|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Preaching the gospel to Roman Catholics
|
Gordon Cheng
a child on sydney harbour
# 8895
|
Posted
Hi GreyFace,
I'm sorry for overlooking your question earlier. There are some shipmates I deliberately ignore, but you're not one of them. You have just dropped into the pond of my vagueness.
No, I'm not a universalist. Actually I have to say that talking with you on these boards has helped me with this, because I would really like to be, and seeing that you are has made me think about whether I could be. It is a position that is so obviously right and attractive (to me anyway) that I wish I could hold it. But I know that Judas, at least, is in hell, and there seems to be more than one person there, and they seem to come from more than one non-Israelite nation. So logic forces me to say that there are at least three people in hell, and I very much fear that there may be many more.
OK, to business. How can I have full and complete assurance? Only because of the work of the Lord Jesus on the cross.
Now if you are asking the question as a psychological question, I can't answer. When Alzheimer's catches me I can see myself sitting in a nursing home, smiling happily at the world, and totally blank to anything, anyone, and any concept. I see myself like my grandfather, so that when someone says "do you believe that Jesus has covered your sins and that you will be with him forever in heaven?" my answer will be something along the lines of "Oh yes, yes, jolly good, thank you Timothy".
But if you ask the question theologically, then the answer is that Jesus is Lord over all, and he is Lord of my salvation. Nothing and no-one can separate me from the love that is in Jesus Christ my Lord. Romans 8 and all.
--------------------
Latest on blog: those were the days...; throwing up; clerical abuse; biddulph on child care
Posts: 4392 | From: Sydney, Australia | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nunc Dimittis
Seamstress of Sound
# 848
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
quote:
Originally posted by Duo Seraphim:
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
I am not Catholic bashing, I am answering questions on a thread not started by me but dealing with some very important theological differences between Romanism and biblical Christianity.
You have yet to explain what those differences are.
Not so, Duo. But if you think the differences don't matter, let's have a straight answer from you. The Bible teaches, and therefore I believe, that full and complete assurance of salvation from God's judgement is possible now, on the basis of the free gift of righteousness given once for all by Jesus in his death on the cross.
Round and round the mulberry bush we go. How many times have we debated whether the Bible ACTUALLY proclaims this so-called assurance of salvation?
Catholics (and plenty of the rest of us) see the doctrine of assurance as the most presumptuous thing going. And therefore an incorrect reading of Scripture.
quote:
This free gift is laid hold of by faith alone, and is given completely without regard to any good work done by me in the past, at the present time, or indeed at any stage of my life on earth. This assurance is the sole basis of Christian hope. Neither our assurance nor our hope are in any way related to works done after we place our faith in Christ.
I'm thinking that this is not what Roman Catholicism teaches. True?
True. Your approach tries to put God in a box. God is infinitely beyond the confines of the little boxes we try to construct for God.
Have you bothered to read the RCC/Lutheran joint statement on Justification by Faith?
No right thinking Catholic would deny that salvation is the free gift of God, and that we enter that mystery by faith (which is a gift appropriated by the (God-inspired) act of having or enacting faith). What Catholics do say, though, is that what we do AFTER claiming faith (whether through baptism or by conscious choice) is very important. Not as a salvific thing in the sense that we can save ourselves, but that what we do is vital to becoming what God always intended us to be, and as such, our sanctification is a process that takes time. If we are not evincing faith through works post-salvation, then it's like being given a new heart by transplant, and then abusing the gift by failing to do all in our power to keep the body healthy and fit.
Our hope is that we will become more and more conformed to the likeness of Christ, until we are made one with him, and our eyes behold the face of God. Until then, we have the comfort of his presence with us through sacraments, and most especially through the Holy Spirit.
In saying this, I realise:
- I am simply playing a variation on a theme
- that this theme is inevitably going to fall on deaf ears because Gordon's interpretation of the Bible is infallible
- *snort* that I am making a huge presumption to speak for Roman Catholics, some of whom have made it perfectly clear that Anglicans are sub-Ecclesial in the eyes of the infallible See of Rome
Can't win really.
Posts: 9515 | From: Delta Quadrant | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
I'm sorry for overlooking your question earlier.
No problem. You're debating on several fronts here ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
quote:
No, I'm not a universalist. Actually I have to say that talking with you on these boards has helped me with this, because I would really like to be, and seeing that you are has made me think about whether I could be.
Actually, I'm not a Universalist. I'm not a not-Universalist either though, I don't think we have sufficient information to determine with certainty whether Hell is empty or not.
quote:
OK, to business. How can I have full and complete assurance? Only because of the work of the Lord Jesus on the cross.
I don't see how this works. You say your assurance comes from our Lord's work, but then openly admit that you do not think this work effects salvation for all people.
Connecting the dots, logically you can then only have full and complete assurance of your own salvation because of our Lord's work, if you have full and complete assurance that you are elect and not reprobate.
So our Lord's work on the cross cannot provide you with this assurance unless you are a Universalist. What assures you that you are of the elect?
Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
I am not Catholic bashing, I am answering questions on a thread not started by me but dealing with some very important theological differences between Romanism and biblical Christianity.
In which case watch your language. Positing two positions, one dubbed "biblical Christianity" and the other "Romanism" is extremely offensive. I am not a "Roman" and my faith is not "Romanism": I am a Catholic Christian and my faith is Christianity, Catholic Christianity if you want. ![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
We are making opposing claims. I am offended by your claim that Romanism is Catholic Christianity. Well no, not offended, that's too strong a word for me really. I simply make the same claim on behalf of biblically based Christianity. What I believe is true catholic Christianity.
You are a gracious person, Trisagion, whereas I freely admit that I'm not particularly so. But at the level of what we are claiming about our own beliefs, your claims are no less or more offensive than mine. I respect what you are saying but I dispute it. You may or may not respect what I am saying, but you are equally entitled to dispute it.
It is not an issue of what is to be debated but rather an issue of plain good manners.
I happen to believe that the kind of Christianity you peddle here on the Ship is a denuded and emaciated version based on a deeply flawed understanding of Divine Revelation which expresses itself in almost crass approach to Sacred Scripture and results in approaches and positions that are often wrong, pastorally inappropriate and certainly wouldn't pass the WWJD test. About whether you inflict the same on the those to whom you minister IRL I am in no position to form an opinion, although your own linked website suggests that your SoF stance is reflective of that too. It is clear that, whatever deficiencies I believe it to have, your faith is "Christian" and I would do nothing to suggest that it were not. You clearly do not extend to me the same courtesy.
