy.


(*)as Evangeline posted on the Oz Thread, comments from there include describing Catholic practices as "sub-Christian", and saying the Gospel is compromised when Protestants and Catholics have joint events, say Carols.

[ 09. February 2006, 07:08: Message edited by: Ian Climacus ]
 

---

Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by me:
(*)as Evangeline posted on the Oz Thread, comments from there include describing Catholic practices as "sub-Christian", and saying the Gospel is compromised when Protestants and Catholics have joint events, say Carols.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zappa:
On the other hand, perhaps Gordy is right. Om another thread somewhere I suggested that the two Archbishops of Sydney stand together in the breach fighting post-modernity, each believing the other is not truly a christian. The Sydney machinery became very upset at the suggestion.

So, gordy, let's have Matthias' wee book. And get Pell to launch it. As a sign of your commitment to the unity of the Body of Christ.

---

quote:

---

Cheesy,

---

I think you'll find you're addressing Custard, cobber.
 

---

Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :
 
Sorry Custard...

I was typing with one hand, holding my niece on my lap and alternating between the ship and ABC Kids.



[ 09. February 2006, 08:05: Message edited by: Ian Climacus ]
 

---

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
I was typing with one hand, holding my niece on my lap and alternating between the ship and ABC Kids.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
I think I can safely say, well with 99.95% certainty at least, that Matthias Media is not interested in sharing experiences with their "sub-Christian"(*) friends and learning from them. There are interested in showing who is right [them] and who is wrong [the Romans]

---

quote:

---

I think that Christians should tell each other the good news. What's the problem?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LutheranChik:

quote:

---

I think that Christians should tell each other the good news. What's the problem?

---

The problem is when Christian Group A works under the assumption that members of Christian Group B are "unsaved," not Real Christians [tm], and need to be led away from the Dark Side of their own denomination into the light of Group A.

Sadly, this is been my experience with just about every Christian of the evangelical variety I've ever encountered. Absolutely NO interest in real ecumenical cooperation. They just want me to renounce Lutheran Christianity and my "invalid" baptism and get "born again" according to their own understanding of that term, through their own aggressive ministrations.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LutheranChik:
Telling me that my baptism was a joke, that my Eucharist is a joke, that my favored style of worship is not "genuine" worship, that my denomination is apostate and that I'm not a Real Christian [tm] because my conversion process has not played itself out like that of my Grand Inquisitor is NOT "telling the good news to one another." It's being an ass. I'd just as soon that you wipe the dust of my denominational side of the street off your sandals and go home. Give yourself some martyrdom points for being rejected by the mean, liberal, crypto-Popish bitch who's no doubt going to hell anyway. There...feel better now?

---

That's what I always hated about Luther; the guy was just such a crypto-Papist. If only he had of abandoned the whole Salvation by Grace Alone thing and said the right Sinner's Prayer and invited Jesus into his heart then he could have been a Real Christian. Least he was better than Calvin though; not only did Calvin start life as an RC and believe in infant baptism, he was French, and we all know what God thinks of them.

My advise to Gordon: tell the Gospel to RC's just like you would anyone else. If they agree with you you have found a friend, if they disagree at least you know where you stand. Don't be shy to thoroughly explain what the gospel is and isn't like you would to your own congregation, or to the unchurched. While there may be a temptation to either add to or subtract from the message to either agree with or counter RC teaching, try to avoid doing so. And please, don't do a Two Ways to Live version directed at RC's; the rest of us couldn't stand the embarassment.
 

---

Posted by rexory (# 4708) on :
 
And here I was thinking Sydney Diocese's chief mission was to convert us non-Bible-believing Anglicans in dioceses North, West and South by "planting" "bible-believing" churches in our backyards
Seriously, though, GC, I do find the idea of trying to convert Catholics to the Sydney brand of "Christianity" a sad and pernicious activity.
(Or should that have been said in Hell?)
 

---

Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by RainbowKate:

quote:

---

Originally posted by LutheranChik:
The problem is when Christian Group A works under the assumption that members of Christian Group B are "unsaved," not Real Christians [tm], and need to be led away from the Dark Side of their own denomination into the light of Group A.

Sadly, this is been my experience with just about every Christian of the evangelical variety I've ever encountered...

---

That's been my experience too. When living amongst American evangelicals in Mexico their goal was to "convert the Catholics" which baffled me. Of course then they tried to convert me, and explained in the nicest of terms how Episcopalians were going to hell along with the Catholics, Lutherans, and oh, just about everyone else. I must have missed that bit in the Bible that said "Go forth and preach the Gospel to with arrogance".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quantpole:
This raises a somewhat interesting question. Is it OK if some other person/group thinks you are seriously in error as long as they don't tell you that too much?

---

quote:

---

Homer: [as Reiner] Sir, today every country has a national anthem. Did they have national anthems 2000 years ago?
Brooks: [Yiddish voice] Sure. Sure, we had. Of course, we was caves... but every cave had a national anthem. I'll never forget that my cave's national anthem was --
Homer: What was that...national anthem?
Brooks: [singing] Let 'em all go to hell.... except Cave 76!

---

quote:

---

I'd be happy to discuss our different faith/tradition if it were a discussion and not a conversion attempt.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LutheranChik:
Quantpole: In the area where I live approximately 60 percent of the population has no religious affiliation.

I'm sure for those of you in other parts of the world this percentage is higher.

With those statistics in mind, why are you bothering with "sheep-stealing" other Christians who are happy in their faith traditions? Why aren't you directing your energies to the 60 or 70 or 80 or 90 percent of the people around you who have given up on Christianity entirely?

Why don't you just let me "work out my own salvation in fear and trembling" according to St. Paul's advice?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LutheranChik:

quote:

---

I think that Christians should tell each other the good news. What's the problem?

---

The problem is when Christian Group A works under the assumption that members of Christian Group B are "unsaved," not Real Christians [tm], and need to be led away from the Dark Side of their own denomination into the light of Group A.

Sadly, this is been my experience with just about every Christian of the evangelical variety I've ever encountered.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
I was typing with one hand, holding my niece on my lap and alternating between the ship and ABC Kids.

---

Are you sure you're not channelling Gordon??

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LutheranChik:
Sadly, this is been my experience with just about every Christian of the evangelical variety I've ever encountered. Absolutely NO interest in real ecumenical cooperation. They just want me to renounce Lutheran Christianity and my "invalid" baptism and get "born again" according to their own understanding of that term, through their own aggressive ministrations.

---

quote:

---

When people try to correct my theology I try to remember that they are generally doing it because they are concerned for me.

---

That's not been my experience. My experience is that the people trying to correct my theology don't give a rat's patootie about me as a person, nor do they really care to hear about my own faith journey (which I'm quite happy to share), because they've already made up their minds that I am doomed.

One ex-member of a choir I was in, who crashed our practice one evening to inform us all that he had found the One True Faith and had come back to our apostate rat's nest to warn us to repent , said that when he died God was going to hold him personally accountable for every soul he could have saved but didn't try to, so that is why he had come to yell at us. I wouldn't call that "concern." I'd call that CYA vis-a-vis the Almighty.

Well, Custard, I don't know -- do you go around automatically assuming that someone who tells you that s/he's Christian is really self-delusional until you, Custard, can straighten him or her out, or ascertain from some presumed ex cathedra position that that person is indeed a Real Christian [tm]?

I don't go around doing this to other Christians. I don't automatically assume that other people who self-identify as Christians aren't Real Christians [tm] -- not even if I don't like or understand their theology or practice. I don't want every non-Lutheran in Christendom to immediately "repent" and become a Lutheran.
 

---

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
LutheranChik

A rat's patootie! And CYA vis-a-vis the Almighty! Preach it sista! (You may convert a few to more ethical and considerate behaviour.)
 

---

Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by LutheranChik:

quote:

---

When people try to correct my theology I try to remember that they are generally doing it because they are concerned for me.

---

That's not been my experience. My experience is that the people trying to correct my theology don't give a rat's patootie about me as a person, nor do they really care to hear about my own faith journey (which I'm quite happy to share), because they've already made up their minds that I am doomed.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quantpole:
This raises a somewhat interesting question. Is it OK if some other person/group thinks you are seriously in error as long as they don't tell you that too much?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LutheranChik:
I wouldn't call that "caring" about me as anything more than the theological version of a notch on a bedpost. (Thank you, Rainbow Kate, for that metaphor.)

Again -- if they really cared, they'd listen to me and want to form a genuine relationship with me not based on trying to "fix" me. I don't want to "fix" them unless they indicate a sincere wanting to be "fixed" in my theological direction.

---

I'm curious why you felt Joyfulsoul was not caring about her friend but trying to make her a Muslim notch on the bedpost. What did she say in her post that made you feel that way? Is it wrong at all to share your religion like she did in her post? What should she have done different LutheranChik?

I say this since I too had a similar experience many years ago with a Muslim Californian chick when I worked for a Palo Alto Call Center for a software company.

[eta: explanation for questions]

[ 09. February 2006, 18:39: Message edited by: duchess ]
 

---

Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :
 
Oops...JoyfulSoul and I cross-posted. I didn't see her post. I was responding to the other post about "caring" meaning "wanting to save from doom."
 

---

Posted by duchess (# 2764) on :
 
Ahh, got it sistah. Thx.
 

---

Posted by James the Confident (# 9678) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by LutheranChik:
My denomination practices open communion

---

The only experience I have had of the Lutheran church was in the USA where I received a severe dressing down for taking communion without being a Lutheran. Perhaps that was a local view of the minister concerned but I did feel terribly embarrased at the time.
 

---

Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :
 
The ELCA, the largest Lutheran denomination in the US, practices open communion.

The LCMS, one of the more conservative Lutheran church bodies, does not.

As far as that goes, there are conservative churches that practice what is called close communion, where the only people allowed to commune are people who belong to that congregation. In my neck of the woods a lot of independent Baptist churches practice close communion -- if you're not one of their own flock they can't vouch for your theological correctness, and thus you don't commune.
 

---

Posted by RainbowKate (# 9331) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:

quote:

---

Originally posted by LutheranChik:

quote:

---

When people try to correct my theology I try to remember that they are generally doing it because they are concerned for me.

---

That's not been my experience. My experience is that the people trying to correct my theology don't give a rat's patootie about me as a person, nor do they really care to hear about my own faith journey (which I'm quite happy to share), because they've already made up their minds that I am doomed.

---

When people assume that I am doomed, and they tell me about it to rescue me from that, I usually try to assume they are doing that because they don't want me to be doomed. That's all I was saying.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by GoodCatholicLad:
They can think whatever they want I don't care. It's none of their business what anyone's faith is or lack of and they should keep their mouth shut or the friendship is terminated. This is why I have a problem with fundamentalism of any faith, Christian, Muslim whatever.

---

quote:

---

So let me get this straight. Suppose there's a group out there who somehow genuinely do know truthfully that you are going to hell unless you do something / believe something / whatever. You'd rather they didn't tell you?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by dinghy sailor:
RainbowKate, let me get this straight, please. Are you saying that anyone who is not a universalist is a fundamentalist?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RainbowKate:
James the Confident,*snip Sorry for any offense. *Snip

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by dinghy sailor:
Okay, sorry, your statement implied that you were. Tell me, then. Do you consider that your faith position is more probably one that could save you, or do you have no idea? In which case, have you looked into the matter? What are your thoughts on it?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Custard.:
So let me get this straight. Suppose there's a group out there who somehow genuinely do know truthfully that you are going to hell unless you do something / believe something / whatever. You'd rather they didn't tell you?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by dinghy sailor:
You talk of "traditions". But what is your view when the net is widened to other religions?

---

It's a view I struggle with, and I am still working out what I believe in regards to other religions. It makes me very uncomfortable to say that non-Christians are going to hell. But I also can't say that I spend a lot of time worrying about whether other people are going to heaven or hell.

As an aside, I leave for a conference tomorrow AM and so will have to drop out of the discussion for a couple days.
 

---

Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :
 
I know I asked this before (I'm kind of getting used to not being answered), but I'm wondering what the role of the Holy Spirit is in a theology that places the burden of salvation on 1)an individual thinking, working, feeling or willing him-/herself into it; and on 2)the individuals told that they need to try, by any means necessary, to get some presumed "unsaved" individual to 1). It comes down to the question of whether salvation is something you do for yourself or something that God does for you.

I suspect that might be one of those arcane criteria for judging someone Not a Real Christian[tm]: "Rejects 'decision theology.'" Not to mention, "Dislikes our outreach methodology and isn't afraid to say so."

Well, the silver lining is, if they take Herr Professor Doktor Luther's comments to heart (even though he probably wasn't a Real Christian[tm] either), I'll have countless weeping people praying for me tonight. And I need all the help I can get.
 

---

Posted by duchess (# 2764) on :
 
Calvinists need not answer here?
[eta: Asking LutheranChik ]

[ 09. February 2006, 23:25: Message edited by: duchess ]
 

---

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
LutheranChik, isn't the ELCA the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America? (I vaguely remember you and I agreeing on a thread a few months ago that "we wanted our word (i.e. evangelical) back" from the various hijackers around).

BTW, while we're waiting for some response to your perfectly reasonable question, I guess this might be a sort of decent scriptural test.

quote:

---

1 John 2:9-11 (New International Version)
New International Version (NIV)

9Anyone who claims to be in the light but hates his brother is still in the darkness. 10Whoever loves his brother lives in the light, and there is nothing in him to make him stumble. 11But whoever hates his brother is in the darkness and walks around in the darkness; he does not know where he is going, because the darkness has blinded him.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Custard.:

quote:

---

Originally posted by GoodCatholicLad:
They can think whatever they want I don't care. It's none of their business what anyone's faith is or lack of and they should keep their mouth shut or the friendship is terminated. This is why I have a problem with fundamentalism of any faith, Christian, Muslim whatever.

---

So let me get this straight. Suppose there's a group out there who somehow genuinely do know truthfully that you are going to hell unless you do something / believe something / whatever. You'd rather they didn't tell you?

---

I have to say I find the arrogance of the use of the word "know" here to be absolutely breathtaking, and possibly goes to the heart of the issue. Faith is not about "knowing", it is about "believing". To say "I know ..." sets me up as the person with "The fact"™, who must convince everyone else who denies "The fact"™ that they are wrong. Worse, perhaps I have to force them to accept "The fact"™, what with them being so incorrect and all. But when I say "I believe ...", a measure of humility is added, which may help another to hear my point of view (or not, YMMV).

To say to someone, in the context of a friendship "I believe you are going to hell unless you..." will probably not go down very well, but may be tolerated if your friend knows you care about them. I'm guessing (I've never been dumb enough to try - thank God) that to tell someone "I know you are going to hell unless you ..." may not endear you to them. You may be stricken from their Christmas card list. Or worse

This is not even to mention all the fluffy universalist wannabee persons like me who do their best 80% of the time to believe no one is going to hell
 

---

Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :
 
Well, I'm going to bed. Perhaps someone in another time zone will answer my simple question about what criteria are used to identify Real Christians [tm] from unreal Christians.
 

---

Posted by Spiffy da Wonder Sheep (# 5267) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by LutheranChik:
Ricardus: I'll answer your question with a comment Martin Luther once made. He said that if someone were truly concerned about the state of another person's soul, that first person should be on his knees, weeping in prayer for that person, day and night, and befriending that person in a genuine way. Have I ever received that treatment at the hands of someone who assumes that I'm going to hell? You have got to be kidding.

---

quote:

---

To say to someone, in the context of a friendship "I believe you are going to hell unless you..." will probably not go down very well, but may be tolerated if your friend knows you care about them. I'm guessing (I've never been dumb enough to try - thank God) that to tell someone "I know you are going to hell unless you ..." may not endear you to them. You may be stricken from their Christmas card list. Or worse

---

On a certain University campus in the Eastern suburbs of Sydney, groups of Christians ambush their friends and class mates and do exactly that with monotonous regularity. It is the recommended approach to evangelism, infact I distinctly remember their stall one Oweek emblazoned with "Do you know where YOU'RE going?" they had materials (I think it was Mathias Media's Two Ways to Live) that then set out that if you weren't a Christian (by their definition) you were going to hell. There was an absolute certainty that they held the truth and others were gravely in error, believing in women's ordination for example, was unequivocal proof that you weren't a Christian.
 

---

Posted by the_giant_cheeseburger (# 10942) on :
 
I think the literal definition of "Christian" is somebody who is like Christ. The can of worms is now open!

To be like Christ, a person needs to be perfect! However, then we have humans ... I think we need to have Christ living in us to be a Christian, like Paul says in Gal 2:20-21. To do this, we need to first be crucified with him. This is so we can die a death deserved for our sins and be resurrected with Christ living in us.

The evidence that Christ is living in a person will be that they will act like it. You should notice a difference in the way a Christian acts compared to a non-Christian.

For example, their reverence (i.e. worship) towards God. This does not depend on ritual things like physically bowing every time you hear the name of Jesus, confessing to another human or going through the motions of a liturgical mass. That is just a superficial religion, not a real relationship with God.

