quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
To us Piskies on the ground, what ++Katherine says or doesn't say matters little. She isn't our pope. We just keep on keeping on, celebrating the sacraments, studying the Bible, believing the creeds, performing our outreach ministries, and supporting each other in Christian community. That's all most of us care about.

---

 

---

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :
 
The Presiding Bishop/Primate is primarily an administrator/pastor. He/she might not necessary be the best theologian.

+Katharine, it seems to me, has strong administrative skills and I have not heard any complaints that she is a bad pastor to her bishops*.

*Though it might be unseemly for a bishop to comment on that issue.
 

---

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mockingale:

Maybe you'll get your shit together. In the meantime I'm going to go hang out with the Lutherans.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
I think the UCC, PCUSA, and the UUs not being any different might be precisely Mockingale's fear, Bostonman.

The Episcopal Church has its problems to be sure. But God promised to guide and save it. This isn't the sickness unto death because "the gates of hell will never prevail against it." We just have to have faith until He renews it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mockingale:
...In the meantime I'm going to go hang out with the Lutherans.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
I think the UCC, PCUSA, and the UUs not being any different might be precisely Mockingale's fear, Bostonman.

The Episcopal Church has its problems to be sure. But God promised to guide and save it. This isn't the sickness unto death because "the gates of hell will never prevail against it." We just have to have faith until He renews it.

---

Uh...Christ's promise was to the one holy, catholic and apostolic Church. It was not to a specific denomination.

Christ made no such promise to the Anglican Church, nor I would suggest, to the Baptist, the Lutheran, or even the Roman Catholic Church.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
Who else is going to be the Episcopal Church's salvation?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Patdys:
I wouldn't join any church that would have me as a member.

Interestingly (possibly only to me) I resigned my membership of my denomination because I felt life circumstances precluded me from offering it what I think it was owed.

I still attend when I can and enjoy it. By when you claim a relational theology, you need the energy to maintain relationship. And I have neither time nor energy currently. It's a season. But I felt under pressure when identifying with the denomination/church. I now feel free and happier in that I can attend when I can and take rather than having to give all the time.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
Who else is going to be the Episcopal Church's salvation?

---

There's a phrase that seems very odd to my ears! Two questions / thoughts:

- Maybe nobody will be the Episcopal Church's salvations. Denominations come and go, after all...

- What does it even mean for salvation to come to a church / denomination? Aren't people saved, not organisations?

---

Zach is weird. I haven't the foggiest what he's on about.

His statements only make sense if God saves all denominations.

Unless of course he reverts to the One True Church.

But then he'd still have to decide whether that's the Catholic Church or the Orthodox Church.



 

---

Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
I think the UCC, PCUSA, and the UUs not being any different might be precisely Mockingale's fear, Bostonman.

The Episcopal Church has its problems to be sure. But God promised to guide and save it. This isn't the sickness unto death because "the gates of hell will never prevail against it." We just have to have faith until He renews it.

---

Uh...Christ's promise was to the one holy, catholic and apostolic Church. It was not to a specific denomination.

Christ made no such promise to the Anglican Church, nor I would suggest, to the Baptist, the Lutheran, or even the Roman Catholic Church.

---

Who else is going to be the Episcopal Church's salvation?

---

It took me two goes to work out exactly what Anglican_Brat meant. The Bride is the whole church, in it's glorious messy entirety. And the promises about the gates of hell not prevailing are for the whole church - Anglicans, Baptists, Catholics of all kinds etc. Not just for one bit of it. Your post read a bit like you thought that God and the Anglican's had a special relationship and the rest of us weren't included.

OTH, even when God does save the whole church, what it will look when He's done and whether you'll like it is another discussion entirely!

Tubbs

[ 12. July 2013, 12:14: Message edited by: Tubbs ]
 

---

Posted by PeteC (# 10422) on :
 
Tubbs:

quote:

---

Your post read a bit like you thought that God and the Anglican's had a special relationship and the rest of us weren't included.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
To us Piskies on the ground, what ++Katherine says or doesn't say matters little. She isn't our pope. We just keep on keeping on, celebrating the sacraments, studying the Bible, believing the creeds, performing our outreach ministries, and supporting each other in Christian community. That's all most of us care about.

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
Zach is weird. I haven't the foggiest what he's on about.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tubbs:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
I think the UCC, PCUSA, and the UUs not being any different might be precisely Mockingale's fear, Bostonman.

The Episcopal Church has its problems to be sure. But God promised to guide and save it. This isn't the sickness unto death because "the gates of hell will never prevail against it." We just have to have faith until He renews it.

---

Uh...Christ's promise was to the one holy, catholic and apostolic Church. It was not to a specific denomination.

Christ made no such promise to the Anglican Church, nor I would suggest, to the Baptist, the Lutheran, or even the Roman Catholic Church.

---

Who else is going to be the Episcopal Church's salvation?

---

It took me two goes to work out exactly what Anglican_Brat meant. The Bride is the whole church, in it's glorious messy entirety. And the promises about the gates of hell not prevailing are for the whole church - Anglicans, Baptists, Catholics of all kinds etc. Not just for one bit of it. Your post read a bit like you thought that God and the Anglican's had a special relationship and the rest of us weren't included.

OTH, even when God does save the whole church, what it will look when He's done and whether you'll like it is another discussion entirely!

Tubbs

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
Anglicanism does have a definition of what constitutes the Church, and it while isn't exclusively Anglican Churches, it doesn't include every denomination, evensong's foggy conclusions aside.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tubbs:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
I think the UCC, PCUSA, and the UUs not being any different might be precisely Mockingale's fear, Bostonman.

The Episcopal Church has its problems to be sure. But God promised to guide and save it. This isn't the sickness unto death because "the gates of hell will never prevail against it." We just have to have faith until He renews it.

---

Uh...Christ's promise was to the one holy, catholic and apostolic Church. It was not to a specific denomination.

Christ made no such promise to the Anglican Church, nor I would suggest, to the Baptist, the Lutheran, or even the Roman Catholic Church.

---

Who else is going to be the Episcopal Church's salvation?

---

It took me two goes to work out exactly what Anglican_Brat meant. The Bride is the whole church, in it's glorious messy entirety. And the promises about the gates of hell not prevailing are for the whole church - Anglicans, Baptists, Catholics of all kinds etc. Not just for one bit of it. Your post read a bit like you thought that God and the Anglican's had a special relationship and the rest of us weren't included.

OTH, even when God does save the whole church, what it will look when He's done and whether you'll like it is another discussion entirely!

Tubbs

---

Anglicanism does have a definition of what constitutes the Church, and it while isn't exclusively Anglican Churches, it doesn't include every denomination, evensong's foggy conclusions aside.

If you don't believe that Anglicanism is heir to the promises of Jesus, then I urge you to find a Church that is.

---

Er ... I believe that the church is the bride of Christ and heir to the promises of Jesus. But I don't think that any church group has the right to define what is and isn't a church.

Tubbs
 

---

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
I should hope that every Church at least has an idea of what being a Church means, Tubbs.

But the real questions for me here are- who will save the Episcopal Church- conservative or liberal clergy-- or Jesus Christ, whose promises we can trust? Do we or do we not believe that the Holy Spirit guides the Episcopal Church, and will renew it when it errs?

To all this I say "I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth: And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God." Because Jesus promised.
 

---

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
Anglicanism does have a definition of what constitutes the Church, and it while isn't exclusively Anglican Churches, it doesn't include every denomination, evensong's foggy conclusions aside.

---

I'm sorry Zach. We're not the real church remember? We're not saved. We're evil. We spring from the spawn of Satan - The Reformation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
Anglicanism does have a definition of what constitutes the Church, and it while isn't exclusively Anglican Churches, it doesn't include every denomination, evensong's foggy conclusions aside.

---

I'm sorry Zach. We're not the real church remember? We're not saved. We're evil. We spring from the spawn of Satan - The Reformation.

---

I love how the assumption seems to be that Christianity went on hiatus from about 150 to 1500 AD, when Luther and Zwingli discovered the Bible hiding somewhere or other.

---

Never said it did. Honestly, it's enough for me to defend what I actually post.
 

---

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
But the real questions for me here are- who will save the Episcopal Church- conservative or liberal clergy-- or Jesus Christ, whose promises we can trust? Do we or do we not believe that the Holy Spirit guides the Episcopal Church, and will renew it when it errs?

---

I'm really uncomfortable with this line of argument because ISTM that not very far down the path is 'One True Church' territory..

Christian denominations disagree with one another on a range of issues, that much is beyond dispute. So if we interpret Christ's promises about the church as meaning that he will keep it from error, then of all those denominations only one can be the church in all its fullness, no?

I think the only other option is to interpret Christ's promise in some other way. Exactly what that way is, I'm not sure, but I don't think it can mean the church will be preserved from all doctrinal error.
 

---

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
It's really exasperating for people to keep arguing against things they only imagined I said. How on earth do you reconcile what I said- "the Holy Spirit guides the Episcopal Church, and will renew it when it errs" and what you imagine I said- "So if we interpret Christ's promises about the church as meaning that he will keep it from error, then of all those denominations only one can be the church in all its fullness, no?"
 

---

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :
 
Zach82, you said 'the Holy Spirit guides the Episcopal Church, and will renew it when it errs'. Does this also apply to other denominations? If so, what's going on when your denom and another denom disagree with each other on a certain matter of doctrine? At least one of the denoms in question is in error, yes? Meaning that, on this specific doctrinal point, the Holy Spirit is not guiding the denom that's in error. Or so ISTM.

Maybe you could flesh out exactly what effect you envisage this guidance by the Holy Spirit has. I assumed you meant it would keep the church from any doctrinal inaccuracy, but I guess I've misunderstood you. Or there's a hole in my argument above, which I've missed.
 

---

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
I already said what happens when the Church errs, SCK. Your inability to see that what I said and your impressions are completely contradictory is a real demotivator here.
 

---

Posted by FCB (# 1495) on :
 
I realize this is not Purgatory, so my apologies.

Zach, do you think that if at some point in the future there vanished from the earth anything recognizable as "Anglicanism," yet there still persisted churches that possessed the four elements of the Lambeth Quadrilatteral (though maybe along with other things, like the Papacy or Orthodoxy's Holy Tradition), that Christ's promise to the Church would be called into question?
 

---

Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
I should hope that every Church at least has an idea of what being a Church means, Tubbs.

But the real questions for me here are- who will save the Episcopal Church- conservative or liberal clergy-- or Jesus Christ, whose promises we can trust? Do we or do we not believe that the Holy Spirit guides the Episcopal Church, and will renew it when it errs?

To all this I say "I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth: And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God." Because Jesus promised.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
Anglicanism does have a definition of what constitutes the Church, and it while isn't exclusively Anglican Churches, it doesn't include every denomination, evensong's foggy conclusions aside.

---

I'm sorry Zach. We're not the real church remember? We're not saved. We're evil. We spring from the spawn of Satan - The Reformation.

---

I love how the assumption seems to be that Christianity went on hiatus from about 150 to 1500 AD, when Luther and Zwingli discovered the Bible hiding somewhere or other.

---

Never said it did. Honestly, it's enough for me to defend what I actually post.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
I already said what happens when the Church errs, SCK. Your inability to see that what I said and your impressions are completely contradictory is a real demotivator here.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by FCB:
I realize this is not Purgatory, so my apologies.

Zach, do you think that if at some point in the future there vanished from the earth anything recognizable as "Anglicanism," yet there still persisted churches that possessed the four elements of the Lambeth Quadrilatteral (though maybe along with other things, like the Papacy or Orthodoxy's Holy Tradition), that Christ's promise to the Church would be called into question?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
Anglicanism does have a definition of what constitutes the Church, and it while isn't exclusively Anglican Churches, it doesn't include every denomination, evensong's foggy conclusions aside.

---

I'm sorry Zach. We're not the real church remember? We're not saved. We're evil. We spring from the spawn of Satan - The Reformation.

---

I love how the assumption seems to be that Christianity went on hiatus from about 150 to 1500 AD, when Luther and Zwingli discovered the Bible hiding somewhere or other.

---

Never said it did. Honestly, it's enough for me to defend what I actually post.

---

Ooops! Sorry that came across as a criticism of your post, Zach. It was meant to be a whimsical observation on a Reformed attitude I've sometimes heard around, but really haven't heard so much here on the Ship. Rather it comes from some people who actually think that RCs and Piskies are the "Spawn of Satan" because we aren't real "Bible believing" Christians.

---

Ah, sorry about that. Perhaps I should be more forgiving of the people who read me wrong on this thread, if I'm going to go about misreading others.
 

---

Posted by FCB (# 1495) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:

---

Originally posted by FCB:
I realize this is not Purgatory, so my apologies.

Zach, do you think that if at some point in the future there vanished from the earth anything recognizable as "Anglicanism," yet there still persisted churches that possessed the four elements of the Lambeth Quadrilatteral (though maybe along with other things, like the Papacy or Orthodoxy's Holy Tradition), that Christ's promise to the Church would be called into question?

---

My understanding is more the other way around. Even if Anglicanism errs, God is still acting to bring it, all Christians, and the whole world into the fullness of the truth and life of the Church. Part of that, I dare say the greatest part, is relying on the promises of God.

The Holy Spirit does guide all Christians, and it's a real pain in the ass that people have gotten it into their head that I said otherwise.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Zach82, you said 'the Holy Spirit guides the Episcopal Church, and will renew it when it errs'. Does this also apply to other denominations? If so, what's going on when your denom and another denom disagree with each other on a certain matter of doctrine? At least one of the denoms in question is in error, yes? Meaning that, on this specific doctrinal point, the Holy Spirit is not guiding the denom that's in error. Or so ISTM.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
I think the UCC, PCUSA, and the UUs not being any different might be precisely Mockingale's fear, Bostonman.

The Episcopal Church has its problems to be sure. But God promised to guide and save it. This isn't the sickness unto death because "the gates of hell will never prevail against it." We just have to have faith until He renews it.

---

Uh...Christ's promise was to the one holy, catholic and apostolic Church. It was not to a specific denomination.

Christ made no such promise to the Anglican Church, nor I would suggest, to the Baptist, the Lutheran, or even the Roman Catholic Church.