I believe the Ship exists in order that we may dialogue and I engage with your posts where and when I choose. That is the nature of this place. What I do not do is designate you by a name which would be offensive to you. I call you Christian and, where appropriate, Anglican and Protestant, because that is what you call yourself and it in no way causes for me any conflict of conscience. I would expect the same courtesy in return. Would you not find it discourtesy if I refered to your Faith as Chengism and contrasted it with my own as Catholic Christianity? At the very least it would imply that I believed you to be following some kind of sub-Christian perversion. Your use of "Romanism" in contrast to "biblical Christianity" does exactly the same.
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gordon Cheng
a child on sydney harbour
# 8895
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
It is not an issue of what is to be debated but rather an issue of plain good manners.
That's the difference between you and me, Trisagion.
It is not an issue of plain good manners. It is an issue of the truth about the Lord Jesus and how he loves us and saves us.
But I don't mind if you continue to be polite, if it helps you to state your case with clarity and dignity.
--------------------
Latest on blog: those were the days...; throwing up; clerical abuse; biddulph on child care
Posts: 4392 | From: Sydney, Australia | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ceesharp
Shipmate
# 3818
|
Posted
The problem is that Gordon does appear to think that we follow some kind of "sub-christian perversion".
I don't think that any argument from any Roman Catholic will carry any weight with him as he appears to have decided once and for all that we are not true christians.
Gordon, if this is not an accurate reading of your meaning I apologise.
I'll be praying for you.
Christine
[ 22. February 2006, 13:08: Message edited by: C# ]
Posts: 629 | From: West Midlands, UK | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
I am not Catholic bashing, I am answering questions on a thread not started by me but dealing with some very important theological differences between Romanism and biblical Christianity.
In which case watch your language. Positing two positions, one dubbed "biblical Christianity" and the other "Romanism" is extremely offensive. I am not a "Roman" and my faith is not "Romanism": I am a Catholic Christian and my faith is Christianity, Catholic Christianity if you want.
You jumped the gun on me there. I was going to sagely point out to Gordon that his use of the word 'Romanism' (whether or not contrasted with 'Biblical Christianity' - whatever that is) smacks of the likes of pleasant characteds like Titus Oates, is rhetoric that is better placed (if at all) in the 16th and 17th centuries along with 'papist', 'taig' and 'tim' and might just be a tad offensive to quite a few Shipmates...
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Triple Tiara
Ship's Papabile
# 9556
|
Posted
Speaking as a Catholic, I don't get offended by the opinions of others. I don't get offended by the rubbish some people spout about me and my fellow Catholics. I don't take much notice of the chips on some peoples' shoulders - especially when they shoot from the hip and snipe. (And sometimes pop up all over these boards taking cheap pot shots about their pet hobby horses, now let us depart).
I much value reasoned discussion and the sharing of information between equals that takes place around these parts. I enjoy coming here, even though it sometimes gets me into trouble because I don't do lots of other things I ought to be doing instead!
What does offend me is people who claim to be engaging in rational debate when they are actually doing no more than venting their spleens and scoring points.
I believe in the pursuit of truth and I believe truth must be pursued robustly.
Which never happens when one simply uses parodies of the truth in order to win an argument - especially when those parodies were concocted several centuries ago and have NEVER been able to stand up to scrutiny.
So, Gordon, over to you. If you really are trying to stand up for truth, at least have truth as your foundation rather than the assortment of reformation-era ghouls you keep conjuring up, with appropriately fiendish terms to describe them.
--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.
Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
The signifiers 'Roman Catholic' and 'Catholic' are appropriate in designating those Christians who are in communion with the See of Rome and the the beliefs of such Christians. 'Romanist' is, for a variety of historical reasons, up there with 'Papist' as a term which is generally regarded as abusive. What you call one another in Hell is up to you but given that it would be a shame to de-rail such an interesting thread with a lengthy tangent about the appropriateness of the term, I would be grateful if we could desist from using it.
Callan
Purgatory Host.
[ETA - Cross posted with Triple Tiara, not that it matters.]
[ 22. February 2006, 14:07: Message edited by: Callan ]
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
quote:
Originally posted by josephine:
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
A statistical survey of the themes and content of most of the books after Genesis 3:5 and before Revelation 22:21.
Really. My goodness, that's interesting. Who did this survey? What was the methodology? How did they verify its validity? Where was the survey published?
It's one of those democratic surveys, Josephine, whereby every single person in the world gets a chance to do it for themselves and post their own results.
Ah, I understand now. "A statistical survey" is a way to say "my entirely subjective impressions" while giving it the sheen of objectivity and factuality.
I won't even bother addressing the points made by others about the appropriateness or usefulness of the methodology, had any such statistical survey ever been done. I'll simply point out that in your attempt to score rhetorical points, you told a whopper.
Maybe in your little corner of the world, lying is compatible with biblical Christianity. It isn't in mine.
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Those Protestants aware of history will know that Catholicism doesn't say the same things about us as it used to. If Protestantism drifting from its historic roots has made Protestants less likely to fall into anti-Catholic bigotry, it can only be a Good Thing.
In wonder and awe at the patience and grace of Catholics still reading this thread ...
This is unfair. Gordon has explained the varying reasons that he views the Roman catholic church as teaching wrong things - he has not shown any irrational hatred for Catholic people and has apologised more than once for clumsy expression.
Gordon's explanations of what he thinks the RCC teaches have not stood up to the repeated refutations of educated Roman Catholics, yet he persists. I stand by my post.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
GoodCatholicLad
Shipmate
# 9231
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nunc Dimittis:
quote:
Perhaps Anglicans in Australia are a different breed of cat.
GoodCatholicLad: Gordon belongs to the Diocese of Sydney. The Diocese of Sydney is a completely different kettle of fish (or bag of cats) to the rest of the Anglican Church of Australia (most of which would sit fairly comfortably with your old SFO Bay Area Episcopal parish - including it's lady vicar).
Of course, none of us (as in, the rest of the Anglican Church of Australia) are saved, really, because we, like so much of the rest of the historical and worldwide Church, are not "bible-believing Christians™"**.
Well at least I and my compatriots in Brisbane will be in good company with countless other Anglicans around the world, and the RCC, and Orthodox. What shall it be, folks? GIN, Bailey's, or vino? *cracks open a bottle*
**According to the theology of Gordon and his little friends in Sydney.
I am having trouble understanding, the Diocese of Sydney is a more low church, fundamentalist arm of the Anglican Church of Australia? I always found the Episcopalians at least at my old church, they were kind decent people, but after litugy at the coffee hour, they chatted about wine, or movies or how much they won at their Las Vegas trip or whatever but NEVER EVER about witnessing, or "my personal relationship with the Lord" blah blah. That was one of the things I liked about Episcopalians the whole "via media" bit sure we love the Lord
but we don't have to be insufferable to everyone else in the process.
--------------------
All you have is right now.