Genuine reverence towards God means doing what He says - i.e. obey the Word of God. That means showing compassion and love to all others, including those who don't believe what you do. That means Christians shouldn't spend more time in Church to try and be more devout, they should be out on the streets pouring out compassion to those who would otherwise be ignored.

Christians should also not restrict any of their rites to other Christians who have differences in views. This goes plainly against the command to "love one another."

This leads us back to the original point of this thread - the "sinfulness" of the RC church. I believe the closed mass of the RC church is distinctly opposed to the second greatest commandment, i.e. on this basis = sinful. It is on this basis (and the contention that belief in Jesus' sacrifice is not enough to be saved) that many Christians with good intentions preach to RCs.

This is right - and wrong. While not mutually exclusive, Roman Catholicism does not define Christianity as Christianity cannot be defined by an institution. Therefore I belive it is possible to be a RC devoted to their religion but not a Christian.

While this is most noticable with the RC church, it can apply to any church/group which sets up an organised religion. However, the great thing is that God can work in people despite the failings of the institutional church. Therefore while the institution of Roman Catholicism may be greatly errant and sinful, so are all other organised churches to a degree. Despite this, God can minister to others no matter what the circumstances, so Christians should only preach to other people (Christians, RCs, protestants, atheists etc. - anybody) if led by the Holy Spirit, which is the only infallible guide to spiritual matters.


Finally, just to clarify my view on things raised since I started this post (Firefox tabs are great!) - I believe that there are "essentials" to the Christian faith and other not so essential things as well. Things such as female leaders etc. don't matter as much as the important stuff, which is the problem with fundamentalists - they focus on the wrong areas. You cannot say to somebody that because they are an RC that they will go to hell. I must admit I sometimes feel tempted to say that to the histerical Catholic woman who preaches at people at Adelaide Railway Station - she is a great advertisement of why not to be a RC.
 

---

Posted by James the Confident (# 9678) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evangeline:
believing in women's ordination for example, was unequivocal proof that you weren't a Christian. [/QB]

---

Oh damn, and here was I thinking I was bound for heaven
 

---

Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on :
 

quote:

---

Posted by the_giant_cheeseburger:
<snip>This leads us back to the original point of this thread - the "sinfulness" of the RC church. I believe the closed mass of the RC church is distinctly opposed to the second greatest commandment, i.e. on this basis = sinful. It is on this basis (and the contention that belief in Jesus' sacrifice is not enough to be saved) that many Christians with good intentions preach to RCs. <snip>

---

quote:

---

the contention that belief in Jesus' sacrifice is not enough to be saved

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dark Knight:

quote:

---

the contention that belief in Jesus' sacrifice is not enough to be saved

---

But I don't know where this contention came from. Who is saying this?

---

quote:

---

The entire activity of the Church is an expression of a love that seeks the integral good of man: it seeks his evangelization through Word and Sacrament, an undertaking that is often heroic in the way it is acted out in history; and it seeks to promote man in the various arenas of life and human activity. Love is therefore the service that the Church carries out in order to attend constantly to man's sufferings and his needs, including material needs.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the_giant_cheeseburger:

This is right - and wrong. While not mutually exclusive, Roman Catholicism does not define Christianity as Christianity cannot be defined by an institution. Therefore I belive it is possible to be a RC devoted to their religion but not a Christian.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Duo Seraphim:
Yes, we should all be communicating the Gospel. But "communicate" here means a one way communication, based on one method of interpeting the Bible, literally, without context and without Tradition. "You don't understand the Bible our way, so you are wrong" - from a Catholic perspective, it just isn't persuasive.

As IngoB naughtily suggested, to make it work you would have to engage with what Catholics actually believe. I think this would be instructive - there is nothing like knowing the enem...er, target audience. Come back to Rome - or at least recognise that we are saved too. (Some sort of recognition of the Catholic parish 50 metres up the road from you might be a start.)

The other aspect of "communicate the Gospel to Roman Catholics" that bothers me is that reading the Word is only one way of spreading the Gospel to others. The real trick is do so without words through living its moral values, as St Francis of Assisi said.("Preach the Gospel daily. If necessary use words".)

The Real Christians, I suggest, are those who follow the two Great Commandments, who love God unreservedly and who love their neighbour as themselves and thus express their love of God and deepen their relationship with God. Benedict XVI put it rather better at paragraphs 9 to 18 than I just have.

Love of God and of neighbour carries responsibilities with it:

quote:

---

The entire activity of the Church is an expression of a love that seeks the integral good of man: it seeks his evangelization through Word and Sacrament, an undertaking that is often heroic in the way it is acted out in history; and it seeks to promote man in the various arenas of life and human activity. Love is therefore the service that the Church carries out in order to attend constantly to man's sufferings and his needs, including material needs.

---

That reference to "evangelisation [of man] by Word and Sacrament" is rather wider than the concept "communicate the Gospel to Roman Catholics", as if it were something we had never heard of before or hadn't understood.

Dialogue is just great.

Telling us about the Gospel is just great. Let us tell you about the Gospel too.

Assuming that we need to have our views corrected to an evanglical focus, as opposed to our experience of the love of God and the radical encounter with Jesus Christ Pope Benedict talks of - well, that's just missing the point.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dark Knight:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zappa:
On the other hand, perhaps Gordy is right. Om another thread somewhere I suggested that the two Archbishops of Sydney stand together in the breach fighting post-modernity, each believing the other is not truly a christian. The Sydney machinery became very upset at the suggestion.

So, gordy, let's have Matthias' wee book. And get Pell to launch it. As a sign of your commitment to the unity of the Body of Christ.

---

Zappa may be joking (I don't know), but is there any hope for the ecumenical venture, Gordon? Or are the "significant issues" you mention too big an issue for MM type evangelicalism for RCs to be recognised as "Christians".

I guess I am asking, does the idea that you have to "communicate the gospel to Roman Catholics" imply to you that Catholic faith must be altered in order for it to fit into "the Gospel"?
<snip>

---

I was deadly serious about asking Sydney's RC Archbishop Pell to launch the book.

If Gordy is serious and all MathiasMedia are doing is, in an exercise of good faith, challenging their RC brothers and sisters to dig deeper into their encounter with Christ, their scriptures (including the deutero-canonicals!), their liturgies ( lex orandi lex credendi and all that) and their tradition, then, you bewdy, go for it. I believe even Billy Graham encouraged Catholics touched by God at his rallies to return to their churches and continue their God-breathed journey.

But if Gordy and his Matthias mates are suggesting that Catholics are misled, wrong or otherwise f*cked in their relationship with the risen lord, then I suggest their sphincters should prepare for insertion of their own phylacteries with considerable force.

And if they are suggesting that the Roman Catholic understanding for example of the eucharist/mass/Lord’s Supper/call-it-what-you-will is somehow deficient and counter-gospel, counter-salvation, then they need to get their heads out of their respective colons and read the entire history of anamnesis (Greek word for “memorial”) and epiclesis (Greek word for “calling down”) and the twists and turns, errors and corrections that have informed all shades of Christianity in the years since Jesus and his refractory mates gathered in an upper room in the City of Peace.
 

---

Posted by Joyfulsoul (# 4652) on :
 
And can I just add how inspired I was regarding the recent Pope's first encyclical. It was very wonderful and encouraging to hear him speak about love (and how true it is that we often commodify it) and how important it is to pursue social justice and emmulate Christ. Rock on, RC!
 

---

Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :
 
But is he a Christian™
 

---

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zappa:
But is he a Christian™

---

LC's question just isn't going to go away any time soon!
 

---

Posted by quantpole (# 8401) on :
 
OK, I'll have a go at a hypothetical situation.

I have a friend who identifies as C of E, he goes to church at christmas and maybe easter. After going to a carol service we get talking a bit, and I ask him what he thinks being a Christian is all about. He replies that it's about being a good person, after all he's 'better' than most people he knows so he'll be alright when he dies.

At this point is it ok for me to say that being a christian is more than just being 'good'? Or do I just nod away and not say anything?

(I'd like to place a few caveats on this situation; I'm not in this friendship to try and get another 'notch', I listen to what he is saying and don't just bash out my message, I try to be humble and not act like I have the One True Way™)
 

---

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
All this is very high-minded and educational, but frankly, I think the most important piece of information is simply missing: what is Gordon actually up to?

I have met so far only one fundamentalist in Melbourne who tried to force-save me. He was a bit on the back foot from the beginning, because I was actually reading the bible when he approached me... But anyway, many Whores of Babylon later I told him that I'm entirely content to consciously persist in my religious illusions and delusions. That sort of stumped him. So now we just exchange these entirely weird short greetings when we meet on the tram, e.g., "Are you still happy to persist in illusion?" "Sure am." "OK then."

Now, that guy always reminds me of Nietzsche's saying "You will have to look more redeemed if I am to believe in your redeemer." Problem is: from what I've seen here Gordon seems like a decent chap, quite probably a good deal "holier" than me, and he even has some brains. Now, clearly he has latched onto some rather unfortunate Calvinistic doctrines. But as far as I can tell he does seem to genuinely care about other peole, again quite probably a good deal more than I do.

My point is: the discussion so far basically works on the assumption that Gordon is just like that fundamentalist nutcase I sometimes meet on the tram. Well, I don't think that that is quite true. So I suggest we give Gordon the benefit of the doubt and stop projecting the entire outrage at fundamentalists in general and Sydney evAnglicans in particular onto Gordon...

[ 10. February 2006, 09:00: Message edited by: IngoB ]
 

---

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
IngoB

RuthW said something like that earlier when she changed the thread title and since then I don't think the discussion has been "Gordon-focussed". Maybe there have been a few asides. BTW, from what happens on the these boards, I have no problem accepting your assessment of him.
 

---

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Well, it is an odd world view really. The only possible justification for preaching to Catholics (or Lutherans, or Salvationists, or conevo Australian Catholics) with a view to conversion is if you honestly believe that the folks in those communions - or associated with those communions - won't encounter God where they are.

---

quote:

---

Okay, Custard, I'll bite: How is it that you can know that someone else who also identifies as a Christian is actually going to hell? What are your criteria for identifying Christian poseurs ?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
Forget about going to hell or whatever - if you think that Christianity is true, and that its better to be a Christian than not, how can you object to evanglism?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LutheranChik:


And while no one has actually responded to my repeated requests for the criteria by which they come to know that someone is Not a Christian and going to hell,

---

quote:

---

I think the reason that no one has responded is because no one here is talking about making that assumption at all.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:
I think people here are thinking of something far more like "In view of my considered position that the Christian Gospel is x, and that you seem to believe it is y, I am under the impression that you are very much mistaken about some quite important things..."

Really, this requires no consideration on my part whether the person is Hellbound or not, and therefore I have never had to make a list.

---

This is an important point. There are all sorts of reasons why I might want my co-religionists to change their minds. And I think we should remember that it cuts both ways - liberal and conservative.

Speaking as someone of a moderately liberal persuasion myself, I would like my conservative brethren and sistren to hold different opinions. Of course one reason for this is intellectual pride, but I'd like to claim there is some altruism there as well.

My university Christian Union, which is mostly Conservative Evangelical, likes outreach and evangelism. And the subtext of their message is that non-Christians, ie most of the student body, are all going to Hell. I disagree with this: and if I'm right, then the CU is libelling God in the eyes of the world. What would you have me do?

[Post 666! Crosses self thoroughly and seeks holy water to anoint screen.]

[ 10. February 2006, 17:08: Message edited by: Ricardus ]
 

---

Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :
 
Responding to the comment about making people aware of supposed "false teaching"...then I guess no one here will be offended if I offer the following suggestion: That, if our "god" is that in which we put our ultimate, radical trust; and we put our ultimate, radical trust in our own ability to get it right about God, whether via correct theology or "making a decision" or doing enough stuff/avoiding the right stuff; we have ipso facto made ourselves our own little gods, instead of placing our ultimate, radical trust in the saving power of Jesus Christ; and that mindset violates the very first commandment: You shall have no other gods before me.

I hope I've now satisfied your contention that good Christians should be concerned about others' eternal welfare, by my pointing out of your own school of thought's grave soteriological errors.

Boy...this judging thing is fun. I should do it more often.
 

---

Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by LutheranChik:

quote:

---

I think the reason that no one has responded is because no one here is talking about making that assumption at all.

---

Oh, yes, they did. I think Barnabbas can vouch for that.

---

quote:

---

So let me get this straight. Suppose there's a group out there who somehow genuinely do know truthfully that you are going to hell unless you do something / believe something / whatever. You'd rather they didn't tell you?

---

I think quantpole is right that this was a hypothetical.

ETA: No Lutheranchik I'm not offended. Because, as I said above, I'm assuming you are telling me about my "error" because you are bothered about me thinking right things and being guilty of idolatry. I think you are wrong. This is where we can have a discussion, where I try to persuade you where I am right, and you try to persuade me of the same. I think it's possible to do that without need for either of us to become notches on each other's bedposts.

[ 10. February 2006, 17:15: Message edited by: Leprechaun ]
 

---

Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :
 
All very sad this.

The thing that sticks in my gullet is that, in some peoples' minds and perhaps on a casual perusal, it is the Roman Catholic Church which is the most judgemental of all, and excluding of all. And we do have a strong belief that the Catholic Church is the one build on the rock, Peter, and that all should be one with her. So a peremptory reading would be that we believe that those not in are definitely out.

Which is not true at all. In fact, the Catholic Church believes that ALL the baptised are in the Church, though some are separated from it. We are highly committed to restoring that unity which should exist, which is why we do not like shortcuts which make it seem like we have that unity when in fact we do not.

We would never, ever, presume to tell Christians of other backgrounds that they are damned, lost, in need of the Gospel etc. We never, ever, baptise someone who has already been baptised in another church. We receive them into "full communion" with the Church.

To those who think we, or any other kind of Christian, "need to hear the Gospel": well fek off - you obviously know nothing about it so I don't want to hear if from you anyway, thank you very much,
 

---

Posted by Custard. (# 5402) on :
 
Yeah - when I use the word "suppose", it is generally to introduce a hypothetical.

I don't know that any one individual is going to hell. I don't know exactly what constitutes saving faith (given that, for example, the bleeding woman had it). Nor do I know the state of anyone's relationship with God (though I have some ideas about my own).

My question, especially in context, was intended to be entirely hypothetical and directed against the idea that people should never share their faith with us.
 

---

Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :
 
Share their faith with us is one thing. Tell us we are damned if we don't share that faith is another.
 

---

Posted by Custard. (# 5402) on :
 
Oh, and in response to Dark Knight's earlier question about how on earth anyone could be that sure that someone else was going to hell - I don't know (unless the person doing the knowing was Jesus). That's why I prefixed what I was saying with "suppose", and used the word "somehow" just before the word "knew".

Custard. // uberpedant

[ 10. February 2006, 17:25: Message edited by: Custard. ]
 

---

Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :
 
Triple Tiara: Regarding Catholic judgmentalism: I've often thought that if I were hit by a speeding car at a corner and were lying on the curb, bleeding and in extremis , I'd much rather have the last rites administered to me by a Catholic priest than some ranting person screaming at me, "IF YOU DIE, ARE YOU SURE THAT YOU'RE GOING TO HEAVEN? ARE YOU? ARE YOU REAL SURE? ARE YOU REAL, REAL SURE? CAN YOU SAY THE SINNER'S PRAYER? CAN YOU?..." "What would Jesus do," indeed...
 

---

Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :
 
And, my dear, if I was that priest I would give you all the spiritual goods I had in my power to give.

You've heard the lovely joke about that very situation, perhaps?

As told by Rabbi Lionel Blue - Jewish person knocked down dying, priest rushes up: "Do you believe in the Father, Son and Holy Spirit?"

Answer: "I'm dying - is this a good time to ask me riddles?"

Or the variant:

Priest: Do you renounce Satan and all his works?
Answer: I'm dying - this is no time for me to be making enemies!
 

---

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
I think LutheranChik's question - prompted as you say by Custard's post, but also by the whole nature of the thread - is actually a very good and cautionary one. Which is why I kept repeating it! In the situation of meetings and discussions with self-declared Christians, if it causes folks to ask these two questions.

a) how can I know anyway?

and

b) can't we have a decent conversation about faith without bothering about it?

that would seem to be progress. There does seem to me to be a world of difference between leprechaun's very straightforward post (which points to the sort of vigourous discussions we can have with folks who see things differently) and the sort of rubbish LutheranChik has described as experiencing personally. Basically, that was abuse. Thoughtless, stupid behaviour. It seems to me possible to agree on that at least.

Funnily enough, I've been thinking about SofF as a place where issues are discussed vigourously and, certainly in Purg, with a fair measure of respect and courtesy. Given the stuff we get up to here, it all strikes me as rather good practice for faith sharing. I don't spot a lot of pussyfooting about. It is possible to be both respectful, loving even, and yet make it clear where you come from and why.

I'm actually with quantpole on pussyfooting around in normal conversations - but in order to speak frankly to people on serious matters, it is important to have some mutual respect, a common vocabulary and permission.

I note Triple Tiara has joined in the fun - I'd begun to wonder where the Catholics had gone. Here am I, mr nonco nonco, holding out for a non-judgmental approach - together with a Lutheran! BTW, happy to have the Last Rites in that unhappy hypothetical. Dont think I need them, but what's the point of being arrogant .....
 