---

Who else is going to be the Episcopal Church's salvation?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mockingale:
You've become the punchline to your own joke and lost your own witness. You look more and more like the Green Party in choir robes.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
I've never felt an obligation to my church.

Perhaps I should have?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by FCB:
I guess I took your original comment to say that if Anglicanism/The Episcopal Church as an identifiable entity were to disappear this would call into question Christ's promise to the Church. So I'm now taking it that this was not what you're saying.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
Well I think...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Maybe it doesn't fucking matter what doctrines we happen to believe. Maybe it really is just about having love for one another. Maybe whether the fruit is good or bad is more important than which type of fruit it happens to be.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
By your logic, when the Protestant churches of India merged together and the separate Anglican Church ceased to exist, Christ basically broke his promise to the Anglicans of the Indian Subcontinent.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bostonman:

Wait until the baby-boomers (that horrible generation) are gone and see what it looks like.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Patdys:
I wouldn't join any church that would have me as a member.

Interestingly (possibly only to me) I resigned my membership of my denomination because I felt life circumstances precluded me from offering it what I think it was owed.

I still attend when I can and enjoy it. By when you claim a relational theology, you need the energy to maintain relationship. And I have neither time nor energy currently. It's a season. But I felt under pressure when identifying with the denomination/church. I now feel free and happier in that I can attend when I can and take rather than having to give all the time.

---

Very curious.

I've never felt an obligation to my church.

Perhaps I should have?

Methinks you can still have relational theology without obligation

---

It is hard for me to explain. Following Christ is easy. He says love me, yourself, everyone else and creation to the best of your abilities. And don't sweat it when you screw up. I already fixed it with 2 bits of 2x4 and some nails. And some suffering, real suffering.

But the church is a brand. If I identify with a specific denomination, then I identify with their tenets. It doesn't mean I shouldn't work on them from within if I disagree but it does mean publicly, I own the brand. If I cannot uphold the brand, walk the walk, speak the speak, then I misrepresent the brand. I don't think Christ cares, but I cannot dishonour those who can currently fully identify with the brand.

It is the difference between loving football and loving your specific team. We all* love football, but don't ever wear the wrong team jumper to your clubrooms.

*yes I know you don't, just try to overlook my generalisation, just this once.
 

---

Posted by Patdys (# 9397) on :
 
iPhones are satanic. Feel free to delete my screw ups.

[Done. ]

[ 12. July 2013, 22:23: Message edited by: PeteC ]
 

---

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bostonman:
Wahhh, wahhh, wahhh.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mockingale:
In the meantime I'm going to go hang out with the Lutherans.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by comet:
I'm with Twilight, what the fuck? How are the Boomers a horrible generation? Thanks to them I've not had to deal with near the level of sexism my mother did. racism ain't fixed but it's loads better.

I'm a kid of boomers and I'm grateful. So far, no generation's been perfect. I'd be willing to bet none ever will be.

---

• the further obscene enrichment of the non-productive predatory super-rich,
• the corporatizing of nearly everything,
• the abandonment of a sense of humanity and morality in public life to be replaced by a dog-eat-dog market view of everything,
• the rise of the paranoid security state,
• the stripping away of hard-won rights won by the generation of the 60s.
• a US of A that has totally lost its way,
• and much more

quote:

---

Originally posted by malik3000:
Yes, Dr. King, Cesar Chavez, Fannie Lou Hamer, Jonathan Daniels, and so many others, truly representatives of a horrible generation.

---

MLK: Born 1929
Cesar Chavez: born 1927
Fannie Lou Hamer: born 1917
Jonathan Daniels: born 1939

How are any of these people representatives of the baby boomers?
 

---

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by malik3000:
Yes, Dr. King, Cesar Chavez, Fannie Lou Hamer, Jonathan Daniels, and so many others, truly representatives of a horrible generation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bostonman:
Wahhh, wahhh, wahhh.

---

There isn't much else to say, but I'm not going to let that stop me.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mockingale:
In the meantime I'm going to go hang out with the Lutherans.

---

Like malik3000, I want to know which Lutherans you will grace with your presence -- the Missouri Synod, which practices closed communion and advocates creationism? The Wisconsin Synod, which teaches that gay sex is a sin and rejects most modern Biblical scholarship? Or the ELCA, which, as malik3000 points out, is in full communion with the Episcopal Church?

It's gotta be the ELCA, so ha ha! You still have TEC cooties!

---

Of course it's the ELCA. I'm not a creationist and I believe that women are capable of more than making babies.

The Episcopal thing is really just a disappointment. Up north it's so liberal and academic as to be almost frivolous, and down here where I moved is a reactionary charismatic diocese that seems to stick around just to be ornery. I don't like politics in the pulpit.

BTW, we don't really talk about you guys much.

/fun fact, last month I got the pastor to replace the watered down dippy Lutheran liturgy for my wedding with the Book of Common Prayer rubric.
 

---

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
Looks like you're interfering with regular Lutheran practice already. Maybe the pastor is indulging you as a n00b, like we do on the Ship.

C'mon folks, when do you think Mockingale will announce he's joining The Plot?
 

---

Posted by Mockingale (# 16599) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Looks like you're interfering with regular Lutheran practice already. Maybe the pastor is indulging you as a n00b, like we do on the Ship.

C'mon folks, when do you think Mockingale will announce he's joining The Plot?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mockingale:

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bostonman:
Wahhh, wahhh, wahhh.

---

There isn't much else to say, but I'm not going to let that stop me.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mockingale:
In the meantime I'm going to go hang out with the Lutherans.

---

Like malik3000, I want to know which Lutherans you will grace with your presence -- the Missouri Synod, which practices closed communion and advocates creationism? The Wisconsin Synod, which teaches that gay sex is a sin and rejects most modern Biblical scholarship? Or the ELCA, which, as malik3000 points out, is in full communion with the Episcopal Church?

It's gotta be the ELCA, so ha ha! You still have TEC cooties!

---

Of course it's the ELCA. I'm not a creationist and I believe that women are capable of more than making babies.

The Episcopal thing is really just a disappointment. Up north it's so liberal and academic as to be almost frivolous, and down here where I moved is a reactionary charismatic diocese that seems to stick around just to be ornery. I don't like politics in the pulpit.

BTW, we don't really talk about you guys much.

/fun fact, last month I got the pastor to replace the watered down dippy Lutheran liturgy for my wedding with the Book of Common Prayer rubric.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:It's not that I'm entirely lacking in sympathy for your attraction to Lutherdom. Back in the 1980s I fled the troubles of TEC and of the Diocese of Fort Worth for the predecessor bodies of the ELCA -- the ALC and LCA, and attended their respective parishes for a period of time in other locales in Texas, before eventually making my way back to TEC. Aside from that, I'm also strongly influenced by Lutheran sacramental theology. However, I found the devotional and liturgical ethos outside Anglicanism to be inconsistent with my own groovy-zone (sorry, being a bit facetious there, but I expect the reader will take my point).

++KJS will go soon enough. Actually, I like her in many ways. I expect, however, that she will be succeeded by a somewhat more traditionalist, liberal catholic figure who will prove less a lightening rod for controversy. [/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
Mockingale, The Plot is big O Orthodoxy. You've not been paying much attention to various nuances on the Ship, have you?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
I think the UCC, PCUSA, and the UUs not being any different might be precisely Mockingale's fear, Bostonman.

The Episcopal Church has its problems to be sure. But God promised to guide and save it. it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SeraphimSarov:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
I think the UCC, PCUSA, and the UUs not being any different might be precisely Mockingale's fear, Bostonman.

The Episcopal Church has its problems to be sure. But God promised to guide and save it. it.

---

That itself is a very debatable point

---

quote:

---

The Episcopal thing is really just a disappointment. Up north it's so liberal and academic as to be almost frivolous, and down here where I moved is a reactionary charismatic diocese that seems to stick around just to be ornery. I don't like politics in the pulpit.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
What I surmise from my conversations from my TEC siblings, is that a lot depends on the seminary in which the clergy come from. In the Northeast, EDS has a reputation for pushing the envelope theologically and liturgically, if I can be so diplomatic (my more conservative TEC friends have other phrases for EDS).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Golden Key:
LCA is good, too. Spent some time going to one.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by malik3000:
The generations that followed the boomers have have given us

• the further obscene enrichment of the non-productive predatory super-rich,
• the corporatizing of nearly everything,
• the abandonment of a sense of humanity and morality in public life to be replaced by a dog-eat-dog market view of everything,
• the rise of the paranoid security state,
• the stripping away of hard-won rights won by the generation of the 60s.
• a US of A that has totally lost its way,
• and much more

That is so much better, isn't it, Bostonman?

Yes, Dr. King, Cesar Chavez, Fannie Lou Hamer, Jonathan Daniels, and so many others, truly representatives of a horrible generation. [/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SeraphimSarov:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
I think the UCC, PCUSA, and the UUs not being any different might be precisely Mockingale's fear, Bostonman.

The Episcopal Church has its problems to be sure. But God promised to guide and save it. it.

---

That itself is a very debatable point

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
I'm sorry Zach. We're not the real church remember? We're not saved. We're evil. We spring from the spawn of Satan - The Reformation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
I mean, it's just an Episcopalian on a thread about the Episcopal Church expressing faith that God is with the Episcopal Church, and you went out of your way to contribute nothing more than a pissy comment. What is this about?

---

quote:

---

Counsel offered by by The Silent Acolyte:
Try honest earnestness. You'll get much better spiritual and intellectual mileage.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by malik3000:
The generations that followed the boomers have have given us

• the further obscene enrichment of the non-productive predatory super-rich,
• the corporatizing of nearly everything,
• the abandonment of a sense of humanity and morality in public life to be replaced by a dog-eat-dog market view of everything,
• the rise of the paranoid security state,
• the stripping away of hard-won rights won by the generation of the 60s.
• a US of A that has totally lost its way,
• and much more

That is so much better, isn't it, Bostonman?

Yes, Dr. King, Cesar Chavez, Fannie Lou Hamer, Jonathan Daniels, and so many others, truly representatives of a horrible generation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Moo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
What I surmise from my conversations from my TEC siblings, is that a lot depends on the seminary in which the clergy come from. In the Northeast, EDS has a reputation for pushing the envelope theologically and liturgically, if I can be so diplomatic (my more conservative TEC friends have other phrases for EDS).

---

Some bishops, including the retiring bishop of Southwestern Virginia, will not allow their candidates for the priesthood to attend EDS.

Moo

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by malik3000:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Moo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
What I surmise from my conversations from my TEC siblings, is that a lot depends on the seminary in which the clergy come from. In the Northeast, EDS has a reputation for pushing the envelope theologically and liturgically, if I can be so diplomatic (my more conservative TEC friends have other phrases for EDS).

---

Some bishops, including the retiring bishop of Southwestern Virginia, will not allow their candidates for the priesthood to attend EDS.

Moo

---

St. Jonathan Daniels the Martyr came from that school (or rather its predecessor). That, to me, says something really good about it. To me this is Christianity in action.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evangeline:
Total and utter crap Malik3000. As others have pointed out, none of the people you name are baby boomers.

Furthermore, the things you attribute to the generations after the baby boomers are almost exclusively the work of baby boomers put in power by other baby boomers.

The USA hasn't had a non-boomer president yet (Obama was born in 1961 so just sneaks into being a boomer) and the boomers still hold most sway in a democracy because of those eligible to vote they make up by far the greatest percentage.

The rise of the paranoid security state, well that started with a pre-boomer in the era of Mcarthyism and has been ably carried on by that boomer (born in 1946) George W Bush.

WHen The average age of Members of the House at the beginning of the 112th Congress was 56.7 years (born in 1955); and of Senators, 62.2 years (born in 1949) it's laughable that you're trying to blame the state of your nation on post-baby boom generations.
Source

---

quote:

---

Factually sloppy it was, but not utter crap. What is actually totally and utterly the highest and smelliest pile of crap is the assertion that the pro-peace, pro-civil rights aspects of the 1960s were worse than the selfish, arrogant, corporatized, torturing, ethically-barren monstrosity into which the US seems inexorably to be transforming.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
I'm sorry Zach. We're not the real church remember? We're not saved. We're evil. We spring from the spawn of Satan - The Reformation.

---

Evensong it's the relentless irony that infects so many of your posts that sucks value from what you write. It's cheap and apathetic this irony. It's a defensive and embarrassed hopelessness wrapped up in a supposedly smart and clever guise. It is a sort of idle talk.

Try honest earnestness. You'll get much better spiritual and intellectual mileage.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ldjjd:
Mockingdale,

Does your new church use wee cuppies? Their use is not at all uncommon in the ELCA. With all due respect, that would be enough to keep me from darkening the doors. I HATE wee cuppies!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by malik3000:
Getting back to the Episcopal Church, my curiosity has been aroused by references the the Episcopal Divinity School, of which, up to now, I frankly know very little. I have searched the Internet a bit to find out why some bishops won't allow candidates for priesthood to go there but I haven't found a full explanation anywhere.

I don't think EDS was on the approved list of +Neil Alexander, the recently-resigned bishop of Atlanta. I don't know the views of our new bishop +Robert Wright.

On their own website EDS seem to emphasize their social activism orientation but I can't find anything that tells me about their creedal orthodoxy. Doing some Yahoo searching (I don't want to bolster Google's near-monopoly) I found a couple of snippets mentioning +Spong but I can't tell whether he is considered to represent the state of EDS's orthodoxy (or, since it's Spong, heterodoxy).

Wikipedia says the bishops were critical that EDS jumped the gun on women's ordination before it had been approved by the church, but that was a few decades ago. Where can I find out more about the current state of the EDS re the episcopal Church at large?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mockingale:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ldjjd:
Mockingdale,

Does your new church use wee cuppies? Their use is not at all uncommon in the ELCA. With all due respect, that would be enough to keep me from darkening the doors. I HATE wee cuppies!

---

Some Lutheran churches do, and it annoys me. Mine lets you intinct.

---

Intinction is evil. Repent and use the Chalice.
 

---

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 



I might be more sympathetic to Lutherans if I could ever figure out what the hell Luther meant when he encouraged people to sin boldly.

