quote:

---

Green Mario: Le Roc - I don't think it makes you an Evangelical.

---

Thank you. For a moment I was worried that I'd have to spend eternity in Heaven with the Evangelicals

quote:

---

Green Mario: The question I am wondering about is does it do something that makes you a Christian not as in at just a religious/community identity level but at a more fundamental level?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Green Mario:
does it do something that makes you a Christian not as in at just a religious/community identity level but at a more fundamental level?

---

quote:

---

Twangist how deep and confident does faith need to be to be "true faith"? how sincere does repentance have to be to be "true repentance"?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fr Weber:
Well, nature abhors a vacuum. When you've downgraded baptism from Sacrament to Ordinance and done away completely with confession, you still stand in need of a ritual to mark the moment of conversion. ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:
Thank you. For a moment I was worried that I'd have to spend eternity in Heaven with the Evangelicals.

---

It's worse than that LeRoc. There'll be all sorts of people there, Catholics, Orthodox, Syrian Jacobites, Snake Handlers, Wee-Frees, even possibly one or two Theological Liberals.

You might even find yourself sitting next to another Shipmate.
 

---

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 

quote:

---

Enoch: It's worse than that LeRoc. There'll be all sorts of people there, Catholics, Orthodox, Syrian Jacobites, Snake Handlers, Wee-Frees, even possibly one or two Theological Liberals.

You might even find yourself sitting next to another Shipmate.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:
I think even in the Primitive Church, people were expected to have made some sort of profession of faith or intention before they started the catechesis that was eventually to lead to their baptism.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fr Weber:
Well, nature abhors a vacuum. When you've downgraded baptism from Sacrament to Ordinance and done away completely with confession, you still stand in need of a ritual to mark the moment of conversion.

Me, I just find it interesting that folks like Jack Chick, who view anything not specifically enjoined in Scripture as gewgaws of the Whore of Babylon, practically require the Sinner's Prayer as a prerequisite of membership in the church. Because I can't find the words of the damn thing anywhere in the Bible.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:
...Snake Handlers...

---

For a second I read that as 'left handers'


[edited by a qualified code handler]

[ 24. October 2014, 21:31: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 

---

Posted by Twangist (# 16208) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:
I think even in the Primitive Church, people were expected to have made some sort of profession of faith or intention before they started the catechesis that was eventually to lead to their baptism.

---

Not quite, as far as I understand. Candidates had a sponsor who could vouch for their sincerity. The bishop would then instruct them in the faith.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mere Nick:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fr Weber:
Well, nature abhors a vacuum. When you've downgraded baptism from Sacrament to Ordinance and done away completely with confession, you still stand in need of a ritual to mark the moment of conversion.

Me, I just find it interesting that folks like Jack Chick, who view anything not specifically enjoined in Scripture as gewgaws of the Whore of Babylon, practically require the Sinner's Prayer as a prerequisite of membership in the church. Because I can't find the words of the damn thing anywhere in the Bible.

---

While "Sinner's Prayer" might be a good name for a rock band, I can't find it in the bible, either. It seems that Peter said on Pentecost (Acts 2) that in baptism we find forgiveness of sin and we receive the gift of the holy spirit, the fruit of which is described in Galatians 5.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Peter actually says to repent and be baptized, which arguably, is what the Sinner's Prayer is going for. For that reason, I don't have any problem w/ the Sinner's Prayer per se (which should surprise no one since I'm an evangelical). My only problem would be the rigidity with which it's come to be used among some of my evangelical brethren. Some version of the Sinner's Prayer as a genuine, uncoerced act of contrition is one-- but not "the"-- quite valid and appropriate response to the grace of God. The Sinner's Prayer as a rigid formula that must be followed word for word upon threat of hell, not so much-- as well as any suggestion that this is the only valid way one enters into the Kingdom.

---

Peter said repent and be baptised, but I cannot find the bit where he says 'accept Jesus.' If anything the Bible says the opposite, that God does the accepting of those who come to him.
 

---

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
The very name of the prayer is problematic: "sinner". I realize the mark of sin is apparently inherited because of illicit fruit consumption*, but the last thing we need to emphasize with most people is that they are bad, and then scare them with hell. Better would be a Love Prayer that focuses less on the person's failings and keeps the positive. Being an unconverted Christian myself.

*illicit fruit consumption: it must have been a cherry, because the subsequent religious excessive preoccupation with sex, particularly of those who are pledged not to have any.
 

---

Posted by Snags (# 15351) on :
 
As with so much, "it depends". There's no inherent magic, but it can be a valuable and useful marker for the person saying it. It's a moment in time when a little mini-ritual says "I believe (help me with my unbelief)". Outward signs/inward grace, anyone?

However, making it a condition, or a must-have, or a Thing For All is bonkers and missing the point. And I absolutely wouldn't say it's about the moment when the Spirit comes. Not least because I generally hold with the view that it's the work of the Spirit that convicts/leads to repentance/belief.

And as others have said, it's possibly a waypoint on the journey, not the finishing line.
 

---

Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :
 
Snags
 

---

Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Peter actually says to repent and be baptized, which arguably, is what the Sinner's Prayer is going for.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by balaam:
Peter said repent and be baptised, but I cannot find the bit where he says 'accept Jesus.' If anything the Bible says the opposite, that God does the accepting of those who come to him.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by balaam:
Like a lot of things it depends what your angle is.

What Peter said is in line with what Jesus said earlier, "He who comes to me I will never cast out.

We do the coming, we do the turning, we do the repenting, but it is Jesus who does the accepting.

I never did swallow the Arminian line.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:
Popularised by Billy Graham in his heyday was it not? Others may know better.

It is often prayed in hope perhaps that someone may use the words to put a tangible verbal tag onto an internal transformation.

Jesus said though, that the mission of the apostolic group was to make disciples.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
The very name of the prayer is problematic: "sinner". I realize the mark of sin is apparently inherited because of illicit fruit consumption*, but the last thing we need to emphasize with most people is that they are bad, and then scare them with hell. Better would be a Love Prayer that focuses less on the person's failings and keeps the positive. Being an unconverted Christian myself. ...

---

quote:

---

Do you reject the devil and all rebellion against God?
I reject them.
Do you renounce the deceit and corruption of evil?
I renounce them.
Do you repent of the sins that separate us from God and neighbour?
I repent of them
Do you turn to Christ as Saviour?
I turn to Christ.
Do you submit to Christ as Lord?
I submit to Christ.
Do you come to Christ, the way, the truth and the life?
I come to Christ.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Green Mario:
<snip>So is there any magic in saying such a prayer - or to use less pejorative terminology does something real and dramatic change in a person at this point or is this whole praxis misconceived?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

What's your problem?
Unless of course you come from a tradition that tells you that the water of baptismal font, the intoning prayer of a priest and lifetime of meritorious good works (and are they actually good enough?), are required to persuade God to let you in.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Now which Christian tradition would that be, Mudfrog?

A real one or one of your own imagining?

Strictly speaking, of course, there is no Christian tradition - no not one - which teaches that we are saved by our own works.

I know what you're getting at and can see how you got there. But, properly understood, I don't think any of the more sacramental traditions teach these things in the way you have portrayed them here.

All Christian traditions teach that it is God that saves.

---

As so often Gamaliel, that gets a
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Twangist:
You don't see any lengthy prior chatechesis or godparents in Acts2

---

quote:

---

People are offered the opportunity to 'pray the sinner's prayer' because it's easy, memorable and easily transportable - as it were. It's a lot simpler than directing people to a course of catechesis followed by baptism - which was the NT and early Church norm it would seem ...

I suspect those same people that Twangist has in mind would still be changed, still have 'stayed the course' had they been directed through a process of instruction and baptised as part of that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Twangist:
You don't see any lengthy prior chatechesis or godparents in Acts2

---

So how many people have you seen wandering around with what appear to be 'tongues of fire' above their heads recently, Twangist?

Or how many have you heard speaking languages they've not actually learned yet which are fully comprehensible to speakers of those languages?

(Rather than the usual 'sellhimahonda, aveabacardi, untiemybowtie ... shallalalalala angarabara sundera hundera' schtick that so often passes for 'tongues' these days?)

---

Just trying to work out which primative church we're meant to be copying I don't see the way forward as being going back to the days of last minute deathbed baptisms for example.
In Acts people seem to get into the water pretty quick after repenting and believing and learn more after (unusual events not withstanding).
Personally, I find it ironic that there is a very clear non-liturgical liturgy of conversion.
The SP can help some people express what God is doing in them as they begin their journey of faith. It can also be legalistic and deeply unhelpful.
I would rather people pray in thier own words after they understand what it is to repent and believe and then go on to publicly express their new discipleship by getting baptised as soon as is convenient/possible, growing as a Christian by being part of a local church. I don't imagine that is a particularly radical or controversial POV.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Who said anything about 'copying'?



I agree with you, Twangist, that the sinner's prayer can be a helpful 'way in' for many people.

It's not the only way, of course, nor is it even particularly the 'Biblical' way - whatever the biblical way actually is.

'The wind bloweth where it listeth ...'

So, now, don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating any one, single, 'set' way for people to enter into the Christian faith and begin to indwell it/work it out.

At it's best, the sinner's prayer can be a sort of short-hand ... but it's a recent innovation as far as Christian practice goes.

You don't see its equivalent back in the early Church, nor do you see it at the time of the Reformation - heck, you don't even see it at the time of the 18th century Evangelical Awakenings and revivals.

It's a development from post-Finney US revivalism that has become standardised and embedded in contemporary evangelical practice.