---

Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :
 

quote:

---

...it is important to have some mutual respect, a common vocabulary and permission.

---

 

---

Posted by GoodCatholicLad (# 9231) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
All very sad this.

The thing that sticks in my gullet is that, in some peoples' minds and perhaps on a casual perusal, it is the Roman Catholic Church which is the most judgemental of all, and excluding of all. And we do have a strong belief that the Catholic Church is the one build on the rock, Peter, and that all should be one with her. So a peremptory reading would be that we believe that those not in are definitely out.

Which is not true at all. In fact, the Catholic Church believes that ALL the baptised are in the Church, though some are separated from it. We are highly committed to restoring that unity which should exist, which is why we do not like shortcuts which make it seem like we have that unity when in fact we do not.

We would never, ever, presume to tell Christians of other backgrounds that they are damned, lost, in need of the Gospel etc. We never, ever, baptise someone who has already been baptised in another church. We receive them into "full communion" with the Church.

To those who think we, or any other kind of Christian, "need to hear the Gospel": well fek off - you obviously know nothing about it so I don't want to hear if from you anyway, thank you very much,

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quantpole:
I have conversations about footie every day where I disagree with my mates, but I don't just shut up then. There also seems to be displeasure that I would talk to someone who may or may not be a christian ...

---

quote:

---

So, in short, evangelism in the sense of spreading the Good News, fine. Evangelism in the sense of re-aligning faulty theology, not so good.

---

Indeed. Which is why we are discouraged from referring to people who are received into full communion with the RC Church as "converts". Converts are those who come from outside the Christian family and need to be baptised.

Not that we adhere to this though! "Convert" still usually means someone who was once an Anglican

Barnabas, thank you for being such a nice supportive nonco nonco
 

---

Posted by dinghy sailor (# 8507) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by CrookedCucumber:
I might disagree with a friend or colleague deeply and irrevocably about the merits of the football team he or she supports; I might tell or her so in no uncertain terms. But I wouldn't therefore argue that he is not a `real football supporter'. I wouldn't ever harbour the idea that he or she doesn't take his footie seriously, or is lukewarm in his support for his team.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by CrookedCucumber:
So, in short, evangelism in the sense of spreading the Good News, fine. Evangelism in the sense of re-aligning faulty theology, not so good.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by dinghy sailor:
Depends what the theology is. If it's that we get to Heaven because we've paid priests lots of money, and that's because the church will be pleased with us (Jesus? Who's he? Where does he come into the matter?) then it definitely does need correcting. (No, I know the RCC doesn't teach that.) Or what about our theology, or study of God, is that we hate God? That certainly needs some serious correction.

---

quote:

---

A good start, however, is usually that someone identifies on forms that their religion is in fact the denomination their parents grew up in, but the word "Trinity" conjoures up images of the Matrix in their heads before anything else. I'm not saying that that's a guarantee of being Hellbound (or even non-Christian), but it indicates this person belongs to a group among which, on the evidence available to me, there exist a smaller percentage of people who can be expected to know Jesus (from my experience of a large number of people in this group) than the percentage that probably exists in the congregation of the church I'll go to on Sunday.
Satisfied?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
Priest: Do you renounce Satan and all his works?
Answer: I'm dying - this is no time for me to be making enemies!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LutheranChik:
I'm "going on about it" in the (frankly dim) hope that someone will share this conversation with a church evangelism group somewhere and get a discussion going about respecting other Christians, working under the assumption that they ARE Christians, and not assuming that they're just more fresh meat for "conversion" attempts.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
A sort of unequal but opposite one, perhaps?

---

Nice one, Dave.

On waking, I'm pretty content with my previous post. Should have said "people" rather than "guys". But the motes and beams thing looks pretty good this morning.
 

---

Posted by Custard. (# 5402) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by LutheranChik:
Christians who do not need to be evangelized

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Custard.:
I need to be evangelised. We all do. Even in Isaiah 52:7 (whence the word "evangelised" from the LXX), the proclamation of good news is to Zion.

---

quote:

---

No worries LC, I can fully understand where you're coming from. Like Gill H I've been a party to behaviour I regret now (my CU did a talk entitled Roman Catholicism: Another Religion? once), though nowhere near as bad as what you have described. It doesn't matter if the 'target' is a Christian or not - that sort of behaviour is inexcusable.

There is a very real danger in evangelicalism to see people as targets and take on a sort of martyr mentality of "doing the Lord's work". I would say that the situation seems to be somewhat worse in the US than over here though.

---

Since then LC has been fixated on the word 'know' for no apparent reason, has said that I assume people aren't Christians which I don't, and now seems to be asking for me to take responsibility for people's actions I don't know and indeed from the sounds of things would be embarrassed to share the label 'evangelical' with.

Do you think I don't know there are things wrong in evo-world? Why do you think I'm on here in the first place? You have absolutely no idea whether I try to encourage better practice or not, and that is not what this discussion is about. I'm frankly tired of being made to feel I should apologise for being an evangelical.
 

---

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quantpole

Sorry for the offence. I only disagree with you about one thing. The OP provided scope for consideration of three things.

1. The appropriateness of preaching to self-declared Christians

2. The manner in which that is done

3. The reasons for people doing it.

I think the rest follows from that.

I'm glad you posted the way you did before and overlooked that in the context of your later post (and as a result, misunderstood them to some extent). That was a mistake. It looks like you and I have a lot in common. Well, I did say I might live to regret my late night post - wish I'd looked back a bit further this morning.

My apologies once again.
 

---

Posted by quantpole (# 8401) on :
 
Thanks Barnabas, it's been a bit confusing because from what you've posted before it seems like we're on a similar wavelength

Anyway, I would be more than happy to have a discussion on what within evangelicalism gives rise to the behaviour that has been described.
 

---

Posted by DangerousDeacon (# 10582) on :
 
There has been a lot of discussion here on the word "know". As a matter of simple logic, I cannot "know" whether someone else is saved or not, at least in the same way as I know 2 + 2 = 4, or know that my mother loves me. Why? 2 + 2 = 4 and my mother are finite things. I can know them. God is infinite - it is pure arrogance for a finite being to claim to "know" the mind of the infinite being, and whom God has saved or not saved. So, thats the logic of epistemology applied to the claim of the knowledge of God's will. However ....

We also believe that God has revealed his will to us, and indicated to us those things necessary to salvation. And salvation is a very good thing. So if someone has not done those things or believed those things necessary to salvation, or is doing things imperilling their eternal soul (nod of head to universalists here), then they are in deep trouble. Further, as Christians we hold to a faith based on evangelisation (small 'e'), and on love of others - together this would mean that we should actively seek to help those whose souls are imperilled.

Hmmm. So, what principles should we hold here. Firstly, who is the suitable 'target' for evangelisation? Second, how should we evangelise?

First, I would think that any active member of a Christian denomination is likely to be "saved", so why would you assume otherwise and waste your time? Surely a bit of humility here is also good - no one has the absolute purchase on truth, and to assume that your denomination is qualitatively different from another denomination sharing the same credal basis is bizzare. Sharing our differences is a good thing, as we have much to learn from each other - but to try to "convert" other Christians seems a stange thing. At the other extreme, we probably can recognise people to whom we do have a clear duty to evangelise - but other Christians are not among them, I would think.

This then leads onto the question of appropriate evangelistic methods. In this I am reminded of Paul on the Aeropagus - in his speech he was respectful and did not once quote scripture. But perhaps this is something for another thread. Suffice it to say that quoting bible verses at other Christians and telling them they are not saved smacks of both earthly pride and false knowledge. If this is the "evangelism" that people on this thread are objecting to, then I am with them, at least partly for the reasons set out above (and with apologies for the length of the post)
 

---

Posted by dinghy sailor (# 8507) on :
 
I think I agree with everything you've said there, DD. Though I'd just like to point out that I thought were were mainly discussing what you reference below:

quote:

---

Originally posted by DangerousDeacon:
First, I would think that any active member of a Christian denomination is likely to be "saved", so why would you assume otherwise and waste your time?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pyx_e:
Of course some of are just waiting for Gordo

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gort:
There seems to be a recurring position that you're working from on various threads, Dave. I can't quite put my finger on it just yet. I'm trying, though.

---

quote:

---

That's actually not a joke. Or rather, it's a historic joke. It was actually said by Voltaire on his deathbed when indeed asked by a priest to renounce Satan: "Now now, dear man, this is not the time to be making enemies." (I assume he said it in French though...)

---

quote:

---

Motes and beams, guys. God help us all if we turn our backs on evangelism. The church is for the lost the last and the least. But it sure ain't about doctrinal imperialism. Each of us from within the evangelical framework would do well to recognise these stormtroopers not just as mistaken, but feeding off some of the structural and cultural weaknesses within modern evangelicalism. We're just not used enough to critiquing our own faith structures - and seeing the consequences. And taking some personal responsibility to speak out about the unruly beliefs as well as the unruly children.

---

Totally agree Barnabas, very well said. I've seen the unruly children form what you would call a cult by any definition if they didn't belong to one of mainstream denominations which is ultimately to their detriment as well as the church (in its broadest sense)?
 

---

Posted by Celsti (# 4523) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Custard.:

What do I think about "Catholics"? I think there are a lot of committed catholics who are "saved", and a lot of nominal ones who aren't.

---

quote:

---

think I agree with everything you've said there, DD. Though I'd just like to point out that I thought were were mainly discussing what you reference below:


quote:

Originally posted by DangerousDeacon:
First, I would think that any active member of a Christian denomination is likely to be "saved", so why would you assume otherwise and waste your time?


Thing is, as far as I can see it, some on this thread have been saying (to my ears, anyway) that we should assume that anyone is 'saved' whether they're an 'active' member or not. Someone very close to me claims occasionally to be a Catholic, but reacts violently to any mention of "Christians".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Celsti:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Custard.:

What do I think about "Catholics"? I think there are a lot of committed catholics who are "saved", and a lot of nominal ones who aren't.

---

Isn't this where Gordon is coming from? I am well acquainted with a few Catholic people (including some in my family) who call themselves Catholic but aren't sure that God exists and don't have a handle on Jesus either. If everybody leaves them alone because "they're ok", they may never understand Catholicism, let alone have a relationship with God through it. Isn't it a kindness to at least inform them of stuff which the RCC holds to? ("Now, this may come as a shock, but there's this bloke God...")

(Sheesh! You're all so angry!!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by DangerousDeacon:
But to assume that because they are Anglican or Catholic or Calathumpian they are not "Real Christians" [TM] is, I think, the original point of this thread

---

quote:

---

If you and I believe the same things - "I believe in God the Father almighty, etc" - even though our forms might differ, it strikes me as being hubris

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by dinghy sailor:
Someone very close to me claims occasionally to be a Catholic, but reacts violently to any mention of "Christians". But then, he's of Irish descent, living in England, so I suspect the 'catholicism' could be more a cultural identifier than anything else.

[...]

I do reckon that you get more cases like the guy I've described above in Catholicism than in most other denominations, though. At least where I'm at. Again, it could be to do with knowing a fair number of people whose ancestry is Irish, living in the UK.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by dinghy sailor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by DangerousDeacon:
But to assume that because they are Anglican or Catholic or Calathumpian they are not "Real Christians" [TM] is, I think, the original point of this thread

---

But I'm not sure that what Gordon was doing wasn't trying to evangelise people like the friend I described.

---

If Gordon would show his face again we could get an answer, but, having had contact with evangelicals of Gordon's stripe and having read various MM publications, I have trouble seeing it this way dinghy sailor.

The amount of prayers I heard alongg the lines of "May my Catholic friend X come to know Christ" during prayer makes me difficult to see it this way. [I was always tempted to add, "And may the Bishops of Sydney come to know Mary." ]

[ 13. February 2006, 22:42: Message edited by: Ian Climacus ]
 

---

Posted by dinghy sailor (# 8507) on :
 
Yes, I know they have a penchant for that sort of thing. But it could be either/both. I live in hope.

(As for Matthias Media, well at least from the UK arm, the Good Book Company or whatever they call themselves now, I've seen some quite good stuff recently. I don't think I'll ever quite recover from having The Blueprint thrown at me when I started asking awkward questions in my first year at uni CU.
 

---

Posted by Gordon Cheng (# 8895) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ian Climacus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by dinghy sailor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by DangerousDeacon:
But to assume that because they are Anglican or Catholic or Calathumpian they are not "Real Christians" [TM] is, I think, the original point of this thread

---

But I'm not sure that what Gordon was doing wasn't trying to evangelise people like the friend I described.

---

If Gordon would show his face again we could get an answer, but, having had contact with evangelicals of Gordon's stripe and having read various MM publications, I have trouble seeing it this way dinghy sailor.

---

Here's my face Ian:

I am still flat out busy. Somehow my employers have cottoned on to how to make me do some real work.

The studies I am working on are not polemical in nature (I am editing them by the way, not writing them). They focus on how we can gain assurance of salvation through the death of Christ alone, something that many Roman Catholics I've known have questions about and even considerable fear—and rightly so, if they have paid attention to the teaching of their denomination. The Bible studies attempt to look at passages that demonstrate how we can be confident about being right with God, so to that extent would be useful for other religiously minded people who are anxious about where they stand before God—Catholic, Orthodox or Sydney Anglican

I mustn't make rash promises about coming back to answer more questions; things are quite busy now. I am appreciating reading this discussion, though.
 

---

Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :
 
Gordo that seems a most ameliorative reply. It just comes from a different universe to mine. I don't even have an assurance of the existence of God, let alone an assurance of salvation. So where would you start?
 

---

Posted by Gordon Cheng (# 8895) on :
 
Hey zap.

I don't know if I would start by giving assurance of the existence of God. For me, I just assume it.

As far as I can tell from observation, it takes years of training and education, together with an intelligence of the highest order, to even begin to question the existence of God. Even then you can't be sure that the doubts will stick permanently.

I'm a bit more tabloid in my approach. I assume the average punter (at least in the West) knows that God is there, in most cases vaguely hopes that they are going to be OK, and once past the initial embarrassment of talking religion will be happy to listen to an opinion expressed in a friendly way.

Anyway I think such assurance is ultimately God's to give and ours to receive, rather than ours to generate.
 

---

Posted by Duo Seraphim (# 256) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ian Climacus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by dinghy sailor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by DangerousDeacon:
But to assume that because they are Anglican or Catholic or Calathumpian they are not "Real Christians" [TM] is, I think, the original point of this thread

---

But I'm not sure that what Gordon was doing wasn't trying to evangelise people like the friend I described.

---

If Gordon would show his face again we could get an answer, but, having had contact with evangelicals of Gordon's stripe and having read various MM publications, I have trouble seeing it this way dinghy sailor.

---

The studies I am working on are not polemical in nature (I am editing them by the way, not writing them). They focus on how we can gain assurance of salvation through the death of Christ alone, something that many Roman Catholics I've known have questions about and even considerable fear—and rightly so, if they have paid attention to the teaching of their denomination. The Bible studies attempt to look at passages that demonstrate how we can be confident about being right with God, so to that extent would be useful for other religiously minded people who are anxious about where they stand before God—Catholic, Orthodox or Sydney Anglican

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Duo Seraphim:
This is about converting Catholics to your own peculiar brand of neo-Calvinism. Apparently we aren't "right with God" so long as we follow the teachings of the Catholic Church.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Puppycat:

quote:

---

You guys don't like to let things like this slip by, do you? Oh well, fair enough, the issues are quite significant. I think on that at least we can agree.

---

I personally would really like to know what these significant issues are and why we can agree on that fact.

---

quote:

---

I would qualify this by saying that it depends on what teachings you mean

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
However, my views on this are no more or less arrogant than identical truth-claims made by the Roman Catholic denomination.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
In fact, if I could persuade people to read their Bibles, free of comment from either Roman Catholics or Protestants (self included), I would be delighted. Certain important Roman Catholic ideas would be substantiated by this exercise. Others would be thoroughly undercut, much to the spiritual benefit of those who undertook it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
In fact, if I could persuade people to read their Bibles, free of comment from either Roman Catholics or Protestants (self included), I would be delighted. Certain important Roman Catholic ideas would be substantiated by this exercise. Others would be thoroughly undercut, much to the spiritual benefit of those who undertook it.

---

You just don't get it, do you? You certainly don't get the Catholic Church that's for sure. The Magisterium is Word and Tradition, going back to the very start of the Church.

I have no idea what "Roman Catholic ideas" would in your view be "thoroughly undercut" by reading the Bible. I am disturbed that you apparently discount the work and teaching of 2000 years of the Church, saints, theologians in favour of a personal interpretation based on one person's reading of the Bible - apparently bare of any commentary and out of its cultural context too. I do know that I am assuredly not in the theological league of the great Ecumenical Councils or St Teresa of Avila and St Ignatius Loyola to name just two. As Sir Isaac Newton said "If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants."

I'd prefer to read my Bible and to know Tradition. I'd like to stand on the shoulders of those giants to aid my understanding of both.
 

