Posted                         

quote:

---

Somebody wake the OP'r up...posted once, left.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by pete173:
OK - here's the deal. We in the UK will lay off Sydney if you'll take back Oak Hill and all its works and give us back what used to be a half decent vicar factory.

---

How many half decent vicars have you ordained, then?

--------------------
'The best thing we can do is to make wherever we're lost in Look as much like home as we can'

Christopher Fry

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by pete173:
OK - here's the deal. We in the UK will lay off Sydney if you'll take back Oak Hill and all its works and give us back what used to be a half decent vicar factory.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Charles Read:


Black clergy round the back

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by RooK:
Is to "path someone on the head" at all similar to braining them with with a pick-axe?

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:

quote:

---

Originally posted by RooK:
Is to "path someone on the head" at all similar to braining them with with a pick-axe?

---

Psycho-path.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by RooK:
Is to "path someone on the head" at all similar to braining them with with a pick-axe?

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
Or are you into 5 second passions?

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johann:
I wish people would back off the Anglican diocese of Sydney, just because we follow sound biblical doctrine and not the world!

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johann:
I wish people would back off the Anglican diocese of Sydney, just because we follow sound biblical doctrine and not the world!

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Divine Outlaw-Dwarf:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johann:
I wish people would back off the Anglican diocese of Sydney, just because we follow sound biblical doctrine and not the world!

---

Oh silly me, I've been following the world all these years. I see the error of my ways.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by linzc:
You have to admit 'sound' is one of those words. The minute I hear someone talking about doctrine being 'sound' I start to itch violently.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally bullshitted by Zwingli*:
Of course "politically sound" is the opposite of "politically correct" so "sound doctrine" is the opposite of... ?

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr_ricarno:

quote:

---

Originally posted by linzc:
You have to admit 'sound' is one of those words. The minute I hear someone talking about doctrine being 'sound' I start to itch violently.

---

Yes! So I'm not the only one who feels the need to garott (sp?) anyone who ever asks me that fatal question - 'is it sound teaching'?

Something about it, there's something about it...

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by pete173:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Charles Read:


Black clergy round the back

---

Well, it is in the Edmonton Area.

---

--------------------
insert amusing sig. here

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by pete173:
OK - here's the deal. We in the UK will lay off Sydney if you'll take back Oak Hill and all its works and give us back what used to be a half decent vicar factory.

---

OK I feel someone needs to defend poor Johann!

Here's my problem, it's supposedly the height of naivete(spl?) and newbie ignorance to claim that only one group of Christians follows 'sound' doctrine, and yet it's fine to imply Oak Hill is no longer a 'decent vicar factory' as pete 173 so charmingly put it"? Liberal (TM - ha ha ha NOT) Christians are upset about being considered 'sub-christians' as someone put it, and yet apparently are quite happy to sneer at Evangelical Christians by making assertions like pete173's.

The fact is, and (since this is Hell I might aswell anger some of you ), that 'sound' doctrine refers to doctrine that is based on biblical teaching. Now obviously alot of non-Evangelicals get upset about this since they find much biblical teaching rather problematic since it goes against their own liberal convictions and outlook on the world. So why not ignore certain passages that have been accepted for millenia? Great idea lets modernise! Oh no but damn, there's some bloody Evangelical Christian thickos that actually believe in this stuff, bollocks! And some of them not only believe in the nice bits like 'God is love', but also some scary things like Hell and Marriage!! How we pity those poor fools, do they not realise the cultural context bla bla bla..

And I'm tired of hearing all this 'tradition' and 'reason' bollocks from non-Evangelicals..find me the scripture in the Bible to support this please? 'Tradition' and 'Reason' are blatant excuses that non-Evangelicals have come up with to legitimise all the paraphanelia and sometimes unbiblical stuff they or society comes up with. Doesn't Paul warn us about the philosophies of this world? The reason and tradition and philosphoies of this world are attacking the Church and non-Christians alike as never before. Now of course that isn't to say non-Evangelicals aren't Christians, but I would say many non-Evangelcals are allowing themselves to be misguided by modern societies attitudes to life, a well-meaning attempt to appeal to non-Christians. But how far should this go, where does it stop? It's a slippery slope my friends....