Sounds like something that might be up my alley.
 

---

Posted by gorpo (# 17025) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tubbs:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
I think the UCC, PCUSA, and the UUs not being any different might be precisely Mockingale's fear, Bostonman.

The Episcopal Church has its problems to be sure. But God promised to guide and save it. This isn't the sickness unto death because "the gates of hell will never prevail against it." We just have to have faith until He renews it.

---

Uh...Christ's promise was to the one holy, catholic and apostolic Church. It was not to a specific denomination.

Christ made no such promise to the Anglican Church, nor I would suggest, to the Baptist, the Lutheran, or even the Roman Catholic Church.

---

Who else is going to be the Episcopal Church's salvation?

---

It took me two goes to work out exactly what Anglican_Brat meant. The Bride is the whole church, in it's glorious messy entirety. And the promises about the gates of hell not prevailing are for the whole church - Anglicans, Baptists, Catholics of all kinds etc. Not just for one bit of it. Your post read a bit like you thought that God and the Anglican's had a special relationship and the rest of us weren't included.

OTH, even when God does save the whole church, what it will look when He's done and whether you'll like it is another discussion entirely!

Tubbs

---

Anglicanism does have a definition of what constitutes the Church, and it while isn't exclusively Anglican Churches, it doesn't include every denomination, evensong's foggy conclusions aside.

If you don't believe that Anglicanism is heir to the promises of Jesus, then I urge you to find a Church that is.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:



I might be more sympathetic to Lutherans if I could ever figure out what the hell Luther meant when he encouraged people to sin boldly.

Sounds like something that might be up my alley.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bostonman:
Wahhh, wahhh, wahhh.

---

There isn't much else to say, but I'm not going to let that stop me.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mockingale:
In the meantime I'm going to go hang out with the Lutherans.

---

Like malik3000, I want to know which Lutherans you will grace with your presence -- the Missouri Synod, which practices closed communion and advocates creationism? The Wisconsin Synod, which teaches that gay sex is a sin and rejects most modern Biblical scholarship? Or the ELCA, which, as malik3000 points out, is in full communion with the Episcopal Church?

It's gotta be the ELCA, so ha ha! You still have TEC cooties!

---

quote:

---

I find it curious that the only time episcopalians seem to believe in miraculous stuff, or supernatural intervention is when they talk about the future of their denomination.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by gorpo:
And if the big problem of TEC is the fact that it´s being led by bishops who do not even believe in God in a meaningful way, he´s not going to find more luck by joining the ELCA.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Olaf:

quote:

---

Originally posted by gorpo:
And if the big problem of TEC is the fact that it´s being led by bishops who do not even believe in God in a meaningful way, he´s not going to find more luck by joining the ELCA.

---

I suppose it's only a matter of time, but for now, TEC tends to have the bolder bishops. The ELCA is certainly decades behind on producing a Spong, and I can assure you that if it did, s/he would be removed from office fairly quickly. The simple difference: term limits.

---

Ugh, don't feed into his paranoia. These "bishops who do not even believe in God in a meaningful way" are a shrill fantasy from ACNA and its supporters.

Besides Spong, of course, who didn't even really push the envelope until he was retired.

[ 14. July 2013, 17:34: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
 

---

Posted by Mockingale (# 16599) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:

---

I find it curious that the only time episcopalians seem to believe in miraculous stuff, or supernatural intervention is when they talk about the future of their denomination.

---

I find it curious that so many people go out of their way to bully what is, for all intents and purposes, and small, obscure sect.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
Ugh, don't feed into his paranoia. These "bishops who do not even believe in God in a meaningful way" are a shrill fantasy from ACNA and its supporters.

Besides Spong, of course, who didn't even really push the envelope until he was retired.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Olaf:
I've never met such a bishop as described above, from either TEC or ELCA.

---

quote:

---

On a side note, this thread has been a peculiar one for me, in that I have considered making the opposite swim from Mockingale. When I walked into the sacristy today to throw away a piece of paper, I saw the altar guild members pouring unused wee cuppies back into the bottle, with a funnel.

---

Well, whatever the theology that's just unhygienic.

I know the usual Lutheran party line is that the elements revert back to ordinary bread and wine after the service, but that actually doesn't get Luther quite right. For Luther, the service of the table ended when the elements were consumed, so the idea of leftovers didn't play in to it for him.

quote:

---

I fight the liturgical war all the time, even to the point of defending the use of lectionary readings at all. The list could go on and on. Why do I stay? Because it's where I've always been, I suppose, and my roles there have given me a sense of obligation.

For me, TEC does offer quite a bit: priests trained in liturgy (even the most contemporary-leaning around here respect the Rite), proper ablutions and tabernacles or aumbries, and I suppose the opposite of what Mockingale sought: academically-influenced sermons as opposed to emotionally-driven ones.

I think a great deal of it comes down to the pastor/priest in charge at a church; and in the Midwest, that means serious, vestigial Biretta Belt priests, and happy-clappy, Low Church seminary-trained ELCA pastors.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Olaf:
When I walked into the sacristy today to throw away a piece of paper, I saw the altar guild members pouring unused wee cuppies back into the bottle, with a funnel.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:

---

...When I walked into the sacristy today to throw away a piece of paper, I saw the altar guild members pouring unused wee cuppies back into the bottle, with a funnel.

---

Well, whatever the theology that's just unhygienic.

---

quote:

---

and Leorning Cniht on:
...contamination...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Olaf:
I fight the liturgical war all the time, even to the point of defending the use of lectionary readings at all. The list could go on and on... For me, TEC does offer quite a bit: priests trained in liturgy (even the most contemporary-leaning around here respect the Rite), proper ablutions and tabernacles or aumbries...

---

'Fight the liturgical war' - why? We've all got personal preferences, of course, but your concerns seem based on something deeper. What are proper ablutions, tabernacles and aumbries; how do improper versions of those things differ? How do we know which is proper and which is improper? Why does this all matter so much that it's worth 'fight[ing] the liturgical war' over?

Questions all somewhat rhetorical, but I'll be interested to read any answers you're inclined to give. Maybe a discussion for a separate (non-Hellish?) thread?

Mind you, I do agree on the basic hygienic issue regarding pouring unconsumed communion wine / juice back into the container.
 

---

Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :
 
Certainly this is Ecclesiantical blood seeping under the Gates of Hell.

Aren't we supposed to be flogging the reprobate TEC?
 

---

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 

quote:

---

Mind you, I do agree on the basic hygienic issue regarding pouring unconsumed communion wine / juice back into the container.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Mind you, I do agree on the basic hygienic issue regarding pouring unconsumed communion wine / juice back into the container.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
If you are at all concerned about hygiene, avoid the intinction cup.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
I'm afraid that we do the same thing with our non-alcoholic stuff ... but then it's stuffed with preservative and is apparently "not intended for use as a beverage"!!!

---

Eeeuurgh!
 

---

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
If you are at all concerned about hygiene, avoid the intinction cup.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Olaf:

quote:

---

Originally posted by gorpo:
And if the big problem of TEC is the fact that it´s being led by bishops who do not even believe in God in a meaningful way, he´s not going to find more luck by joining the ELCA.

---

I suppose it's only a matter of time, but for now, TEC tends to have the bolder bishops. The ELCA is certainly decades behind on producing a Spong, and I can assure you that if it did, s/he would be removed from office fairly quickly. The simple difference: term limits.

---

Ugh, don't feed into his paranoia. These "bishops who do not even believe in God in a meaningful way" are a shrill fantasy from ACNA and its supporters.

Besides Spong, of course, who didn't even really push the envelope until he was retired.

---

quote:

---

Oh well, if taking some impersonal force or feeling and giving it the nickname "God" is a meaningful God belief, then the difference between radical atheists and traditional christians is merely semantics. If they are so rare, how do they come out to leading positions so often?

---

quote:

---

gorpo:I don´t think we´re 2 generations away from churches like TEC and ELCA finally coming out of the closet as a whole and admit they´re not in for this whole religion talk.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Olaf:
I fight the liturgical war all the time, even to the point of defending the use of lectionary readings at all. The list could go on and on... For me, TEC does offer quite a bit: priests trained in liturgy (even the most contemporary-leaning around here respect the Rite), proper ablutions and tabernacles or aumbries...

---

'Fight the liturgical war' - why? We've all got personal preferences, of course, but your concerns seem based on something deeper. What are proper ablutions, tabernacles and aumbries; how do improper versions of those things differ? How do we know which is proper and which is improper? Why does this all matter so much that it's worth 'fight[ing] the liturgical war' over?

Questions all somewhat rhetorical, but I'll be interested to read any answers you're inclined to give. Maybe a discussion for a separate (non-Hellish?) thread?

Mind you, I do agree on the basic hygienic issue regarding pouring unconsumed communion wine / juice back into the container.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by gorpo:
The fact that an openly atheist bishop is tolerated means that the majority of the clergy is, at least, closet atheist.

---

quote:

---

The fact that an openly atheist bishop is tolerated means that the majority of the clergy is, at least, closet atheist.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
Thinking about this thread while running errands has left me perplexed. All I've really suggested is that the Anglican Church is really part of the Church of Christ, and that we can therefore trust God to renew the Church if we have faith.

What, on this green earth, is so upsetting to people about that?

---

Jesus has been known to threaten the removal of a church's lamp-stand because it has apostatised. He does this to protect the church Catholic. So, I guess you'd have to balance the promise of Jesus that his church will prevail with the possibility that he will remove the lamp-stand from TEC precisely in order to fulfil his promise to protect his church.

[ 15. July 2013, 09:52: Message edited by: daronmedway ]
 

---

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 
oooooooooh yeah daronmedway. Let's get biblical.

I'm assuming your reference to lampstands are Revelation and the critique of local churches therein.

Matthew tells us the gates of Hades will not prevail against Peter ( to which Zach has alluded )

The million dollar question is: which church is Peter's?.

Everybody thinks they're Peter's church.


 

---

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

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
[qb]Maybe it doesn't fucking matter what doctrines we happen to believe. Maybe it really is just about having love for one another. Maybe whether the fruit is good or bad is more important than which type of fruit it happens to be.

---

I say the truth matters.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
Jesus has been known to threaten the removal of a church's lamp-stand because it has apostatised.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by gorpo:
I don´t think we´re 2 generations away from churches like TEC and ELCA finally coming out of the closet as a whole and admit they´re not in for this whole religion talk... they might move on to become just meeting places for people who like to keep ancient rites, talk about social justice and listen to nice music. There´ll come a time when even the mention of a human male being God´s only begotten son will be seen as offensively sexist and stupidly superstitious talk.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
Jesus has been known to threaten the removal of a church's lamp-stand because it has apostatised.

---

Removal of a lamp-stand would be a Health & Safety issue.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
oooooooooh yeah daronmedway. Let's get biblical.

I'm assuming your reference to lampstands are Revelation and the critique of local churches therein.

Matthew tells us the gates of Hades will not prevail against Peter ( to which Zach has alluded )

The million dollar question is: which church is Peter's?.

Everybody thinks they're Peter's church.

---

The Reformed answer is that the church is built on Peter's confession, not confessing Peter. The church is built on the revelation that Peter received (Jesus is Messiah) not the person who received the revelation.
 

---

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
And, of course, Martha's confession in John's gospel - but she didn't get to be called the first pope.
 

---

Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :
 
There you go. There's no real justification for popery.
 

---

Posted by Huia (# 3473) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
And, of course, Martha's confession in John's gospel - but she didn't get to be called the first pope.

---

Of course not silly, she had girly cooties.

Huia
 

---

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
The Reformed answer is that the church is built on Peter's confession, not confessing Peter. The church is built on the revelation that Peter received (Jesus is Messiah) not the person who received the revelation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
The Reformed answer is that the church is built on Peter's confession, not confessing Peter. The church is built on the revelation that Peter received (Jesus is Messiah) not the person who received the revelation.

---

I didn't know that. Interesting.

By that criteria then, all churches will stand against the gates of hell.

Unfortunately, history does not bear that out. Denominations come and go.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
The Reformed answer is that the church is built on Peter's confession, not confessing Peter. The church is built on the revelation that Peter received (Jesus is Messiah) not the person who received the revelation.

---

I didn't know that. Interesting.

By that criteria then, all churches will stand against the gates of hell.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
By that criteria then, all churches will stand against the gates of hell.

Unfortunately, history does not bear that out. Denominations come and go.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
No, I don't think so. The revelation that Jesus is the Messiah, God's Christ, is much more profound than an insight into his personal identity. It's an insight into his absolute sovereignty and unique authority as God's anointed rescuer-king before whom every knee shall one day in humble obeisance to be judged.

If a denomination rejects this vision of Christ it is not part of his church and its lamp-stand is in danger of being removed in order to prevent the name of Christ being further dishonoured.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
The Reformed answer is that the church is built on Peter's confession, not confessing Peter. The church is built on the revelation that Peter received (Jesus is Messiah) not the person who received the revelation.

---

I didn't know that. Interesting.

By that criteria then, all churches will stand against the gates of hell.

Unfortunately, history does not bear that out. Denominations come and go.

---

Or that most denominations don't actually believe in Peter's confession of faith.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
The Reformed answer is that the church is built on Peter's confession, not confessing Peter. The church is built on the revelation that Peter received (Jesus is Messiah) not the person who received the revelation.

---

I didn't know that. Interesting.

By that criteria then, all churches will stand against the gates of hell.

---

No, I don't think so. The revelation that Jesus is the Messiah, God's Christ, is much more profound than an insight into his personal identity. It's an insight into his absolute sovereignty and unique authority as God's anointed rescuer-king before whom every knee shall one day in humble obeisance to be judged.

If a denomination rejects this vision of Christ it is not part of his church and its lamp-stand is in danger of being removed in order to prevent the name of Christ being further dishonoured.

---

Ah I see, so it's not that Jesus is Messiah as Peter said, it's a particular belief you have to believe in about Jesus to be saved? How did the Reformers decide what that was then? Or did they all have different beliefs about that too then?



I've was reading St Matthew this morning.