---

Posted by Duo Seraphim (# 256) on :
 
IngoB said it better while I was composing my post. Certainly I have found my understanding of the Magisterium strengthened by reading the Bible, rather than undercut.
 

---

Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :
 
I think you've both said it marvellously. Interestingly, as a would-be bib scholar, I maintain the best biblical scholarship has been steadily coming out of the RC tradition since Vat ii. It began with people like RE Brown of course, but the mantle travels on with scholars like Brendan Byrne, Joseph Fitzmyer, and (I think) Luke Timoth Johnson (though he is married so if Cath then lay cath).

I suspect though that the Moore/Rest of the world divide is so great that there are very few sacra pagina or even Anchor Bib, perhaps even NIB commentaries on Sydney's (metonym, Gordo ) shelves.

That then makes Gordo's "I have the bible on my side" a sort of self-perpetuating myth.
 

---

Posted by Gordon Cheng (# 8895) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zappa:

I suspect though that the Moore/Rest of the world divide is so great that there are very few sacra pagina or even Anchor Bib, perhaps even NIB commentaries on Sydney's (metonym, Gordo ) shelves.

That then makes Gordo's "I have the bible on my side" a sort of self-perpetuating myth.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dark Knight:
Remember this is where this whole thing started, GC. I understand you are busy, but you keep coming close to articulating what you think are "the issues" or "the teachings" of RC which invite communication of the gospel. Coming close, but not quite getting there. Now Duo has made a call about how she sees what you are saying, and you are half backing away. C'mon mate. Declare yourself.

---

Back away, schmack away, DK. Historical Protestantism and Romanism agree on the ecumenical creeds and the significance of Athanasius, Augustine and lots of others. The points of division are well known. The authority of the pope, prayers invoking the aid of Mary and the Saints, the number and nature of the sacraments, purgatory, and a range of others.

The really important issues were articulated when they were anathematized by the Roman church at the Council of Trent. They include such things as the basis of salvation, the nature of the priesthood after Christ, the nature of grace, the nature of faith, the place of good works and merit in the life of the believer, whether we can be assured of our justification or whether we must wait and see for the day of judgment. My view is fairly standard Reformed Calvinist on most of these.

As for Ingo's stuff about 80% agreement being good enough, actually I would say 0% agreement is just fine if we are debating the nature of something like whether fairy floss is best coloured blue, pink, or some combination of the two. But obviously I think these questions are more important or I wouldn't make myself such a pain in the butt by trying to persuade others to my view, or AIUI the Bible's view.

And, I am delighted to make common cause with Roman Catholics on a whole range of issues conciderably more important than fairy floss: the stupidity and blinkeredness of Western secularism, the bankruptcy of much theological liberalism, a range of social and ethical subjects, the possibility of knowing the truth about God. No doubt it's why Ingo and I sometimes manage to get confused with each other on these boards. (Except of course that Ingo is humble, and I am arrogant )
 

---

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
They include such things as the basis of salvation, the nature of the priesthood after Christ, the nature of grace, the nature of faith, the place of good works and merit in the life of the believer, whether we can be assured of our justification or whether we must wait and see for the day of judgment.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
My view is fairly standard Reformed Calvinist on most of these.

---

Of course, Gordon, but don't worry - God will surely be merciful.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
As for Ingo's stuff about 80% agreement being good enough, actually I would say 0% agreement is just fine if we are debating the nature of something like whether fairy floss is best coloured blue, pink, or some combination of the two.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
They include such things as the basis of salvation, the nature of the priesthood after Christ, the nature of grace, the nature of faith, the place of good works and merit in the life of the believer, whether we can be assured of our justification or whether we must wait and see for the day of judgment.

---

You have read the JDDJ, of course?

---

quote:

---

We cannot ignore the fact that many mistakes have been made in the course of history by those who claimed to be disciples of Jesus. Very often, when having to address grave problems, they have thought that they should first improve this world and only afterwards turn their minds to the next. The temptation was to believe that, in the face of urgent needs, the first imperative was to change external structures. The consequence, for some, was that Christianity became a kind of moralism, ‘believing’ was replaced with ‘doing’. Rightly, therefore, my Predecessor, Pope John Paul II, of blessed memory, observed: “The temptation today is to reduce Christianity to merely human wisdom, a pseudo-science of well-being. In our heavily secularized world, a ‘gradual secularization of salvation’ has taken place, so that people strive for the good of man, but man who is truncated…We know, however, that Jesus came to bring integral salvation” (Redemptoris Missio, 11).

It is this integral salvation that Lent puts before us, pointing towards the victory of Christ over every evil that oppresses us. In turning to the Divine Master, in being converted to Him, in experiencing His mercy through the Sacrament of Reconciliation, we will discover a “gaze” that searches us profoundly and gives new life to the crowds and to each one of us. It restores trust to those who do not succumb to scepticism, opening up before them the perspective of eternal beatitude.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Duo Seraphim:
The really big deal for evangelisation (and may I say it for evangelical thought) lies in engaging with that culture of secular well-being, that it is enough simply to be a "good person", without experiencing the radical inner conversion of the "gaze" of Jesus in all we are and all we do.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
I am delighted to make common cause with Roman Catholics on a whole range of issues conciderably more important than fairy floss: the stupidity and blinkeredness of Western secularism, the bankruptcy of much theological liberalism, a range of social and ethical subjects, the possibility of knowing the truth about God.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
If you agree that the RC minority is much more likely to be saved thanks to their "80% correct belief" than the unbaptized and unchurched post-Christian majority, then why are you (and Matthias Media) not directing your efforts at the much, much greater spiritual need?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
For the magisterium never contradicts the bible, but it has conserved the authentic intepretations and customs from the early church to our days.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by dinghy sailor:
I suppose I'm nto allowed to mention Leo X, Boniface VI, and so on. Am I?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
They focus on how we can gain assurance of salvation through the death of Christ alone,
...
The Bible studies attempt to look at passages that demonstrate how we can be confident about being right with God, so to that extent would be useful

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
So you are in fact all in agreement with each other?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Duo Seraphim:
I'd prefer to read my Bible and to know Tradition. I'd like to stand on the shoulders of those giants to aid my understanding of both.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
Or even, if you're in Christ, who needs giants?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
Although I do respect 'em. Powerful allies, dangerous enemies. Dangerous friends, even.

---

quote:

---

The Bible studies attempt to look at passages that demonstrate how we can be confident about being right with God, so to that extent would be useful for other religiously minded people who are anxious about where they stand before God—Catholic, Orthodox or Sydney Anglican

---

My dear Gordo, why on earth would an Orthodox or Catholic Christian be anxious about where they stand before God?

(And it's nice to see that "Sydney Anglican" now appears to be a separate denomination from "Anglican". Can we look forward to this arrangement being formalised? )
 

---

Posted by Gordon Cheng (# 8895) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ian Climacus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
Or even, if you're in Christ, who needs giants?

---

So why are you writing / publishing books? Why bother if all are in Christ and thus can live alone with themselves and their Bible? Aren't you possibly leading people away from a perfect relationship with Christ to accepting others' opinions?

Why listen to sermons? Bible studies?

---

quote:

---

Where does this end??? Or is it only Catholic/Orthodox Giants that are suspicious?

---

Don't worry Ian, I suspect everyone. I am an equal opportunity suspecter.

quote:

---

Dangerous friends??? What on earth is this??? These giants have fought many battles for us, against Arius, against Donatus, etc. Are we to wage these wars again? Fight the old heresies again and again?

---

quote:

---

And all of us, well I'm assuming all of us, read them with open eyes. Just because we have Church Fathers and Theologians and such does not mean we blindly accept everything: many are Saints and yet they are known to have erred in certain teachings.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:


The answer is that God gives teachers to his church to build them up; good and powerful teachers we ought to listen to and respect.

But there is such a thing as a false teacher, and the Bible warns us about them, and by its teaching protects us.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
...recovers quickly to add: and the only reliable check we have on those errors is Scripture.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Duo Seraphim:
I think you'll find, ken, that IngoB and I are in agreement. Dunno about Gordon.

But you know, we are more than capable of evangelising our own irreligious, without delegating the task to the Reformed Calvinists.

[added a bit]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
The answer is that God gives teachers to his church to build them up; good and powerful teachers we ought to listen to and respect.

But there is such a thing as a false teacher, and the Bible warns us about them, and by its teaching protects us.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
and the only reliable check we have on those errors is Scripture.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
But this question of perspicuity of Scripture is probably best worked out, in the context of a discussion on a liberal board, on the basis of case by case, otherwise we're reduced to generalizations about our own position and how it differs from others.

---

A liberal board??? And we're discussion Roman Catholicism here on this thread.


And I don't think your argument about Timothy scratching his head makes much sense. All we have from that time is the Canon of the NT, plus a few extra-biblical books like the Didache. Timothy and friends would've had other discussions and such at the time: they would've (one hopes!) known exactly what was meant, and if not -- they could've asked.

As far as I understand it, when others began questioning interpretations, the Church looked at what it had believed and what had been passed on. Novel interpretations were rejected: "this is what we have always believed." Passed on...living Tradition.
 

---

Posted by Gordon Cheng (# 8895) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ian Climacus:


And I don't think your argument about Timothy scratching his head makes much sense. All we have from that time is the Canon of the NT, plus a few extra-biblical books like the Didache. Timothy and friends would've had other discussions and such at the time: they would've (one hopes!) known exactly what was meant, and if not -- they could've asked.
.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
Satan tempts Jesus by citing scripture, after all.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
And do you know I worked this out for myself, the first time I read it, without asking a single other living soul?

---

: I think most would come to that conclusion.

The problem arises when you get novel teachings like salvation by faith alone or the Eucharist simply being a mere remembrance: who takes charge then? As I understand it, from an Orthodox (and Catholic) view, we take the teachings of the Fathers and Saints who dealt with all this when it arose. Some battles have been fought: why fight them again?

And I also see no evidence whatsoever that Christianity is a "me-and-my-Bible-alone" faith: it always involves God's people, the Church.

[ 17. February 2006, 01:32: Message edited by: Ian Climacus ]
 

---

Posted by Gordon Cheng (# 8895) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
Sorry: I can't see your argument at all Gordon. I'm trying, but it makes no sense to me.

8< snip >8
The problem arises when you get novel teachings

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ian Climacus:


And I don't think your argument about Timothy scratching his head makes much sense. All we have from that time is the Canon of the NT, plus a few extra-biblical books like the Didache. Timothy and friends would've had other discussions and such at the time: they would've (one hopes!) known exactly what was meant, and if not -- they could've asked.
.

---

Of course it makes sense. Timothy wasn't carrying around his leather KJV with him, he was in receipt of a letter from Paul and there was no magisterium to ask if it was kosher or not, so to speak. Nor, once he worked out that it was the real deal, was there anyone to tell him what it meant. Paul was not going to be of any use to him, if Timmy couldn't understand what he'd been sent by e-mail a chat to the human author would've just confused him more.

---

quote:

---

Asking for the opinion of the folk there

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Duo Seraphim:

Paul's reaction to his conversion experience was to seek out teachers and to learn more about the teachings of Jesus from them. What books of the New Testament did Paul have to read at that stage? None for that part of God's revelation had not yet been written down. His conversion came from God - his understanding of the teachings of Jesus came from those who had heard them and who passed them on to him. From Tradition in other words.

---

quote:

---

11 For I would have you know, brothers, that the gospel that was preached by me is not man's gospel. 12 For I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ. 13 For you have heard of my former life in Judaism, how I persecuted the church of God violently and tried to destroy it. 14 And I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my own age among my people, so extremely zealous was I for the traditions of my fathers. 15 But when he who had set me apart before I was born, and who called me by his grace, 16 was pleased to reveal his Son to me, in order that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately consult with anyone; 17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me, but I went away into Arabia, and returned again to Damascus.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by AdamPater:

[I hope this is on-topic. I have a Life, so couldn't be bothered reading the whole thread...]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:


But here it comes, Gordon. St Paul and Timothy were apostles,.

---

quote:

---

21 So one of the men who have accompanied us during all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, 22 beginning from the baptism of John until the day when he was taken up from us—one of these men must become with us a witness to his resurrection.”

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
Then Peter summed it all up and said how it was going to be.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
You will also note how careful he is to specifically distance himself from any proto-magisterial authority, in the form of the apostles.

---

quote:

---

2 Timothy 2:11-2 (RSV):
You then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus, and what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
thankfully I have a life too, so I couldn't be bothered reading the first part of your post.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
Where in the bible does it say that Timothy was an apostle, Ingo?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
You and I, we're reading the Bible like Timothy—in the last days, surrounded by people who deny it and don't want to hear it, as Paul warned Timothy.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
*Indeed one of the great benefits of having God's word enscripturated and publicly available is that it prevents too much fiddling around with the message. It's the same principle that means that my daughter's infants school sends notes home with the kids rather than just relying on word of mouth. Without those notes, in the space of 2 hours and one oral transmission you would have 25 different oral traditions. "They did say bring $50 for lollies tomorrow Dad!!!"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
...recovers quickly to add: and the only reliable check we have on those errors is Scripture.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
Where in the bible does it say that Timothy was an apostle, Ingo?

---

1 Timothy 4:14.

---

Brush up your Greek, Ingo, and find the word 'apostle' for me in that verse.

quote:

---

That by and in itself refutes your "the bible is all anybody needs".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
[QB] *Indeed one of the great benefits of having God's word enscripturated and publicly available is that it prevents too much fiddling around with the message. [QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
The earliest scripture was written down about 50 years after the fact. According to your estimate of 12.5 oral traditions per hour, we now have to consider an absolute minimum of 5,478,750 versions for every part of scripture. Lucky you that the Holy Spirit kept it down to basically one version. Lucky us that He is still on the job...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
I think you know that the Roman church teaches (and I happen to agree) that it is the Scripture itself that is inspired. Any distortion creeps in after that point.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
I think you know that the Roman church teaches (and I happen to agree) that it is the Scripture itself that is inspired. Any distortion creeps in after that point.

---

Spiritus Sanctus interruptus?

---

Nicely turned!
 

---

Posted by Duo Seraphim (# 256) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Duo Seraphim:

Paul's reaction to his conversion experience was to seek out teachers and to learn more about the teachings of Jesus from them. What books of the New Testament did Paul have to read at that stage? None for that part of God's revelation had not yet been written down. His conversion came from God - his understanding of the teachings of Jesus came from those who had heard them and who passed them on to him. From Tradition in other words.

---

quote:

---

 2:11 But when Cephas [=Peter] came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned.[/ quote]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Duo Seraphim:
If Paul is to be believed he got it all in one thunderflash conversion.

---

quote:

---

And he disagreed with Peter

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Huia:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
[QB] *Indeed one of the great benefits of having God's word enscripturated and publicly available is that it prevents too much fiddling around with the message. [QB]

---

Is enscripturated actually a word?
I understand what you're saying but it sounds strange.

Huia

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Duo Seraphim:
If Paul is to be believed he got it all in one thunderflash conversion.

---

If?

Still and all, no magisterium necessary. He got it, he wrote it down and expected to be believed and obeyed without reference to anyone, let alone Peter or a college of cardinals. He knew he was speaking on behalf of God.

quote:

---

And he disagreed with Peter

---

Exactly. He stood over and above the authority of another apostle, because he had been taught driect. Peter accepted the rebuke, life went on.

You and I are no more or less capable of being corrected by Scripture than were the first readers of it. This correcting is a work of God's spirit, and if you pesonally don't have his Spirit you're in bother.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
And the magisterium keeps adding to tradition in a way whose working eludes me. For example, before 1950, you could have been a faithful Roman and utterly disbelieved the doctrine of the Assumption of Mary. In any year since, that same Roman Catholic who denied such a doctrine up to and including the year 1949 would then have had to change their mind or face excommunication.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
By vote?

No, not really. Has it been solved? I mean if I believe the Bible then it commits me to thinking what the creeds went on to summarize. But I often come across Christians who seem somewhat confused over the question of the Trinity and what it actually means. Everyone reaches their own conclusion on this. Hopefully that happens as they read the Bible and ask questions of Scripture and other Christians to clarify.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
Well, I happen to think it's been resolved by Matthew 28:19

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
Well, I happen to think it's been resolved by Matthew 28:19...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
Oh, although I should add that the apostles were wise enough to commit what they said to writing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
Oh, although I should add that the apostles were wise enough to commit what they said to writing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by andreas1984:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
Oh, although I should add that the apostles were wise enough to commit what they said to writing.

---

No, you are wrong. Only a few of the Apostles wrote books. Besides, like John says, all the things Jesus taught and did cannot be put in books. This is where the oral tachings of the Apostles are helpful and vital.

---

quote:

---

John 20:30 Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; 31 but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Matt raises an important point.

I have had people prove to me, from Scripture, that:

All non-Christians go to Hell
We cannot know who goes to Hell
Jesus was omniscient
Jesus was not omniscient
Jesus was divine
Jesus was not divine
All Christians should speak in tongues
Speaking in tongues ceased with the Apostles
Christians should never be ill
Christians can expect to get ill
Demons cause mental illness
Demons do not cause mental illness
The early church baptised infants
The early church did not baptise infants
Once saved, always saved
You can lose your salvation
Women cannot be priests
Women can be priests
Homosexuality should be punished by death
Homosexuality is wrong but should not be punished by death
Homosexuality is not wrong
The earth is six thousand years old
The earth is not six thousand years old
The earth is the centre of the universe
The earth is not the centre of the universe
The Catholic church is the Whore of Babylon
The Catholic church is the only way of salvation

and on and on and on and on...