OK so Johann could have padded out his post to form a bit more of an argument, I guess I did it for him! Come on toast me someone, like Mclurker said we evangelicals like nothing better than to suffer for Jesus By the way I love you all in Jesus, kiss kiss

--------------------
Genesis 29:20
So Jacob served seven years to get Rachel, but they seemed like only a few days to him because of his love for her.

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by philo25:
The fact is, and (since this is Hell I might aswell anger some of you ), that 'sound' doctrine refers to doctrine that is based on biblical teaching. Now obviously alot of non-Evangelicals get upset about this since they find much biblical teaching rather problematic since it goes against their own liberal convictions and outlook on the world. So why not ignore certain passages that have been accepted for millenia? Great idea lets modernise! Oh no but damn, there's some bloody Evangelical Christian thickos that actually believe in this stuff, bollocks! And some of them not only believe in the nice bits like 'God is love', but also some scary things like Hell and Marriage!! How we pity those poor fools, do they not realise the cultural context bla bla bla..

---

quote:

---

And I'm tired of hearing all this 'tradition' and 'reason' bollocks from non-Evangelicals..find me the scripture in the Bible to support this please? 'Tradition' and 'Reason' are blatant excuses that non-Evangelicals have come up with to legitimise all the paraphanelia and sometimes unbiblical stuff they or society comes up with.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:

---

Originally bullshitted by Zwingli*:
Of course "politically sound" is the opposite of "politically correct" so "sound doctrine" is the opposite of... ?

---

Since not calling Asians "Wogs" is Politically Correct, can we assume that you think that it is Politically Sound to do so?

Or is this this other version of PC, which means "any daft statement that I can't be argued to actually argue against so I will flippantly refer to as "politically correct" in order to avoid any real thought process being necessary"?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
[QUOTE]That's right, philo25. We're just making it up as we go along. I wonder why we just don't quit the church altogether and leave you to it. Must be because it's gotten so dang hard to get brunch reservations on Sunday mornings, so we may as well go to church.

..If you don't like tradition, then you should quit the Anglican Communion, and if you don't like reason, you should ... Well, you obviously wouldn't know reason if it rose up and smote you between the eyes, would you?

---

All I was saying is that non-Evangelicals are happy to laugh/sneer at Evangelicals and suggest that a college like Oak Hill nowadays produces substandard vicars, but are outraged if they're accused of not sticking to the Bible. Double-standards if you ask me

As for tradition, well there's nothing wrong with it per se, but lets not celebrate that more than the whole point of Church, which is surely Jesus?
I don't want to quit the Anglican church since I rather like the church I'm at thank you. That it's CofE is by the by. It doesn't get more excited about smells and bells and gay vicars etc than the preaching of the Gospel Like I said, tradition is fine, but lets remember what the real point of Church is eh? I was responding to a post that argued that Tradition and Reason were equal in authority to the Bible, but I feel the Bible encapsulates all the traditon and reason that we need as a Church. I was just getting tired of this non-Evangelical concensus regarding Evangelicals that I come across so often on these threads, I felt it neded a little combating with some stereotypes of my own to illustrate the point I am sorry about all the ructions in Sydney and I think things could have been handled better, but this anti-Jensen tirade was getting a little carried away with itself I thought, into a general anti-Evangelical rant. Jensen and his people may be a little rude and undiplomatic but that doesn't mean Evangelical Christianity is therefore laughable etc. I mean in New Westminster dicoese in Canada churches that don't agree with same sex blessings are being kicked out by the Bishop there, does that mean non-Evangelical Christianity in general is oppresive and stupid etc etc? I just felt the thread required a little more balance regarding these issues (Blimey I much preferered writing my last post since I used words like bollocks in it

--------------------
Genesis 29:20
So Jacob served seven years to get Rachel, but they seemed like only a few days to him because of his love for her.