He seems to reckon in Chapter 7 that you can know the true church by their fruits and that there are plenty that will confess Jesus as Lord and cast out demons in his name and do many deeds of power in his name and prophesy yet he tells them I never knew you; go away from me, you evildoers.

So you can say lots of good things (profess the orthodox belief) yet not be inline.

7:24 goes on about hearers and doers of the word.

Essentially it comes down to this:

‘Not everyone who says to me, “Lord, Lord”, will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only one who does the will of my Father in heaven.

Those that do the will of God will prevail against the gates of hell.

So we're still back at square one.

But what is the will of God? Correct profession is insufficient.
 

---

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
By that criteria then, all churches will stand against the gates of hell.

Unfortunately, history does not bear that out. Denominations come and go.

---

The Church is not equivalent to any one denomination, any more than a denomination is equivalent to any one single parish within it. If a parish church closes down does that mean the gates of hell have prevailed over the whole denomination? I think not! By the same token, if any one denomination closes down the gates of hell have still not prevailed over The Church.

---

Indeed.

Methinks the Greek word for church here (ecclesia = assembly) fits much better than the English word. We tend to think of churches as individual things whereas "assembly" is just those gathered in his name - much broader.

The specifics however do get a bit complicated.
 

---

Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :
 
What does Messiah mean, Evensong? What does scripture say about the Christ? What has been revealed about the Christ in the bible? Because that is the rock upon which the church is built. There is no other.
 

---

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 
Quite.

Biblically, messiah means the anointed one.

Priest, prophet, king - saviour of the world.

Your point?



 

---

Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :
 
... has been made.
 

---

Posted by QLib (# 43) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
What does scripture say about the Christ? What has been revealed about the Christ in the bible? Because that is the rock upon which the church is built. There is no other.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by QLib:

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
What does scripture say about the Christ? What has been revealed about the Christ in the bible? Because that is the rock upon which the church is built. There is no other.

---

Sorry, what is the rock on which the church is built?

---

quote:

---

On Christ (possibly squashing Him a bit in the process)? Or on what is said about Christ in the bible?

---

quote:

---

Or on the Church's interpretation of what is said about Christ (and the Messiah) in the bible?

---

quote:

---

And in the bible we are told that Christ said he would build the Church on Peter.

---

quote:

---

So is he the builder or the built upon? Or the keystone (that which the builders rejected, etc?)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
In the old Roman Rite there's a very ancient collect for the vigil of the feast of Ss. Peter and Paul which refers to "the rock of apostolic confession". So, it seems even in Rome at a certain time the rock seen as the confession of St. Peter.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
In the old Roman Rite there's a very ancient collect for the vigil of the feast of Ss. Peter and Paul which refers to "the rock of apostolic confession". So, it seems even in Rome at a certain time the rock seen as the confession of St. Peter.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
I don't mind letting Saint Peter be the rock, because if Jesus was establishing the central dogma of his ecclesiology at that moment, I doubt he would have done it in pun form.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bostonman:

In the meantime, how lame is it to call TEC to Hell from the pews of the ELCA?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
... has been made.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
Anglicanism does have a definition of what constitutes the Church, and it while isn't exclusively Anglican Churches, it doesn't include every denomination, evensong's foggy conclusions aside.

---

I'm sorry Zach. We're not the real church remember? We're not saved. We're evil. We spring from the spawn of Satan - The Reformation.

---

I love how the assumption seems to be that Christianity went on hiatus from about 150 to 1500 AD, when Luther and Zwingli discovered the Bible hiding somewhere or other.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mockingale:


I'm bothered largely by the language used and the lazy, heretical theology that it seems to represent by influential people in the TEC episcopacy rather than how TEC approaches the difficult social and liturgical questions of our day. And I'm largely bothered by it because it's made my own little pocket of the Episcopal Church into the barely loyal opposition that would have left for the Ugandans ages ago if it didn't mean leaving the buildings behind.

I also went to a string of Episcopal parishes in the past five years that have uniformly had piss-poor preaching. I found an ELCA church with good preaching, so...

I have yet to hear anyone with influence in the ELCA spout the kind of mundane inanities that KJS seems to spout effortlessly.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
... has been made.

---

No it hasn't.

As I said above, by that criteria, all churches will stand against the gates of hell.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
...not all earthly organisations which call themselves churches hold faithfully to the full revelation of Jesus as Christ with all that it entails. Those organisations may be apostate churches from which the lamp stand has been - or will eventually be - removed or they may be false churches which never held to that revelation in the first place.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
In that case great care should be taken in establishing what such an eventuality would entail for said churches. What we can't do is deny the possibility of such an eventuality. That would be to deny what has been revealed in Scripture.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
... has been made.

---

No it hasn't.

As I said above, by that criteria, all churches will stand against the gates of hell.

---

Evensong, the point was made but you didn't understand it.

However, inasmuch as a church is only a church if it holds to the confession of St Peter, you are right - all churches will stand against the gates of hell.

However, not all earthly organisations which call themselves churches hold faithfully to the full revelation of Jesus as Christ with all that it entails. Those organisations may be apostate churches from which the lamp stand has been - or will eventually be - removed or they may be false churches which never held to that revelation in the first place.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
On the surface of things that would seem to be the most humble attitude to take. However, if one truly believes that a church is danger of apostasy - with the concomitant spiritual dangers that such a state presents to its membership - it would be most unloving not to humbly warn them of their predicament. It's what Jesus did.

---

1. The One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - prior to the Great Schism, there was no doubt as to what this meant.
2. Schismatics - the Roman Catholic Church and most of its derivatives, including the TEC.
3. Heretics - these are Protestants who veer so far from Authoritative teaching (especially the Holy Trinity) that it is very questionable whether they are part of The Church at all. Sometimes I wonder if ++Kathryn falls into this category.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
... has been made.

---

No it hasn't.

As I said above, by that criteria, all churches will stand against the gates of hell.

---

Evensong, the point was made but you didn't understand it.

However, inasmuch as a church is only a church if it holds to the confession of St Peter, you are right - all churches will stand against the gates of hell.

However, not all earthly organisations which call themselves churches hold faithfully to the full revelation of Jesus as Christ with all that it entails. Those organisations may be apostate churches from which the lamp stand has been - or will eventually be - removed or they may be false churches which never held to that revelation in the first place.

---

No new point was made. You just reiterated what you said in the first place here and ignored my question and response here.

But that's not a newsflash.

You often ignore questions posed. You're almost as slippery and full of lush rhetoric as mousetheif is.

---

quote:

---

Evensong asked:Ah I see, so it's not that Jesus is Messiah as Peter said, it's a particular belief you have to believe in about Jesus to be saved? How did the Reformers decide what that was then? Or did they all have different beliefs about that too then?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:

quote:

---

Evensong asked:Ah I see, so it's not that Jesus is Messiah as Peter said, it's a particular belief you have to believe in about Jesus to be saved? How did the Reformers decide what that was then? Or did they all have different beliefs about that too then?

---

Evensong, to be honest, sometimes I don't answer your questions because they simply don't warrant a reply. However, in the interests of charity I will answer. When Peter said Jesus is the Christ he meant a whole lot more than a surname, Evensong. He meant that Jesus was the personal fulfilment of the Jewish messianic hope and all that that entails. This is the rock on which the church is built and the way to find out what that rock is, funnily enough, is to read the whole bible Christologically, just as Jesus taught.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:
...when they make changes which divide them from other Christians that they are right, and everyone who disagrees with them are wrong and and are in danger of Eternal Damnation.

I'll be generous enough to admit that this is how it sometimes seems to me, re. some Anglicans, but I am probably missing something.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
Just to be clear, Scientology is an organisation that adopted the title "Church" for purposes of tax exemption, whilst the LDS are a religion derivative from historic Christianity, constituting a false iteration of the Christian Church. Neither organisation ever had a lampstand to begin with, though the LDS pretend to hold the lampstand monopoly.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:


I have noticed many Anglicans (not all) talking of themselves as if they exclusively are THE Church, guided and sustained by the Holy Spirit - meaning that when they make changes which divide them from other Christians that they are right, and everyone who disagrees with them are wrong and and are in danger of Eternal Damnation.

I'll be generous enough to admit that this is how it sometimes seems to me, re. some Anglicans, but I am probably missing something.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mockingale:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bostonman:

In the meantime, how lame is it to call TEC to Hell from the pews of the ELCA?

---

You realize they're not the same thing, right?

---

quote:

---

For better or worse, the personality of dioceses seem to be dominated by bishops who hold onto their role until they retire. The Lutherans have a pastor that they elect to a term of office as bishop but then he or she returns back to being a pastor.

---

quote:

---

I'm bothered largely by the language used and the lazy, heretical theology that it seems to represent by influential people in the TEC episcopacy rather than how TEC approaches the difficult social and liturgical questions of our day. And I'm largely bothered by it because it's made my own little pocket of the Episcopal Church into the barely loyal opposition that would have left for the Ugandans ages ago if it didn't mean leaving the buildings behind.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Sometimes I wonder if ++Kathryn falls into this category.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
But in answer to your question: Scientology and Latter Day Saints are two extreme examples.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
Evensong, to be honest, sometimes I don't answer your questions because they simply don't warrant a reply.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
However, in the interests of charity I will answer. When Peter said Jesus is the Christ he meant a whole lot more than a surname, Evensong. He meant that Jesus was the personal fulfilment of the Jewish messianic hope and all that that entails. This is the rock on which the church is built and the way to find out what that rock is, funnily enough, is to read the whole bible Christologically, just as Jesus taught.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:
I have noticed many Anglicans (not all) talking of themselves as if they exclusively are THE Church, guided and sustained by the Holy Spirit - meaning that when they make changes which divide them from other Christians that they are right, and everyone who disagrees with them are wrong and and are in danger of Eternal Damnation.

---

For fuck's sake, talk about the pot calling the kettle black
 

---

Posted by FCB (# 1495) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
But in answer to your question: Scientology and Latter Day Saints are two extreme examples.

---

They don't think Jesus was the messiah?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by FCB:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
But in answer to your question: Scientology and Latter Day Saints are two extreme examples.

---

They don't think Jesus was the messiah?

---

In the former case, I'm pretty sure the answer is 'no."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem:

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:

quote:

---

Evensong asked:Ah I see, so it's not that Jesus is Messiah as Peter said, it's a particular belief you have to believe in about Jesus to be saved? How did the Reformers decide what that was then? Or did they all have different beliefs about that too then?

---

Evensong, to be honest, sometimes I don't answer your questions because they simply don't warrant a reply. However, in the interests of charity I will answer. When Peter said Jesus is the Christ he meant a whole lot more than a surname, Evensong. He meant that Jesus was the personal fulfilment of the Jewish messianic hope and all that that entails. This is the rock on which the church is built and the way to find out what that rock is, funnily enough, is to read the whole bible Christologically, just as Jesus taught.

---

Well said.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by FCB:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
But in answer to your question: Scientology and Latter Day Saints are two extreme examples.

---

They don't think Jesus was the messiah?

---

In the former case, I'm pretty sure the answer is 'no."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
But in answer to your question: Scientology and Latter Day Saints are two extreme examples.

---

They don't think Jesus was the messiah?

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
Evensong, to be honest, sometimes I don't answer your questions because they simply don't warrant a reply.

---

LOL. On the previous penal substitution thread you didn't answer a number of questions put to you by myself and Kwesi and others. Not because they didn't warrant a reply - it was because you couldn't square them with your particular interpretation of scripture so you dismissed them and didn't bother engaging.

You ignored anyone that wasn't toeing your particular party line.

You essentially deny what is revealed in Scripture.

Which is rather hilarious because you claim we should not.

But that's nothing new again....most Christians that claim to be "scriptural" are just taking their own particular slants on the bits they like and pretending it is all of scripture.

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
However, in the interests of charity I will answer. When Peter said Jesus is the Christ he meant a whole lot more than a surname, Evensong. He meant that Jesus was the personal fulfilment of the Jewish messianic hope and all that that entails. This is the rock on which the church is built and the way to find out what that rock is, funnily enough, is to read the whole bible Christologically, just as Jesus taught.

---

Your charity is misplaced.

That's the third time you've repeated your assertion and not responded to the scripture that says it is not enough to confess Jesus is Lord.

I can only assume you're a bit thick.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
I think he's referring to Rev 2:5

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bostonman:
You found a Lutheran parish that is less objectionably-reactionary than the Episcopal diocese you reside in. That's good for you. I probably would have done the same, and I certainly wouldn't affiliate myself with the sort of would-be-ACNA crowd you're talking about.

But is this the fault of TEC more broadly, or of the bishops of a few dioceses?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rugasaw:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
I think he's referring to Rev 2:5

---

Surely he's not because in the book of Revelation (if taken literally) Jesus did nothing but reveal to a singular person.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
I think we have to remember why TEC sometimes seems that it allows every cock-eyed new idea in the planet.

TEC attracts principally former Roman Catholics and evangelicals in terms of converts. I suggest that for many of them, doctrine was used as a blunt instrument against them. So TEC sometimes hesitates to bring down the hammer against ideas that seem slightly heretical...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Aaaah, you mean proper Christianity is too hard for them, they prefer the cafeteria style, which they find in TEC, yes?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rugasaw:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
I think he's referring to Rev 2:5

---

Surely he's not because in the book of Revelation (if taken literally) Jesus did nothing but reveal to a singular person.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:
I have noticed many Anglicans (not all) talking of themselves as if they exclusively are THE Church, guided and sustained by the Holy Spirit - meaning that when they make changes which divide them from other Christians that they are right, and everyone who disagrees with them are wrong and are in danger of Eternal Damnation.

---

For fuck's sake, talk about the pot calling the kettle black

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Yes, the RCs and Orthodox DO exclusively claim to be THE Church - but they can justify it by showing historically that they are indeed the Church founded by Jesus Christ through His Apostles.

---

quote:

---

The Anglican Communion was founded by men - just like every other church that has ever been.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Yes, the RCs and Orthodox DO exclusively claim to be THE Church - but they can justify it by showing historically that they are indeed the Church founded by Jesus Christ through His Apostles.

---

What, both of them? Are they the Two True Churches or something?

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

The Anglican Communion wasn't founded this way, it was founded by men - just like any other Protestant denomination.