Posts: 1234 | From: San Francisco California | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by GoodCatholicLad:
I am having trouble understanding, the Diocese of Sydney is a more low church, fundamentalist arm of the Anglican Church of Australia? I always found the Episcopalians at least at my old church, they were kind decent people, but after litugy at the coffee hour, they chatted about wine, or movies or how much they won at their Las Vegas trip or whatever but NEVER EVER about witnessing, or "my personal relationship with the Lord" blah blah. That was one of the things I liked about Episcopalians the whole "via media" bit sure we love the Lord
but we don't have to be insufferable to everyone else in the process.
Ah. Episcopalians tend to be high church members of the Anglican Communion. The Anglican Communion itself is incredibly broad in praxis and includes anything from -Spong to Archbishop Jensen of Sydney with just about everything in between.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
the_raptor
Shipmate
# 10533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Those Protestants aware of history will know that Catholicism doesn't say the same things about us as it used to. If Protestantism drifting from its historic roots has made Protestants less likely to fall into anti-Catholic bigotry, it can only be a Good Thing.
In wonder and awe at the patience and grace of Catholics still reading this thread ...
This is unfair. Gordon has explained the varying reasons that he views the Roman catholic church as teaching wrong things - he has not shown any irrational hatred for Catholic people and has apologised more than once for clumsy expression.
Gordon's explanations of what he thinks the RCC teaches have not stood up to the repeated refutations of educated Roman Catholics, yet he persists. I stand by my post.
Im an ex-RC (now going to a church that should meet all Gordon's criteria for orthodoxy) and he still pisses me off. Though it seems to be the general attitude among evangelical protestantism, no matter how much RC's deny this rubbish.
--------------------
Mal: look at this! Appears we got here just in the nick of time. What does that make us?
Zoe: Big damn heroes, sir!
Mal: Ain't we just?
— Firefly
Posts: 3921 | From: Australia | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ruthw
Gordon's explanations of what he thinks the RCC teaches have not stood up to the repeated refutations of educated Roman Catholics, yet he persists. I stand by my post.
I thought we had established that the Roma Catholic church thinks that the doctrine of assurance is some sort of terrible presumption, haven't we?
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
rosamundi
Ship's lacemaker
# 2495
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
[QUOTE]I thought we had established that the Roma Catholic church thinks that the doctrine of assurance is some sort of terrible presumption, haven't we?
Presuming either on your own capacities to save yourself, or on God's power or mercy (hoping to obtain his forgiveness without conversion and glory without merit), is a sin against hope. But then so is ceasing to hope for your personal salvation from God, for help in attaining it or for the forgiveness of his sins.
Deborah
--------------------
Website.
Ship of Fools flickr group
Posts: 2382 | From: here or there | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Demas
Ship's Deserter
# 24
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
-Spong
I find this usage after a whole page of angry people demanding that Gordon speak respectfully of their denomination rather ironic.
--------------------
They did not appear very religious; that is, they were not melancholy; and I therefore suspected they had not much piety - Life of Rev John Murray
Posts: 1894 | From: Thessalonica | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gordon Cheng
a child on sydney harbour
# 8895
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
quote:
Originally posted by Ruthw
Gordon's explanations of what he thinks the RCC teaches have not stood up to the repeated refutations of educated Roman Catholics, yet he persists. I stand by my post.
I thought we had established that the Roman Catholic church thinks that the doctrine of assurance is some sort of terrible presumption, haven't we?
Yes, I also thought this was agreed. Romans see present assurance of salvation as sin. The Bible teaches present assurance of salvation as one outworking of saving faith.
And if this is acknowledged as a difference between Roman theology and historical protestantism, the next step is to recognize that the difference is indicative of other underlying and substantial differences. The basis upon which Roman Catholics form their view of assurance, and the basis upon which the Bible teaches that assurance is possible, is a matter of dispute between Roman Catholicism and historical Protestantism.
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
Connecting the dots, logically you can then only have full and complete assurance of your own salvation because of our Lord's work, if you have full and complete assurance that you are elect and not reprobate.
So our Lord's work on the cross cannot provide you with this assurance unless you are a Universalist. What assures you that you are of the elect?
I like the term "connecting the dots", because this is exactly what is needed to ask the question you are asking, and exactly what the Bible doesn't do. The Bible teaches that God is faithful and won't let us go.
quote:
originally posted by Jesus:
John 10:27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. 28 I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand.
But the Bible also warns us not to fall away, as the consequences are dreadful:
quote:
Hebrews 10:26 For if we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, 27 but a fearful expectation of judgment, and a fury of fire that will consume the adversaries.
Now if you are going to hold a gun to my head and insist that I connect dots that are begging to be connected (not "you" as such GreyFace, more a hypoethetical "you") then I speculate that all God's children will read such dreadful warnings and pay attention to them, thus avoiding the punishment and confirming by their choices the prior election of God.
But that's me guessing now, as I'm saying something the Bible doesn't. Perhaps when we get to heaven we will discover that the blanks have been filled in quite differently. I'm OK with a bit of mystery in my religion
--------------------
Latest on blog: those were the days...; throwing up; clerical abuse; biddulph on child care
Posts: 4392 | From: Sydney, Australia | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Jahlove
Tied to the mast
# 10290
|
Posted
posted by Gordon Cheng
quote:
quote: Hebrews 10:26 For if we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, 27 but a fearful expectation of judgment, and a fury of fire that will consume the adversaries.
So having obtained my salvation by faith alone, there is still a possibility of my losing it by sinning - does that sin include omitting to perform works or acts of charity by any chance?
posted by Gordon Cheng:
quote:
But I know that Judas, at least, is in hell, and there seems to be more than one person there, and they seem to come from more than one non-Israelite nation. So logic forces me to say that there are at least three people in hell, and I very much fear that there may be many more.
Dantecam?
posted by Trisagion:
quote:
following some kind of "sub-christian perversion"
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
one for the e-mail tagline collection, if I may
--------------------
“Sing like no one's listening, love like you've never been hurt, dance like nobody's watching, and live like its heaven on earth.” - Mark Twain
Posts: 6477 | From: Alice's Restaurant (UK Franchise) | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
a difference between Roman theology and historical protestantism,
Mind telling me what "historical protestantism" is? Would one of the ship's Lutherans care to comment on the Lutheran position here. It sure ain't the Quaker position (although is (I believe) the Bretheren position).
Calvinism isn't the same as Protestantism.
And Demas, -Spong is the only (ex) Anglican bishop I would currently use that prefix for. I simply don't believe that a claim that theism is dead is compatable with the position of bishop. I have no objection to John Shelby Spong's beliefs or to the Anglican Communion- I just believe that the combination should have forced him to step down as a matter of conscience.
[ 22. February 2006, 22:22: Message edited by: Justinian ]
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gordon Cheng
a child on sydney harbour
# 8895
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jahlove:
posted by Gordon Cheng
quote:
quote: Hebrews 10:26 For if we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, 27 but a fearful expectation of judgment, and a fury of fire that will consume the adversaries.