It's no more nor less than that.

Plenty of great Saints and great saints (small s) managed perfectly well without it ...



Using Acts as some kind of template doesn't get us very far in and of itself - largely because that's not what it's for and partly because we often overlook the literary aspects.

The challenge for anyone who claims that Acts is 'normative' is to produce evidence that these apparently normative things are happening in their experience and in their church ...

I'm still waiting for someone to demonstrate that.

Of course, there are lessons and parallels and things we can deduce and derive from a study of Acts.

But to go round claiming that our respective churches are somehow fully operating in that kind of dimension is stretching it a bit ...

People come to Christ in all manner of ways.

Whether it's in an evangelical setting or a more sacramentalist one, in my experience they tend to do so because they are 'socialised' into it - they start knocking around with Christians and sooner or later 'own' the faith in some way for themselves.

How that's done and the form it takes varies from tradition to tradition - it's expressed differently and with different vocabulary but to all intents and purposes it's the same thing.
 

---

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

What's your problem?
Unless of course you come from a tradition that tells you that the water of baptismal font, the intoning prayer of a priest and lifetime of meritorious good works (and are they actually good enough?), are required to persuade God to let you in.

---

Now which Christian tradition would that be, Mudfrog?

A real one or one of your own imagining?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:
I really don't agree with you there. An awareness of one's own personal sin is necessary grit in one's oyster to have any prospect of either finding the pearl of great price or oneself becoming a spiritual pearl.
"For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God" etc.

I would go so far as to say that there is very little hope for the person who thinks sinners are only other people who have done really bad things. That is what the pharisee was doing when he saw the publican praying in some back corner of the Temple. Existential complacency keeps a lot of people from even looking for, yet alone finding the kingdom of heaven.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
I guess I'm a bad sacramentalist, aren't I?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
I count the moment I said a quasi sinner's prayer (I don't remember the exact words but it was something that hit the three points of, I fucked up, I'm sorry, save me) as the moment I became a Christian. I remember it quite well. I went on to be baptized (about 9 months later) and to be chrismated into the Orthodox Church (nearly 2 decades later), but that is the moment I count as my becoming a Christian.

I guess I'm a bad sacramentalist, aren't I?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Twangist:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Twangist:
You don't see any lengthy prior chatechesis or godparents in Acts2

---

So how many people have you seen wandering around with what appear to be 'tongues of fire' above their heads recently, Twangist?

Or how many have you heard speaking languages they've not actually learned yet which are fully comprehensible to speakers of those languages?

(Rather than the usual 'sellhimahonda, aveabacardi, untiemybowtie ... shallalalalala angarabara sundera hundera' schtick that so often passes for 'tongues' these days?)

---

Just trying to work out which primative church we're meant to be copying I don't see the way forward as being going back to the days of last minute deathbed baptisms for example.
In Acts people seem to get into the water pretty quick after repenting and believing and learn more after (unusual events not withstanding).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Green Mario:
Mudfrog - my understanding was that baptism pre John the Baptist was more linked to a rite that gentiles had to follow to become 2nd class (for want of a better phrase) Jews, and it was a one off conversion rite. The background you provide is really interesting though. Would very early Christians then have viewed baptism as a one off unique event for each individual or something that should be be repeated.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Yes, I believe it was a later thing, especially as the Jewish foundations of Christianity were forgotten.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChastMastr:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Yes, I believe it was a later thing, especially as the Jewish foundations of Christianity were forgotten.

---

I'm a bit confused here--we're talking about Baptism as one of the Sacraments, something instituted by the guidance of the Holy Spirit, yes?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Yes, I believe it was a later thing, especially as the Jewish foundations of Christianity were forgotten.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Yes, I believe it was a later thing, especially as the Jewish foundations of Christianity were forgotten.

---

So when did this corruption happen then, eh? By the time of Clement? Ignatius? Irenaeus? Constantine? I don't buy it. What our Lord instituted was something new: The Apostle also speaks of baptism as a kind of one off initiation by which we become members of the Christ's body.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Try the New Testament.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by fullgospel:
THE RICHNESS OF PERSONAL RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE(S) 0f people here (and there)

is striking.

Also the riches of the varied traditions and churches.

---

. . . Did I miss something here?
 

---

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChastMastr:
I'm sorry, Mudfrog, I'm not convinced of the position you seem to be advocating regarding baptism. But I'm not sola scriptura either as regards such things; I understand Baptism and the Eucharist as being genuinely Sacramental things, and not just symbolic.

I know you're not arguing that such things are a corruption (at least I don't think you are arguing that?).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
What it became as 'The Way' became the Gentile Church is irrelevant to this discussion about formulaic conversion prayer and Apostolic 'baptismal' practice.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
What it became as 'The Way' became the Gentile Church is irrelevant to this discussion about formulaic conversion prayer and Apostolic 'baptismal' practice.

---

Only if you think that what it became has no relationship -- drew nothing -- from what it started as.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
In the same way that the Communion service has its roots in the Passover meal, so Christian Gentile baptism has its roots in the mikveh (and also, sadly, in the Mystery religions too).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChastMastr:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
In the same way that the Communion service has its roots in the Passover meal, so Christian Gentile baptism has its roots in the mikveh (and also, sadly, in the Mystery religions too).

---

Assuming this is true, why sadly? If anything, it would be the Reality (or partakes more of the Reality) that those mystery religions are only distorted shadows of.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Not all development after the Apostolic era is to be welcomed, especially the Greek stuff.

---

quote:

---

And the idea of calling the Lord's Supper and baptism 'sacraments' is entirely alien to the Jewish understanding of Passover and Mikveh and has been drawn wholesale from the Roman mystery religions where Roman soldiers would swear an oath to their commander - a 'sacramentum'. it's not a Biblical concept; it's not an Apostolic concept and its introduction has, in my view, divided the church ever since. Can anyone really deny that we have been divided over the sacraments ever since?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
What it became as 'The Way' became the Gentile Church is irrelevant to this discussion about formulaic conversion prayer and Apostolic 'baptismal' practice.

---

Only if you think that what it became has no relationship -- drew nothing -- from what it started as.

---

And I haven't said that either.

---

quote:

---

In the same way that the Communion service has its roots in the Passover meal, so Christian Gentile baptism has its roots in the mikveh (and also, sadly, in the Mystery religions too).

What I do not like is the fallacious thinking that suggests Jesus invented 2 new rituals out of thin air, that he called sacraments, called them Mass and Baptism, and insisted that the church forever used them, never changing their meaning and never once knowing that actually, they are deeply rooted in Judaism.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Not all development after the Apostolic era is to be welcomed, especially the Greek stuff.
And the idea of calling the Lord's Supper and baptism 'sacraments' is entirely alien to the Jewish understanding of Passover and Mikveh and has been drawn wholesale from the Roman mystery religions where Roman soldiers would swear an oath to their commander - a 'sacramentum'. it's not a Biblical concept; it's not an Apostolic concept and its introduction has, in my view, divided the church ever since. Can anyone really deny that we have been divided over the sacraments ever since?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
What evidence do you have that the sacraments were divisive in the 5th century? 10th? 12th?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
What evidence do you have that the sacraments were divisive in the 5th century? 10th? 12th?

---

I read recently there was controversy between Cyprian and others about the use of water - whether it should be put in the wine or not. It was important enough to be seen as a theological issue....
I don't know much about that but even then they couldn't agree on its administration.

---

quote:

---

Know then that I have been admonished that, in offering the cup, the tradition of the Lord must be observed, and that nothing must be done by us but what the Lord first did on our behalf, as that the cup which is offered in remembrance of Him should be offered mingled with wine. For when Christ says, "I am the truevine." the blood of Christ is assuredly not water, but wine; neither can His blood by which we are redeemed and quickened appear to be in the cup, when in the cup there is no wine whereby the blood of Christ is shown forth, which is declared by the sacrament and testimony of all the Scriptures

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Twangist:
Trouble is it can be an expression of so many other things.

---

Such as wanting to get the evangelist on your doorstep to go away and leave you alone.
 

---

Posted by Anesti (# 18259) on :
 
Not so much Evangalist as Other-Worldy Wiseman
 

---

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
What evidence do you have that the sacraments were divisive in the 5th century? 10th? 12th?

---

I read recently there was controversy between Cyprian and others about the use of water - whether it should be put in the wine or not. It was important enough to be seen as a theological issue....
I don't know much about that but even then they couldn't agree on its administration.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Well you're the expert. In all honesty, can you tell me that in your study of the church from AD 100 to 1517 there was total, complete and agreed unanimity on the meaning of the Eucharist, its administration and form?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Who said from scratch? Nevertheless, what Christ instituted were new. The baptism Christ intituted wasn't the ritual cleansing of the Law or the baptism of John. Neither was the Eucharist a seder.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Neither was the Eucharist a seder.

---

A Passover meal isn't a seder?! Surely our sacramental brethren (and sistren) recognise that the Eucharist at least began as a seder ...!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Christ did not institute anything.

---

Although largely in agreement with you (especially on how the Church still keeps on denying how Jewish Jesus actually was) I wouldn't go as far as that. In both word and action, He deliberately gives the Passover an even greater meaning than under Moses, doesn't He? That surely is starting something new ... and amazing. (But to divorce all this completely from its Jewish roots is, I believe, a huge misstep.)
 

---

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :
 
Laurelin,

David tells us that Christ is a priest in the order of Melchisedech. What did Melchisedech present as an offering? Was that a seder too?
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Well, Luther, Calvin, Zwingli and indeed John Wesley all believed that Mary was 'ever Virgin' ...