---

Fixed that for you.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
Evensong, it's very difficult to give cogent replies to incoherent questions. Debating with you is like holding a conversation with Roger Irrelevant: completely hatstand.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Yes, the RCs and Orthodox DO exclusively claim to be THE Church - but they can justify it by showing historically that they are indeed the Church founded by Jesus Christ through His Apostles.

---

What, both of them? Are they the Two True Churches or something?

---

I think we're being disingenuous here, aren't we Marvin? I'm sure you don't need a full lecture on the Great Schism, not a man of your intellectual calibre.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mockingale:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bostonman:
You found a Lutheran parish that is less objectionably-reactionary than the Episcopal diocese you reside in. That's good for you. I probably would have done the same, and I certainly wouldn't affiliate myself with the sort of would-be-ACNA crowd you're talking about.

But is this the fault of TEC more broadly, or of the bishops of a few dioceses?

---

There are assholes on both ends. All I want is to occupy the middle, with less 21st century political angst of either flavor and more preaching about the meaning(s) of the Gospel and the love of God. I know there are Episcopal parishes out there like that, but most of what I've found in my travels in the last five years has been a distract(ing/ed) mess.

I grew up Episcopalian. I loved the church, but I feel like it's losing its way in this long slow culture war in the seminaries that's bleeding down to the rank and file. I still love the liturgy and the devotional resources in the Daily Office.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Yes, the RCs and Orthodox DO exclusively claim to be THE Church - but they can justify it by showing historically that they are indeed the Church founded by Jesus Christ through His Apostles.

---

What, both of them? Are they the Two True Churches or something?

---

I think we're being disingenuous here, aren't we Marvin? I'm sure you don't need a full lecture on the Great Schism, not a man of your intellectual calibre.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
...futilely...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
Wow... how do you imagine your place on this ship, Mark?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:
I have noticed many Anglicans (not all) talking of themselves as if they exclusively are THE Church, guided and sustained by the Holy Spirit - meaning that when they make changes which divide them from other Christians that they are right, and everyone who disagrees with them are wrong and are in danger of Eternal Damnation.

---

For fuck's sake, talk about the pot calling the kettle black

---

Aaaah, Marvin, well done my friend, you've fallen right into my trap. To be honest, I was hoping someone I really disliked would say it, but you'll have to do.

Well here's how it is. Yes, the RCs and Orthodox DO exclusively claim to be THE Church - but they can justify it by showing historically that they are indeed the Church founded by Jesus Christ through His Apostles.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
If two true churches can exist and still be inspired by the Holy Spirit after schism and everyone else condemned to hell there is no reason more true churches can exist after schism (The Reformation) and still be inspired by the Holy Spirit.

Marvin has intellectual calibre, you do not. You have an epic logic fail.

---

1. No-one's sending anyone to Hell, unless you mean the Ship's Hell.
2. It isn't logical - I've really no idea where the RCs stand now as regards One True Church or no. I'm not even sure where Anglicanism stands, but there you go, it's not my business to judge.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:
.... it's not my business to judge.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Historically the Emperor Constantine had more to do with founding institutionalised Christianity. If "the church" is an institution rather than the body of those who follow Christ, then I suppose you're right.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Historically the Emperor Constantine had more to do with founding institutionalised Christianity. If "the church" is an institution rather than the body of those who follow Christ, then I suppose you're right.

---

OK, so what's the body of those who follow Christ supposed to look like? I noticed you used the singular for "body" - not bodies?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
In my experience, what it does look like is a figure with more than the normal number of arseholes.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
In my experience, what it does look like is a figure with more than the normal number of arseholes.

---

That's very helpful, Karl - thanks for that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
...Asking "Am I one of the arseholes?" could only do some people some good.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:
OK, so what's the body of those who follow Christ supposed to look like? I noticed you used the singular for "body" - not bodies?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
...Asking "Am I one of the arseholes?" could only do some people some good.

---

Are you then?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
...Asking "Am I one of the arseholes?" could only do some people some good.

---

Are you then?

---

Probably. At least some of the time. You?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
...futilely...

---

Is that a word???

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
...Asking "Am I one of the arseholes?" could only do some people some good.

---

Are you then?

---

Probably. At least some of the time. You?

---

Nope. Not me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jbohn:
Quotes file.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:

quote:

---

Originally posted by jbohn:
Quotes file.

---

It probably took him most of the afternoon to compose that, so let him have his little moment of glory.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:
It probably took him most of the afternoon to compose that

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:

quote:

---

Originally posted by rugasaw:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
I think he's referring to Rev 2:5

---

Surely he's not because in the book of Revelation (if taken literally) Jesus did nothing but reveal to a singular person.

---

Part of that revelation was specific instruction as to what should be done with that revelation. John was told to write down what the Holy Spirit had to say to the seven churches on behalf of the risen Christ.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:
King Henry V111

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
Evensong, it's very difficult to give cogent replies to incoherent questions. Debating with you is like holding a conversation with Roger Irrelevant: completely hatstand.

---

I see what you did there.

Methinks you should be renamed The Artful Dodger.

People don't debate with you daronmedway, they just ask questions and listen futilely will you have a one sided conversation with yourself.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rugasaw:

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:

quote:

---

Originally posted by rugasaw:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
I think he's referring to Rev 2:5

---

Surely he's not because in the book of Revelation (if taken literally) Jesus did nothing but reveal to a singular person.

---

Part of that revelation was specific instruction as to what should be done with that revelation. John was told to write down what the Holy Spirit had to say to the seven churches on behalf of the risen Christ.

---

My issue is only with the part where you said Jesus did something that Jesus did not do. Is it something everybody can learn from? Yes. However, if you want to start telling people what is in the bible please do not add unnecessary events. If you choose to do so I will assume you may not have enough faith in the bible to back your argument.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
Jesus warned an apostate church that it was in danger of having him remove it's lamp-stand. I've added nothing.

Oh, and I don't have any faith in the bible.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rugasaw:

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
Jesus warned an apostate church that it was in danger of having him remove it's lamp-stand. I've added nothing.

Oh, and I don't have any faith in the bible.

---

I am quite sure we have a different understanding of the context of the book of Revelation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:

quote:

---

Originally posted by rugasaw:

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
Jesus warned an apostate church that it was in danger of having him remove it's lamp-stand. I've added nothing.

Oh, and I don't have any faith in the bible.

---

I am quite sure we have a different understanding of the context of the book of Revelation.

---

It's highly likely. Perhaps we should try to establish whose understanding is correct. If you show me yours, I'll show you mine.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
I think, the lamp-stand is the life giving presence of Christ by his Holy Spirit. The removal of that lamp-stand from it's place is Christ himself removing his spiritual presence from that church. This removal would mark the end of Christ's recognition of that church as a church which requires (or indeed desires) the light of his countenance.

With the removal of Christ's light-giving (and life-giving) presence that church can no longer be counted as a faithful witness to Christ in its generation. It will have no enlightening power. No one will meet Christ through its attempts at witness and it's attempts at teaching will lack any illumination by the Holy Spirit.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rugasaw:

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:

quote:

---

Originally posted by rugasaw:

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
Jesus warned an apostate church that it was in danger of having him remove it's lamp-stand. I've added nothing.

Oh, and I don't have any faith in the bible.

---

I am quite sure we have a different understanding of the context of the book of Revelation.

---

It's highly likely. Perhaps we should try to establish whose understanding is correct. If you show me yours, I'll show you mine.

---

Since I don't think any body including myself understands the book of Revelation, I doubt we will be able to come into agreement on whose understanding is correct.

---

I guess that's conversation over then. But for what's it's worth I prefer my way of not understanding it to yours!
 

---

Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
I think, the lamp-stand is the life giving presence of Christ by his Holy Spirit. The removal of that lamp-stand from it's place is Christ himself removing his spiritual presence from that church. This removal would mark the end of Christ's recognition of that church as a church which requires (or indeed desires) the light of his countenance.

With the removal of Christ's light-giving (and life-giving) presence that church can no longer be counted as a faithful witness to Christ in its generation. It will have no enlightening power. No one will meet Christ through its attempts at witness and it's attempts at teaching will lack any illumination by the Holy Spirit.

---

Thank you. I appreciate it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
Sure.

I think, the lamp-stand is the life giving presence of Christ by his Holy Spirit. The removal of that lamp-stand from it's place is Christ himself removing his spiritual presence from that church. This removal would mark the end of Christ's recognition of that church as a church which requires (or indeed desires) the light of his countenance.

With the removal of Christ's light-giving (and life-giving) presence that church can no longer be counted as a faithful witness to Christ in its generation. It will have no enlightening power. No one will meet Christ through its attempts at witness and it's attempts at teaching will lack any illumination by the Holy Spirit.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bostonman:

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
Sure.

I think, the lamp-stand is the life giving presence of Christ by his Holy Spirit. The removal of that lamp-stand from it's place is Christ himself removing his spiritual presence from that church. This removal would mark the end of Christ's recognition of that church as a church which requires (or indeed desires) the light of his countenance.

With the removal of Christ's light-giving (and life-giving) presence that church can no longer be counted as a faithful witness to Christ in its generation. It will have no enlightening power. No one will meet Christ through its attempts at witness and it's attempts at teaching will lack any illumination by the Holy Spirit.

---

Of course, the only church threatened with lampstand removal is Ephesus, which has fallen off a bit in its initial fervor but is mostly praised otherwise. Pergamum has some who worship Balaam, and some Nicolaitans, but it isn't threatened with delampstanding. Thyateira tolerates the false prophet Jezebel, but isn't delampstanded. Laodicea is lukewarm and about to be spit out, but has its lampstand intact. So why only the one?

And no, it's not that these other ones don't have a lampstand in the first place: there are clearly seven golden lampstands.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
The sin of the church of Ephesus is that while they are a proud, hardworking, doctrinally correct church adept at detecting and removing heresy, they have forgotten love's tune.

‘I know your works, your toil and your patient endurance. I know that you cannot tolerate evildoers; you have tested those who claim to be apostles but are not, and have found them to be false. I also know that you are enduring patiently and bearing up for the sake of my name, and that you have not grown weary. But I have this against you, that you have abandoned the love you had at first. Remember then from what you have fallen; repent, and do the works you did at first.

They sing love's words, without love's tune. They are the clanging gong St Paul speaks of.

1 Corinthians 13.2: And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing.

So daronmedway, you can take your doctrinally correct statements and shove them up your ass.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bostonman:

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
Sure.

I think, the lamp-stand is the life giving presence of Christ by his Holy Spirit. The removal of that lamp-stand from it's place is Christ himself removing his spiritual presence from that church. This removal would mark the end of Christ's recognition of that church as a church which requires (or indeed desires) the light of his countenance.

With the removal of Christ's light-giving (and life-giving) presence that church can no longer be counted as a faithful witness to Christ in its generation. It will have no enlightening power. No one will meet Christ through its attempts at witness and it's attempts at teaching will lack any illumination by the Holy Spirit.

---

Of course, the only church threatened with lampstand removal is Ephesus, which has fallen off a bit in its initial fervor but is mostly praised otherwise. Pergamum has some who worship Balaam, and some Nicolaitans, but it isn't threatened with delampstanding. Thyateira tolerates the false prophet Jezebel, but isn't delampstanded. Laodicea is lukewarm and about to be spit out, but has its lampstand intact. So why only the one?

And no, it's not that these other ones don't have a lampstand in the first place: there are clearly seven golden lampstands.

---

The pattern of Christ's address for each of the 7 churches is largely the same.

There is:
1) A description of Christ (based on the one in opening Chapter)
2) A commendation (except Laodicea)
3) A diagnostic rebuke (except Smyrna and Philadelphia)
4) A prescription
5) A prognosis if disobedient (except Smyrna and Philadelphia)
6) A promise for conquerors

The question I'd to ask is which of those 6 elements can or indeed should be understood as universal in application?

I ask because if we are going to claim any of the promises in these chapters we should carefully weigh up whether we are prepared to accept the threats.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bostonman:

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
Sure.

I think, the lamp-stand is the life giving presence of Christ by his Holy Spirit. The removal of that lamp-stand from it's place is Christ himself removing his spiritual presence from that church. This removal would mark the end of Christ's recognition of that church as a church which requires (or indeed desires) the light of his countenance.

With the removal of Christ's light-giving (and life-giving) presence that church can no longer be counted as a faithful witness to Christ in its generation. It will have no enlightening power. No one will meet Christ through its attempts at witness and it's attempts at teaching will lack any illumination by the Holy Spirit.

---

Of course, the only church threatened with lampstand removal is Ephesus, which has fallen off a bit in its initial fervor but is mostly praised otherwise. Pergamum has some who worship Balaam, and some Nicolaitans, but it isn't threatened with delampstanding. Thyateira tolerates the false prophet Jezebel, but isn't delampstanded. Laodicea is lukewarm and about to be spit out, but has its lampstand intact. So why only the one?

And no, it's not that these other ones don't have a lampstand in the first place: there are clearly seven golden lampstands.

---

The pattern of Christ's address for each of the 7 churches is largely the same.

There is:
1) A description of Christ (based on the one in opening Chapter)
2) A commendation (except Laodicea)
3) A diagnostic rebuke (except Smyrna and Philadelphia)
4) A prescription
5) A prognosis if disobedient (except Smyrna and Philadelphia)
6) A promise for conquerors

The question I'd to ask is which of those 6 elements can or indeed should be understood as universal in application?

I ask because if we are going to claim any of the promises in these chapters we should carefully weigh up whether we are prepared to accept the threats.

---

Oh for goodness sake! Don't be so damn literal.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
How loving.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
These diagnoses and prescriptions are issued by the writer of the Revelation, pretensing to speak for Christ; not by Our Lord his own good self.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
How loving.

---

Oh but I merely speak the truth of the Gospel so that you may repent of your sin and not have your lampstand removed.

Scripture shall not be denied after all.

---

Roger "Evensong" Irrelevant and the Lampstand
 

---

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 

 

---

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
Regular viewers will be aware that I'm a long way from being an Eversnog groupie, but at the risk of damning with faint praise, Numpty, she's making as much sense as you are.
 