So having obtained my salvation by faith alone, there is still a possibility of my losing it by sinning - does that sin include omitting to perform works or acts of charity by any chance?
Of course. In fact, it includes all sin. But I think the context of Hebrews suggest that the key "sin" that the writer has in mind is the failure to persevere in trusting the Lord Jesus.
Notice what the writer confidently expects, however:
quote:
Heb. 10:39 But we are not of those who shrink back and are destroyed, but of those who have faith and preserve their souls.
IT's an astonishing verse. After such a dreadful warning, he confidently teaches the reality of Christian assurance. Hence my speculation a couple of posts back.
The whole chapter is worth a read.
--------------------
Latest on blog: those were the days...; throwing up; clerical abuse; biddulph on child care
Posts: 4392 | From: Sydney, Australia | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cod
Shipmate
# 2643
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
This is a major problem because I can walk into any bookshop and choose from a variety of Bibles that don't absolutely, entirely agree with eachother. And it seems to me that they must absolutely agree, given Scripture's importance.
Or else, one of those Bibles on that shelf must be correct.
So, which one is correct?
All the major ones are close enough. The JW one is just plain silly; "Commit it then to the flames" as David Hume would've said. And if it says on the cover that it's a paraphrase, it can be safely ignored unless it agrees with what you think.
Well, apparently there is real doubt as to whether John 1 should be translated "and the Word was God" (orthodox translations) or "and the word was a god" (New Kingdom translation). The ramifications of that are pretty clear.
Church tradition solves the problem; the witness of the Church down the years provides a corpus of additional help that sola scriptura does not provide.
To proceed on the basis that your preferred versions are "good enough" and that the ones you disagree with must by definition be wrong strikes me as bit unsatisfactory.
Posts: 4229 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gordon Cheng
a child on sydney harbour
# 8895
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
a difference between Roman theology and historical protestantism,
Mind telling me what "historical protestantism" is?
It's a family of ideas clustered around the notion that we are saved from sin, God's wrath and judgement, and the dominion of Satan by the work of Christ alone, by grace alone, through faith alone. The claimed basis of this understanding is the Bible alone. It is most commonly associated with the teaching of John Calvin and Martin Luther, and denies certain Roman Catholic ideas regarding (in no particular order) purgatory, the role of works in salvation, prayers to Mary and the saints, the authority of the Pope and the magisterium, and the nature of the sacraments and the priesthood.
There's a fair bit of information about it accessible through Google.
--------------------
Latest on blog: those were the days...; throwing up; clerical abuse; biddulph on child care
Posts: 4392 | From: Sydney, Australia | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gordon Cheng
a child on sydney harbour
# 8895
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
Church tradition solves the problem; the witness of the Church down the years provides a corpus of additional help that sola scriptura does not provide.
It certainly helps, anyway.
quote:
To proceed on the basis that your preferred versions are "good enough" and that the ones you disagree with must by definition be wrong strikes me as bit unsatisfactory.
Ah well, life's a bit unsatisfactory isn't it, this side of heaven? We muddle on and do our best. So far, in the grace of God, it's worked OK.
Are the English translations really that divergent? this whole "difference between translations" seems a bit of a beat-up to me. I can't off the top of my head think of a single major doctrine that hangs off a difference between English translations.
[ 22. February 2006, 22:48: Message edited by: Gordon Cheng ]
--------------------
Latest on blog: those were the days...; throwing up; clerical abuse; biddulph on child care
Posts: 4392 | From: Sydney, Australia | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
Neither our assurance nor our hope are in any way related to works done after we place our faith in Christ.
I'm thinking that this is not what Roman Catholicism teaches. True?
Can't speak for Roman Catholicism, but I believe the Thomist formula is that all good impulses come from God, and in ourselves all we can do is resist them and sin, or become quiescent (ie passive) to His will. Since we have not contributed any positive goodness by ourselves, our role being purely passive, Semi-Pelagianism is avoided. Since we have a real unconstrained choice between resistance / quiescence, Calvinism is also avoided.
Don't know if that makes any difference to your argument.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Duo Seraphim
Ubi caritas et amor
# 256
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
quote:
Originally posted by Duo Seraphim:
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
I am not Catholic bashing, I am answering questions on a thread not started by me but dealing with some very important theological differences between Romanism and biblical Christianity.
You have yet to explain what those differences are.
Not so, Duo. But if you think the differences don't matter, let's have a straight answer from you. The Bible teaches, and therefore I believe, that full and complete assurance of salvation from God's judgement is possible now, on the basis of the free gift of righteousness given once for all by Jesus in his death on the cross.
This free gift is laid hold of by faith alone, and is given completely without regard to any good work done by me in the past, at the present time, or indeed at any stage of my life on earth. This assurance is the sole basis of Christian hope. Neither our assurance nor our hope are in any way related to works done after we place our faith in Christ.
I'm thinking that this is not what Roman Catholicism teaches. True?
True but also Untrue. Your statement is actually too narrow for it does not deal with the Catholic teaching on grace, the role of God's grace in our lives and on Christian holiness.
It is worth pulling out some highlights from the Catechism on this point. Justification comes to us from the grace of God merited for us by the Passion of Christ. Nothing we can do merited that justification. Christ has merited our justification, the remission of sins and the renewal and sanctification of the inner person: Mt 4:17.
quote:
1992 Justification has been merited for us by the Passion of Christ who offered himself on the cross as a living victim, holy and pleasing to God, and whose blood has become the instrument of atonement for the sins of all men. Justification is conferred in Baptism, the sacrament of faith. It conforms us to the righteousness of God, who makes us inwardly just by the power of his mercy. Its purpose is the glory of God and of Christ, and the gift of eternal life:Council of Trent (1547): DS 1529.
"But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from law, although the law and the prophets bear witness to it, the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, they are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as an expiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins; it was to prove at the present time that he himself is righteous and that he justifies him who has faith in Jesus.Rom 3:21-26."
The Catechism also talks of God's grace
quote:
1996 Our justification comes from the grace of God. Grace is favour, the free and undeserved help that God gives us to respond to his call to become children of God, adoptive sons, partakers of the divine nature and of eternal life.Jn 1:12-18; 17:3; Rom 8:14-17; 2 Pet 1:3-4.
God has chosen to associate himself with us in His work of grace. quote:
2021 Grace is the help God gives us to respond to our vocation of becoming his adopted sons. It introduces us into the intimacy of the Trinitarian life.
2022 The divine initiative in the work of grace precedes, prepares, and elicits the free response of man. Grace responds to the deepest yearnings of human freedom, calls freedom to cooperate with it, and perfects freedom.