Sola Scriptura, whatever else it may be, is not useful

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by andreas1984:
John wrote the gospel for people who have already heard and received his oral teachings.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
And the magisterium keeps adding to tradition in a way whose working eludes me. For example, before 1950, you could have been a faithful Roman and utterly disbelieved the doctrine of the Assumption of Mary. In any year since, that same Roman Catholic who denied such a doctrine up to and including the year 1949 would then have had to change their mind or face excommunication.

---

You could say the same about Scripture, if you happened to live in the first century AD.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Luke:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
And the magisterium keeps adding to tradition in a way whose working eludes me. For example, before 1950, you could have been a faithful Roman and utterly disbelieved the doctrine of the Assumption of Mary. In any year since, that same Roman Catholic who denied such a doctrine up to and including the year 1949 would then have had to change their mind or face excommunication.

---

You could say the same about Scripture, if you happened to live in the first century AD.

---

But isn’t there a difference between the magisterium and the cannon of scripture? Gordon’s ‘1949/50 Assumption of Mary’ example is a good one because the Magisterium has changed but once the cannon of scripture was set it hasn’t changed.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Sola Scriptura, whatever else it may be, is not useful

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Caleb Woodbridge:
I think it's very useful, because it leaves you free to disagree with those people and go back to scripture itself to seek to understad it for yourself. Because only scripture is authorative, no-one can insist on the authority of tradition or position in the church or clever arguments or whatever that you have to believe it. You believe them if you think that is what scripture says.

---

quote:

---

If the church has authority in and of itself, then it can start persecuting those who don't agree with it, and the church's belief in it's own authority has lead it to do this down through the ages. Sola scriptura is our right of appeal to what God has revealed to us. Because we all only understand fallibly, that's vital.

---

quote:

---

Sola scriptura doesn't mean ignoring tradition, church leaders, wise Christians and so on, but it means that whatever they say is accepted in so far as it agrees with scripture, so far as we can tell. Only scripture is authorative, but other things are useful and important in so far as they agree with scripture and help us to understand scripture properly.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
Actually, Ricardus, I have this odd theory that the New Testament tells us nothing whatsoever that was not already completely stated in the Old.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Caleb Woodbridge:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Sola Scriptura, whatever else it may be, is not useful

---

I think it's very useful, because it leaves you free to disagree with those people and go back to scripture itself to seek to understad it for yourself. Because only scripture is authorative, no-one can insist on the authority of tradition or position in the church or clever arguments or whatever that you have to believe it. You believe them if you think that is what scripture says.

If the church has authority in and of itself, then it can start persecuting those who don't agree with it, and the church's belief in it's own authority has lead it to do this down through the ages. Sola scriptura is our right of appeal to what God has revealed to us. Because we all only understand fallibly, that's vital.

Sola scriptura doesn't mean ignoring tradition, church leaders, wise Christians and so on, but it means that whatever they say is accepted in so far as it agrees with scripture, so far as we can tell. Only scripture is authorative, but other things are useful and important in so far as they agree with scripture and help us to understand scripture properly.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
Actually, Ricardus, I have this odd theory that the New Testament tells us nothing whatsoever that was not already completely stated in the Old.

---

Even if that's true, all you do is force the problem back another level, and allow me to say:

"You could say the same about Scripture, if you happened to live a few hundred years BC."

---

Thought you'd say that

The difference would be that I'm militantly agnostic on those matters where Scripture hasn't spoken. So if I lived before the closing of the OT canon I would insist on certain questions where Scripture hadn't spoken "I don't know, I can't know, and neither can you". If Scripture subsequently spoke to the issue, I would then know.

But I wasn't aware that the Roman Catholic position allowed for new and definitive revelation concerning God emerging after the closing of the canon. Does it? Is that what was going on in 1950 when the doctrine of the Assumption of the BVM was articulated? I don't know the answer to this, but if it really was new revelation it raises all sorts of other questions. If it wasn't, then the analogy to Scripture prior to the closing of the canon doesn't really work.
 

---

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
And now would you care to answer my question, Gordon?
 

---

Posted by Gordon Cheng (# 8895) on :
 
Sorry Matt, too much going on.

You sit round and argue about it for a while and you make up your mind(s). Every loungeroom discussion can be its own college of cardinals, except you are not bound by the final vote.

Eventually the Lord Jesus returns and the right answers become known to all. It is possible to have arrived at the right answer before then, however, because God's Spirit working through his Word makes it so.

Every system of working out who's right has its epistemological problems though; the existence of epistemological difficulty is not peculiar to sola scripturists. For Roman Catholics, the problem is likewise "How do you know who has the right interpretation?"—not of the Bible, in their case, but of Word+Magisterium.
 

---

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
But at least in the Catholic set-up the Magisterium can step in to resolve such a dispute if necessary. Funnily enough, that's how it evolved in the first place...

[Spelling]

[ 17. February 2006, 11:32: Message edited by: Matt Black ]
 

---

Posted by Gordon Cheng (# 8895) on :
 
Sure. It's a functional solution that may or may not have anything to do with truth. I respect it but I don't agree with it.
 

---

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
But it at least has the advantage over sola Scriptura that it provides a solution, whereas SS doesn't provide a solution; in fact, as Karl has shown, it's far more of a problem than a solution
 

---

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
Sure. It's a functional solution that may or may not have anything to do with truth. I respect it but I don't agree with it.

---

Which is approximately what I'd say about every man his own Magisterium.

I'd say that 2000 years of debate and lack of clarity show that individual interpretation of the Bible, group interptretation, and the Magisterium, cannot claim to have a definitive handle on truth. Perhaps you can come to the truth through study of the Bible, but how would you know when you got there? How do I know the guy who's convinced of the Once Saved Also Saved position has reached it and the guy who's convinced that a person can lose salvation (not that this question means an awful lot within my soteriology, but I digress) hasn't, or vice versa? In this sphere, methinks, absolute truth may exist, but it looks exactly the same as any other plausible provisional truth.

Which causes me to conclude that either God doesn't care too much about what propositions we believe, compared with who we believe in. Or that He does care, but He likes to make things insanely difficult and then squash those who fail to do the impossible. God as PE Teacher anyone?
 

---

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
No thanks; mine were sadistic bastards to a man.
 

---

Posted by Gordon Cheng (# 8895) on :
 
I'm not sure what you mean by 'solution', though. A definitive answer that everyone can abide by? That, as you seem to be acknowledging, may nonetheless not be related to the truth of the matter?

And does it even work? I keep seeing Roman Catholics who favour abortion or the priesting of women or the use of contraception, or who have questions about things like the existence of purgatory. The magisterium is against them but somehow things keep coming up for debate.

I don't know if this is answerable before our Lord's return, any more than the parallel questions that could be asked of a sola scripturist. The epistemological questions may be answerable to your (general) satisfaction or mine or a certain percentage of those who claim the name Christian, but that is not the same as saying they have been answered.
 

---

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
But those Catholics would not be following the Magisterium's teaching; their Church would not describe them as 'loyal' Catholics.
 

---

Posted by noneen (# 11023) on :
 
I've heard us described as 'loyal dissenters' .. which is a term i like !

For me the issue is like this: - can we disagree and stay united?! Is it more helpful that we choose 'in or out' or that we choose to 'stay and argue'?! ... Sometimes i learn more from those who disagree with me than from those who agree with every word I say.

The institutional church speaks only in black and white ... but that doesn't mean we have to speak in the same way ... personally, i'm all for the grey areas!!!
 

---

Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by noneen:
The institutional church speaks only in black and white ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
But I wasn't aware that the Roman Catholic position allowed for new and definitive revelation concerning God emerging after the closing of the canon. Does it? Is that what was going on in 1950 when the doctrine of the Assumption of the BVM was articulated? I don't know the answer to this, but if it really was new revelation it raises all sorts of other questions. If it wasn't, then the analogy to Scripture prior to the closing of the canon doesn't really work.

---

Urgh... New revelation till the closing of the canon April 8, 1546 at Trent? Or for the "Apocrypha" crowd about 1596? Somehow I don't think so... For RCs revelation finished with Jesus Christ Himself, way prior to even the earliest written scripture documents. Since then it's just about working out what it all means (including the question of what belongs to scripture, which took a while), that's all. The Assumption of Mary is a doctrine that can be tracked back to about the 5th century, see for example here and here. There was an ever growing agreement on the Assumption among the faithful which then got the official stamp of approval in 1950. That it took so long has a lot to do with the fact that more important doctrinal matters had to be taken care of in the centuries before. When you have Arius et al. to deal with, there's no time for the finer points of Marian dogma. It's also hardly a novel idea anyway, it appears that Enoch and Elijah were assumed and what do you think happened to all those saints of Matthew 27:52–53?
 

---

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
Didn't one of the ECFs (Irenaeus?) say that some of them were still alive in the reign of Trajan? That at least would imply that they died natural deaths a second time as it were.
 

---

Posted by Caleb Woodbridge (# 4578) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
And how exactly does that soelve the contradictory epistemological problems demonstrated by Karl's list?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cheesy:
Which sounds nice but it never actually works like that. A sola scriptura argument inevitably works around to the personal theology of the speaker or his favorite spiritual authors. And that is the great danger - the perception that one person's understanding of sola scriptura is authoritative and therefore the use as a casting vote or a trump card against descenters. And don't tell me it doesn't happen because I have seen it with my own eyes.

The most honest person says 'this is the scriptures as I understand them, mixed up in my brain with all the authors I know well and expressed in the best way I understand it'. There is never anyone who judges things on a strict scripture-only basis.

---

quote:

---

Scripture on its own is not authoritative. You need to use your brain and engage with the text. Everybody - bar nobody - also consults others to understand the text as well.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Caleb Woodbridge:
The abuse of sola scriptura comes when people confuse their understanding of scripture with scripture itself. But the recognition that scripture itself alone is authorative, and not our interpretations of it, is a recognition of our fallibility and that what we believe is only "the scriptures as I understand them, mixed up in my brain with all the authors I know well and expressed in the best way I understand it".

---

quote:

---

Sadly some people do sometimes oppress by claiming the authority of scripture for their interpretation of scripture. But "my interpretation of scripture" is not the same as scripture, so anyone holding it to be authorative is not genuinely holding to the idea of sola scriptura. Such a person has entirely missed the point.

---

quote:

---

Using your brain, engaging with the text, consulting others in no way undermine the sole authority of scripture. If you believe scripture to be solely authorative, then you should wish to understand it as best you can, and use every resource you have to do so. But that doesn't make those resources a higher authority than scripture.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cheesy*:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Caleb Woodbridge:
The abuse of sola scriptura comes when people confuse their understanding of scripture with scripture itself. But the recognition that scripture itself alone is authorative, and not our interpretations of it, is a recognition of our fallibility and that what we believe is only "the scriptures as I understand them, mixed up in my brain with all the authors I know well and expressed in the best way I understand it".

---

But they clearly are not authoritative. How many christian farmers do you know that consider the agricultural rules to be authoritative? Which is the smallest seed?

---

quote:

---

If some things are relevant and some not, then you have to interpret it. Anyone telling you that they don't is a liar.

---

quote:

---

So, what is the point of a believing the bible to be authorative if it is not able to be understood?

---

quote:

---

I think it was Chesterton that said that in the headlong rush to remove the Pope, many have replaced him with a pope in every parish.

Sola scriptura is just a manifestation of that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Caleb Woodbridge:
Well, my view is that it's just a matter of understanding the Bible properly.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:


But at heart this comprehension is a gift given by the speaker, the Holy Spirit. It's not so much irrational, therefore, as arational.

And again, all the same arguments alleged against the possibility of interpreting Scripture apply to the understanding of papal encyclicals, Roman catechisms, and the like.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
Well, yes, we agree on that, which means nothing more than that there is no epistemological argument that adequately proves anything here. The Romans could be right. They could be wrong. We just can't know, using the style of argument that we've dipped into for the last page.

---

quote:

---

Once you realize that this philosophical style of argument ends in stalemate, you get to the point where you just leave it on the shelf until something better comes along. The only thing "proven" really is that the common epistemological arguments used against sola scripturists, if true (and we can't know), prove far more than those advancing them would probably like to prove. As it is we have a potentially valid argument that has nothing to do with anything, so the philosophers at least should be jumpin' for joy. Ingo?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cheesy*:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:

Once you realize that this philosophical style of argument ends in stalemate, you get to the point where you just leave it on the shelf until something better comes along. The only thing "proven" really is that the common epistemological arguments used against sola scripturists, if true (and we can't know), prove far more than those advancing them would probably like to prove. As it is we have a potentially valid argument that has nothing to do with anything, so the philosophers at least should be jumpin' for joy. Ingo?

---

Was there some sense I was meant to take from that paragraph?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
OK once again in English:

Your arguments prove nothing either way. Big woop from philosophers ( because they're arguments), big yawn from average citizen (because they prove nothing).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
Of course all of this Gordonesque theology could only be post-16th century because of the printing press. What about all those folks who could not read, let alone get their hands upon a copy of the bible before cheap printing?

Damned for all eternity I presume.

---

quote:

---

You don't have to be able to read, you just need someone to read to you

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cheesy*:
Sola scriptura people say that the RCC is wrong because they base their theology on tradition and reason as well as scripture. Which I'm saying is a stupid position because everyone bases their theology on tradition, reason as well as scripture - whether they admit it or not.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Caleb Woodbridge:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Sola Scriptura, whatever else it may be, is not useful

---

I think it's very useful, because it leaves you free to disagree with those people and go back to scripture itself to seek to understad it for yourself. Because only scripture is authorative, no-one can insist on the authority of tradition or position in the church or clever arguments or whatever that you have to believe it. You believe them if you think that is what scripture says.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
As an interesting historical note the Roman Catholic Church in the 16th century was bitterly opposed to putting out translations in the common tongue, and only put out an English translation (the Rhemist translation) after more than half a century, having previously argued that it was dangerous to do this; like putting a sharp knife into the hands of children.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
As an interesting historical note the Roman Catholic Church in the 16th century was bitterly opposed to putting out translations in the common tongue, and only put out an English translation (the Rhemist translation) after more than half a century, having previously argued that it was dangerous to do this; like putting a sharp knife into the hands of children.

---

In England, perhaps.

French translations of the Bible.
Spanish translations of the Bible.
Italian translations of the Bible.

Apologies that these links are in foreign languages - Wikipedia seemed the quickest source of information and I think the charts are clear enough. The first sentence of the Italian link says "The oldest translations into Italian, manuscripts and fragments, date back to the thirteenth century". The first sentence of the French link says "The article only includes complete Bibles."

It's worth pointing out that before a certain date there would be little point in making vernacular translations, because the vernaculars themselves were so fragmented that any translation you made would only be understood by speakers of the particular dialect you chose to translate it in. It would hardly be worthwhile making a translation in London English that would be incomprehensible in, say, the West Country or the Midlands.

[ 18. February 2006, 16:51: Message edited by: Ricardus ]
 

---

Posted by Vesture, Posture, Gesture (# 10614) on :
 
I wonder if to mention the fact that there was disapproval over translating the Bible implicitly detracts from the high level of dissemination of religious doctrine that existed in England particularly post the 1215 IV Lateran Council. People knew what Christianity was about - E.Duffy 'The Stripping of the Altars: Traditional Religion in England 1400-1580', R.N.Swanson:'Religion and Devotion in Europe c1215-1515'.

I'm presently doing some stuff on the York Mystery Plays which run though the entire Passion Cycle as a series of plays. Whilst it was probably written by some Augustinian Friars, it becomes a major lay event, following on from the Corpus Christi Procession on CC Day (until the c1440s I think) when it moved to the day before. The point behind all that is that they are very orthodox and really do give a clear message about Christianity. They were only stopped around 1576.

Similarly, whilst obvioulsy only those of a higher social strata would know latin, more latin would be known then throughout society than it is now, so we can't really compare that either.

Just some thoughts

NB:To be pedantic (and apologies for this)though, the Venerable Bede is supposed to have translated some of the Gospel of John in the 7th Century.

[ 18. February 2006, 17:21: Message edited by: Vesture, Posture, Gesture ]
 

---

Posted by Gordon Cheng (# 8895) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
As an interesting historical note the Roman Catholic Church in the 16th century was bitterly opposed to putting out translations in the common tongue, and only put out an English translation (the Rhemist translation) after more than half a century, having previously argued that it was dangerous to do this; like putting a sharp knife into the hands of children.

---

In retrospect, it's hard to fault them.

---

I am sure there are Roman Catholics who, like you, still take this view. In fact I know very few Roman Catholics or, in particular, ex-Roman Catholics at the lay level who were encouraged by their priests to read their bibles for themselves. This despite the view of the Roman church that the Bible is, in fact, the infallible word of God. Like much within Romanism it is an attitude fraught with difficulties and contradictions in both theory and application.