---

Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :
 
Why you old devil. She should be flattered.
 

---

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
These diagnoses and prescriptions are issued by the writer of the Revelation, pretensing to speak for Christ; not by Our Lord his own good self.

---

Ok, on that basis, I'm ditching the Beatitudes too, as they're quiet clearly written by St Matthew or whoever wrote his Gospel pretending to speak for Christ and not by Our Lord Himself; fuck all that 'love your enemies' and 'turn the other cheek' crap.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
Hmmm...I really don't think we can be that free and easy about which bits of Holy Scripture we like and which we don't...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
Hmmm...I really don't think we can be that free and easy about which bits of Holy Scripture we like and which we don't...

---

The Church created the scriptural canon. The Church can just as well take the Revelation out and put the Gospel of Thomas in.

I'm an Episcopalian -- can you tell Now go fuck off.
 

---

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
Hmmm...I really don't think we can be that free and easy about which bits of Holy Scripture we like and which we don't...

---

The Church created the scriptural canon. The Church can just as well take the Revelation out and put the Gospel of Thomas in.

I'm an Episcopalian -- can you tell Now go fuck off.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
Hmmm...I really don't think we can be that free and easy about which bits of Holy Scripture we like and which we don't...

---

The Church created the scriptural canon. The Church can just as well take the Revelation out and put the Gospel of Thomas in.

I'm an Episcopalian -- can you tell Now go fuck off.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
Hmmm...I really don't think we can be that free and easy about which bits of Holy Scripture we like and which we don't...

---

That's good. Can I have your prawns?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
Hmmm...I really don't think we can be that free and easy about which bits of Holy Scripture we like and which we don't...

---

The Church created the scriptural canon. The Church can just as well take the Revelation out and put the Gospel of Thomas in.

I'm an Episcopalian -- can you tell Now go fuck off.

---

And you can keep whispering your σκότος Ἱλαρόν with the rest of TEC. I'm out.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
Hmmm...I really don't think we can be that free and easy about which bits of Holy Scripture we like and which we don't...

---

The Church created the scriptural canon. The Church can just as well take the Revelation out and put the Gospel of Thomas in.

I'm an Episcopalian -- can you tell Now go fuck off.

---

And you can keep whispering your σκότος Ἱλαρόν with the rest of TEC. I'm out.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
I take it that Numpty and Co. don't believe in "higher criticism" of the Church's received scriptural canon.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
Since you choose to live in the Dark Ages, I damn well hope you can find a lamp-stand.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by QLib:
Yes, go right ahead and make an idol out of your own pig ignorance, by all means - just don't kid yourself it's God you're worshipping.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
By ignoring Jesus' message of love and tolerance in favour of a few minor passages.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Firstly, not all things are tolerated and Christ himself said, sin no more.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem:

quote:

---

Originally posted by QLib:
Yes, go right ahead and make an idol out of your own pig ignorance, by all means - just don't kid yourself it's God you're worshipping.

---

What, instead of subjecting the scriptures to the spirit of the age, you mean? The Zietgeist being the idol of the liberal, that is. In doing so the liberal makes a mockery of the Holy Spirit.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
@Daronmedway, I'll pass you the torch once I've extracted my own head out of my own arse.

Meanwhile, I can't hear what the others are saying ... they've all got their heads up theirs ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Yes, the Apocalypse was written by the Apostle St. John. Certainly there is much imagery in it.

---

 

---

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Now you're being daft.

---

quote:

---

Ad Orientem: The Zietgeist being the idol of the liberal, that is.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Yes, the Apocalypse was written by the Apostle St. John. Certainly there is much imagery in it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Now you're being daft, because even though our Lord says that we should forgive he doesn't say that we should approve which is why he said, sin no more.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Yes, the Apocalypse was written by the Apostle St. John. Certainly there is much imagery in it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Yes, the Apocalypse was written by the Apostle St. John. Certainly there is much imagery in it.

---

The Church has never held that John of Patmos was the Apostle John, there has been question about the authorship of the works attributed to the name "John" since antiquity. Eusebius held them to be different, John the Apostle and John the Presbyter.

It's one of those Christian mysteries we'll never know until the Second Coming.

Anyway so who are you, Ad Orientam, to deny Tradition? Being a reprobate backslider today, are we?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Yes, the Apocalypse was written by the Apostle St. John. Certainly there is much imagery in it.

---

Imagery? So now it isn't literal? So now we interpret? Inconsistent much?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:

---

Ad Orientem: The Zietgeist being the idol of the liberal, that is.

---

I think I'm going to have a nice glass of whisky and raise a toast to the Zeitgeist.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bostonman:
To be fair, I'm not sure why "Jesus appeared to John of Patmos" is more controversial than "he ascended into heaven, and is seated at the right hand of the Father." If we believe in a risen Christ, why on earth shouldn't he appear to people in visions?

On the other hand, it's an outrage that he chose to address Thyateira and not New York, leaving the schismatics with no clear scriptural guidance on the woes of TEC.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem:

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:

---

Ad Orientem: The Zietgeist being the idol of the liberal, that is.

---

I think I'm going to have a nice glass of whisky and raise a toast to the Zeitgeist.

---

You do that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bostonman:
To be fair, I'm not sure why "Jesus appeared to John of Patmos" is more controversial than "he ascended into heaven, and is seated at the right hand of the Father." If we believe in a risen Christ, why on earth shouldn't he appear to people in visions?

On the other hand, it's an outrage that he chose to address Thyateira and not New York, leaving the schismatics with no clear scriptural guidance on the woes of TEC.

---

But the promises to conquerors from these passages have long been claimed universally by the church. If the church is to have any integrity it should either consider the threats as universal as well, or stop eschatological cherry-picking. After all, the refrain of each letter is an exhortation for anyone who has ears to hear what the Spirit says to the churches. These churches are in some sense paradigmatic, a working example of how the risen Jesus continues to discipline his Church today.

---

quote:

---

Whereas we Anglicans have the living word of tradition and scripture and reason (real life application) in good balance.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem:

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:

---

Ad Orientem: The Zietgeist being the idol of the liberal, that is.

---

I think I'm going to have a nice glass of whisky and raise a toast to the Zeitgeist.

---

You do that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem:

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:
I think I'm going to have a nice glass of whisky and raise a toast to the Zeitgeist.

---

You do that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bostonman:
To be fair, I'm not sure why "Jesus appeared to John of Patmos" is more controversial than "he ascended into heaven, and is seated at the right hand of the Father." If we believe in a risen Christ, why on earth shouldn't he appear to people in visions?

On the other hand, it's an outrage that he chose to address Thyateira and not New York, leaving the schismatics with no clear scriptural guidance on the woes of TEC.

---

But the promises to conquerors from these passages have long been claimed universally by the church. If the church is to have any integrity it should either consider the threats as universal as well, or stop eschatological cherry-picking. After all, the refrain of each letter is an exhortation for anyone who has ears to hear what the Spirit says to the churches. These churches are in some sense paradigmatic, a working example of how the risen Jesus continues to discipline his Church today.

---

Why are you prioritizing Revelation's description over Jesus's description of the Father raining on the just and unjust alike when it comes to talking about how God disciplines his Church? Or on Jesus' parable of the Prodigal Son?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bostonman:
To be fair, I'm not sure why "Jesus appeared to John of Patmos" is more controversial than "he ascended into heaven, and is seated at the right hand of the Father." If we believe in a risen Christ, why on earth shouldn't he appear to people in visions?

On the other hand, it's an outrage that he chose to address Thyateira and not New York, leaving the schismatics with no clear scriptural guidance on the woes of TEC.

---

But the promises to conquerors from these passages have long been claimed universally by the church. If the church is to have any integrity it should either consider the threats as universal as well, or stop eschatological cherry-picking. After all, the refrain of each letter is an exhortation for anyone who has ears to hear what the Spirit says to the churches. These churches are in some sense paradigmatic, a working example of how the risen Jesus continues to discipline his Church today.

---

Why are you prioritizing Revelation's description over Jesus's description of the Father raining on the just and unjust alike when it comes to talking about how God disciplines his Church? Or on Jesus' parable of the Prodigal Son?

---

Common grace is a very real and beautiful thing. Of course the just and the unjust enjoy the benefits of common grace. God is very kind and very good, even to those who hate him and ignorantly abuse his charity. However, we're not discussing common grace, we're discussion the particular grace of Christ's presence in the church to which he has given the great commission and which will be held to account for it's witness to his saving grace.

---

That's a rather convenient reading something into the text what isn't there. I didn't read Jesus say "Unless you are in the Church, in which case, this doesn't apply to you."

I don't think God has separate rules for Christians and non-Christians. If grace is not given freely to all and without condition, then it ain't grace.

[ 20. July 2013, 13:28: Message edited by: Anglican_Brat ]
 

---

Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :
 
I disagree. I think God has much higher expectations of his Church than he has of the world. In some respects that's the whole point of discipleship (cf. Luke 14). The Church is a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God. The Church is a city set on a hill, the body of Christ, oh the list is almost endless! But the world is none of those things. That's why mission exists.
 

---

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :
 
A light in the darkness.
 

---

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :
 
Or the Church might be the seasoning salt that is scattered throughout the whole. Indeed, the salt might not be all that apparent to outward perception, yet it infiltrates the whole in which it has been scattered -- its savour permeates the entirety, qualitatively improving and modifying it. Perhaps rather like C.S. Lewis' image of "the good infection". The Kingdom develops and gradually spreads through the presence of Christ's Mystical Body - the Church - in the world. This seems to me a better analogy for what we are trying to do in the Church (some of us anyway). I look to manifestations of Christ's Body like the Abolitionists, the heroes of the Civil Rights Movement in America, and all Christians who work and have worked for social justice, the conversion of hearts away from bigotry and exploitation, and for peace in the world.

[ 20. July 2013, 13:56: Message edited by: Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras ]
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Ad Orientem, I'd take a fairly traditional view too and consider myself a-millenial ...

But don't you think there's something of a slight disconnect here in your apparently fairly literal approach to Revelation and the fact that the Eastern Churches were the last to accord it canonical status?

As far as I understand it, Revelation isn't used Liturgically within Orthodoxy to this day. And yet they will often cite it as a proof-text for the use of robes and incense ... not that I have any particular problem with those things.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
On other news ... the fact that Eversnot now believes that the Anglican communion is the True Church is enough to make me jump ship ...

The very fact that she has said this means that I cannot in all conscience continue to be an Anglican.

I really wish she hadn't said it. I've got to leave the Church of England now ...


 

---

Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :
 
Never fear Gamaliel. Everrong only stated that the "liberal Anglican communion" is the true Church - a church which, thankfully, only exists in her wildest ecclesiastical fantasies.
 

---

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Ad Orientem, I'd take a fairly traditional view too and consider myself a-millenial ...

But don't you think there's something of a slight disconnect here in your apparently fairly literal approach to Revelation and the fact that the Eastern Churches were the last to accord it canonical status?

As far as I understand it, Revelation isn't used Liturgically within Orthodoxy to this day. And yet they will often cite it as a proof-text for the use of robes and incense ... not that I have any particular problem with those things.

---

No, it's not used liturgically yet we do consider it canonical. The East has just been cautious in its use. The danger is always that people try to interpret contemporary events into it, such as Zionist evangelicals.

[ 20. July 2013, 14:24: Message edited by: Ad Orientem ]
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Sure, Ad Orientem, I appreciate that. I'd be cautious in its use too. And yes, I know that the Eastern Churches regard it as canonical.

But I think I can be forgiven for thinking that they treat it without caution when it suits them - justification for robes and incense ( ) and with caution with it doesn't - Zionist evangelicals ( ).

But I take your point.

@daronnumpty ... sure, you have reassured me. I shall endeavour to remain in the Church of England by law established until such time as Ad Orientem and his co-religionists lure me across the Bosphorus ...

I'm not sure I'd want to be in any church that Errorsnag belongs to, though ... just as well she's in the Antipodes and a hemisphere away ...
 

---

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
On other news ... the fact that Eversnot now believes that the Anglican communion is the True Church is enough to make me jump ship ...

---

The glory of the lord too bright for you my dear?
 

---

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
Evensong writes:

quote:

---

Whereas we Anglicans have the living word of tradition and scripture and reason (real life application) in good balance.

---

and I'd love to agree, but the balance is so warped and uneven and unhealthy these days, that I (another Anglican) am very nervous about suggesting that we've got a lot to boast about right now.

---

Sorry to hear it.

Protties getting you down with their bibliolatry or is it the conservatives in skirts?

I live in a great diocese with an awesome arch. We keep the balance well IMO.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I always thought that you considered the sun to shine out of your own arse, Errorsnort, now you're telling me explicitly that it is.

You must have taken your own head out of your sphincter in order for the light to shine forth.



I suspect that any church that had you in it would have its lampstand dimmed to some extent - either because you think that your own light shines more brightly or because you would want it to shine out of your own arse.

Whatever light there is shining out of liberal Anglicanism - and I don't doubt that there is light there - it will be inspite of, not because of you. But then, the same applies to all of us in whatever tradition we're in.

The problem I have with you is that you're not particularly bright.


 

---

Posted by malik3000 (# 11437) on :
 
My random thoughts inspired by this thread:

I think Daronmedway is right when he says that God expects more of the church than the world.

I like what Evensong has to say about the role of the Anglican communion in the Body of Christ.

(I like Gamaliel's posts a lot but I guess either I'm just dense or I haven't visited Hell enough to figure out the nature of the beef between him and Evensong)

Re the authorship of Revelation, even if John the Evangelist is the author, that doesn't mean it can't be allegorical. I think that Jesus himself spoke allegorically sometimes

A thought just now struck me -- if I am correct (and I am open to correction) St. John the Divine a/k/a John of Patmos refers to the author of Revelation, whether or not he is also John the Apostle.. It's interesting that a major place of worship of the godless Episcopal Church should be named specifically for the author of the Book of Revelation!

[ 20. July 2013, 17:18: Message edited by: malik3000 ]
 

---

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
Threads like this make me believe God is punishing the ship for its sins.