We can through our cooperation with God's work of grace atainmerit in the eyes of God. But even that merit is his gift to us. quote:
2010 Since the initiative belongs to God in the order of grace, no one can merit the initial grace of forgiveness and justification, at the beginning of conversion. Moved by the Holy Spirit and by charity, we can then merit for ourselves and for others the graces needed for our sanctification, for the increase of grace and charity, and for the attainment of eternal life.
But those merits themselve come from God, because of the charity of Jesus Christ. As Nunc quite correctly says (and St Paul) what we do after conversion and justification really counts in each of us being able to collect on the promises of salvation. But we are promised salvation if we run the race to the finish with God and the aid of his grace.
[bolloxed code and added a bit]
ETA: You can Google all sorts of things, Gordon, which doesn't make the results either true or representative of the teaching of the Catholic Church on various points. But I like to be helpful. Polite (most of the time) too. How about focussing on the Bible, the Catechism and on Church documents such as the Vatican II documents in the search for what the Catholic Church teaches?
[ 23. February 2006, 00:01: Message edited by: Duo Seraphim ]
--------------------
Embrace the serious whack. It's the Catholic thing to do. IngoB
The Messiah, Peace be upon him, said to his Apostles: 'Verily, this world is merely a bridge, so cross over it, and do not make it your abode.' (Bihar al-anwar xiv, 319)
Posts: 7952 | From: Sydney Australia | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gordon Cheng
a child on sydney harbour
# 8895
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Duo Seraphim:
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
quote:
Originally posted by Duo Seraphim:
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
I am not Catholic bashing, I am answering questions on a thread not started by me but dealing with some very important theological differences between Romanism and biblical Christianity.
You have yet to explain what those differences are.
Not so, Duo. But if you think the differences don't matter, let's have a straight answer from you. The Bible teaches, and therefore I believe, that full and complete assurance of salvation from God's judgement is possible now, on the basis of the free gift of righteousness given once for all by Jesus in his death on the cross.
This free gift is laid hold of by faith alone, and is given completely without regard to any good work done by me in the past, at the present time, or indeed at any stage of my life on earth. This assurance is the sole basis of Christian hope. Neither our assurance nor our hope are in any way related to works done after we place our faith in Christ.
I'm thinking that this is not what Roman Catholicism teaches. True?
Untrue. But your statement is actually too narrow for it does not deal with the Catholic teaching on grace and on Christian holiness.
Do you know I had the funniest feeling you were going to say this. You see, it is precisely the RC teaching on grace and Christian holiness that undercuts what you label as "narrow" but I label as full, complete, and sufficient.
The definition of grace that you have quoted in your post is one of the key areas of confusion for our discussion. Simply put, it is not at all the way I am using the word "grace", nor (and this is the nub of my argument on this question) is it an adequate way of summarizing the way Bible uses it.
On the view of grace that you have quoted, grace is sufficient to help us overcome the stain of our original sin,and raise our fallen natures to the point where we may now choose to do the good.
The Bible's understanding of grace goes well beyond this. Grace is unmerited favour makes us children of God, certain heirs of eternal life, and slaves to righteousness. We have no choice but to be loved by God and love him perfectly in return.
[ 22. February 2006, 23:57: Message edited by: Gordon Cheng ]
--------------------
Latest on blog: those were the days...; throwing up; clerical abuse; biddulph on child care
Posts: 4392 | From: Sydney, Australia | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
jinglebellrocker
Shipmate
# 8493
|
Posted
I agree with what you say Gordon-- to a point. It is true that the Bible teaches that we are saved by grace through faith, that we can neither do anything or not do anything to be worthy of grace for salvation.
But I think the point you are missing is this
James 2:18
quote:
But someone will say, You have faith and I have works. Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works.
If you are truly saved by grace then you will act like it.
If being justified by grace alone is all there is to Christianity, then as soon as you say the sinner's prayer you may as well blow your brains out with a shotgun or jump off a cliff because you've served your purpose in this world.
Rather, salvation is a journey and we have things that God wants us to do in this life. It has no affect on whether we go to heaven--otherwise the thief on the cross would not have met Jesus in paradise--but as for the rest of us who will go on living, we will obey the commands of Christ if we love Him, and that's a work, and it is part of your salvation.
--------------------
For I know that my Redeemer lives,and at the last he will stand upon the earth. - Job 19:25
Posts: 243 | From: Madisonville, Tennessee | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Duo Seraphim
Ubi caritas et amor
# 256
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
On the view of grace that you have quoted, grace is sufficient to help us overcome the stain of our original sin,and raise our fallen natures to the point where we may now choose to do the good.
The Bible's understanding of grace goes well beyond this. Grace is unmerited favour makes us children of God, certain heirs of eternal life, and slaves to righteousness. We have no choice but to be loved by God and love him perfectly in return.
That is the point of this quote from the Catechism (although it also needs to be read with the section on justification and what is said earlier about grace for it is an "also" about God's grace):
quote:
2021 Grace is the help God gives us to respond to our vocation of becoming his adopted sons. It introduces us into the intimacy of the Trinitarian life.
2022 The divine initiative in the work of grace precedes, prepares, and elicits the free response of man. Grace responds to the deepest yearnings of human freedom, calls freedom to cooperate with it, and perfects freedom.
That is precisely "we have no choice but to be loved by God" who freely chose us to cooperate in his work of grace. Our freely willed response to the bounty of that grace(and that response itself is God-created and God-emanating) is faith.
But where you are wrong is on the question of God's gift of free will. Our freely willed response must be to love Him in return and align ourselves with His will. But we can freely choose not to associate ourselves with God, not to believe, not to cooperate and, even though justified, slip back into sin. Even though we are justified and the beneficiaries of God's grace given without our merit, conversion to God is an ongoing process. We owe God our cooperation in his work of grace in how we live our lives as Christians. I don't see how these are controversial propositions nor how what the Catholic Church teaches is somehow narrow or incorrect or (gasp) un-Biblical.
And whether you like it or not, the Catholic Church's view on justification, grace and the vocation of Christians to a life of Christian holiness is completely consonant with the Bible.
You really haven't advanced any basis based on Catholic teaching, to argue otherwise. I swear it's as if you think you are going to get fleas if you peek into the Catechism.
--------------------
Embrace the serious whack. It's the Catholic thing to do. IngoB
The Messiah, Peace be upon him, said to his Apostles: 'Verily, this world is merely a bridge, so cross over it, and do not make it your abode.' (Bihar al-anwar xiv, 319)
Posts: 7952 | From: Sydney Australia | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Triple Tiara
Ship's Papabile
# 9556
|
Posted
quote:
I swear it's as if you think you are going to get fleas if you peek into the Catechism.
Would that result in nit-picking? ![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.
Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gordon Cheng
a child on sydney harbour
# 8895
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Duo Seraphim:
But where you are wrong is on the question of God's gift of free will. Our freely willed response must be to love Him in return and align ourselves with His will. But we can freely choose not to associate ourselves with God, not to believe, not to cooperate and, even though justified, slip back into sin. Even though we are justified and the beneficiaries of God's grace given without our merit, conversion to God is an ongoing process. We owe God our cooperation in his work of grace in how we live our lives as Christians. I don't see how these are controversial propositions nor how what the Catholic Church teaches is somehow narrow or incorrect or (gasp) un-Biblical.
And whether you like it or not, the Catholic Church's view on justification, grace and the vocation of Christians to a life of Christian holiness is completely consonant with the Bible.
You really haven't advanced any basis based on Catholic teaching, to argue otherwise. I swear it's as if you think you are going to get fleas if you peek into the Catechism.
To be honest Duo I have developed a nasty rash just from reading the bits you have quoted to me. ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
I agree with you that the freely willed choice to obey God is there in the RC catchism. But obviously, I deny that such an idea is found anywhere in Scripture. It's just that over-optimistic Thomism doing it's thing as far as I can tell.
It seems to me that the only choice the bible puts before us is a choice of slaveries, and not a free choice at that, unles you are talking about the absolute freedom that God has to regenerate us.
Here's the way Paul describes the two slaveries:
quote:
Romans 5:17 But thanks be to God, that you who were once slaves of sin have become obedient from the heart to the standard of teaching to which you were committed, 18 and, having been set free from sin, have become slaves of righteousness.
--------------------
Latest on blog: those were the days...; throwing up; clerical abuse; biddulph on child care
Posts: 4392 | From: Sydney, Australia | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jahlove
Tied to the mast
# 10290
|
Posted
posted by Gordon Cheng
quote:
Grace is unmerited favour makes us children of God, certain heirs of eternal life, and slaves to righteousness. We have no choice but to be loved by God and love him perfectly in return.
and
quote:
Romans 5:17 But thanks be to God, that you who were once slaves of sin have become obedient from the heart to the standard of teaching to which you were committed, 18 and, having been set free from sin, have become slaves of righteousness.
(Actually 6:17,18) Chapter 6 is addressed to baptized converts, living “under grace”. In it, Paul is strongly exhorting them NOT to let sin exercise dominion over them - it’s clearly still a possibility and so requires a bit of effort on the part of humans to resist. Grace is not a magical operation that leaves people in some sort of hypnotic trance in which they can only choose Option A and never Option B - why else the very recognizable anguish of Romans 7:15-23?
--------------------
“Sing like no one's listening, love like you've never been hurt, dance like nobody's watching, and live like its heaven on earth.” - Mark Twain
Posts: 6477 | From: Alice's Restaurant (UK Franchise) | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gordon Cheng
a child on sydney harbour
# 8895
|
Posted
hi Jahlove, yes sorry, chapter 6.
I agree, the slavery of righteousness does indeed involve an act of will and effort on our part. But it is a slavery, and you can't choose not to act according to your own nature, which is Paul's point. There's no freedom about our will, then, rather the freedom we have is a freedom from being slaves to sin and flesh. It's impossible for us not to be righteous. Therefore (and this is Paul's point) we should live out what has been imputed to us by Christ's death.
--------------------
Latest on blog: those were the days...; throwing up; clerical abuse; biddulph on child care
Posts: 4392 | From: Sydney, Australia | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Niënna
Ship's Lotus Blossom
# 4652
|
Posted
Gordon Cheng, I apologise for being dense at this present moment - but I don't really see a clear difference between what you and Duo Seraphim are saying about abiding in God's grace. It appears to me that you guys are saying the same thing. ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Now, I re-read what both you guys wrote...and now maybe I can see some difference - so, is the difference this apologises if I get this wrong, pls correct me if I misunderstand your position - I am honestly just trying to understand :
The Difference According to GC:
GC:
After receiving Christ's salvation, we are freed from being slaves to sin and now we are slaves to righteous (no free will).
Duo Seraphim :
After receiving Christ's salvation, we are freed from being slaves to sin and now we can choose to be slaves of righteous (i.e. free will being granted -- or, rather in her terminology - lovers of God and doers of good because of the love of God in us manifested through grace and the Holy Spirit). This according to GC, is floofy because not in scripture???
--------------------
[Nino points a gun at Chiki]
Nino: Now... tell me. Who started the war?
Chiki: [long pause] We did.
~No Man's Land
Posts: 2298 | From: Purgatory | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
It's impossible for us not to be righteous.
I'm sure you will want to qualify that just a tad. I manage to not be very righteous most of my life, easily.
Look, this is roughly the discussion we were having on faith (fire) vs. works (smoke):
Gordon: The fire is all that counts.
RCs: Correct. And where there's smoke, there's a fire.
Gordon: Smoke? It's not about smoke. Never. It's just about the fire.
RCs: But yes, we already agreed to that. It's just that when fires burn typically we see smoke as a sign of it.
Gordon: You are relying on smoke with your doctrine. Smoke is not what this is about. See, St Paul says here "Not smoke, but only the fire counts."
RCs: Please understand. We agree with St Paul and you that this is about the fire, and the fire only. Smoke on its own won't do. If we have say dry ice creating "smoke", but no fire, then this means nothing. Also, sometimes a fire may burn without smoke. That is possible. We only say that in general we are looking for smoke as a telltale sign of the fire. And usually, the bigger the fire, the more and thicker smoke.
Gordon: Hah. In reality you are just hiding the fact that you are relying on the smoke alone. All that talk about smoke is just not biblical.
RCs: Well, you know there's James going on about how smoke arises from the fire. Which is really all we are saying.
Gordon: That epistle of straw, it shall be thrown into the fire!
RCs: Won't that smoke?
Now, we seem to be moving on to a related topic, that of the effects of grace. What does St Thomas Aquinas actually say?