On the other hand, I have met personally with Roman Catholics who have decided to study the Bible, to their great benefit.
 

---

Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 
I'm just referring to the plethorization of Protestant break-away groups caused in large part by the "every man should be able to interpret the bible for himself" nonsense which gave rise to the easy availability of copies of the Bible in the vernacular.

I thank God that I know the Bible better than any of you (mimicking st Paul here ), but I don't for that reason think I am competent to start my own Church.

PS you do realize I'm not a Roman Catholic, right?

[ 18. February 2006, 20:12: Message edited by: Mousethief ]
 

---

Posted by Gordon Cheng (# 8895) on :
 
Yes, I knew that Orthodox guy.

Breaking away from the Bible's teaching is, on my view, best explained by sin rather than the absence of a magisterium. Historical Protestantism ties inability to know the truth about God with the deliberate rejection of him, eg Romans 1:18-32 teaches this, on the Protestant view.

Romans tend to be somewhat more optimistic about the ability of reason, to find God (while still recognizing that sin is an issue, and not in principle ignoring Scripture), due in no small part to Thomas Aquinas, AIUI.
 

---

Posted by Jahlove (# 10290) on :
 
A major part of the argument of Romans is to do with how Gentiles may be legitimately considered as the People of God. The suggestion that 1:18-32 is a description (to the point of caricature like a first century tabloid) of prejudiced Jewish opinion of Gentiles, which Paul goes on to expose as hypocrisy, is one that makes sense to me.
 

---

Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :
 

quote:

---

I am sure there are Roman Catholics who, like you, still take this view. In fact I know very few Roman Catholics or, in particular, ex-Roman Catholics at the lay level who were encouraged by their priests to read their bibles for themselves. This despite the view of the Roman church that the Bible is, in fact, the infallible word of God. Like much within Romanism it is an attitude fraught with difficulties and contradictions in both theory and application.

On the other hand, I have met personally with Roman Catholics who have decided to study the Bible, to their great benefit.

---

Gordon, really - this is just plain silly.

Here's just one link you may profitably follow. Even you may find something there to help you.

Bible Alive

The vast majority of our Catholic parishes here in England sell the printed versions of this at the back of church.

I know there are equivalents in just about every language.

Get real, mate. Argue with the truth on your side, not some parody.
 

---

Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
Yes, I knew that Orthodox guy.

---

You knew which Orthodox guy?



Thurible
 

---

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
As an interesting historical note the Roman Catholic Church in the 16th century was bitterly opposed to putting out translations in the common tongue, and only put out an English translation (the Rhemist translation) after more than half a century, having previously argued that it was dangerous to do this; like putting a sharp knife into the hands of children.

---

• Italian 1472 (Protestant 1562)
• Spanish 1478 (Protestant 1567)
• French 1478-1530 (Protestant 1535-1545)
• German before 1450, 1477-1522 (Protestant 1522)
• Durch 1475 (Protestant 1526)
• Scandinavian before 1470 (Protestant 1541)
• Hungarian before 1500 (Protestant 1590)

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mousethief:
I'm just referring to the plethorization of Protestant break-away groups caused in large part by the "every man should be able to interpret the bible for himself" nonsense which gave rise to the easy availability of copies of the Bible in the vernacular.

I thank God that I know the Bible better than any of you (mimicking st Paul here ), but I don't for that reason think I am competent to start my own Church.

PS you do realize I'm not a Roman Catholic, right?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
As an interesting historical note the Roman Catholic Church in the 16th century was bitterly opposed to putting out translations in the common tongue, and only put out an English translation (the Rhemist translation) after more than half a century, having previously argued that it was dangerous to do this; like putting a sharp knife into the hands of children.

---

In retrospect, it's hard to fault them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Vesture, Posture, Gesture:
You can count Henry VIII's Great Bible of 1538 (1st edition 2,500 copies) as Catholic.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
I simply see little evidence in the cities where I've lived and ministered that the Roman denomination takes its own high view of scripture seriously enough to encourage laypeople to read it for themselves.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:


I simply see little evidence in the cities where I've lived and ministered that the Roman denomination takes its own high view of scripture seriously enough to encourage laypeople to read it for themselves.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ian Climacus:

And as far as Bibles in English go, others have covered it well, but my understanding was [and if I'm wrong I'd like to be corrected] more to do with the fact English was seen as a base language, not capable of communicating the truth of God's Word.

---

You.are.joking.

In all my years of reading in the history of the 16th century English Reformation I've not once seen any such assertion made by writers of the period. I don't say that such an assertion was never made, but I seriously doubt that if it was, it was more than a bit of Continental (French/Spanish) racism against the pig-ignorant English. If Bonner, Gardiner, More, Wolseley or any other Henrician Catholic ever argued this anywhere, I will eat my dial-up modem for lunch.

On the other hand I've read more than once the 16th century Roman notion that the great unwashed ought not to be granted access to the teaching of the bible, but ought to rely on the authority of the priest to teach it to them. That's why copies of Tyndale's Bible in English were confiscated and burned by the authorities.

If you are right about Roman Catholics at lay level, in Sydney or in Melbourne, being encouraged to read their Bibles and understand it for themselves, I would be delighted. It is not the testimony of my friends converted from the Roman church. The Bible studies I am currently editing were written by one man, an ex Roman Catholic, who was and is deeply concerned by the level of biblical illiteracy that he has both experienced and encountered within the Roman church in Sydney.
 

---

Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :
 
Yeah, The word of the priest is more important than the Word of God. Of course that's what we believe.
 

---

Posted by rosamundi (# 2495) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus:
Isn't reading Scripture one way to get an indulgence in the RCC? (Though I realise that may not exactly be a redeeming argument in Gordon's eyes...)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
Ah, I'm so glad we cleared it up. So, those of us who are intelligent are able to understand the Bible properly and are thus is perfect agreement with Caleb Woodbridge, whereas those of us who aren't are clearly - quite clearly even - incapable of understanding the Bible and are therefore total dunderheads.

Thanks for the clarification

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ahleal V:

Then how in hell do you handle the historical record that the CHURCH created scripture? (Please don't respond with scriptural citations here, please.) The Church chose the books, recognised which books were being used in the communities, recognised which books contained apostolic teaching - that the Church itself created Scripture.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
If you are right about Roman Catholics at lay level, in Sydney or in Melbourne, being encouraged to read their Bibles and understand it for themselves, I would be delighted. It is not the testimony of my friends converted from the Roman church. The Bible studies I am currently editing were written by one man, an ex Roman Catholic, who was and is deeply concerned by the level of biblical illiteracy that he has both experienced and encountered within the Roman church in Sydney.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rosamundi:
You should have seen my face when I discovered there are Charismatic movements within the Catholic Church.

Deborah

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rosamundi:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus:
Isn't reading Scripture one way to get an indulgence in the RCC? (Though I realise that may not exactly be a redeeming argument in Gordon's eyes...)

---

Devout reading of Scripture for at least one half-hour gains a pleniary indulgence subject to the usual conditions.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
You.are.joking.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:

quote:

---

Originally posted by rosamundi:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus:
Isn't reading Scripture one way to get an indulgence in the RCC? (Though I realise that may not exactly be a redeeming argument in Gordon's eyes...)

---

Devout reading of Scripture for at least one half-hour gains a pleniary indulgence subject to the usual conditions.

---

And it's things like this that help explain the different and apparently contradictory practices that occur at a local level.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ian Climacus:

And as Rosamundi said, converts aren't the best people to talk about their previous experiences. Again, I ask: how many Catholic parishes have you visited? How many practising Catholics do you speak to? Or do you just speak to former Catholics?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Caleb Woodbridge:
My point is that everyone is fallible, and so no-one, including myself, can claim the authority of scripture for what they think scripture means. Is that a hard point of view to understand?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Caleb Woodbridge:
My point is that everyone is fallible, and so no-one, including myself, can claim the authority of scripture for what they think scripture means. Is that a hard point of view to understand?

---

Surely this is the whole point of Holy Tradition? By pooling together (as it were) the interpretations of the faithful throughout the whole Church, living and dead, hopefully some kind of consensus emerges.

---

quote:

---

Sola scriptura doesn't mean (or shouldn't mean) "ignore everything except for scripture." Rather, it means "weigh everything up against scripture", on the grounds that it is the reliable record of God's revelation of Himself and therefore authorative.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cod:

This is a major problem because I can walk into any bookshop and choose from a variety of Bibles that don't absolutely, entirely agree with eachother. And it seems to me that they must absolutely agree, given Scripture's importance.

Or else, one of those Bibles on that shelf must be correct.

So, which one is correct?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:

As we're talking about Roman Catholicism, I'd be happy enough to go with the Jerusalem or the New Jerusalem. All the major Protestant doctrines can be found in these RC translations. Good on the RCs I say, for having the intellectual integrity to produce these versions.

---

So - lets just be clear what you're saying... the RCC a) doesn't encourage people to read the bible but b) produces a version which you think is reasonable.

So... why bother going to the trouble of producing a half-decent version if you're not going to encourage people to read it?

C
 

---

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
As we're talking about Roman Catholicism, I'd be happy enough to go with the Jerusalem or the New Jerusalem. All the major Protestant doctrines can be found in these RC translations. Good on the RCs I say, for having the intellectual integrity to produce these versions.

---

Yeah. Which major Protestant doctrine cannot be found as much (or as little) in the Clementine Vulgate as it can be in any "modern" bible? On the other hand, which Protestants have restored what they call the "Apocrypha" to their rightful place in Protestant bible versions? Demoting a text so favored that it was simply called the "church book" [liber ecclesiasticus, or short Ecclesiasticus, today known as Ben Sira(ch)], just because by adopting the counter-Christian decisions and translations of the Jewish Council of Jabneh AD 90 they were able to marginalize scripture like 2 Maccabees [prayer for the dead to free them from sin, merits of the martyrs, intercession of the saints] - do you call that intellectual integrity?
 

---

Posted by Jonathan the Free (# 10612) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
...Yeah. Which major Protestant doctrine cannot be found as much (or as little) in the Clementine Vulgate as it can be in any "modern" bible? On the other hand, which Protestants have restored what they call the "Apocrypha" to their rightful place in Protestant bible versions? Demoting a text so favored that it was simply called the "church book" [liber ecclesiasticus, or short Ecclesiasticus, today known as Ben Sira(ch)], just because by adopting the counter-Christian decisions and translations of the Jewish Council of Jabneh AD 90 they were able to marginalize scripture like 2 Maccabees [prayer for the dead to free them from sin, merits of the martyrs, intercession of the saints] - do you call that intellectual integrity?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cheesy*:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:

As we're talking about Roman Catholicism, I'd be happy enough to go with the Jerusalem or the New Jerusalem. All the major Protestant doctrines can be found in these RC translations. Good on the RCs I say, for having the intellectual integrity to produce these versions.

---

So - lets just be clear what you're saying... the RCC a) doesn't encourage people to read the bible but b) produces a version which you think is reasonable.

So... why bother going to the trouble of producing a half-decent version if you're not going to encourage people to read it?

C

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
And it's things like this that help explain the different and apparently contradictory practices that occur at a local level. I reckon it's a lousy reason for reading the Bible, a bit like being paid to eat your breakfast.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cod:
Actually, the Venerable Bede is believed to have translated parts of the Bible into Old English, however, I don't suppose that the translation was available to the average Johnny Anglian, which is the important point.

---

quote:

---

Bible reading was most likely among those who attend a Pentecostal church (75%) and least likely among those who frequent the Catholic (23%), Episcopal (30%) and Lutheran (32%) churches.

---

quote:

---

The study also revealed that barely half of all Protestant adults (54%) read the Bible during a typical week. Barna pointed out that Mormons are more likely to read the Bible during a week than are Protestants - even though most Mormons do not believe that the Bible is the authoritative Word of God

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:

But at heart this comprehension is a gift given by the speaker, the Holy Spirit. It's not so much irrational, therefore, as arational.

---

All Christians have the Holy Spirit aiding that comprehension. However, all of us having that same HS come up with radically different interpretations of Scripture. Now, either that means the HS isn't doing a very good job, or that that form of individualistic interpretation isn't His way of doing things...

And, Ricardus,
 

---

Posted by Gordon Cheng (# 8895) on :
 
Or, that some who claim to be Christians don't have the Holy Spirit.
 

---

Posted by Gordon Cheng (# 8895) on :
 
[edit: this is in answer to a posted question that disappeared, ie "How do you know who has the holy Spirit?"

The Bible suggests 3 doctrinal tests, [name of person asking deleted].

1. If they call Jesus 'Lord' (1 Cor 12:3)
2. If they acknowledge that Jesus has come in the flesh (1 John 4:2)
3. If they listen to the word of the apostle (1 John 4:6, "us").

There are behavioural tests too, which come down to the idea of love for those who have been born of God (1 John 5:1)

[ 20. February 2006, 10:41: Message edited by: Gordon Cheng ]
 

---

Posted by Cheesy* (# 3330) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
Or, that some who claim to be Christians don't have the Holy Spirit.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:


The Bible suggests 3 doctrinal tests, [name of person asking deleted].

1. If they call Jesus 'Lord' (1 Cor 12:3)
2. If they acknowledge that Jesus has come in the flesh (1 John 4:2)
3. If they listen to the word of the apostle (1 John 4:6, "us").

There are behavioural tests too, which come down to the idea of love for those who have been born of God (1 John 5:1)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
I don't think you or I are in a position to judge who has and has not got the HS.

---

If that's true, why would the Bible writers tell us how to do it?
 

---

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
Did they? Re-read my penultimate post (where I actually meant your third test not your second ) - who's an apostle, then?
 

---

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
I don't think you or I are in a position to judge who has and has not got the HS.

---

If that's true, why would the Bible writers tell us how to do it?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cheesy*:

I can show you a whole heap of people who would say that they meet your criteria but believe entirely different things.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
I don't know that the Bible is telling us to judge, rather to discern and recognise.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:

Matt, apart from Paul ("untimely born"), an apostle has to have accompanied Jesus when he was with the disciples on earth, witnessed his resurrection and been appointed by the other apostles—Acts 1:15-26.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
All that says is that it's tricky to work out. So what? Working out the best place in the garden to plant the banana tree is tricky, but we still manage it. Tricky doesn't mean impossible, it just means tricky.

---

No, as Cheesy* points out it is really impossible on the criteria you have given.

I recite the Nicene Creed weekly, and I listen to my bishop on the rare occasions when he registers on my consciousness. Are you going to cede to me on the question of Calvinism?
 

---

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
I don't know that the Bible is telling us to judge, rather to discern and recognise.

---

To "discern and recognise" is what I mean by "judge".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
All that says is that it's tricky to work out. So what? Working out the best place in the garden to plant the banana tree is tricky, but we still manage it. Tricky doesn't mean impossible, it just means tricky.

---

No, as Cheesy* points out it is really impossible on the criteria you have given.

---

quote:

---

I recite the Nicene Creed weekly, and I listen to my bishop on the rare occasions when he registers on my consciousness. Are you going to cede to me on the question of Calvinism?

---

That depends. Have you changed your mind?
 

---

Posted by AdamPater (# 4431) on :
 
None of the three "biblical criteria" provides any basis for judging that someone doesn't have the Holy Spirit. They certainly provide some means to identify the presence of the Spirit.

I think anyone going into the business of declaring where the Spirit is not is on very dodgy, if not blasphemous, ground.

It might sound nit-picking, but I think it's critical for how we deal with other people. And it goes to the difference between "proclaiming the Gospel" to each other and sheep-stealing.

quote:

---

Not impossible for God, who sees the heart. And we have enough information to make a provisional determination, which is all we really need for getting on with the life of faith.

---

Absolutely not! I'm not God, and neither are you!!

[ 20. February 2006, 11:38: Message edited by: AdamPater ]
 

---

Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :
 
I don't get all of this. Please forgive me - I am not implying any malice or lack of good motive on your part, Gordon. I just find it very, very odd that you can appoint yourself as evangelist to the gentiles and romans with such very very sandy foundations. You keep having to dig deeper into the sand to try and shore up your crumbling edifice. And the question I have is, what's the point?

Heck, how can I disagree with you that not enough Catholics spend time with the Scriptures? I devote at least one homily per year trying to encourage people to do so because I know so few do. My usual little ferverino is about St Jerome's dictum that "ignorance of the scriptures is ignorance of Christ". You see, "Many Catholics do not read the Bible" is not the same thing as saying "Many Catholics do not read the Bible because the Catholic Church won't let them".

And before you make the point, it's only 1 per year because there is a vast amount of stuff to get through in a year and I try to encourage rounded Christians, not bibliolaters.

This thread is headed "preaching the Gospel to Roman Catholics". Such a statement is utterly ludicrous and stupid and really best left to the nutters who cannot be taken seriously. But someone who is a validated ( for those who have recently been visiting me in hell!) clergyman of a mainline church?

Now, if your real concern, as your argument seems to have developed, is that you are worried about the level of Scriptural literacy amongst the Catholic faithful, then no worries - so are the Pope, the bishops, the priests and loads of lay Catholics. And we provide tons of resources to try and correct this. But we would prefer you to butt out - it's our pastoral responsibility, not yours.
 