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by dyfrig:
Stand up, stand up for Jensen
ye soldiers of the south;
an instrument of torture -
I wish he'd shut his mouth.
He speaks of male headship
and isn't keen on queers;
he doesn't like the Carthlicks,
and won't respect his peers.

Stand up, stand up for Jensen,
he's really, really great,
so long as you hate Evensong,
so long as you love hate.
His brother runs St Andrews,
his nephew runs the schools,
his wife's in charge of women.
He must think we're all fools.

Stand up, stand up for Jensen,
he's got us by the balls -
he knows he's got the money,
the power and the Word.
His trinity is Father,
Bible, OHP;
his version of the Articles
makes Newman look PC.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Try:

quote:

---

Originally posted by dyfrig:
Stand up, stand up for Jensen
ye soldiers of the south;
an instrument of torture -
I wish he'd shut his mouth.
He speaks of male headship
and isn't keen on queers;
he doesn't like the Carthlicks,
and won't respect his peers.

Stand up, stand up for Jensen,
he's really, really great,
so long as you hate Evensong,
so long as you love hate.
His brother runs St Andrews,
his nephew runs the schools,
his wife's in charge of women.
He must think we're all fools.

Stand up, stand up for Jensen,
he's got us by the balls -
he knows he's got the money,
the power and the Word.
His trinity is Father,
Bible, OHP;
his version of the Articles
makes Newman look PC.

---

[delurks]
I really, really love this. It's very funny- and biting as well- reminds me of Erasmus.

---

Oh dear Try you're so easily pleased

OK some if it's funny , but the Trinity bit?! And the 'so long as you love hate' bit - slightly OTT for my tastes.


--------------------
Genesis 29:20
So Jacob served seven years to get Rachel, but they seemed like only a few days to him because of his love for her.

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by philo25:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Try:

quote:

---

Originally posted by dyfrig:
Stand up, stand up for Jensen
ye soldiers of the south;
an instrument of torture -
I wish he'd shut his mouth.
He speaks of male headship
and isn't keen on queers;
he doesn't like the Carthlicks,
and won't respect his peers.

Stand up, stand up for Jensen,
he's really, really great,
so long as you hate Evensong,
so long as you love hate.
His brother runs St Andrews,
his nephew runs the schools,
his wife's in charge of women.
He must think we're all fools.

Stand up, stand up for Jensen,
he's got us by the balls -
he knows he's got the money,
the power and the Word.
His trinity is Father,
Bible, OHP;
his version of the Articles
makes Newman look PC.

---

[delurks]
I really, really love this. It's very funny- and biting as well- reminds me of Erasmus.

---

Oh dear Try you're so easily pleased

OK some if it's funny , but the Trinity bit?! And the 'so long as you love hate' bit - slightly OTT for my tastes.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

philo:
Now obviously alot of non-Evangelicals get upset about this since they find much biblical teaching rather problematic since it goes against their own liberal convictions and outlook on the world.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by philo25:

quote:

---

Originally posted by pete173:
OK - here's the deal. We in the UK will lay off Sydney if you'll take back Oak Hill and all its works and give us back what used to be a half decent vicar factory.

---

<snip> Liberal (TM - ha ha ha NOT) Christians are upset about being considered 'sub-christians' as someone put it, and yet apparently are quite happy to sneer at Evangelical Christians by making assertions like pete173's.
<big snip to remove more bleating>

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cranmer's baggage:
The use of Scripture as a blunt instrument with which to beat the people of God into submission was shown to be a bankrupt approach in the 17th Century. Why does a subset of Evangelical Anglicanism wish to reinstitute the practice now?

