Posted                      

quote:

---

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

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

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

---

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

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Custard.:

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

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

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


quote:

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


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

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Celsti:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Custard.:

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

---

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

(Sheesh! You're all so angry!!

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

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

---

quote:

---

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

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

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

[...]

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

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by dinghy sailor:

quote:

---

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

---

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

---

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

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

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

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ian Climacus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by dinghy sailor:

quote:

---

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

---

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

---

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

---

Here's my face Ian:

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

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

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

--------------------
Latest on blog: those were the days...; throwing up; clerical abuse; biddulph on child care

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ian Climacus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by dinghy sailor:

quote:

---

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

---

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

---

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

---

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

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

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

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Puppycat:

quote:

---

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

---

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

---

quote:

---

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

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

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

---

quote:

---

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

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

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

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zappa:

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

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

---

quote:

---

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

---

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

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

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

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

--------------------
Latest on blog: those were the days...; throwing up; clerical abuse; biddulph on child care

Posted                       

quote:

---

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

---

quote:

---

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

---

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

quote:

---

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

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:

---

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

---

You have read the JDDJ, of course?

---

quote:

---

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

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

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

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

---

quote:

---

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

---

quote:

---

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

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

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

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

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

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

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

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

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

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

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

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

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

---

quote:

---

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

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

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

---

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

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

--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ian Climacus:

quote:

---

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

---

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

Why listen to sermons? Bible studies?

---

quote:

---

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

---

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

quote:

---

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

---

quote:

---

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

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:


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

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

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

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

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

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

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

[added a bit]

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

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

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

---

quote:

---

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

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

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

---

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


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

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

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ian Climacus:


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

---

quote:

---

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

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

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

---

: I think most would come to that conclusion.

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

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

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

Posted                      

quote:

---

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

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

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ian Climacus:


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

---

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

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Asking for the opinion of the folk there

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Duo Seraphim:

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

---

quote:

---

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

---