quote:
Summa Theologiae I-II q113 a1-10:
Whether the justification of the ungodly is the remission of sins? <...>
I answer that, <...> And it is thus we are now speaking of the justification of the ungodly, according to the Apostle (Rm. 4:5): "But to him that worketh not, yet believeth in Him that justifieth the ungodly," etc. And because movement is named after its term "whereto" rather than from its term "whence," the transmutation whereby anyone is changed by the remission of sins from the state of ungodliness to the state of justice, borrows its name from its term "whereto," and is called "justification of the ungodly." <...>
Whether the infusion of grace is required for the remission of guilt, i.e. for the justification of the ungodly? <...>
I answer that, <...> Now the effect of the Divine love in us, which is taken away by sin, is grace, whereby a man is made worthy of eternal life, from which sin shuts him out. Hence we could not conceive the remission of guilt, without the infusion of grace. <...>
Whether for the justification of the ungodly is required a movement of the free-will? <...>
I answer that, The justification of the ungodly is brought about by God moving man to justice. For He it is "that justifieth the ungodly" according to Rm. 4:5. Now God moves everything in its own manner, just as we see that in natural things, what is heavy and what is light are moved differently, on account of their diverse natures. Hence He moves man to justice according to the condition of his human nature. But it is man's proper nature to have free-will. Hence in him who has the use of reason, God's motion to justice does not take place without a movement of the free-will; but He so infuses the gift of justifying grace that at the same time He moves the free-will to accept the gift of grace, in such as are capable of being moved thus. <...>
Whether a movement of faith is required for the justification of the ungodly? <...>
I answer that, As stated above (Article [3]) a movement of free-will is required for the justification of the ungodly, inasmuch as man's mind is moved by God. Now God moves man's soul by turning it to Himself according to Ps. 84:7 (Septuagint): "Thou wilt turn us, O God, and bring us to life." Hence for the justification of the ungodly a movement of the mind is required, by which it is turned to God. Now the first turning to God is by faith, according to Heb. 11:6: "He that cometh to God must believe that He is." Hence a movement of faith is required for the justification of the ungodly. <...>
Whether for the justification of the ungodly there is required a movement of the free-will towards <i.e., with respect to> sin? <...>
I answer that, As stated above (Article [1]), the justification of the ungodly is a certain movement whereby the human mind is moved by God from the state of sin to the state of justice. <...> Hence in the justification of the ungodly there must be two acts of the free-will -- one, whereby it tends to God's justice; the other whereby it hates sin. <...>
Whether the remission of sins ought to be reckoned amongst the things required for justification? <...>
I answer that, <...> On the part of the Divine motion, there is the infusion of grace; on the part of the free-will which is moved, there are two movements---of departure from the term "whence," and of approach to the term "whereto"; but the consummation of the movement or the attainment of the end of the movement is implied in the remission of sins; for in this is the justification of the ungodly completed. <...>
Whether the justification of the ungodly takes place in an instant or successively? <...>
I answer that, The entire justification of the ungodly consists as to its origin in the infusion of grace. For it is by grace that free-will is moved and sin is remitted. Now the infusion of grace takes place in an instant and without succession. <...> Now it was stated (Question [112], Article [2]) that God, in order to infuse grace into the soul, needs no disposition, save what He Himself has made. And sometimes this sufficient disposition for the reception of grace He makes suddenly, sometimes gradually and successively, as stated above (Question [112], Article [2], ad 2). <...> Therefore, since the Divine power is infinite, it can suddenly dispose any matter whatsoever to its form; and much more man's free-will, whose movement is by nature instantaneous. Therefore the justification of the ungodly by God takes place in an instant. <...>
Whether the infusion of grace is naturally the first of the things required for the justification of the ungodly? <...>
I answer that, The aforesaid four things required for the justification of the ungodly are simultaneous in time, since the justification of the ungodly is not successive, as stated above (Article [7]); but in the order of nature, one is prior to another; and in their natural order the first is the infusion of grace; the second, the free-will's movement towards God; the third, the free-will's movement towards <i.e., with respect to, in fact, away from> sin; the fourth, the remission of sin. <...>
Whether the justification of the ungodly is God's greatest work? <...>
I answer that, A work may be called great in two ways: first, on the part of the mode of action, and thus the work of creation is the greatest work, wherein something is made from nothing; secondly, a work may be called great on account of what is made, and thus the justification of the ungodly, which terminates at the eternal good of a share in the Godhead, is greater than the creation of heaven and earth, which terminates at the good of mutable nature. Hence, Augustine, after saying that "for a just man to be made from a sinner is greater than to create heaven and earth," adds, "for heaven and earth shall pass away, but the justification of the ungodly shall endure." <...>
What's not to like about that in your opinion?
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Absofuckinglutely brilliant parable, IngoB. Cuts to the chase. The hosts should delete the whole thread and just put your parable into Limbo; it really does sum it all up.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Duo Seraphim
Ubi caritas et amor
# 256
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Joyfulsoul:
Gordon Cheng, I apologise for being dense at this present moment - but I don't really see a clear difference between what you and Duo Seraphim are saying about abiding in God's grace. It appears to me that you guys are saying the same thing.
Now, I re-read what both you guys wrote...and now maybe I can see some difference - so, is the difference this apologises if I get this wrong, pls correct me if I misunderstand your position - I am honestly just trying to understand :
The Difference According to GC:
GC:
After receiving Christ's salvation, we are freed from being slaves to sin and now we are slaves to righteous (no free will).
Duo Seraphim :
After receiving Christ's salvation, we are freed from being slaves to sin and now we can choose to be slaves of righteous (i.e. free will being granted -- or, rather in her terminology - lovers of God and doers of good because of the love of God in us manifested through grace and the Holy Spirit). This according to GC, is floofy because not in scripture???
No, Joyfulsoul, I can't see Gordon's problem either nor with what the Catechism says which is based on Scripture (and Tradition I should add).
But you have understood me - for which I am grateful.
Now I see that IngoB has enlisted St Thomas Aquinas to the fray. I can't see what's not to like about those statements either... or IngoB's parable.
[ 23. February 2006, 05:27: Message edited by: Duo Seraphim ]
--------------------
Embrace the serious whack. It's the Catholic thing to do. IngoB
The Messiah, Peace be upon him, said to his Apostles: 'Verily, this world is merely a bridge, so cross over it, and do not make it your abode.' (Bihar al-anwar xiv, 319)
Posts: 7952 | From: Sydney Australia | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dark Knight
Super Zero
# 9415
|
Posted
IngoB...I have said it before, but ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
I found your summary helpful also, JS
GC, I wonder if you have any thoughts on old Thomas' contribution. It seems to me that, for many (by no means all) the reformed doctrine of justification by faith leads to antinomianism (smokelessness ![[Smile]](smile.gif) ), Aquinas may have had some wisdom in addressing this by the looks of things.
--------------------
So don't ever call me lucky
You don't know what I done, what it was, who I lost, or what it cost me - A B Original: I C U
----
Love is as strong as death (Song of Solomon 8:6).
Posts: 2958 | From: Beyond the Yellow Brick Road | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by rosamundi:
Presuming either on your own capacities to save yourself, or on God's power or mercy (hoping to obtain his forgiveness without conversion and glory without merit), is a sin against hope. But then so is ceasing to hope for your personal salvation from God, for help in attaining it or for the forgiveness of his sins.
Deborah
The intervening discussion has all been very interesting, not least because it has shown me that what the Catholic church teaches in fact, is quite different from how nearly every Roman Catholic churchgoer I have met, including one prists parses their faith.