But we'll put that to one side for now ...

It's been debated before and at length.



Likewise the Real Presence.

On the issue of development of doctrine and practice, I can certainly see what you are getting at and yes, Christianity did move surprisingly quickly from its Jewish roots. One could argue that the Apostle Paul is partly 'responsible' for that process in terms of elucidating how the Gospel differs in some sense from what went before - or, rather, fulfils it - which is what the whole thrust of Romans is all about.

We are so used to looking at it in terms of 16th century controversies that we forget - at times - the 1st century issues he was addressing - how Gentiles could be grafted in alongside Israel in the New Covenant. In order to demonstrate that, Paul has to establish that it was always by faith - hence Abraham being justified by faith - and not by particular ritual observations under the Jewish Law.

Not that there was anything 'wrong' with the Law in and of itself ...

etc ...

A similar thrust can be found in the Epistle to the Hebrews - which argues that Christ's priesthood derives from a different source than the Aaronic line ...

However, I don't think anyone here is arguing that 1st century Christianity looked and felt like a High Mass at the Brompton Oratory any more than it looked and felt like the Salvation Army on parade ...


 

---

Posted by Laurelin (# 17211) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Laurelin,

David tells us that Christ is a priest in the order of Melchisedech. What did Melchisedech present as an offering? Was that a seder too?

---

As far as I am able to understand the deep (and complex) symbolism, the mysterious Melchizedek is a kingly-priest figure, which of course has Messianic meaning, since Jesus is Priest and King and Messiah. 'Cohen' means 'priest'. Melchizedek is linked to Noah, to David, to Messianic symbolism ... I don't know why that means that Jesus celebrating Passover with His disciples wasn't, in fact, a seder.
 

---

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Laurelin:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Laurelin,

David tells us that Christ is a priest in the order of Melchisedech. What did Melchisedech present as an offering? Was that a seder too?

---

As far as I am able to understand the deep (and complex) symbolism, the mysterious Melchizedek is a kingly-priest figure, which of course has Messianic meaning, since Jesus is Priest and King and Messiah. 'Cohen' means 'priest'. Melchizedek is linked to Noah, to David, to Messianic symbolism ... I don't know why that means that Jesus celebrating Passover with His disciples wasn't, in fact, a seder.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Laurelin:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Neither was the Eucharist a seder.

---

A Passover meal isn't a seder?! Surely our sacramental brethren (and sistren) recognise that the Eucharist at least began as a seder ...!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Christ did not institute anything.

---

Although largely in agreement with you (especially on how the Church still keeps on denying how Jewish Jesus actually was) I wouldn't go as far as that. In both word and action, He deliberately gives the Passover an even greater meaning than under Moses, doesn't He? That surely is starting something new ... and amazing. (But to divorce all this completely from its Jewish roots is, I believe, a huge misstep.)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pomona:
The last supper was NOT a seder and Christians saying so is an example of Christians misappropriating Jewish traditions. Seders are not mentioned in Jewish texts until around AD 70 and Jesus would not have known such a thing. Plus, the last supper accounts do not mention several aspects of a seder such as the bitter herbs or horseradish, salt water, or egg. The last supper was probably a basic Sabbath meal, going by the bread and wine.

---

quote:

---

Yes, Jesus was Jewish but His Judaism looked very different to modern Judaism and cannot be compared in the way many Christians mistakenly do.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Arguably, Christianity is a cross between Judaism and Hellenistic influences - there's a lot of Hellenism in John's Gospel for instance.

I don't think it's as simple as isolating particular aspects and saying, 'There, that's Hellenistic ... there, that's traditional Judaism ...'

The two things are entwined.

---

Agreed.

I guess I should comment on the OP. I prayed the much-derided sinner's prayer (several times ) back when I was much younger. Like any religious practice, it can be abused: like any religious practice, it can be something simple and profound.

I believe in 'conversion': in justification, and in the transforming work of the Holy Spirit in raising us from spiritual death to life. I DON'T believe that conversion has to be instant, or dramatic. It very often is a process.
 

---

Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :
 
Sorry but you can't turn around and claim that calling the last supper a seder is about semantics. Seders were UNKNOWN in Jesus' time. Hijacking seders as a proto-Christian thing is offensive, both to Jews and those who respect their right to have their faith left alone. It's mostly done by anti-Semitic groups like Jews For Jesus who are only interested in manipulating and converting Jews.

A Sabbath meal is completely different to a seder, and saying so is not 'just semantics'. So the Eucharist has a Jewish origin - no Christian I know is unaware of this, and frankly I don't see the relevance. Its history is less important than celebrating the Eucharist. It seems that the Christians who get the most worked up over the Jewish origins are the worst at actually celebrating the Eucharist and taking it seriously as a sacrament.
 

---

Posted by Snags (# 15351) on :
 
I'm struggling with the idea that Jews For Jesus, being more or less by definition Semitic, are anti-Semite.
 

---

Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pomona:
Sorry but you can't turn around and claim that calling the last supper a seder is about semantics. Seders were UNKNOWN in Jesus' time. Hijacking seders as a proto-Christian thing is offensive, both to Jews and those who respect their right to have their faith left alone.

---

quote:

---

Matthew 26:17-19 New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)

The Passover with the Disciples

17 On the first day of Unleavened Bread the disciples came to Jesus, saying, “Where do you want us to make the preparations for you to eat the Passover?” 18 He said, “Go into the city to a certain man, and say to him, ‘The Teacher says, My time is near; I will keep the Passover at your house with my disciples.’” 19 So the disciples did as Jesus had directed them, and they prepared the Passover meal.

---

quote:

---

Mark 14:11-31 New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)

The Passover with the Disciples

12 On the first day of Unleavened Bread, when the Passover lamb is sacrificed, his disciples said to him, “Where do you want us to go and make the preparations for you to eat the Passover?” 13 So he sent two of his disciples, saying to them, “Go into the city, and a man carrying a jar of water will meet you; follow him, 14 and wherever he enters, say to the owner of the house, ‘The Teacher asks, Where is my guest room where I may eat the Passover with my disciples?’ 15 He will show you a large room upstairs, furnished and ready. Make preparations for us there.” 16 So the disciples set out and went to the city, and found everything as he had told them; and they prepared the Passover meal.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pomona:
... Its history is less important than celebrating the Eucharist. It seems that the Christians who get the most worked up over the Jewish origins are the worst at actually celebrating the Eucharist and taking it seriously as a sacrament.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pomona:
Sorry but you can't turn around and claim that calling the last supper a seder is about semantics. Seders were UNKNOWN in Jesus' time. Hijacking seders as a proto-Christian thing is offensive, both to Jews and those who respect their right to have their faith left alone. It's mostly done by anti-Semitic groups like Jews For Jesus who are only interested in manipulating and converting Jews.

---

quote:

---

Its history is less important than celebrating the Eucharist. It seems that the Christians who get the most worked up over the Jewish origins are the worst at actually celebrating the Eucharist and taking it seriously as a sacrament.

---

I take Communion extremely seriously as a sacrament, thank you. I hope you're not claiming that only Catholics and Anglo-Catholics have a serious view of the sacrament.
 

---

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
And before anyone jumps on me, I might also suggest that the need for 'The Sinner's Prayer' might also have been made redundant and less divisive had the Church not moved away from its Jewish roots over the centuries. This so-called Sinners Prayer is, in part, a reaction against sacramental misuse and the false doctrine of baptismal regeneration which, when received unthinkingly by the laity seems to them to guarantee a place in heaven without much active exercising of personal faith in Christ.

... and now I shall put on my crash helmet...
 

---

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Snags:
I'm struggling with the idea that Jews For Jesus, being more or less by definition Semitic, are anti-Semite.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by seekingsister:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pomona:
Sorry but you can't turn around and claim that calling the last supper a seder is about semantics. Seders were UNKNOWN in Jesus' time. Hijacking seders as a proto-Christian thing is offensive, both to Jews and those who respect their right to have their faith left alone.

---

I'm not sure it's your place to be outraged on their behalf here.

And I hope you never go to Japan, where people who aren't Christian go to churches to get married, in Christian ceremonies, because they think it looks cool in movies. And I mean an actual Christian ceremony, with hymns and Bible readings. Cue righteous anger...

Japanese "Christian" Weddings

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pomona:
... Its history is less important than celebrating the Eucharist. It seems that the Christians who get the most worked up over the Jewish origins are the worst at actually celebrating the Eucharist and taking it seriously as a sacrament.

---

Meaning?

And while you're at it, can you explain what you mean by 'celebrating THE Eucharist'? (Capitals, mine - obviously)

What is this Eucharist that you seem warrants a definite article? Is there ONE Eucharist? And if so, who celebrates this ONE definite-artickled 'Eucharist'? Is it the Roman Catholics, the Anglicans? Do Methodists celebrate THE Eucharist? What about the Brethren or the Pentecostals? What about, even, Salvationists who very often partake of communion services in the gracious churches who will not merely pat them on the head when they kneel? Are we celebratimng THE Eucharist even though few of us have been baptised, confirmed or given absolution in the sacrament of reconcilation??

It seems to me that you have touched on a particular problem here because Rome doesn't accept the Eucharists of most other 'Christian communities' and those of the more Reformed flavour deny that the Mass is even a valid Eucharist, being a blasphemy-and-all.

I'd love to know therefore who actually is celebrating this THE Eucharist of which you speak, which some of us don't take seriously enough.