[ 20. July 2013, 18:23: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
 

---

Posted by gorpo (# 17025) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bostonman:
To be fair, I'm not sure why "Jesus appeared to John of Patmos" is more controversial than "he ascended into heaven, and is seated at the right hand of the Father." If we believe in a risen Christ, why on earth shouldn't he appear to people in visions?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
How many of this sort of liberal actually exist outside of your paranoid little mind, gorpo?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by gorpo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
How many of this sort of liberal actually exist outside of your paranoid little mind, gorpo?

---

If you think the majority of the episcopal bishops including the primate actually believe in stories like Jesus nativity and ressurrection as historical events, may I suggest your mind is much more creative then mine.

I know that most people in the congregations are sincere believers, but they are being terribly fooled by their clergy.

You don´t spend 5 years being trained in a seminary to deny the historicity of every single event in the gospels and the divinity of Christ, and out of the blue become a creedal christian once you´re ordained.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by gorpo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
How many of this sort of liberal actually exist outside of your paranoid little mind, gorpo?

---

If you think the majority of the episcopal bishops including the primate actually believe in stories like Jesus nativity and ressurrection as historical events, may I suggest your mind is much more creative then mine.

I know that most people in the congregations are sincere believers, but they are being terribly fooled by their clergy.

You don´t spend 5 years being trained in a seminary to deny the historicity of every single event in the gospels and the divinity of Christ, and out of the blue become a creedal christian once you´re ordained.

---

Ah, so this is about anti-intellectualism, I see. No skilled theologian can possibly be a believer. And you know this because:
(a) in a dark night of soul searching each of the Bishops has phoned and confessed their unbelief to you.
(b) they have made public statements to this end.
(c) you're full of shit and are creating strawman liberals so that you don't have to deal with the real thing.

I wonder, which could it be?

I also note, with interest, that the plague of unbelief afflicting TEC has spread to all the clergy, not just the Bishops.

---

quote:

---

Zach82: Ugh, just ignore the little shit. His summer holidays will end soon enough, and Gorpo will go back to flunking out of middle school.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by gorpo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
How many of this sort of liberal actually exist outside of your paranoid little mind, gorpo?

---

If you think the majority of the episcopal bishops including the primate actually believe in stories like Jesus nativity and ressurrection as historical events, may I suggest your mind is much more creative then mine.

---

quote:

---

You don´t spend 5 years being trained in a seminary to deny the historicity of every single event in the gospels and the divinity of Christ, and out of the blue become a creedal christian once you´re ordained.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:

---

Zach82: Ugh, just ignore the little shit. His summer holidays will end soon enough, and Gorpo will go back to flunking out of middle school.

---

(Gorpo is in Brazil. Summer holidays are in January here.)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by gorpo:
Why would a denominational Divinity School choose as its own dean someone who doesn´t seem to comes miles near anything close to christian beliefs, and even seem to have a profound hatred for creedal christianity? (http://www.anglican-mainstream.net/2009/03/30/episcopal-divinity-school-chooses-abortion-rights-leader-as-next-dean/)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mockingale:
communistic lesbian babykillers

---

quote:

---

Mockingale: Balls, you're tedious. You seem to imagine this vast army of agnostics who knowingly enroll in three years of divinity school and rack up tens of thousands of dollars of debt just so they can pursue a career making $30K a year and hopping from parish to parish around the country in search of a rare job opening pitching a religion they don't believe in. For... what reason, exactly?

---

Duh, world domination.
 

---

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 
Now we're talking. Hell yeah! Bring it on !
 

---

Posted by comet (# 10353) on :
 
two thousand years and world domination hasn't quite been managed yet. I wouldn't hold your breath, Evensong. try for neighborhood domination, maybe.

start a little club?
 

---

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :
 
You think all those Christians would be grateful that these selfless atheists are donating their time and poverty so that the Christians can still have a few priests and ministers, since the Christians obviously can't tolerate going to seminary themselves.

No good deed goes unpunished


 

---

Posted by SeraphimSarov (# 4335) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by malik3000:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem:

quote:

---

Originally posted by QLib:
Yes, go right ahead and make an idol out of your own pig ignorance, by all means - just don't kid yourself it's God you're worshipping.

---

What, instead of subjecting the scriptures to the spirit of the age, you mean? The Zietgeist being the idol of the liberal, that is. In doing so the liberal makes a mockery of the Holy Spirit.

---

Straw man

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by comet:
I wouldn't hold your breath, Evensong. try for neighborhood domination, maybe.

start a little club?

---

I'd make a truly terrible parish priest.....
 

---

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Since you choose to live in the Dark Ages, I damn well hope you can find a lamp-stand.

---

quote:

---

and QLib: Yes, go right ahead and make an idol out of your own pig ignorance, by all means - just don't kid yourself it's God you're worshipping.

---

quote:

---

We're arrogant tossers who are so busy looking down our noses at those whom we consider intellectual pygmies and theological Neanderthals that we have no idea where we're actually going

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
Translation: We're arrogant tossers who are so busy looking down our noses at those whom we consider intellectual pygmies and theological Neanderthals that we have no idea where we're actually going

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
I have no objection to dialogue, or indeed to modern scholarship which sheds greater light on that which has already been revealed; what I take issue with is that which seeks to overturn established dogma (and sometimes indeed has that agenda) and set the wisdom of Man in its great glory over and against the revelation of God already given to us. So, those works of higher criticism which lead down this road of apostasy and cause those sections of the church which embrace them to disappear up its own arse I will dialogue with (FWIW) but there's no way you'll ever going to find me accepting them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
I have no objection to dialogue, or indeed to modern scholarship which sheds greater light on that which has already been revealed; what I take issue with is that which seeks to overturn established dogma (and sometimes indeed has that agenda) and set the wisdom of Man in its great glory over and against the revelation of God already given to us. So, those works of higher criticism which lead down this road of apostasy and cause those sections of the church which embrace them to disappear up its own arse I will dialogue with (FWIW) but there's no way you'll ever going to find me accepting them.

---

Exactly.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
I have no objection to dialogue, or indeed to modern scholarship which sheds greater light on that which has already been revealed; what I take issue with is that which seeks to overturn established dogma (and sometimes indeed has that agenda) and set the wisdom of Man in its great glory over and against the revelation of God already given to us. So, those works of higher criticism which lead down this road of apostasy and cause those sections of the church which embrace them to disappear up its own arse I will dialogue with (FWIW) but there's no way you'll ever going to find me accepting them.

---

Your response begs more questions than it answers - how do you decide whether new light is greater light? There is no real dialogue unless you accept the possiblity that your thinking might be changed. And for someone who began accusing others of arrogance to then go on talking about anyone who takes a different view disappearing up their own arse is pretty rich.

God's revelation is always percolated through our own wisdom and, however ancient a revelation is, each one of us only encounters it for the first time within our own lifetime.
 

---

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
Well, for a start I won't be doing it on an individualistic basis but in tandem with other Christians (the Church; OK, we can have a whole new conversation about how one defines 'the Church' ) but to give you a quick answer, greater light is generally shed when it builds on what has gone before rather than seeks to overthrow it.
 

---

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 
You mean like slavery and the subjugation of women and the right of kings which are all in keeping with the tradition of the church?

If "what has gone before" in the church has been revealed by God, there is no reason that what happens now in the church can't be revelation too.

Why is the "wisdom of Man" suddenly a problem when before it wasn't?

[ 22. July 2013, 13:14: Message edited by: Evensong ]
 

---

Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :
 
I think this is on point to the issue.

The very best bible studies for me seem to be the ones with one smart atheist, or with someone besmitten with New Age spirituality. When all I've got are fanbois who are eager to play an instrument in the Christian Band, all I get is a cacophonous gaggle of horn-blowers and drum-beaters.

Please, Jesus! Give me a smart atheist for every group!

 
 
In Other News: Comparing Hell thread lengths, it seems everybody wants to scrap over that sexy youngster, the Episcopal Church, while nobody is much interested in its dowager mother.
 

---

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
You mean like slavery and the subjugation of women and the right of kings which are all in keeping with the tradition of the church?

---

Hence the 'generally' in my last post
 

---

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
You mean like slavery and the subjugation of women and the right of kings which are all in keeping with the tradition of the church?

If "what has gone before" in the church has been revealed by God, there is no reason that what happens now in the church can't be revelation too.

Why is the "wisdom of Man" suddenly a problem when before it wasn't?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
You're left with a conundrum, it seems, because if what is revealed by God today contradicts what has already been revealed then quite possibly, one has to admit, that neither is in fact right or revealed by God. All that is left is human wisdom and the result ii the same, the overthrow of God.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
You're left with a conundrum, it seems, because if what is revealed by God today contradicts what has already been revealed then quite possibly, one has to admit, that neither is in fact right or revealed by God. All that is left is human wisdom and the result ii the same, the overthrow of God.

---

God can be overthrown so easily? By skinny, pasty-faced theologians who still bear the psychic scars of being targeted by everyone else playing dodgeball during recess?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
You're left with a conundrum, it seems, because if what is revealed by God today contradicts what has already been revealed then quite possibly, one has to admit, that neither is in fact right or revealed by God. All that is left is human wisdom and the result ii the same, the overthrow of God.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
If you admit one then you're left with the same conundrum. Either there is one consistent tradition from the beginning or confusion.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
I have no objection to dialogue, or indeed to modern scholarship which sheds greater light on that which has already been revealed; what I take issue with is that which seeks to overturn established dogma (and sometimes indeed has that agenda) and set the wisdom of Man in its great glory over and against the revelation of God already given to us. So, those works of higher criticism which lead down this road of apostasy and cause those sections of the church which embrace them to disappear up its own arse I will dialogue with (FWIW) but there's no way you'll ever going to find me accepting them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Depends on whether or not you believe in the Holy Spirit and the promises of Christ to his Church. If you believe that what was held before is not true, was the Holy Spirit on holiday?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
You mean like slavery and the subjugation of women and the right of kings which are all in keeping with the tradition of the church?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
You mean like slavery and the subjugation of women and the right of kings which are all in keeping with the tradition of the church?

---

Well, no actually. The church may have been complicit in such things but never by the mandate of scripture, only by ignoring it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioni Sais:

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
You mean like slavery and the subjugation of women and the right of kings which are all in keeping with the tradition of the church?

---

Well, no actually. The church may have been complicit in such things but never by the mandate of scripture, only by ignoring it.

---

Oh, that's OK then.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Depends on whether or not you believe in the Holy Spirit and the promises of Christ to his Church. If you believe that what was held before is not true, was the Holy Spirit on holiday?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Albertus:
(naming no names)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
I think we've had this discussion before, but it seems you're saying that the Church (whatever exactly you mean by that) is infallible.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin: If the 'promises of Christ to his Church' mean that no error can be admitted, then what option does that leave other than having to accept what the Church (whatever exactly you mean by that) says, in full with no equivocation?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Albertus:
(naming no names)

---

This is hell, I see no reason to beat around Ad Orientem's bush.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem:

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
I think we've had this discussion before, but it seems you're saying that the Church (whatever exactly you mean by that) is infallible.

---

Aye!

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin: If the 'promises of Christ to his Church' mean that no error can be admitted, then what option does that leave other than having to accept what the Church (whatever exactly you mean by that) says, in full with no equivocation?

---

It seems you don't understand dogmatic theology. Pray tell us, why exactly do you recite the Creed, for instance, that is assuming you recite it (and presumably believe what you're reciting)?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioni Sais:

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
You mean like slavery and the subjugation of women and the right of kings which are all in keeping with the tradition of the church?

---

Well, no actually. The church may have been complicit in such things but never by the mandate of scripture, only by ignoring it.

---

Oh, that's OK then.

---

Except it's utter shite. The proponents of all three, did, and except in the case of slavery as far as I know, still do, quote Scripture in support of their position.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Depends on whether or not you believe in the Holy Spirit and the promises of Christ to his Church. If you believe that what was held before is not true, was the Holy Spirit on holiday?

---

quote:

---

I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem:

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
I think we've had this discussion before, but it seems you're saying that the Church (whatever exactly you mean by that) is infallible.

---

Aye!

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin: If the 'promises of Christ to his Church' mean that no error can be admitted, then what option does that leave other than having to accept what the Church (whatever exactly you mean by that) says, in full with no equivocation?

---

It seems you don't understand dogmatic theology. Pray tell us, why exactly do you recite the Creed, for instance, that is assuming you recite it (and presumably believe what you're reciting)?

---

But clearly his lack of understanding pales into insignificance compared with what you don't understand, AO. Gah.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Remind me AO; was it your church or the Roman one that the Holy Spirit has led in all truth. How do you know?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
You don't. No-one knows. Theological certainty is unfounded hubris. You can believe, you can hope, but you do not know. Not this side of the grave. This "I've got the truth you're a stinking liberal scumbucket" shite - and you're not the only one peddling it on here - is wearisome bullshit and I really wonder what on earth you think you're going to get out of it.

Insight into other people's thoughts and beliefs definitely not.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
@Numpty - Yeah; they say the same things about the opposite position as well. You can make Scripture say anything, including the truth, but it can be damned hard to be sure when you've actually done that.

---

quote:

---

Faith yes. Faith gives me certainty regarding the sacred scriptures, the Creed and holy councils etc. Maybe you should read about the lives of the holy martyrs, I'm sure they would have disagreed with too, though no doubt you consider them foolish fanatics.

---

And what about saints not allowed in your clubhouse: Maximilian Kolb, Thomas More, or Thomas à Becket? Were they just "foolish fanatics" who backed the wrong horse?
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I suspect those Saints - or many/most of them - would be allowed in if the Two Clubhouses - Rome and Byzantium - were ever merged.

Both the Orthodox and the RCs want ecumenism on their terms. Some of the Orthodox would want nothing short of some kind of Papal re-ordination it seems to me ...

But then, some Protestants would only countenance ecumenical re-union if there wasn't a Pope ...

There are tricky and spikey bits all ways round.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
For the record, whilst the Orthodox wouldn't venerate post-Schism Western Saints, it doesn't mean that they think they were necessarily dodgy.