---

Posted by Gordon Cheng (# 8895) on :
 
It's not my thread and it's not my thread title.

I am worried about the biblical literacy of anybody who doesn't read the Bible. But I am far more worried about the question of how we can be declared "not guilty" by a righteous God. On this question, the Roman church has a fundamental problem (from a historical Protestant perspective, which I hold). This basic question of how we can be right with God is answered by the Bible, and I would like Roman Catholics—and everybody really—to know what the Bible actually teaches, as opposed to what their denomination is telling them.
 

---

Posted by seasick (# 48) on :
 
No, it's not. It's answered by the Incarnation, Life, Passion, Death, Resurrection and Ascension of Our Lord.
 

---

Posted by Craigmaddie (# 8367) on :
 
Gordon, what do you belive that the Roman Catholic Church teaches that is in opposition to what the Bible says?
 

---

Posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf (# 2252) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
This basic question of how we can be right with God is answered by the Bible, and I would like Roman Catholics—and everybody really—to know what the Bible actually teaches, as opposed to what their denomination is telling them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
The Roman church simply does not understand the basis of salvation, therefore they can't find it or teach others how to find it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by dyfrig:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
The Roman church simply does not understand the basis of salvation, therefore they can't find it or teach others how to find it.

---

Oh dear. I can't look.

Someone tell me when this is over......

---

quote:

---

I am worried about the biblical literacy of anybody who doesn't read the Bible.

---

eerrmm .... to me, that implies Catholics don't hear the Word of God .... however at every Catholic Mass (which some people attend not just weekly, but daily!) there are several scripture readings. (One OT, one psalm and one gospel reading on weekdays - the same plus a reading from the epistles on Sunday). So claiming that RCs don't hear the Word of God makes no sense.

What Catholics are are poor at, often, is the whole idea of gathering outside of a Mass, to reflect, pray and/or learn about themselves as Christians and their God. We seem to want to learn only through liturgy, which isn't great for liturgy, as it gets watered down through lack of understanding !

Much of this is cultural, and institutional, and this attitude is very much in decline. Karl Rahner said (in the 60s i think) that it would not be possible to be a cultural catholic in the next century (now!). People would either walk away or else make a personal decision to be in relationship with GOd. Culture would no longer sustain practise ('going to Mass').
He was right .
Anyone i know, of my own age (mid 30s), who is choosing to 'practise their faith', is also actively struggling and developing a deeper relationship with God - be that through Alpha, CaFE, traditional prayers, charasmatic prayer groups, etc etc or - most importantly in terms of this conversation - Lectio Divina.

But to be honest, i'm always far less worried about people who are nervous of the Bible cause they haven't read it yet; than i am of people who have read it once through and who insist on using the Word of God as a crutch for their latest theory ... a little scripture is a dangerous thing !!
 

---

Posted by Craigmaddie (# 8367) on :
 
Gordon, have you ever taken a peek at the Roman Catholic Catechism regarding its understanding of justification? Just wondering...
 

---

Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
All sorts of things.

But on the question of how we can be declared right by God on the final judgement, my answer (along with traditional Reformers), is that it is by grace through faith, with not even the slightest scintilla of reference to our own merit or good works. It is only through the merit of Christ, who died for me and for all who trust him.

The Roman church simply does not understand the basis of salvation, therefore they can't find it or teach others how to find it.

However I would subscribe to the same ecumenical creeds that the Roman Catholics do. The Roman church is correct in its doctrine of God, in its Christology, pneumatology, and a lot more besides.

---

quote:

---

Matthew 25:31-46
31When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:

32And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:

33And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.

34Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:

35For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:

36Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.

37Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?

38When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?

39Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?

40And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.

41Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:

42For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:

43I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.

44Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?

45Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.

46And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

---

quote:

---

Matthew 7:16-20
16Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?

17Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.

18A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.

19Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.

20Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

---

quote:

---

The Roman church simply does not understand the basis of salvation, therefore they can't find it or teach others how to find it.

---

of course a viewpoint all depends on where one is located !!!!

... do you mean the church leadership, the church membership and/or both ?!?! ... are we all gone to hell in a handbasket .. or just the ones in collars
what about if we don't tell anyone else how to find 'it'... if we stay 'among ourselves', would we be OK then, or is our presence an on-going offence!!!!!!

... bless , tis rare enough in life i get to meet someone who has it all sorted out for God in advance of judgement day !!! (I'm sure God is appropriately grateful!!! !!!!)
 

---

Posted by rosamundi (# 2495) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
The Roman church simply does not understand the basis of salvation, therefore they can't find it or teach others how to find it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rosamundi:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
The Roman church simply does not understand the basis of salvation, therefore they can't find it or teach others how to find it.

---

Gordon, did you deliberately set out to come across as unbelievably rude and ignorant with this little comment?

The Catholic Church teaches that Salvation comes from God alone, our salvation flows from God's initiative of love for us, salvation is a gift from Christ, and that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, and that apart from the Cross, there is no other ladder by which we can get to heaven. Still, the Christian faith is not a "religion of the book." Christianity is the religion of the "Word" of God, a word which is "not a written and mute word, but the Word is incarnate and living". If the Scriptures are not to remain a dead letter, Christ, the eternal Word of the living God, must, through the Holy Spirit, "open [our] minds to understand the Scriptures."

Deborah

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:

The Roman church simply does not understand the basis of salvation, therefore they can't find it or teach others how to find it.

---

quote:

---

apart from the Cross, there is no other ladder by which we can get to heaven.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
Those RCs aware of their history will know that the changes that have made these dialogues possible come because Protestantism in many parts of the world has drifted from its historic roots and come theologically closer to Catholicism.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
Those Protestants aware of history will know that Catholicism doesn't say the same things about us as it used to. If Protestantism drifting from its historic roots has made Protestants less likely to fall into anti-Catholic bigotry, it can only be a Good Thing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
I would also want to insist that highlighting theological differences is not bigotry but clarity; indeed it is the exact opposite of bigotry because only once you look at the facts of the matter can discussion begin.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
Those Protestants aware of history will know that Catholicism doesn't say the same things about us as it used to. If Protestantism drifting from its historic roots has made Protestants less likely to fall into anti-Catholic bigotry, it can only be a Good Thing.

---

I agree that having less anti-Catholic bigotry around would be a good thing.

I would also want to insist that highlighting theological differences is not bigotry but clarity; indeed it is the exact opposite of bigotry because only once you look at the facts of the matter can discussion begin.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:


Justinian, the passages you cite have no bearing on the basis by which we are declared not guilty before God.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cheesy*:
You're not looking at the facts, though. You're looking at something with you're preconceived ideas and then slamming others then they don't meet your standards of purity.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cheesy*:
You're not looking at the facts, though. You're looking at something with yourpreconceived ideas and then slamming others then they don't meet your standards of purity.

<slightly corrected my own crap grammar >

---

Well, to be fair to Gordon, it is a fact that Catholicism is not Calvinist.

The question is whether or not this makes them un-Biblical Semi-Pelagians. Gordon probably thinks so. I don't.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
Those Protestants aware of history will know that Catholicism doesn't say the same things about us as it used to. If Protestantism drifting from its historic roots has made Protestants less likely to fall into anti-Catholic bigotry, it can only be a Good Thing.

In wonder and awe at the patience and grace of Catholics still reading this thread ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
I wasn't intending hurt; but you must be aware that this is simply the historic Protestant position egarding the Catholic church, and similarly that the Catholic church has since the time of the Reformation insisted that this historic position is wrong, recent dialogues between Protestant and Catholic groups not withstanding.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
The way this is phrased by the Catechism reveals the difference we are discussing. In RC teaching, as your links show, Christ opens the way by his death on the cross, after which our effort (inspired by his grace) must ascend the ladder.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
For those who trust in Jesus, the ladder has been ascended. We are, in the New Testament's repeated phrase "in Christ". And Christ is in heaven. No ascending remains to be done, and we can be completely free of the fear of God's judgement.

---

Calvinism - the digital doctrine of salvation which samples with one bit per lifetime.
 

---

Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
Justinian, the passages you cite have no bearing on the basis by which we are declared not guilty before God. Anyone who stands before God without having placed their trust in Jesus' death will indeed be judged according to their works, and condemned. Good works, on the other hand, flow naturally from saving faith. But it doesn't at all follow that they form the basis of God's "not guilty" verdict.

---

quote:

---

45Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.

46And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

---

quote:

---

Just call yourself a Pauline (or possibly a Calvinist) rather than a Christian please.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
I wasn't intending hurt; but you must be aware that this is simply the historic Protestant position egarding the Catholic church, and similarly that the Catholic church has since the time of the Reformation insisted that this historic position is wrong, recent dialogues between Protestant and Catholic groups not withstanding.

---

Gordon, please, please read the JDDJ at some stage, will you?

---

quote:

---

The justification of sinners is forgiveness of sins and being made righteous by justifying grace, which makes us children of God. In justification the righteous receive from Christ faith, hope, and love and are thereby taken into communion with him

---

quote:

---

Rom. 5:8 but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. 9 Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God.

---

quote:

---

Matt. 12:46 While he was still speaking to the people, behold, his mother and his brothers stood outside, asking to speak to him. 48 But he replied to the man who told him, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?” 49 And stretching out his hand toward his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers!

---

In other words, in Mt 25 Jesus is referring to the attitude of Christians to their fellow believers. Anyone who calls Jesus "Lord" and despises their Christian brothers and sisters is a liar, and their profession of faith is not to be believed. They're telling porkies! This is in no way the same as regarding their good works as part of the basis of their justification before God.

BTW It's not necessary to appeal to Paul or any other writer to get this understanding from Matthew's gospel, but it is only to be expected that when we turn to a Paul, a John or a Peter, they would say the same as the words of Jesus recorded in Matthew.

(Oh and BTW the 2nd, this in no way excuses Christians from the duty of doing good to all men. It just isn't the basis for our right-standing with God.)
 

---

Posted by Demas (# 24) on :
 
Gordon - I've split the case of Jesus v. Paul (50) 1 GLR 3 off into another thread - if you wouldn't mind popping by I would love to hear from you...
 

---

Posted by Gordon Cheng (# 8895) on :
 
Demas: Love to mate but my brainspace is barely able to keep up with one Purg thread at a time, I find, unless the other Purg thread is a joke thread in disguise

Should the topic return after this thread dies down I shall be into it like rabies in a dog's drool.
 

---

Posted by josephine (# 3899) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
As for the righteous, you will notice that their attitude to the "least of these my brothers" is key to their fate. In Matthew's gospel, if you check how "brothers" is used by Jesus, it refers to his disciples:

quote:

---

Matt. 12:46 While he was still speaking to the people, behold, his mother and his brothers stood outside, asking to speak to him. 48 But he replied to the man who told him, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?” 49 And stretching out his hand toward his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers!

---

In other words, in Mt 25 Jesus is referring to the attitude of Christians to their fellow believers.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
In other words, in Mt 25 Jesus is referring to the attitude of Christians to their fellow believers.

---

Oh my.... oh my Lord

There's another open-mouthed moment, to go in the special box along with "the Holy Spirit only speaks to us through the Bible" and "God told Abram to go to Canaan in the same way that He told light to come into being".

You poor, benighted, impoverished soul.

[Josephine:
Eliza, yes, exactly - must remember that and stop wasting time.
That people in practise realise that is the basis for my bet that Gordon won't get called to Hell again for a while.]

[ 21. February 2006, 01:31: Message edited by: AdamPater ]
 

---

Posted by Gordon Cheng (# 8895) on :
 
The only thing worse than a sharp-tongued woman is a sharp-tongued heavenly host.

Off you go and torture fluffy bunnies, Adsy, while I toast a marhsmallow on that little candle you lit. Scoot along now, there's a good boy
 

---

Posted by AdamPater (# 4431) on :
 
Sexist as well? But I'm not a host, as you know.

I don't think you get it: I wasn't being sharp, either. Your last few posts have put me back where we were a few months ago in the "Spiritual Growth threads": simply stunned at the thought-world you seem to inhabit. Stunned once again into praying for you, which is no doubt a good thing, because that's the only possible response given communication is impossible.

But this is hardly appropriate for a debating board. Ciao, bella.

[ 21. February 2006, 02:32: Message edited by: AdamPater ]
 

---

Posted by Joyfulsoul (# 4652) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
This is a masterpiece of ambiguity, for example:

quote:

---

The justification of sinners is forgiveness of sins and being made righteous by justifying grace, which makes us children of God. In justification the righteous receive from Christ faith, hope, and love and are thereby taken into communion with him

---

in other words our faith, hope and love are now seen as an integral part of the "justification" package.

<snip> it is the most dreadful confusion of what the Bible actually says.

Paul in Romans:

quote:

---

Rom. 5:8 but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. 9 Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God.

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:

This is a masterpiece of ambiguity, for example:

quote:

---

The justification of sinners is forgiveness of sins and being made righteous by justifying grace, which makes us children of God. In justification the righteous receive from Christ faith, hope, and love and are thereby taken into communion with him

---

in other words our faith, hope and love are now seen as an integral part of the "justification" package.

But this view is not traditional Lutheranism (as I've absolutely no doubt that you understand, Ingo, being the bright brain surgeon that you are) and more to the point, it is the most dreadful confusion of what the Bible actually says.

Paul in Romans:

quote:

---

Rom. 5:8 but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. 9 Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God.

---

so certain is our future salvation that Paul here speaks of our justification as past. You will notice that it is entirely on the basis of the blood of Christ, that is to say, his death on the cross. We are now in heaven with him, as Paul teaches elsewhere.

---

quote:

---

We confess together that sinners are justified by faith in the saving action of God in Christ. By the action of the Holy Spirit in baptism, they are granted the gift of salvation, which lays the basis for the whole Christian life. They place their trust in God's gracious promise by justifying faith, which includes hope in God and love for him. Such a faith is active in love and thus the Christian cannot and should not remain without works. But whatever in the justified precedes or follows the free gift of faith is neither the basis of justification nor merits it.

---

quote:

---

We are now in heaven with him, as Paul teaches elsewhere.

---

quote:

---

Rom. 5:8 but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. 9 Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God.

---

quote:

---

...the relationship between the Word of God and church doctrine, as well as ecclesiology, ecclesial authority, church unity, ministry, the sacraments, and the relation between justification and social ethics?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Duo Seraphim:
Thus to suggest that we can no longer fall short of the promises of Christ because to quote you

quote:

---

We are now in heaven with him, as Paul teaches elsewhere.

---

is not in fact what Paul teaches elsewhwere.

---

quote:

---

originally posted by Paul:
Ephesians 2:4 But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, 5 even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved— 6 and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, 7 so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus.

---

quote:

---

8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast. 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joyfulsoul:
Strangely enough, Gordon Cheng, this thread (as it has been developed) has helped me have a greater appreciation for the beauty and inspiration of the Holy Spirit in Catholism.

---

quote:

---

1 Corinthians 6:11 But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

---

quote:

---

being confident of this, that he who began a good work in you will carry it on to completion until the day of Christ Jesus. (Philippians 1:6, NIV)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Duo Seraphim:
Thus to suggest that we can no longer fall short of the promises of Christ because to quote you

quote:

---

We are now in heaven with him, as Paul teaches elsewhere.

---

is not in fact what Paul teaches elsewhwere.

---

Once again, Duo, this is an error of fact which undermines a key point that you are attempting to establish.

quote:

---

originally posted by Paul:
Ephesians 2:4 But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, 5 even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved— 6 and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, 7 so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus.

---

it's on this basis that he immediately concludes:

quote:

---

8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast. 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.

---

An excellent passage which shows not only that our works have no part to play whatsoever at any point in our salvation, but nonetheless demonstrates how the Christian life is a life of good works.

---

That is precisely what the JDDJ said. It is also precisely what I just said. It's what the Catechism says. And Paul: "so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus..." which is a reference to the fulfillment by God of His promises to the justified. Given that this poor world is manifestly not heaven, can you conceive that it is just possible that St Paul meant that by God's grace, quite undeserved by us and not becuase of anything we have done, we became the heirs of Christ, able to call God "Abba, Father" (or actually "Daddy"), rather than we are actually and literally in heaven upon earth. In other words, it's metaphor rather than a literal statement of fact.

What you have evaded, in trying to score a trivial point off me, is that you have once again set up a straw man form of Catholicism, which bears no resemblance to what the Catholic Church teaches and what Catholics actually believe.

Joust with your phantom Catholic Church if you must. But you do a grave disservice to the unity of God's Church in doing so. Or come up with a genuine criticism of Catholic doctrine which you can point to as actually being part of the Magisterium by reference to the documents concerned, rather than these fluffy and inaccurate generalisations.
 

---

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
Gordon, this is the Catholic view

quote:

---

St. Augustine, Epistle 194, 5.19:
What merit of man is there before grace by which he can achieve grace, as only grace works every one of our good merits in us, and as God, when He crowns our merits, crowns nothing else but His own gifts?