Seems to me, IIMBSB, that this uniting meal is actually the most divisive thing in Christendom and it all has to do, IMHO, with the throwing away of the Jewish meaning and foundation which, as I see it, is quite clearly present in the sacred texts.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Snags:
I'm struggling with the idea that Jews For Jesus, being more or less by definition Semitic, are anti-Semite.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pomona:
I'm not outraged on their behalf, simply supporting Jews I know who are deeply offended by Christian 'seders'. Christian seders are cultural appropriation and deeply inappropriate. It is my job as an ally of Jews (and other non-Christians) to support them in taking back their own religious rites.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pomona:
I'm not outraged on their behalf, simply supporting Jews I know who are deeply offended by Christian 'seders'. Christian seders are cultural appropriation and deeply inappropriate. It is my job as an ally of Jews (and other non-Christians) to support them in taking back their own religious rites.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by seekingsister:
I went to my first of many seders at age 5 - grew up outside of New York City - and I maintain that it's not your place - and certainly not your job - to speak on their behalf on this matter.

As the term "seder" is used to describe the Passover dinner, it's not inappropriate to use it to refer to the Last Supper.

Christians wishing to celebrate Passover as practiced now is no more inherently racist than Shinto Japanese play acting Christian weddings or white students putting together a dance group for a Mela celebration.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Snags:
I'm struggling with the idea that Jews For Jesus, being more or less by definition Semitic, are anti-Semite.

---

They're just another heretical sect.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pomona:

quote:

---

Originally posted by seekingsister:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pomona:
Sorry but you can't turn around and claim that calling the last supper a seder is about semantics. Seders were UNKNOWN in Jesus' time. Hijacking seders as a proto-Christian thing is offensive, both to Jews and those who respect their right to have their faith left alone.

---

I'm not sure it's your place to be outraged on their behalf here.

And I hope you never go to Japan, where people who aren't Christian go to churches to get married, in Christian ceremonies, because they think it looks cool in movies. And I mean an actual Christian ceremony, with hymns and Bible readings. Cue righteous anger...

Japanese "Christian" Weddings

---

I'm not outraged on their behalf, simply supporting Jews I know who are deeply offended by Christian 'seders'. Christian seders are cultural appropriation and deeply inappropriate. It is my job as an ally of Jews (and other non-Christians) to support them in taking back their own religious rites.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Snags:
I'm struggling with the idea that Jews For Jesus, being more or less by definition Semitic, are anti-Semite.

---

They're just another heretical sect.

---

Why? Because they are trying to be a little like the first century Christians in Jerusalem and not Catholics?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Snags:
I'm struggling with the idea that Jews For Jesus, being more or less by definition Semitic, are anti-Semite.

---

They're just another heretical sect.

---

Why? Because they are trying to be a little like the first century Christians in Jerusalem and not Catholics?

---

That's debatable. They're dispensationalists and Judaisers. They have to give up the Law and be baptsed into the Church.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
The Law is dead and its observance is more likely to lead to damnation than salvation. Through the Church we are saved.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
The Law is dead and its observance is more likely to lead to damnation than salvation. Through the Church we are saved.

---

On the first point I think Jesus might have a slight disagreement with you.

On the second point, observance of sacraments without a loving and faithful trust in Jesus, can also lead to damnation.

On the third point, it is not through the church that we are saved - not through Popes, priests or prelates, but 'by grace are ye saved through faith, and that not of yourself, it is the gift of God; not of works, lest any man should boast.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
The very name of the prayer is problematic: "sinner". I realize the mark of sin is apparently inherited because of illicit fruit consumption*, but the last thing we need to emphasize with most people is that they are bad, and then scare them with hell. Better would be a Love Prayer that focuses less on the person's failings and keeps the positive. Being an unconverted Christian myself.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pomona:
The last supper was probably a basic Sabbath meal, going by the bread and wine.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by seekingsister:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pomona:
I'm not outraged on their behalf, simply supporting Jews I know who are deeply offended by Christian 'seders'. Christian seders are cultural appropriation and deeply inappropriate. It is my job as an ally of Jews (and other non-Christians) to support them in taking back their own religious rites.

---

I went to my first of many seders at age 5 - grew up outside of New York City - and I maintain that it's not your place - and certainly not your job - to speak on their behalf on this matter.

As the term "seder" is used to describe the Passover dinner, it's not inappropriate to use it to refer to the Last Supper.

Christians wishing to celebrate Passover as practiced now is no more inherently racist than Shinto Japanese play acting Christian weddings or white students putting together a dance group for a Mela celebration.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Laurelin:
Yes, the only Seders I've ever attended were conducted by Jewish people. Which is as it should be. I do totally agree that it is inappropriate for Christians to conduct Seders without any Jewish input or presence.

But I'm also disturbed by the idea that it's anti-Semitic for a Jewish person to believe in Jesus. (Edith Stein, anyone?)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pomona:

quote:

---

Originally posted by seekingsister:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pomona:
Sorry but you can't turn around and claim that calling the last supper a seder is about semantics. Seders were UNKNOWN in Jesus' time. Hijacking seders as a proto-Christian thing is offensive, both to Jews and those who respect their right to have their faith left alone.

---

I'm not sure it's your place to be outraged on their behalf here.

And I hope you never go to Japan, where people who aren't Christian go to churches to get married, in Christian ceremonies, because they think it looks cool in movies. And I mean an actual Christian ceremony, with hymns and Bible readings. Cue righteous anger...

Japanese "Christian" Weddings

---

I'm not outraged on their behalf, simply supporting Jews I know who are deeply offended by Christian 'seders'. Christian seders are cultural appropriation and deeply inappropriate. It is my job as an ally of Jews (and other non-Christians) to support them in taking back their own religious rites.

---

What happens, in your eyes, to an Israeli Christian who, living in an Israeli culture, celebrates a seder?

You sound a little bit racist to me - that each culture must stick within its appropriate cultural boundaries.

God forbid a Jew celebrates New Year on Jan 1st!!!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
The Law is dead and its observance is more likely to lead to damnation than salvation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by W Hyatt:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
The Law is dead and its observance is more likely to lead to damnation than salvation.

---

That comes as a shock to me - can you elaborate on how observing the Law can have deleterious effects?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
The Law is dead and its observance is more likely to lead to damnation than salvation. Through the Church we are saved.

---

On the first point I think Jesus might have a slight disagreement with you.

On the second point, observance of sacraments without a loving and faithful trust in Jesus, can also lead to damnation.

On the third point, it is not through the church that we are saved - not through Popes, priests or prelates, but 'by grace are ye saved through faith, and that not of yourself, it is the gift of God; not of works, lest any man should boast.

---

Firstt, then maybe you should read St. Paul's epistles, who makes a number if references to the Law being dead, unless of course you're willing to argue that the Apostle is at odds with Christ.

Second, I don't think anyone would argue otherwise.

Third, through the Church we are saved. You make a false distinction. Otherwise you may as well argue that there is salvation apart from Christ.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Then we shall just have to agree to differ, innit. The Church is a visible body. And no, there is no seperate dispensation for the Jews. The Church is the true Israel of God.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem:

quote:

---

Originally posted by W Hyatt:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
The Law is dead and its observance is more likely to lead to damnation than salvation.

---

That comes as a shock to me - can you elaborate on how observing the Law can have deleterious effects?

---

Because the Law condemns. Again, St. Paul goes into some detail about these things in his epistles. I thought this was sll pretty standard Christian belief. I'm surprised by how dispensationalism has corrupted certain groups.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Well you're the expert. In all honesty, can you tell me that in your study of the church from AD 100 to 1517 there was total, complete and agreed unanimity on the meaning of the Eucharist, its administration and form?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
This so-called Sinners Prayer is, in part, a reaction against sacramental misuse and the false doctrine of baptismal regeneration which, when received unthinkingly by the laity seems to them to guarantee a place in heaven without much active exercising of personal faith in Christ.

... and now I shall put on my crash helmet...

---

Don't put on your helmet, just learn more about something you clearly have been undereducated on. Nobody anywhere believes baptism is a guaranteed place in heaven. You are taking the worst of low-church Protestant just-believism and projecting it onto the people whose theology is the furthest from it.
 

---

Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :
 
Oh for fuck's sake.

I'm Jewish by blood, and a Christian.

By whatever power to do so is vested in me by the blood of my Jewish ancestors, I hereby give permission to anyone and everyone, throughout all space and time and beyond, to celebrate the seder in whatever way they think appropriate, whether Jew or Gentile, whether Christian or non-Christian, and in whatever combinations those things may have.

There, done. All is well.
 

---

Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :
 
By the way, while I've loved some of their cute tracts back in the 1980s (i.e., the Long Ago Before-Time), my gripe with Jews for Jesus and some similar groups (alas, thus far, it seems to be all similar groups I've encountered) is that they're Fundamentalists. (If you do a search on their site for evolution or literal biblical inerrancy, you'll see what I mean.)
 

---

Posted by Laurelin (# 17211) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pomona:
Sorry, where did I say that it's anti-Semitic for a Jewish person to believe in Jesus? Since when was it OK to put words into others' mouths?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChastMastr:
Oh for fuck's sake.

I'm Jewish by blood, and a Christian.

By whatever power to do so is vested in me by the blood of my Jewish ancestors, I hereby give permission to anyone and everyone, throughout all space and time and beyond, to celebrate the seder in whatever way they think appropriate, whether Jew or Gentile, whether Christian or non-Christian, and in whatever combinations those things may have.

There, done. All is well.

---

Thank you!
 