But here, in the above quote I think we have a real difference. Because reformation Protestantism has always taught imputed righteousness from the moment of conversion, it means it is not presumption to be assured of your salvation on the basis of Christ's work and God's promises. I can say I am sure I am going to heaven without it being a sin.
Could I ask in furtherance to what has been posted very informatively by RC shipmates what they see the role of the sacraments + confession? Might this also be a point of diveregence?
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evo1
Shipmate
# 10249
|
Posted
Yes, excellent parable IngoB.
And this whole subject of faith and works I find becomes very difficult the moment we start to logically figure it out. If you like, a fire does not have to concentrate hard to produce smoke, it does not spend hours on end wondering how it can best produce smoke and in what way it should produce smoke a an individual blaze, it just produces smoke without even realising it.
It seems that in Paul's day, there were plenty around who were considering that since they were now believers, they could do anything horrible they liked since they were saved (and indeed were doing it). Paul corrects them sternly.
And also, in Revelations, Jesus himself tells one of the churches that he knows what they do - there good works that is, but chastises them for losing their first love - presumably, the why.
I was discussing this with some friends recently and we decided that the optimum place to be on this whole faith / works thing would be this: If asked where you believe your Christianity is founded, you would say it was your faith only. But if you asked someone else how they know a Christian, they would say it was by their works.
--------------------
Just think how horrid I would be if I didn't have a Personal Relationship with Jesus
Posts: 1058 | From: Hull, England | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gordon Cheng
a child on sydney harbour
# 8895
|
Posted
Nifty parable, Ingo, and it does the heart good also to sense the love flowing like ecumenical radiation between yourself and Mousethief.
The only problem is that I agree with it. Fire and smoke go together as surely as night follows day or bombast follows a brain surgeon. In the same way, to quote Martin Luther, "Faith alone saves, but saving faith is never alone."
(Can I also add that the allusion to James as an "epistle of straw" accurately reflects a comment by Martin Luther made in 1521. However he changed his mind on this and came to accept that James was part of the canon, as evidenced by the fact that he included it in his translation of the Bible and subsequently we have sermons from him on this book. If indeed it was a change of mind; I am inclined to think that in context, it was typical Martinian overstatement).
Will get back to you on Thomas Aquinas, but it was important to sort out that like you, I think that faith issues forth in action. The division is not at this point, but as to whether or not it is faith alone that forms the sole basis of our justification, and consequently allows us to be completely assured of our salvation.
I agree too with Lep's observations about a discrepancy between the formal teaching of the RC church, as mediated by its representatives on this board, and that of many of its adherents.
--------------------
Latest on blog: those were the days...; throwing up; clerical abuse; biddulph on child care
Posts: 4392 | From: Sydney, Australia | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
Because reformation Protestantism has always taught imputed righteousness from the moment of conversion, it means it is not presumption to be assured of your salvation on the basis of Christ's work and God's promises. I can say I am sure I am going to heaven without it being a sin.
But can you say it and actually believe it?
Gordon just avoided the question, and I'm a bit disappointed with him. It seems to me that through faith you can have certainty that the elect are assured of salvation, for the aforementioned reasons. However, I still don't see how anyone can be certain that their faith will last unless they're planning on dying in the next few hours.
How can one be truly certain that the seed has not fallen on rocky ground? What is qualitatively different about your own faith from someone who had faith for a couple of years and then lost it?
Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Ian Climacus
Liturgical Slattern
# 944
|
Posted
The more I read this thread the more I want to hug a Roman. Are there any available?
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
I agree too with Lep's observations about a discrepancy between the formal teaching of the RC church, as mediated by its representatives on this board, and that of many of its adherents.
I suppose all evangelicals are perfect examples of Evangelicalism, Gordon and Lep? ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif) And what is "many"? 500,000? 500,000,000? 5? There are a large number of Catholics out there.
We're blessed to have very informed people on this Ship: ask any Christmas/Easter attender about their faith, and you may get different answers.
That said, most of the Catholics I'm blessed to know say exactly what has been said here(*). It may be phrased a bit more ambiguously, but when you get talking regularly and form a relationship with someone you find out more than if you just see them as someone to be converted.
And if there is any teaching to be done, as there always is, as TT said, let the Romans do it. They know their flock and they care for them as best they can.
* [and I consider myself blessed to know Duo in real life, and would hope to be able to meet Ingo, TT & Trisagion one day (either here or, God willing, in Paradise) to drink from their fonts of wisdom and perhaps share some schismatic ideas and thoughts from my side ]
[ 23. February 2006, 09:33: Message edited by: Ian Climacus ]
Posts: 7800 | From: On the border | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
The intervening discussion has all been very interesting, not least because it has shown me that what the Catholic church teaches in fact, is quite different from how nearly every Roman Catholic churchgoer I have met, including one prists parses their faith.
"Catholicism doesn't actually worship Mary. Catholic practice can make this hard to explain." - KR (a devout Catholic) referring to a Cathechism class she'd just seen.
(And I've been convinced for a while that there's more heterodoxy in the Roman Catholic Church even than in the Anglican Communion).
quote:
But here, in the above quote I think we have a real difference. Because reformation Protestantism has always taught imputed righteousness from the moment of conversion, it means it is not presumption to be assured of your salvation on the basis of Christ's work and God's promises. I can say I am sure I am going to heaven without it being a sin.
Comments about Torquemada, Dr. Dobson and other evil Christians notwithstanding?
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
I most certainly did not avoid the question, GreyFace! I pointed to the promises of Scripture and indicated that there was no specific answer offered. I also gave you my speculation, which for a committed biblicist like myself really is a work of supererogation!
But your speculation didn't answer the question. It just restated it.
What gives you (specifically you) certainty (as in, complete and total assurance) that you are elect and thus will not fall away, given that it is possible for one who is reprobate to look like they have saving faith and then fall away? Hint: you can't answer by saying that you're one of the elect - that's circular reasoning.
Or are you saying that the assurance of your election which you feel is a direct gift of God, on top of saving faith?
Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
Indeed - surely it is one of the Marks of the Reprobate™ that they think they are "all right with God", and therefore don't need to repent?
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
AdamPater
Sacristan of the LavaLamp
# 4431
|
Posted
I'm left feeling more than a little confused about just what Gospel is to be preached to Roman Catholics, and everyone-else as well. Something seems to have shifted from the Good News of salvation in Jesus Christ to Good News of the assurance of salvation in Jesus Christ, which is quite a different article surely.
In general way I can see how this would happen, if one were to dwell upon the arguments of the Reformation: it was arguably kicked off by an overly-scrupulous monk who quested after assurance above all else. But that doesn't seem to me to be the same as the Good News that God was (is!) in Christ Jesus reconciling the world to himself (which is the simple summary I carry around with me).
--------------------
Put not your trust in princes.
Posts: 4894 | From: On the left of the big pink bit. | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