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cranmer's baggage:
Pete173 is an evangelical

---

quote:

---

The Sydney approach represents one of several strands of evangelicalism in the Anglican tradition - notably, Puritanism. It resonates well with those outside the Anglican tradition who align themselves with the broader Calvinist/Reformed tradition. For other evangelicals, who trace their heritage to the Wesleyan holiness movement, or to the English 16th Century reformers (e.g. Cranmer, Latimer, Ridley), it doesn't sit nearly as well.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Coot (Such a nice boy):

quote:

---

philo:
Now obviously alot of non-Evangelicals get upset about this since they find much biblical teaching rather problematic since it goes against their own liberal convictions and outlook on the world.

---

I think this is a strawman-ish fundamental misunderstanding of what liberalism is about...

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cranmer's baggage:
Pete173 is an evangelical

---

although strangely, from his posts you'd never be able to tell.

quote:

---

The Sydney approach represents one of several strands of evangelicalism in the Anglican tradition - notably, Puritanism. It resonates well with those outside the Anglican tradition who align themselves with the broader Calvinist/Reformed tradition. For other evangelicals, who trace their heritage to the Wesleyan holiness movement, or to the English 16th Century reformers (e.g. Cranmer, Latimer, Ridley), it doesn't sit nearly as well.

---

The thing is CB, I think you have a point. It is beyond me why anyone with convictions such as my own would want to stay in the C of E. However, if you genuinely do want to be a broad church, then you too have to appreciate the broadness, insteasd of just telling others to. You even need to appreciate the broadness that includes those who don't appreciate it themsleves. I think, as far as I can tell, that is what the C of E is all about.

I was a little bit confused by what you said though. I have heard several Oak Hill types (which, AFAICS is quite a different kettle of fish from the whole Sydney "experiment", so I thought Pete was being a bit unfair) say their heritage is Cranmer, Latimer etc - sticking up for a conservative view of the Scriptures, and of God in the established church, wheareas my position as a "dissenter" is much more like that of the Puritans. Who I mostly think are quite great, and much misrepresented so I don't mind.
Anyway, is that view wrong?

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by pete173:
Those of us who stand in the tradition of Cranmer, Hooker and Jewell can point you to the reasons why we believe in an Anglicanism that is founded on sola scriptura, but is also sacramental, believes the presbyteral ministry of women to be scriptural, and is not obsessed with propositionalism as the hermeneutical key to scripture.

---

quote:

---

It's now the preserve of anticharismatics (try being a charismatic there; it's murder)

---

Oh dear, poor ickle charismatics. Pity there's no charismatic training colleges in the C of E for them to go to.

quote:

---

We need a good college in London to which we can send our ordinands. Oak Hill ain't it.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Sorry, I really am ignorant of Anglican church history here. It was my understanding that the Puritans left the C of E, which was their big disagreement with Cranmer et al, who stayed to reform it from within. Which is what I have heard conservative evangelicals say they are wanting to do.

---

There were Puritans who left the CofE. There were some Puritans who did not leave the CofE, but put up with it, grumbling, hoping to reform it further from within. But history and other church circumstances (like that little episode with Cromwell) eventually meant they died out. These Puritans saw their mission as continuing the process of Reform; Cranmer and co hadn't gone far enough, and in their eyes compromised terribly on doctrinal issues.

Although there is a 400 year gap, the Jensens see themselves as the inheritors of this tradition. Which I might add, is not "Anglican" in the sense of what "Anglican" came to mean by the end of the reign of Elizabeth 1, still less what it was by the beginning of the 18thC or later. The belief system and values, theology and sociology of the Jensens have more in common with Cromwell and his iconoclasm, than with other eras of Anglican church history.



[ 05. June 2004, 12:32: Message edited by: Nunc Dimittis ]

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Divine Outlaw-Dwarf:
Leprechaun, are you an Anglican?

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by philo25:


And I'm tired of hearing all this 'tradition' and 'reason' bollocks from non-Evangelicals..find me the scripture in the Bible to support this please?

---

Now, children, do we know what a circular argument is?

--------------------
insert amusing sig. here