---

Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pomona:
I said that Jews For Jesus are an anti-Semitic organisation. This is because they are. They seek to convert Jews to Christianity by manipulation and lies.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
So I can see what Ad Orientem is getting at - although he comes across as a fundamentalist at times - from the opposite end of the ecclesial spectrum ...

---

Probably. I've always leaned to a certain radicalism. Even in my RC days I was SSPX and saw Archbishop Lefebvre as a hero figure.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Why am I not surprised?


 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Radicalism or conservatism?

I've got to be honest, at the risk of turning into a woolly liberal, I find 'High Church Fundamentalism' just as off-putting as its 'low-church' or evangelical equivalent. A plague on both its houses ...

There has to be some way of maintaining a relatively conservative approach to theology without turning into some kind of farting fundamentalist full of wind and bluster ...

Perhaps that's an unrealistic hope and fundamentalism is the price we have to pay for conviction ...


 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
And before I get told off, the latter was a general point and not aimed at specific individuals here.

Unless they want the cap to fit, of course ...


 

---

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Why am I not surprised?

---

Probably because you know you hit near the mark. In all seriousness, I always considered Christianity to be radical. Also, maybe it's a personality trait.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Sure - I think both things are probably true.

I agree that Christianity should be radical.

Perhaps I'm feeling my way towards 'the radical middle' ...

There's radical and radical, of course - and in terms of personality traits and so on then some things attract and repel in equal measure.
 

---

Posted by HughWillRidmee (# 15614) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Green Mario:
So saying the sinner's prayer or some sort of prayer of commitment to God that acknowledges our sinfulness and need of Jesus seems to be taken by many evangelical organisations and evangelical Christians as the moment at which the Holy Spirit comes and indwells them and they become a Christian.

So is there any magic in saying such a prayer - or to use less pejorative terminology does something real and dramatic change in a person at this point or is this whole praxis misconceived?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:


What it doesn't have is much of an ecclesiology

---

quote:

---

Kaplan Corday: All the evangelicals I know (or know of) have a very strong, biblically-based theology of the church, and while I don't have the statistical evidence to support it, at the level of life and practice, I suspect that evangelicals in general are far more likely than other traditions to belong to a church, to regularly attend it, to be involved in its life and worship and outreach, and to give generously to it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

The infinitely more real and important issue, to rephrase your comment, is that the Roman Catholic, Orthodox and liberal Protestant churches don't have much of a soteriology.

---

And here's me arguing with Bingo that his Catholic soteriology is too restrictive and prescriptive. Well, when I can be arsed. Mostly I just think it.

Guilty as charged as a liberal, mind, my soteriology is basically "would I send most people I know to Hell? And do I think God's less forgiving and less merciful than I am? Nope. Nope. So that's most people in then." I'm willing to admit that's "not much of a soteriology" inasmuch as I couldn't fill books with it, but hey it does me. It's only a guess anyway, as is anyone's.
 

---

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
The infinitely more real and important issue, to rephrase your comment, is that the Roman Catholic, Orthodox and liberal Protestant churches don't have much of a soteriology.

---

They do. They just reject PSA.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
That's complete tosh, Kaplan.

All those traditions have a soteriology, it's just that it's a different soteriology to yours.

I perhaps overstated my case when I said that many evangelicals don't have much of an ecclesiology.

They DO have an ecclesiology, but not 'much of one' compared with some traditions who put a greater emphasis on the Church in the overall scheme of things.

On balance, I'd say that groups like the Brethren and some of the charismatic restorationist groups have a more 'developed' ecclesiology than other evangelicals - even more so than Baptists say (and Baptists do indeed have an ecclesiology of course).

Mudfrog's ecclesiology is almost an 'anti-ecclesiology' - a 'negative ecclesiology' if you like ...

It defines itself by what it isn't as much as what it is ... I s'pose it's an apophatic ecclesiology to some extent rather than a cataphatic one ...

As for accusations of snobbery, may I ask you withdraw that calumny, sir, or else face pistols at dawn?

I said nothing about bells and smells and robed choirs and cathedrals and so on as opposed to Samoan worship services - which I'm sure I'd enjoy as much as they do.

Nor did I say anything about particular types of Christian being more 'sincere' or more godly or more anything else than any other.

The snobbery and exclusivism is, in this case, in the eye of the beholder.

You are the one being judgemental, not me.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Having calmed down a bit ...



In stating that the 'older' traditions have a more developed ecclesiology than evangelicals tend do does not imply in any way a value judgement on the extent to which evangelicals support and engage with their local churches.

Far from it.

It's pretty axiomatic that evangelicals are generally fully engaged in the life of their churches - it forms part of their spirituality an the way they define themselves. Heck, I ought to know ... I've been involved with evangelical churches since I was 19.

What I'm saying is that their ecclesiology doesn't tend to be as rigorous or 'developed' as the ecclesiology of the more sacramental or historic churches.

I think that's pretty obvious.

I once attended part of an Orthodox diocesan conference on 'The Holy Spirit in the life of the Church.'

Guess what? There was a strong focus on Orthodox ecclesiology.

What a surprise.

It's axiomatic that the RCs, Orthodox and High Anglicans or High Lutherans are going to have a well-developed ecclesiology - it comes with the territory for goodness sake ...

That doesn't mean that every RC, every Orthodoxen, every High Church Anglican or High-ish Lutheran is fully committed to their local parish etc etc etc.

Any more than a relatively 'low' ecclesiology on the part of evangelicals means that they don't give a stuff about their local church ...



Please try to engage with what I am saying and not what you think I'm saying.
 

---

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
The infinitely more real and important issue, to rephrase your comment, is that the Roman Catholic, Orthodox and liberal Protestant churches don't have much of a soteriology.

---

They do. They just reject PSA.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:


The obvious expression of this is seen in a discussion I've on the Ship recently where it was alleged that 'there is no salvation outside the church.'

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:

What I'm saying is that their ecclesiology doesn't tend to be as rigorous or 'developed' as the ecclesiology of the more sacramental or historic churches.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:


The obvious expression of this is seen in a discussion I've on the Ship recently where it was alleged that 'there is no salvation outside the church.'

---

Cyprian "Extra ecclesiam nulla salus".

You're quite right; it's bullshit.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
The infinitely more real and important issue, to rephrase your comment, is that the Roman Catholic, Orthodox and liberal Protestant churches don't have much of a soteriology.

---

They do. They just reject PSA.

---

That's not the issue; PSA is just one of a number of acceptable ways of understanding the atonement.

The real problem is that though they all ultimately acknowledge the necessity of grace, they blur the issue with sacramentalism and personal righteousness.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:


The obvious expression of this is seen in a discussion I've on the Ship recently where it was alleged that 'there is no salvation outside the church.'

---

Cyprian "Extra ecclesiam nulla salus".

You're quite right; it's bullshit.

---

It's not bullshit. If the Church is Christ's body, then there is no salvation outside of it. Otherwise you might as well argue that there is salvation apart from Christ and your faith will have been in vain.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
The infinitely more real and important issue, to rephrase your comment, is that the Roman Catholic, Orthodox and liberal Protestant churches don't have much of a soteriology.

---

They do. They just reject PSA.

---

That's not the issue; PSA is just one of a number of acceptable ways of understanding the atonement.

The real problem is that though they all ultimately acknowledge the necessity of grace, they blur the issue with sacramentalism and personal righteousness.

---

LOL! How can grace be blurred by the sacraments? a free and visible gift. The sacraments also blow to smithereens any personal righteousness.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
In other words - no priest, no sacrament. What does that say about the grace of God?

---

It says that God intended the Church to place where we are saved, which is why baptism traditionally has been described as the door by which we enter the Church and which is why our Lord said, Going therefore, teach ye all nations etc.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
There are loads of category errors going on here.

Yes, Rome does teach that there is no salvation outside of the Church. It also teaches that you don't necessarily have to be a Christian on inside the Church to be saved.

It teaches both.

If anything, Rome is a lot more generous as to who may or may not ultimately be saved than many evangelicals are.

Also - no sacramentalist church that I'm aware of teaches that grace is only available through the sacraments. That's a straw-man. Sacramentalist Christians do believe that the Church conveys grace - or rather that God conveys grace through the Church and through the sacraments.

But they don't believe that God is restricted by that. God can convey grace in any way he so chooses.

Nobody is arguing otherwise, even those who insist on a very 'high' view of the Church in the overall scheme of things.

Whilst I can understand the position that both Mudfrog and Kaplan Corday are taking I think they are either misunderstanding or deliberately misrepresenting what more sacramental forms of Christianity actually teach and believe.

I'd be the first to accept that on a popular level things are often quite different and that many more sacramentally inclined Christians can appear - and often do - have a more 'works' based approach - or even treat the sacraments as if they are magic charms.

No doubt about that.

However, that doesn't excuse the kind of smug, self-righteous 'we know better because the Bible tells us so' tone that can sometimes come across in their posts.

Sorry, but I have to speak as I find.

I can sympathise but sometimes Mudfrog's and Kaplan's posts appear to me to bristle with a righteous indignation which I can understand but ultimately find counter-productive.

For instance, I've said nothing here about bells, smells and cathedrals and yet I've been accused of snobbery and condescension.

Yet look at the condescending tone that Kaplan sometimes adopts towards Christians who don't share his particular interpretation and approach to the scriptures.

It boils down to, 'I'm biblical, you aren't ...' which sounds just as condescending as any approach that might say, 'I'm in the Church - Capital C - because I'm RC or Orthodox and you aren't ...'

Properly understood the sacraments (or ordinances if you prefer) have got diddly-squat to do with our own righteousness. Quite the opposite.