I've heard Orthodox clergy speak highly of various RC Saints, for instance. It's analogous to the Protestant view in some ways. I doubt if Daronmedway would venerate St Francis of Assisi or St John of the Cross or St Theresa of Avila, for instance - because his churchmanship doesn't have a lot of room for the concept of Sainthood in the more Catholic sense.

But I wouldn't expect to attend daronmedway's church and hear him denouncing them from the pulpit as rogues and fanatics and what-have-you.

I rather suspect he wouldn't have a lot of time for Thomas More though ...


 

---

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Ad Orientium:

quote:

---

Faith yes. Faith gives me certainty regarding the sacred scriptures, the Creed and holy councils etc. Maybe you should read about the lives of the holy martyrs, I'm sure they would have disagreed with too, though no doubt you consider them foolish fanatics.

---

And what about saints not allowed in your clubhouse: Maximilian Kolb, Thomas More, or Thomas à Becket? Were they just "foolish fanatics" who backed the wrong horse?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
I think this is on point to the issue.

---

Good Lord.

Did you just say something that didn't slag me or my theological education off in some way?

Are you feeling o.k.?


 

---

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Depends on whether or not you believe in the Holy Spirit and the promises of Christ to his Church. If you believe that what was held before is not true, was the Holy Spirit on holiday?

---

The promise was that the Holy Spirit would lead His people into truth. Sounds like a journey to me, rather than a process of staying exactly where they were at that moment.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Ad Orientium:

quote:

---

Faith yes. Faith gives me certainty regarding the sacred scriptures, the Creed and holy councils etc. Maybe you should read about the lives of the holy martyrs, I'm sure they would have disagreed with too, though no doubt you consider them foolish fanatics.

---

And what about saints not allowed in your clubhouse: Maximilian Kolb, Thomas More, or Thomas à Becket? Were they just "foolish fanatics" who backed the wrong horse?

---

God knows.

---

What a pious, smug, sanctimonious little prick you seem to be.
Now go and translate that into Old Church Slavonic.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Yes, I'd agree with that, Karl.

Heck, I've even heard an Orthodox priest say that if it hadn't been for some of the 'eccentric' witness of groups like the Levellers, Diggers and other radicals in the Commonwealth period and later, then we wouldn't have the kind of civil and political freedoms we enjoy today ...

He obviously didn't say that in Ad Orientem's hearing.


 

---

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
Thing is, I see what's going on as being a bit like diffusion.

Open a flask of bromine in the corner of a room and apart from people feeling a bit peaky, the other effect will be that the bromine will on average move from the flask into the room.

Follow the path of any individual bromine molecule and it'll be random, this way and that, with no discernible direction. It's only when you step back you will see the general trend.

If you look at the ideas any individual Christian or theologian has, they're individual ideas, and may not reveal much in the way of direction. Perhaps that's what Matt's seeing. But there's definitely an overall direction taken en masse.

And the thing is, that just like the bromine, the directional movement doesn't happen without the apparently random movement of the individual constituents.

[ 23. July 2013, 10:01: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
 

---

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
But there's definitely an overall direction taken en masse.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Albertus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Ad Orientium:

quote:

---

Faith yes. Faith gives me certainty regarding the sacred scriptures, the Creed and holy councils etc. Maybe you should read about the lives of the holy martyrs, I'm sure they would have disagreed with too, though no doubt you consider them foolish fanatics.

---

And what about saints not allowed in your clubhouse: Maximilian Kolb, Thomas More, or Thomas à Becket? Were they just "foolish fanatics" who backed the wrong horse?

---

God knows.

---

What a pious, smug, sanctimonious little prick you seem to be.
Now go and translate that into Old Church Slavonic.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
That is because the Church is firstly defined by the Holy Spirit rather than episcopal jurisdiction.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
That is because the Church is firstly defined by the Holy Spirit rather than episcopal jurisdiction.

---

And yet you are so very sure that the Holy Spirit agrees with your episcopal jurisdiction about where the Church is. Such confidence is misplaced.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
But there's definitely an overall direction taken en masse.

---

Yep. It's moving away from intolerance, hate, persecution and oppression and towards love, acceptance, forgiveness and tolerance.

---

quote:

---

Which as far as I can see is perfectly consistent with where God wants us to be going. Sure, it's taking a while to get there, but after all we're only human.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
You're getting there AO. The Holy Spirit. Who blows where he wills. Who came upon the Apostles before they'd got their heads around any of the dogma now held to be central. Who came upon the crowds being baptised when Peter spoke immediately afterwards without having formulated either the dogma of the church nor its liturgies.

In short, the Holy Spirit who isn't really bothered what beliefs you, me, or anyone else, deems core.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I'd say a direction is broadly discernible. We've not gone back to things like slavery, burning witches, autos da fe, crusades, theocracy and we've consistently become more accepting of diversity and freedom of conscience and more tentative and less dogmatic expressions of Christian doctrine. People who identify as conservatives now would have looked like dangerous seditious liberals in Cromwell's, or even Victoria's, time.

Much as that may annoy some people.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Thing is, I see what's going on as being a bit like diffusion.

Open a flask of bromine in the corner of a room and apart from people feeling a bit peaky, the other effect will be that the bromine will on average move from the flask into the room.

Follow the path of any individual bromine molecule and it'll be random, this way and that, with no discernible direction. It's only when you step back you will see the general trend.

If you look at the ideas any individual Christian or theologian has, they're individual ideas, and may not reveal much in the way of direction. Perhaps that's what Matt's seeing. But there's definitely an overall direction taken en masse.

And the thing is, that just like the bromine, the directional movement doesn't happen without the apparently random movement of the individual constituents.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
You mean like slavery and the subjugation of women and the right of kings which are all in keeping with the tradition of the church?

If "what has gone before" in the church has been revealed by God, there is no reason that what happens now in the church can't be revelation too.

Why is the "wisdom of Man" suddenly a problem when before it wasn't?

---

Red herrings, I'm afraid. You're left with a conundrum, it seems, because if what is revealed by God today contradicts what has already been revealed then quite possibly, one has to admit, that neither is in fact right or revealed by God. All that is left is human wisdom and the result ii the same, the overthrow of God.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioni Sais:

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
You mean like slavery and the subjugation of women and the right of kings which are all in keeping with the tradition of the church?

---

Well, no actually. The church may have been complicit in such things but never by the mandate of scripture, only by ignoring it.

---

Oh, that's OK then.

---

Except it's utter shite. The proponents of all three, did, and except in the case of slavery as far as I know, still do, quote Scripture in support of their position.

---

People misquote scripture in support of erroneous positions all the time, but that doesn't mean that they have a scriptural mandate for their position. And, invariably, the misquotation of scripture in support of such positions requires other passages of scripture to be ignored or explained away.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioni Sais:

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
You mean like slavery and the subjugation of women and the right of kings which are all in keeping with the tradition of the church?

---

Well, no actually. The church may have been complicit in such things but never by the mandate of scripture, only by ignoring it.

---

Oh, that's OK then.

---

Except it's utter shite. The proponents of all three, did, and except in the case of slavery as far as I know, still do, quote Scripture in support of their position.

---

People misquote scripture in support of erroneous positions all the time, but that doesn't mean that they have a scriptural mandate for their position. And, invariably, the misquotation of scripture in support of such positions requires other passages of scripture to be ignored or explained away.

---

Rubbish.

Scripture quite clearly mandates women to be silent in church and slaves to obey their masters etc.

To ignore this is to ignore scripture.

---

quote:

---

Er...I think you'll find it was the Black Death which literally killed off slavery in western Europe (only for it to re-appear in the East and the New World shortly thereafter), rather than the Normans, who were shits and increased slavery through the feudal system. (Otherwise, agreed with your post.)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
I agree that to ignore those things is to ignore scripture. But I'd go further and say that that ignoring your particular misunderstanding of them would be a very good thing indeed.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
Put simply, Jesus is God; He wrote the script so He can change it (although I would say 'fulfil' more than 'change'). We ain't God, so it's an arrogantly presumptive usurpation on our part (same old, same old, right back to the Fall) to seek to change the script.

---

Yet if we believe the Holy Spirit subsists with us as promised, there is no presumption at all. The Holy Spirit can indeed change the script.

The trouble is, of course, discernment. Each will have different takes on how to discern. Some use tradition, some scripture, some reason.

But the best use all three.


 

---

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
But the best that human reason can ever hope to accomplish is to be partly right. YMMV, but I'd rather not build my house on such sandy foundations.

[ETA - certainly when the result of using fallen reason is to contradict the results of the other two, alarm bells start to ring.]

[ 23. July 2013, 11:35: Message edited by: Matt Black ]
 

---

Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
I agree that to ignore those things is to ignore scripture. But I'd go further and say that that ignoring your particular misunderstanding of them would be a very good thing indeed.

---

Well to be fair to orthodoxy and scripture, the gospels take precedence over the epistles and the gospels say nothing of such unjust matters.

The only real problem comes when you elevate the epistles above the gospels as the reformed crowd do.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
There are 24 million women and children living in hidden slavery, most of whom are held prisoner to the sex industry, the appetite for which is fuelled, in part, by unprecedented access to free online videos of sexual abuse and exploitation, often of children. And that's just one small example of how human depravity is a constant given throughout every age and culture. We. Are. Not. Improving.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Which as far as I can see is perfectly consistent with where God wants us to be going. Sure, it's taking a while to get there, but after all we're only human.

---

Wake up.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Yes, I'm sure in my heart and mind through faith, because our Lord faounded a visible Church, not just some vague spiritual entity.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
But the best that human reason can ever hope to accomplish is to be partly right. YMMV, but I'd rather not build my house on such sandy foundations.

[ETA - certainly when the result of using fallen reason is to contradict the results of the other two, alarm bells start to ring.]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
I agree that to ignore those things is to ignore scripture. But I'd go further and say that that ignoring your particular misunderstanding of them would be a very good thing indeed.

---

Well to be fair to orthodoxy and scripture, the gospels take precedence over the epistles and the gospels say nothing of such unjust matters.

The only real problem comes when you elevate the epistles above the gospels as the reformed crowd do.

---

You're right of course, the gospel texts say nothing about your misinterpretation of the epistles in the same way as they say nothing about unicorns.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
Surely liberation from the oppression and slavery of sin is the most important form of liberation? That is not to say that the other forms of liberation are not important - clearly they are - but it seems to me that if one part of Christendom is concentrating on material liberation whilst at the same time seeking to redefine some sins, it runs the risk of not just emphasising the former (material) at the expense of the latter (spiritual) but keeping people in spiritual bondage by kidding them into thinking they are free...

---

Was this directed at me?

Liberation from oppression and sin is one of the main themes of scripture.

But why are you separating the material from the spiritual? That was the gnostic heresy of the early centuries.

Our faith is an incarnational faith. Jesus became human.

"Your will be done on earth as it is in heaven". The beatitudes and the magnificat and numerous other passages speak to Jesus' concern with liberation of the oppressed in his time. Otherwise he never would have bothered healing the lepers, the sick etc and spending time with sinners and tax collectors.
 

---

Posted by malik3000 (# 11437) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by gorpo:
Liberals believe the whole Jesus storty to be a legend,

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
I agree that to ignore those things is to ignore scripture. But I'd go further and say that that ignoring your particular misunderstanding of them would be a very good thing indeed.

---

Well to be fair to orthodoxy and scripture, the gospels take precedence over the epistles and the gospels say nothing of such unjust matters.

The only real problem comes when you elevate the epistles above the gospels as the reformed crowd do.

---

You're right of course, the gospel texts say nothing about your misinterpretation of the epistles in the same way as they say nothing about unicorns.

---

I take scripture seriously. I do not explain it away in selective interpretation.

---

quote:

---

You can fudge of course. Sounds like what you're trying to do cos you don't like the clear meaning of scripture.

---

When I see you clearly exposit the texts you cite, I'll let you know. At the moment you're simply proof-texting - a practice which is the preserve either of fundamentalists or theological illiterates. Now, you're not a fundamentalist so that narrows it down quite nicely.

quote:

---

But I didn't pick you for a liberal. Perhaps you are.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by malik3000:

quote:

---

Originally posted by gorpo:
Liberals believe the whole Jesus storty to be a legend,

---

I beg your pardon!! I probably am mostly "liberal" (unfortunate word) in my Christianity and your blanket incorrect statement certainly does NOT apply to what I believe!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
Surely liberation from the oppression and slavery of sin is the most important form of liberation? That is not to say that the other forms of liberation are not important - clearly they are - but it seems to me that if one part of Christendom is concentrating on material liberation whilst at the same time seeking to redefine some sins, it runs the risk of not just emphasising the former (material) at the expense of the latter (spiritual) but keeping people in spiritual bondage by kidding them into thinking they are free...

---

Was this directed at me?

Liberation from oppression and sin is one of the main themes of scripture.

But why are you separating the material from the spiritual? That was the gnostic heresy of the early centuries.

Our faith is an incarnational faith. Jesus became human.

"Your will be done on earth as it is in heaven". The beatitudes and the magnificat and numerous other passages speak to Jesus' concern with liberation of the oppressed in his time. Otherwise he never would have bothered healing the lepers, the sick etc and spending time with sinners and tax collectors.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
If feeding the hungry, clothing the naked etc. etc. "leads us into sin" then our definition of "sin" might be in need of tweaking.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
There are 24 million women and children living in hidden slavery, most of whom are held prisoner to the sex industry, the appetite for which is fuelled, in part, by unprecedented access to free online videos of sexual abuse and exploitation, often of children. And that's just one small example of how human depravity is a constant given throughout every age and culture. We. Are. Not. Improving.

---

I never said we were improving particularly quickly. But either way, we're talking about the Holy Spirit leading His people into Truth, so my comments should really be read in that context - that is, I was talking about the direction in which the doctrines of the Church are moving - away from slavery, away from persecution, away from oppression. That the rest of the world (and indeed some parts of the Church) are a bit slow to catch on to that fundamental direction in which God wants us to be travelling doesn't change that.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Which as far as I can see is perfectly consistent with where God wants us to be going. Sure, it's taking a while to get there, but after all we're only human.

---

Wake up.

---

To what, exactly? If you're arguing that revelation is complete and we're already where God wants us to be, then what does that say given the list of depraved exploitations you mentioned above?

---