---

quote:

---

Romans 2:6-8 (RSV):
For he will render to every man according to his works: to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; but for those who are factious and do not obey the truth, but obey wickedness, there will be wrath and fury.

---

quote:

---

It is God's will that you should be sanctified: that you should avoid sexual immorality (1 Thes 4:3, NIV)

---

quote:

---

Rom. 3:10 as it is written:
“None is righteous, no, not one;
11 no one understands;
no one seeks for God.
12 All have turned aside; together they have become worthless;
no one does good,
not even one.”
13 “Their throat is an open grave;
they use their tongues to deceive.”
“The venom of asps is under their lips.”
Rom. 3:14 “Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness.”
Rom. 3:15 “Their feet are swift to shed blood;
Rom. 3:16 in their paths are ruin and misery,
Rom. 3:17 and the way of peace they have not known.”
Rom. 3:18 “There is no fear of God before their eyes.”
Rom. 3:19 Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God. 20 For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rosamundi:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
I would also want to insist that highlighting theological differences is not bigotry but clarity; indeed it is the exact opposite of bigotry because only once you look at the facts of the matter can discussion begin.

---

The problem is, Gordon, that you are coming across as the worst kind of "my way or the Highway to Hell" bigot.

You need to work on your communication skills - I know some Sisters who can help you with that.

Deborah

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
Duo, and Ingo I doubt that you will get far along the line of arguing that the Reformation differences are a matter of the past, unless you see the discussion in terms of Romanism and liberal Protestantism. You would do better if you realized that the Joint declarations between various protestantisms and the Roman church only really work if it is assumed that the Protestants have moved on from the theological issues highlighted at that time. Some have, some haven't.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
Gordon, this is the Catholic view

quote:

---

St. Augustine, Epistle 194, 5.19:
What merit of man is there before grace by which he can achieve grace, as only grace works every one of our good merits in us, and as God, when He crowns our merits, crowns nothing else but His own gifts?

---

Your misunderstanding is that St Paul contrasts grace vs. merit. He does not. He contrasts grace vs. debt.

---

quote:

---

We can't make God owe us anything by any of our actions. God cannot be made our debtor.

---

quote:

---

The Ingomeister:
St Paul is not opposed to God rewarding the merit of good works, as is clear from

quote:

---

Romans 2:6-8 (RSV):
[qb]For he will render to every man according to his works: to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; but for those who are factious and do not obey the truth, but obey wickedness, there will be wrath and fury.

---

---

I can't but agree. The only thing I can say though (and I believe this is following the trajectory of Paul's argument in Rom 1:17-3:20) is that by nature and by our works we deserve punishment . And as to what those who trust in Jesus 'deserve', well, Paul has not (at this stage of the argument) begun to discuss them. It's not yet possible to answer the question by reference to Romans 2:6-8. You read those verses, even noting the promise of reward, and you say "Well I'm stuffed then".

[code]

[ 21. February 2006, 14:54: Message edited by: John Holding ]
 

---

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
It appears to me then that we are argueing here whether the glass is half-empty or half-full. There's basically no factual content in your latest post I would have much of an issue with. It's more a question of attitude. It's good news, Gordon. Bloody cheer up already.

"Man cannot live without joy; therefore when he is deprived of true spiritual joys it is necessary that he become addicted to carnal pleasures." --- St Thomas Aquinas
 

---

Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
It appears to me that we are presenting the ineffable God of love as an immature child, just because some want to justify Calvin.

They prefer to make an idol out of God, instead of complying to the gospel of Christ.

If God was to choose some and reject others based not on their character and their ethos, but arbitrarily justifying the unjust while condemning others equally unjust, then He would be less than a young child, less than a dead idol.
 

---

Posted by Gordon Cheng (# 8895) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
It appears to me then that we are argueing here whether the glass is half-empty or half-full. There's basically no factual content in your latest post I would have much of an issue with. It's more a question of attitude. It's good news, Gordon. Bloody cheer up already.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
... I doubt that you will get far along the line of arguing that the Reformation differences are a matter of the past, unless you see the discussion in terms of Romanism and liberal Protestantism. You would do better if you realized that the Joint declarations between various protestantisms and the Roman church only really work if itis assumed that the Protestants have moved on from the theological issues highlighted at that time.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:

I would agree that certain problems between the Lutherans and the Romans have been solved, but only really by the Lutherans departing from the clarity that Luther, and before him Paul, had on the relationship between faith and works.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by AdamPater:

There are other efforts at mutual understanding and cooperation than the JDDJ. Are we to understand that the non-Catholic participants of Evangelicals and Catholics Together are all "liberal protestants"?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:

I can understand the impulse to want to be on the same team as others in the fight against secularism. I can sympathize with the desire to find as much in common as you can. I just think the people who signed up for this statement made some compromises that I personally would feel unhappy about.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
It's more a question of attitude. It's good news, Gordon. Bloody cheer up already.

---

What better news could there be - from the egotistical point of view of wanting to be cheered up - that before the foundation of the universe God created us to enjoy eternal life, regardless of any works or merit? Our names are written in the book of life. Are, not will be, or not were once, or might be if certain things happen or are done.

Calvinism (in the broad sense, not the precise TULIP sense) is really a logical outcome of taking the eternal nature of God seriously, his omnipotence and omniscience.

The passages Gordon quoted are what the old CofE prayerbook called "comfortable words". They should make us feel better
 

---

Posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf (# 2252) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
What better news could there be - from the egotistical point of view of wanting to be cheered up - that before the foundation of the universe God created us to enjoy eternal life, regardless of any works or merit?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
Some of those guys are great. Many don't seem liberal and as far as I know aren't. Others I don't know.

---

quote:

---

I can understand the impulse to want to be on the same team as others in the fight against secularism.

---

quote:

---

Jesus Christ is Lord. That is the first and final affirmation that Christians make about all of reality.

---

quote:

---

The Roman church simply does not understand the basis of salvation, therefore they can't find it or teach others how to find it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
Our names are written in the book of life. Are, not will be, or not were once, or might be if certain things happen or are done.

---

Interestingly this is precisely what the Catholic Church claims was true for the Blessed Virgin Mary from the first instance of her conception. Many professed Calvinists are very unhappy with this. Strange.

 

---

Posted by Gordon Cheng (# 8895) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by AdamPater:

Do you insist on standing by

quote:

---

The Roman church simply does not understand the basis of salvation, therefore they can't find it or teach others how to find it.

---

given that the only salvation they insist on standing by is Jesus?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
]What better news could there be - from the egotistical point of view of wanting to be cheered up - that before the foundation of the universe God created us to enjoy eternal life, regardless of any works or merit?

---

quote:

---

Calvinism (in the broad sense, not the precise TULIP sense) is really a logical outcome of taking the eternal nature of God seriously, his omnipotence and omniscience.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
The only thing worse than a sharp-tongued woman is a sharp-tongued heavenly host.

Off you go and torture fluffy bunnies, Adsy, while I toast a marhsmallow on that little candle you lit. Scoot along now, there's a good boy

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
Just saying "I stand for niceness and goodness" doesn't mean a thing if you then proceed to let people's tyres down.

---

quote:

---

We all make mistakes.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
Our names are written in the book of life. Are, not will be, or not were once, or might be if certain things happen or are done.

---

Interestingly this is precisely what the Catholic Church claims was true for the Blessed Virgin Mary from the first instance of her conception. Many professed Calvinists are very unhappy with this. Strange.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by GreyFace:
It's the point of application into history that causes problems though. It seems to say, a person who is predestined to reprobation is eternally unable to repent because God's omnipotence is stacked against him. This is Fecking Bad News for said person, and anyone who loves him.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quantpole:
I think (pretty much) all Calvinists would say that Mary was destined from eternity (not conception) to bear Christ. They certainly wouldn't be unhappy with someone saying that.

---

The point I was making was that Ken's account of Calvinism sits quite nicely with the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, something I would think most Calvinists would have a problem with!

[ 21. February 2006, 15:12: Message edited by: Divine Outlaw Dwarf ]
 

---

Posted by Cymruambyth (# 10887) on :
 
Question: Who does Gordon Cheng preached the gospel to the Protestants?
 

---

Posted by Cymruambyth (# 10887) on :
 
Lord save us and help us - I really must preview posts. That previous post of mine should read: "Who does Gordon Cheng think preached the gospel to the Protestants?
 

---

Posted by Adrian1 (# 3994) on :
 
I know a good many Roman Catholics, most of whom I would count as good friends, and who are far better Christians and ambassadors for the Gospel, not only through their faith but through the way they live their lives, than I'm ever likely to be.


 

---

Posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf (# 2252) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cymruambyth:
"Who does Gordon Cheng think preached the gospel to the Protestants?

---

Jesus, I'd imagine. He spoke to Paul on the Damascus road after all!

 

---

Posted by Gordon Cheng (# 8895) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cymruambyth:
Lord save us and help us - I really must preview posts. That previous post of mine should read: "Who does Gordon Cheng think preached the gospel to the Protestants?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
He worked it out some time around 1515(+ or -)

---

He worked it out? By his own efforts, using his corrupt and fallen reason? Tut, tut.
 

---

Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :
 
*** sigh *****
 

---

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
(Specifically, the question of whether God's gift of righteousness is imputed or imparted is thoroughly fudged. It's like reading one of Duo's posts, only not as cross)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
So we're agreed? By nature, you are going to hell?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
(Specifically, the question of whether God's gift of righteousness is imputed or imparted is thoroughly fudged. It's like reading one of Duo's posts, only not as cross)

---

What's the difference? Presumably you must believe that righteousness is imparted at some point, since we don't turn up at the Pearly Gates still in a state of simul iusti et peccatores-ness.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
Joyfulsoul, similar observations can be made about the past, present and future tenses of salvation generally. You were saved; you are being saved; you will be saved.

All three statements are true once it is recognized that our future salvation has been unalterably secured by a past act; the death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus. If even the faintest doubt creeps in about that past act, however, the ability to speak of salvation in the present and future disappears completely. So to observe that salvation is also future is not to introduce any element of uncertainty. Assurance comes about because of what Jesus has already accomplished. the writer of Hebrews puts it like this:

10:14 For by a single offering [Jesus] has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.

---

I am chuffed to bits that we are in complete argreement. PTL,

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
Oh, and this distinction matters because

(a) it respects what the Bible says on the subject
(b) it maintains absolutely the unearned gift character of our salvation.
(c) it maintains absolutely the complete sufficiency of Christ's death for covering all our sins, past, present and future, and so results in glory going to him.
(d) it gives present assurance of salvation
(e) it gives a reason for living changed lives without the smallest atom of a possibility that we might discover some ground within our character or action for boasting.

They are all important reasons. However if the first wasn't true, the rest wouldn't be either. Despite my earlier words about Luther having worked it out, he was only able to do so because God's Spirit showed it to him.

---

Strangely enough this doesn't really speak to me in the least - but I'm thinking that perhaps it is due a cultural thinking difference. In the sense that I am pomo product and my response is: "But how is this relevant to my life?" and "How does this make me feel?"

But anyways - isn't the crux of thread based on what we believe is the "Gospel"? Right?

Well, I am extraordinarily excited because the "Gospel" is the Good News and how could one not be happy at good news?

So, let me share how I see the Good News (the gospel). I am very excited because a thought occurred to me.

Fr. Gregory mentioned in another thread about how the "West" is Christocentric. I thought his perception was apt and precise and I completely agreed with his criticism .

And so, then I thought - well, "What would the gospel look like from a monotheistic trinitarian perspective?" Which I must admit gave me great pause for thought.

The conclusion so far that I have reached is that gospel includes:

1) Salvific

Jesus saves us from our sins by his blood on the cross (this is an expression of the intensity and patience and suffering of love). He also saves us from the sting of death and bring us eternal life.

2) Transformational

God's spirit moves in us to transform our inner selves to be bigger people - in the sense that as we repented and are baptised and the Holy Spirit renews, changes, transforms, and grows us to be people of greater grace and love and hope and faith and inner beauty.

3) Return to Shalom/Redemptive Work

As we pray, "Father, your kingdom come and your will be done on earth as it is in heaven" -- in a sense, God our Father is bringing us back to Shalom. The restoration of a "relationship" with the Divine. So as God had walked with Adam and guided him in working in the garden of Eden, so we find meaning in participating in God's kingdom by following him to do the good works that he has prepared for us. To be a part of grand commission so powerfully stated in Isaiah 61 - to bring justice and mercy and to share in the love of God with others - especially the poor, the widowed, the down-trodden, and the suffering ones.

I believe this is the full gospel that Jesus preached. (I think there is something very special about the role of the trinity in the gospel that perhaps has not been elaborated fully in this discussion about the gospel - so I am very happy to discuss the role of the trinity in the full gospel.)



What do you* think?

*(Gordon Cheng and anyone and everyone)

[ 22. February 2006, 04:19: Message edited by: Joyfulsoul ]
 

---

Posted by GoodCatholicLad (# 9231) on :
 
Question for Gorden Cheng, you bio says Anglican but no offense I never met an Anglican/Episcopalian with your point of view and I used to be a member of an Episcopal church for a couple years, granted it was the San Francisco Bay Area. they were nothing at all like you. Perhaps Anglicans in Australia are a different breed of cat. Your postings sound more like an American Southern Baptist, but then the Episcopal church I attended was 99.999% the liturgy was the same as the local RC parish down the road except the lady priest who would never ever knock the RCC or any other church for that matter. Your posts are entertaining even though it's like watching an ant kick Ayer's Rock. Perhaps another hobby? The Catholic bashing it ain't workin".
 

---

Posted by Gordon Cheng (# 8895) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by AdamPater:
Perverse as I am, I can't help concluding either that there is no particular point in trying to lead a "good life", or that the most effective path to perfection is suicide. Neither of which sit well with me, notwithstanding the broken intuitions of my fallen nature.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
For example, the Bible is primarily a book of judgement,

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
Joyfulsoul, lots of good stuff there, but a few significant ideas seem to be missing. For example, the Bible is primarily a book of judgement, but there's not a lot of that i n what you said.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
For example, the Bible is primarily a book of judgement,

---

Based on what?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
A statistical survey of the themes and content of most of the books after Genesis 3:5 and before Revelation 22:21.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
I am not Catholic bashing, I am answering questions on a thread not started by me but dealing with some very important theological differences between Romanism and biblical Christianity.

---

In which case watch your language. Positing two positions, one dubbed "biblical Christianity" and the other "Romanism" is extremely offensive. I am not a "Roman" and my faith is not "Romanism": I am a Catholic Christian and my faith is Christianity, Catholic Christianity if you want.
 

---

Posted by Duo Seraphim (# 256) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:

I am not Catholic bashing, I am answering questions on a thread not started by me but dealing with some very important theological differences between Romanism and biblical Christianity.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Trisagion:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
I am not Catholic bashing, I am answering questions on a thread not started by me but dealing with some very important theological differences between Romanism and biblical Christianity.

---

In which case watch your language. Positing two positions, one dubbed "biblical Christianity" and the other "Romanism" is extremely offensive. I am not a "Roman" and my faith is not "Romanism": I am a Catholic Christian and my faith is Christianity, Catholic Christianity if you want.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by josephine:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
A statistical survey of the themes and content of most of the books after Genesis 3:5 and before Revelation 22:21.

---

Really. My goodness, that's interesting. Who did this survey? What was the methodology? How did they verify its validity? Where was the survey published?

I sure would like to know!

---

It's one of those democratic surveys, Josephine, whereby every single person in the world gets a chance to do it for themselves and post their own results. I would encourage you and all other shipmates to try it for themselves.

-Eliza
 

---

Posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf (# 2252) on :
 
Perhaps a quantitative survey isn't the best way to read texts. Frequency of occurence of a theme is by no means the only indicator of the importance of that theme in the narrative structure of the work. (Leaving aside for the moment the, not unimportant, point that the Bible is not one book but several.)
 

---

Posted by Gordon Cheng (# 8895) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
Perhaps a quantitative survey isn't the best way to read texts. Frequency of occurence of a theme is by no means the only indicator of the importance of that theme in the narrative structure of the work. (Leaving aside for the moment the, not unimportant, point that the Bible is not one book but several.)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
Perhaps a quantitative survey isn't the best way to read texts. Frequency of occurence of a theme is by no means the only indicator of the importance of that theme in the narrative structure of the work. (Leaving aside for the moment the, not unimportant, point that the Bible is not one book but several.)

---

Agreed on all counts. It's a quick and dirty method of getting a vibe. Still there's an awful lot of judgement, by God, against sinful people, in those 66 books. And there is a prima facie case for saying that the idea matters.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joyfulsoul:
Gordon, I want to thank you for this thread because you have caused me to think about what the "gospel" means. How extraordinarily valuable! Thank you very much.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Duo Seraphim:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:

I am not Catholic bashing, I am answering questions on a thread not started by me but dealing with some very important theological differences between Romanism and biblical Christianity.

---

You have yet to explain what those differences are.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
DOD: Ah well. I think given the place that judgement, Hevaen, Hell and Purgatory hold within Roman theology, your argument with them would be as great as your argument with me. I think the Roman emphasis on the seriousness and finality of judgement is another area where they get it pretty much right.

---