No-one's accusing the Brethren of thinking that they're saved by their own righteousness because they regularly break bread and celebrate the Lord's Supper in the way they understand it.

So why are more sacramentally inclined Christians accused of doing the same thing when they attend Mass, say or the Divine Liturgy?

It's a strawman.

Sure, there's a debate to be had and discussions to take place on the way that soteriology is understood in more sacramental settings and within less sacramentally-inclined and more evangelical ones.

And both sides can be guilty of judgementalism and Pharisaisism. No question at all about that.

It's as easy to be scathing about someone who 'prays the sinner's prayer' in all sincerity because that's the way things are done in the particular Christian tradition they've been exposed to as it is to be scathing about someone who receives the Mass in all sincerity but without a great deal of insight or theological understanding because that's how they've been brought up or that's the particular Christian tradition they've encountered in their context.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Here's a challenge for Mudfrog.

Show me anyone who believes that God's grace is only available through the sacraments and who restricts the operation of divine grace to those sacraments.

Go on.

Try to find someone.

I might believe that the best way to get to London from here is by train. That doesn't mean that it's not possible to drive, cycle or walk.
 

---

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I believe that the grace of God is available to all people at all times in all places. Total freedom of the Holy Spirit.

---

quote:

---

To restrict his operation to water or bread and wine is to blur the grace of God and to make it only avaulable when man provides it.

---

We don't restrict God in this fashion. Sorry to break it to you.
 

---

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
Grace is not like the oil pouring down Aaron's beard or an electric current that flows if you wire it up correctly and shorts if you don't. I'm not sure where that error first came from, but it is widespread, particularly among certain types of sub-Thomists and sub-Calvinists.

Grace describes part of God's personality, quite simply how he is.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
@Mousethief ... shhh ... don't say it too loudly otherwise Mudfrog and Kaplan might have to face the fact that there's nothing particularly distinctive about the apparent 'freedoms' of their own systems after all ...



More seriously, I do think there is a debate/discussion to be had here but on more substantial terms than we've been having so far where people are being accused of snobbery or else restricting the work of God the Holy Spirit to particular rituals and observances when nobody has actually been saying anything of the kind ...

Once we've cleared the strawmen out of the way there might actually be room for a proper discussion and debate.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Ah, Enoch, now you're getting into the 'energies/essence' thing which the Orthodox keep going on about and which I confess I don't particularly understand ...

But I think you're right about the way that grace is regarded in some places - almost as if it's some kind of tradeable commodity or some kind of 'force' that you can switch on and off.

Mind you, some people seem to regard God the Holy Spirit in the same way.

I don't think this is anything that is restricted to particular groups or traditions though - although I can see what you mean about sub-Thomists and sub-Calvinists.

I suspect that if we were all honest we'd all find examples of it at times in our own churches and theological systems and all too often within ourselves ...


 

---

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Ah, Enoch, now you're getting into the 'energies/essence' thing which the Orthodox keep going on about and which I confess I don't particularly understand ...

But I think you're right about the way that grace is regarded in some places - almost as if it's some kind of tradeable commodity or some kind of 'force' that you can switch on and off.

Mind you, some people seem to regard God the Holy Spirit in the same way.

I don't think this is anything that is restricted to particular groups or traditions though - although I can see what you mean about sub-Thomists and sub-Calvinists.

I suspect that if we were all honest we'd all find examples of it at times in our own churches and theological systems and all too often within ourselves ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Obviously I am pushing some of your more sensitive buttons to get such an overreaction, but I am not sure what they are.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Goodness me, Gamaliel, three (count’em) long posts in response to what I wrote.

I’m reminded of Neil Kinnock’s sobriquet, “the Welsh windbag”, which I could use because my own ancestry is Welsh and therefore it wouldn’t be racist, but which I won’t, look you, because it would be impolite.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
... Secondly, the beliefs that salvation is by grace alone by faith alone, and that Scripture is the highest source of revelation, is bog-standard, boilerplate evangelical Protestantism, which is why I am at a loss to understand why you find it offensive for evangelical Protestants to affirm them. ...

---

Is it actually any better theology to say that we are saved by grace alone or faith alone than to say that we are saved by receiving the sacraments?

This may sound a bit pedantic but I think it's important. We are saved because Christ died for our sins and rose again on the third day. Grace is a beautiful word that describes God's nature in saving us by what he does, not by what we do. But it is not grace that saves us. It is Jesus who saves us. He has grace. He is gracious. We love because he first loved us. Salvation is Christ-centric, not us-centric. It's not about me.

As for being saved by faith, it expresses an important concept. We are not Pelagians. We cannot work our way into heaven. We cannot turn up at the pearly gates and say 'look what I've done for you; now I want to claim my prize.' Yet all too often salvation by faith gets presented as though faith, or more specifically the right faith e.g. getting the words of the sinner's prayer right, is what saves us. That makes faith a work. It is turning up at the pearly gates and saying 'I've believe the right things ( sotto voce not like those people over there); now I want to claim my prize.'
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I admit that I can go on a bit but I don't think I was over-reacting at all.

Neither do I think there's anything wrong with evangelicals claiming that scripture is the highest form of revelation - providing they also acknowledge that what they often mean by this is that THEIR interpretation of scripture is the highest form of revelation ...



You're bright enough to understand the difference - he said condescendingly ...

The background to my remarks was an over-sensitive reaction on your own part - as far as my 'take' on the conversation so far goes ...

You accused me of snobbery and started banging on about some kind of Samoan Brethren Assembly with the implication that I'd somehow disapprove of such of thing ... without bothering to find out what my views actually are on the issue.

You appeared to make the assumption, erroneously, that I was making some kind of value judgement about the piety or spirituality of those Samoans when I was doing nothing of the kind.

I'm sorry, but I detect a vein of judgementalism in your posts - particularly directed towards those who don't share your particular bog-standard evangelical 'take' on things.

And of course, that cuts both ways as full-on sacramentalists like Ad Orientem can come across as having a similarly judgemental attitude in reverse.

And yes, I can be judgemental too. 'Who can discern his errors?'

For the record, I think it's axiomatic that evangelicals often have a very committed relationship with their local church and that some do have a fairly developed ecclesiology in theological terms. No question. I'm not saying anything here about whether people tithe or support their church financially or serve on committees or do this that and the other.

But it's equally axiomatic that the historic and more sacramental Churches generally have a more 'developed' or realised ecclesiology - sometimes expressed as the Church as the 'pillar and ground of truth' for goodness sake ...

That is the case irrespective of whether their adherents are fully engaged week by week or simply turn up at Christmas or Easter.

I was making a point about theological positions not about how well, how badly or how indifferently individuals work out their relationship with their local church.

I accept that you acknowledge RCs and Orthodox as fellow believers, even if you think they are 'wrong' about the sacraments.

Many of them would return you the same favour - although it's possible to find zealots and extremists who wouldn't.

I'm sure you would agree with me on the value of an instructive state of affairs I remember from my brief exposure to the Brethren in my late teens/early 20s.

A Brethren family I knew lived next door to a very devout RC family. They got on like a house on fire. The kids played together, they shared meals together - even went on holiday together at times.

The Brethren parents were in a quandary. Down at their assembly there'd be sermons denouncing the evils and errors of Rome. But when they got home and looked over their garden fence they saw people who clearly loved God and who, to all outward intents and purposes, didn't seem very different to themselves ...

I well remember one of the Brethren elders telling me that there was 'no salvation in the RC Church.' "Are they any more our brothers and sisters in Christ," he thundered, "Than the whore and the prostitute?"

None of the 'young people' at that assembly took much notice of that - and the Brethren family I knew carried on with their deep and fruitful friendship with their Catholic neighbours regardless.
 

---

Posted by Snags (# 15351) on :
 
Gamaliel wrote:

quote:

---

I well remember one of the Brethren elders telling me that there was 'no salvation in the RC Church.' "Are they any more our brothers and sisters in Christ," he thundered, "Than the whore and the prostitute?"

---

Now this, this is what I just don't get. It's not limited to any one denomination, group or whatever, but seems pretty common across all stripes for a little cohort somewhere.

How on earth can you claim to be a follower of Christ and reject "the whore and the prostitute" as beyond the pale? (And as an aside, how can you be so tautological?). Does the amount of time yer man spent knocking around with the self-same whores and assorted ne'er-do-wells in preference to the stuck-up, stand-offish, exclusive religious community not register at all? In the slightest?

I do get the attraction of "people like us" and the discomfort of "people like them", but ... for goodness sake.

I can type no more lest the profanity detector explode, as they're all lurking at my fingertips.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Well, yes ... Snags.

Even as a fresh-faced 19 year-old I did challenge him on this, 'Wasn't Jesus criticised by the Pharisees for keeping company with the whore and the prostitute, with tax-collectors and sinners?'

(And yes, I echoed his tautology in order to make a tacit point about that too. It's over-blown pietistic rhetoric of the worst kind).

To which the response was, 'Yes, but I was meaning in terms of them being our brothers and sisters in Christ ... I'm not saying that we should distance ourselves from sinners ...'



At any rate, taking up a point of Enoch's, in fairness, I've yet to come across any evangelicals - even of the most fundamentalist variety - who have been fixated with the particular form of words used in 'the sinner's prayer'.

I've yet to hear one say, 'You missed a comma out there ...' or 'you missed this particular word out in that part ...'

It's not so much the form of words that evangelicals emphasise as the experience/condition that the prayer is meant to convey.

I wouldn't consider myself a bog-standard evangelical anymore - if indeed there is such a thing - but neither would I consider myself a bog-standard sacramentalist - if indeed there is such a thing as that either.

But I certainly wouldn't dismiss the very real and life-changing experiences that people who go in for the 'sinner's prayer' undoubtedly have.

I can't see why it can't be a 'means of grace' - to borrow a Calvinistic phrase - in the same way as other actions/ordinations can be ... whether it's participating in the Lord's Supper or communion, listening to sermons, singing hymns, serving one's neighbour or whatever else.

And I don't see that as incompatible to my increasingly more 'sacramental' view of things ...

To come back at Kaplan, I don't see how the 'sacraments' - to put inverted commas around them as he did - are any more 'wrong' (as he put it) as anything else we might do.

All these things are Mysteries and who am I to set myself up as judge and jury as to whether they are 'effective' or not?

I do believe that sacraments can be effective, but I don't believe they are 'magic' - any more than I think the 'sinner's prayer' is 'magic'.

Regularly dispensing the sacraments week by week never stopped paedophile priests from being paedophile priests any more than the saying of the 'sinner's prayer' and use of evangelical terminology and theology ever prevented any evangelical who has gone off the rails from going off the rails ...

I don't pretend to understand how these things work. I'd no more pontificate about the extent to which grace may or may not be operating in a Samoan Brethren assembly than I would about the extent to which it is or isn't operating at Ad Orientem's Orthodox parish.

I don't take a 'mechanistic' view of these things and even the term 'operating' feels wrong to me i this context.
 

---

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
If anyone suggests that salvation, entry into the Body of Christ depends upon water baptism, then that is restricting the grace of God to being operative ordinarily only through the sacrament.
 

---

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

I believe that the grace of God is available to all people at all times in all places. Total freedom of the Holy Spirit.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
If anyone suggests that salvation, entry into the Body of Christ depends upon water baptism, then that is restricting the grace of God to being operative ordinarily only through the sacrament.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
We are bound by them? No way.

That's a Pharisee talking - and is also the Church's way of controlling us.

Grace is received ordinarily by faith - often helped by sacraments, and also without their use.

---

Poo poo! Why then did our Lord found a Church and instruct us to be baptised and to partake of his body and blood if it's neither here nor there? So that we can all hold hands together and sing Kumbaya and listen to long boring sermons? Or could it possibly be so that we might know where to go in order to be saved?

[ 07. November 2014, 18:59: Message edited by: Ad Orientem ]
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Rather than our way of controlling the church?



It's a both/and not an either/or thing.

These things are Mysteries.

One can be just as Pharisaical about not having sacraments as one can be about using them.

(not that I'm accusing Mudfrog of being a Pharisee, of course).
 

---

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
That story works for you Ad Orientem. It doesn't translate.
 

---

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
That story works for you Ad Orientem. It doesn't translate.

---

Get a translator then, innit.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Goodness knows, and I think Mudfrog does too - that I have some sympathy with his view about the divisiveness that can accompany a more sacramental approach ...

Arguments as to what does or doesn't constitute a valid sacrament ... arguments about whose sacraments are valid and whose aren't ...

And so on. So, yes, I can completely understand why the Christian Mission/Salvation Army might be tempted to 'cut to the chase' and emphasise other aspects - without dismissing the validity or efficacy of sacraments as practiced by anyone else.

You won't hear Mudfrog criticising anyone for finding a sacramental approach helpful, for instance.

However - I suppose I am in something of a half-way house position between the kind of position Mudfrog takes and the one that Ad Orientem adopts - which seems pretty rigid and inflexible at times.

After all, these things are often applied inconsistently and raise all sorts of issues.

Where do we draw the line?

For instance, I don't hear that many sacramentalist types going around saying that Mudfrog's or Kaplan's marriages are somehow 'invalid' because, persumably, they've taken place outside of one of the historic, more sacramental Churches.

Nor do I hear those who would regard marriage as one of the sacraments denying that Hindus or Muslims aren't properly married because they weren't married according to a Christian ceremony or polity.

I know that's a different issue - but it's not unrelated.

Which is why I'm very squeamish about claims that this, that or the other ceremony or sacrament is more 'valid' than another ...

I can understand why Ad Orientem insists on his particular understanding of the Church and sacraments and I don't think there's anything more reprehensible about that than there is with an evangelical insisting on a particular understanding of soteriology - for instance.

Each has to hold to their own convictions.

However ... it's when it gets into value-judgements about this, that or the other group or approach that I begin to feel uncomfortable.

I don't know whether there's any answer to that or whether I simply have to get used to feeling uncomfortable - from whichever side these things come.
 

---

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
Here's a 3-part question:

If you attend a service with Holy Communion and the next service you attend has no communion provided, at which service is God more fully present?

At which service is the grace of God most available.

At which service does the Holy Spirit minister more powerfully?
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
With respect, Mudfrog, those are not the sort of questions I'd ask.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
A belief that grace can be conveyed through holy communion or any other sacrament - or ordinance if you prefer - in no wise implies that grace isn't available by any other means nor that the omnipresent God is somehow less omnispresent at some times rather than others.

I'm not Orthodox, but I like the Orthodox emphasis on God being 'present everywhere and ... fillest all things.'

The questions you are asking sound very binary to me - the products of the same kind of mechanistic thinking that some less-sacramentally inclined Christians accuse more sacramentally-inclined Christians of having.

Bluntly, they are the sort of questions someone might ask if they didn't really understand the issues involved ...


 

---

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :
 
I, at least, never said that God does not work outside of the Church and its sacraments. All I said was that these are the ordinary means of salvation. And as Gamaliel has said, quite frankly you're asking the wrong questions Mudfrog. What I am saying is that God founded the Church - a visible Church with visible signs of grace, that is, the sacraments - so that we might know where to go in order to be saved. As an Orthodox Christian (and I think I can speak for Roman Catholics too) we believe that God is not bound by the sacraments but we however are because we know of no other means. If God does save anyone by some extraordinary means then that is his business alone, but we have no sure knowledge of that, only that being almighty he is able to.
 

---

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
I, at least, never said that God does not work outside of the Church and its sacraments. All I said was that these are the ordinary means of salvation. And as Gamaliel has said, quite frankly you're asking the wrong questions Mudfrog. What I am saying is that God founded the Church - a visible Church with visible signs of grace, that is, the sacraments - so that we might know where to go in order to be saved. As an Orthodox Christian (and I think I can speak for Roman Catholics too) we believe that God is not bound by the sacraments but we however are because we know of no other means. If God does save anyone by some extraordinary means then that is his business alone, but we have no sure knowledge of that, only that being almighty he is able to.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
If anyone suggests that salvation, entry into the Body of Christ depends upon water baptism, then that is restricting the grace of God to being operative ordinarily only through the sacrament.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Goodness knows, and I think Mudfrog does too - that I have some sympathy with his view about the divisiveness that can accompany a more sacramental approach ...

---

quote:

---

Which is why I'm very squeamish about claims that this, that or the other ceremony or sacrament is more 'valid' than another ...

---

quote:

---

However ... it's when it gets into value-judgements about this, that or the other group or approach that I begin to feel uncomfortable.

---

quote:

---

I'm not Orthodox, but I like the Orthodox emphasis on God being 'present everywhere and ... fillest all things.'

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
All I am saying is that it is the Holy Spirit who gives life and he does not need the sacraments or require the sacraments to bring someone into salvation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Yes, I strongly suspect that snobbery, a tendency to major on cultural style rather than engage with theological substance, is an element in the Ship's general anti-evangelicalism, but I don't see you as an exemplar of it.

---

In what dictionary is "snobbery" defined as "majoring in style rather than substance"?
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I wasn't saying it was 'low', Jengie - the reference to 'low' was a reference to the particular flavour of revivalism that Mudfrog espouses - not to more Reformed approaches.

What I was doing was using an example of a 'revival' - Cambuslang in the 1740s - which had a strongly 'sacramental' (or 'ordinance') element at the heart of it - although this wouldn't have been regarded in RC or Orthodox sacramentalist terms of course.

What I was doing was contrasting Reformed responses with certain Arminian revivalist ones - and using an example of a Protestant approach rather than an RC or Orthodox one.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Ok - thanks for the clarification, Kaplan and apologies if I got the wrong end of the stick and misinterpreted the point you were making.

I can see what you're getting at and have some sympathy with the stand-point you've expressed. I think, though, that a lot of the apparent 'snobbery' towards evangelicalism on the Ship is often a bit of a pose ... it's a bit of a trope, an 'in-joke' ...

I've certainly known some Shippies who mock aspects of evangelicalism and evangelical practice go on to express admiration for individual evangelicals and other facets of evangelicalism.

I can see what you mean but don't think that the Ship is a one-track evangelical-bashing board. There are other boards around that certainly do go in for that. I don't think this is one of them.

I've heard RCs and others claim that the Ship is 'anti' their particular scene too - so it's not an accusation that is restricted to evangelicals.

My own take is that the Ship is pretty broad overall - yet within a particular framework which inclines towards the more liberal side of things. Both/and ... see?

Fundies of various stripes get short shrift.

I think that the Orthies sometimes get away with more than they deserve - but it's not as if they can't be self-critical. If you visit an Orthodox discussion site where they are squabbling and debating among themselves you'll see what I mean.

It makes Hell here on the Ship look like a Sunday school tea party.

Be all that as it may, I take your point about the aesthetic aspects ... and I'll be honest, it's that aspect of evangelicalism that can grate most irritatingly with me ... which is why I find our local evangelical Anglican parish difficult to attend regularly even though I admire the work it does in the community and with young people etc etc.

I think evangelical ecclesiology may be fuel for another thread and it would be interesting to consider it independently of the aesthetic dimension ... if possible.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Meanwhile, @ Mousethief ...

I understood what Kaplan was getting at, even if he used 'snobbery' in a way that might not be consistent with some dictionary definitions.

There's more to snobbery than considering style over substance but there's an element of that in there - which is the point he was making.

To borrow a Hostly phrase, 'stop stirring'!

On the 'value judgement' thing - yes, I understand the Orthodox position and know that it doesn't necessarily imply a value judgement on the way anyone else does things - but it doesn't always come across that way. Which is why, I suspect, some of us get rubbed up the wrong way by the Orthodox at times.

But the clue is in the title, of course, if you are the 'Orthodox Church' then its axiomatic that this implies that other churches might not be quite so orthodox ...

In a similar way that if a church calls itself 'Blogg Street Evangelical Church' it's implying that other churches in the area might not be quite so evangelical as they are ...

It can be quite difficult to disentangle particular convictions from value judgements about the validity or otherwise of positions adopted by other groups.

On the 'sliding scale' thing - yes, I can see what you are getting at. I'm not saying I'm right or wrong. Simply acknowledging that I feel uncomfortable about one group or another claiming to be the One True Catholic and Apostolic Church ... I may be wrong to feel uncomfortable about it.

But I do.

It's part of my Protestant spiritual DNA.

I can't help that. I would have to consciously get rid of it somehow or play it down were I to become Orthodox - but that wouldn't be an easy thing to do. These things are strongly entrenched with some o us, as you will know and appreciate.
 

---

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Gamaliel, I'm well aware that MT is American and even that be believes in the state church idea much less than many in the 'Religious Right' over there. That's why I'm having some trouble with his constant objecting to what I say about it myself!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
But the clue is in the title, of course, if you are the 'Orthodox Church' then its axiomatic that this implies that other churches might not be quite so orthodox ...

---

quote:

---

In a similar way that if a church calls itself 'Blogg Street Evangelical Church' it's implying that other churches in the area might not be quite so evangelical as they are ...

---

quote:

---

On the 'sliding scale' thing - yes, I can see what you are getting at. I'm not saying I'm right or wrong. Simply acknowledging that I feel uncomfortable about one group or another claiming to be the One True Catholic and Apostolic Church ... I may be wrong to feel uncomfortable about it.

But I do.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
In a similar way that if a church calls itself 'Blogg Street Evangelical Church' it's implying that other churches in the area might not be quite so evangelical as they are ...

---

I don't see that at all. It just means a bunch of Evangelicals built a church on Blogg Street and named their church after the street, and described their theology in the name of the church. I think you're reading far more into it than is really there.

---

What Mousethief said. You seem to be projecting there, Gamaliel. Surely we can't go around being THAT suspicious of other Christian churches, whether they're to our taste or not?

Despite the considerable differences between myself, an evangelical Protestant, and Orthodox/Roman Catholic theology, I don't think that my Orthodox/Catholic brethren and sistren are being exclusive, reactionary, what-have-you, etc. when all they're really doing is proclaiming "we are what it says on the tin."

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Does not our unity in Christ when we worship together not prove that here is the Body of Christ?

Who serves my Father as a son is surely kin to me?

---

Yep, I believe so.

[ 10. November 2014, 11:44: Message edited by: Laurelin ]
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I rather think that both Mousethief and Laurelin have read rather too much into my Blogg Street Evangelical Church analogy than I intended.

I was simply making a point about how what we call ourselves is a clue to the theology we hold.

I wasn't being 'suspicious' about the putative Blogg Street Evangelical Church any more than I'm 'suspicious' about my nearest Orthodox parish or Mudfrog's Salvation Army corps.

I don't think I expressed myself properly, hence the confusion.

Meanwhile, Mousethief seems to have confused several threads ... if I'm not mistaken (it might be me who is confused) he's quoting Steve Langton from a different thread ...

On the thing about squeamishness about particular groups calling themselves the One True Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church ... yes, I still feel squeamish about that even though I understand what they mean by it. That may reflect more upon me than it does upon them, of course.

I know what Mousethief is trying to say with the kilogram analogy - but both the RCs and the Orthodox would claim to have the definitive 'kilogram' in terms of the apostolic deposit ...

They can't both be right.

Or can they?

How do we know that the Orthodox have the right 'kilogram' as opposed to the RC 'kilogram'?

Equally, though, on the unity of faith thing - well, yes, Mudfrog's example holds to an extent - all those various clergy and ministers at the Remembrance Day Service were Christians of one sort of another ... and yes, they were united in that collective worship and act of remembrance.

But watch what would happen if Mudfrog tried to take communion at the RC priest's church next Sunday or ...
 

---

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I was simply making a point about how what we call ourselves is a clue to the theology we hold.

---

quote:

---

In a similar way that if a church calls itself 'Blogg Street Evangelical Church' it's implying that other churches in the area might not be quite so evangelical as they are ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Meanwhile, Mousethief seems to have confused several threads ... if I'm not mistaken (it might be me who is confused) he's quoting Steve Langton from a different thread ...

---

quote:

---

I know what Mousethief is trying to say with the kilogram analogy - but both the RCs and the Orthodox would claim to have the definitive 'kilogram' in terms of the apostolic deposit ...

---

quote:

---

They can't both be right.

Or can they?

---

quote:

---

How do we know that the Orthodox have the right 'kilogram' as opposed to the RC 'kilogram'?

---

quote:

---

Equally, though, on the unity of faith thing - well, yes, Mudfrog's example holds to an extent - all those various clergy and ministers at the Remembrance Day Service were Christians of one sort of another ... and yes, they were united in that collective worship and act of remembrance.

But watch what would happen if Mudfrog tried to take communion at the RC priest's church next Sunday or ...

---

They were united about the remembrance being celebrated. It's a grave mistake to think they were united about anything else. They may have been, but their being united concerning the remembrance doesn't demonstrate that. It's a matter of drawing more conclusion than the evidence can support.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Sure, which can apply equally to me with my point about Blogg Street Evangelical Church as it does to some of the conclusions you're reached about the Orthodox as opposed to the RCC - and vice-versa ...

But yes, I take your point. Mudfrog's nice warm ecumenical feeling may or may not have been an appropriate reaction and does not - in and of itself - demonstrate that there is more unity there than meets the eye.

I'd like to think Mudfrog was right, though ... but then that's me being all Anglican and wishy-washy ...



Back to the Blogg Street thing - ok, I was back-tracking to a certain extent ('and if it hadn't been for that pesky Thieving Rodent I might have gotten away with it ...')

But no - look at this way.

A bunch of evangelicals calling their church Blogg Street Evangelical Church certainly doesn't imply that they don't believe that anyone else in the area is as evangelical as they are - but there are certainly making a theological statement. They are saying, 'You might well be an evangelical Christian somewhere else but this is what we are majoring on here - the clue is in the title.'

They would be if they simply called it Blogg Street Church. Someone might say, 'What? Are you saying that my church on Mogg Street isn't really a church?'

So, to that extent, it is analogous to the Orthodox Church calling itself the Orthodox Church. 'We don't know about you, but as far as we're concerned we have the right to call ourselves the Orthodox Church and to act appropriately in accordance with that ...'

Which is a fair point to make if that's what they believe.
 

---

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
Erm... Mudfrog did not just have a nice ecumenical feeling and neither was he and the priest with whom he sat merely united in the act of remembrance.

We joined in the same prayers, sang the same hymns, listened to the same Epistle and Gospel; The good Father listened to my sermon and we sat together in a church not our own and worshipped the same Lord Jesus Christ in the unity of the Spirit.

I do take the point though that had I knelt at his communion rail he would have passed by and denied the bread and the wine to me.

[ 11. November 2014, 22:15: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I can't speak for the Orthodox here, Mudfrog, but I'm not questioning, challenging or contradicting the following ...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
We joined in the same prayers, sang the same hymns, listened to the same Epistle and Gospel; The good Father listened to my sermon and we sat together in a church not our own and worshipped the same Lord Jesus Christ in the unity of the Spirit.

---

What I would say, though, as you've identified, is that things would have been different if you'd knelt at the communion rail the following Sunday in the priest's church ...

Hang on a minute ... do RCs kneel at the communion rail? I thought they stood to receive communion and that in one 'kind' ...



I'm not sure of the extent that we can or can't tell whether we are sharing in the 'unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace' - I'd like to think we can but have no 'objective' way of assessing whether or not this is the case. I don't think it's one of those things that we can subject to laboratory analysis as it were ...

That said, I do think that there are times when one 'senses' or recognises a depth of 'connection' or fellowship that goes beyond the fact that we all share a common humanity. I've certainly felt on 'the same page' as it were with RCs and Orthodox when I've joined them for their worship - despite not being 'formally' linked with their respective Churches in an organisational sense.

The RCs and the Orthodox would like to define things more rigorously and robustly than that. I don't think they'd have an issue - most of them - with recognising thee or me as fellow Christians and followers of Christ.

But that doesn't mean they would view us as being in the Church (capital C) as they understand it.

It's easy to get upset or offended by this, but we have to recognise that they are defining things differently and more 'precisely' in some ways - and aren't necesssarily casting aspersions on our individual status as believers or followers of Christ.

It still makes for an inevitable awkwardness, though, however we cut it.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I should clarify that yes, the RCs do receive communion in 'both kinds' too but often they simply receive the Host.
 

---

© Ship of Fools 2016


UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0