|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Preaching the gospel to Roman Catholics
|
Craigmaddie
c/o The Pickwick Club
# 8367
|
Posted
Excuse my double post - I just wanted to provide a link for your perusal, Gordon.
Grace and Justification
--------------------
Via Veritas Vita
Posts: 1093 | From: Scotchland, Europeshire | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
I don't read the bible*. Would you like to accuse me of being without the HS and/or biblically illiterate?
C
* ok I lie - we have a family 2 minute daily bible reading and prayer time. I gave up reading to concentrate on listening and doing.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
noneen
Shipmate
# 11023
|
Posted
quote:
The Roman church simply does not understand the basis of salvation, therefore they can't find it or teach others how to find it.
of course a viewpoint all depends on where one is located !!!!
... do you mean the church leadership, the church membership and/or both ?!?! ... are we all gone to hell in a handbasket .. or just the ones in collars ![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
what about if we don't tell anyone else how to find 'it'... if we stay 'among ourselves', would we be OK then, or is our presence an on-going offence!!!!!! ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
... bless , tis rare enough in life i get to meet someone who has it all sorted out for God in advance of judgement day !!! (I'm sure God is appropriately grateful!!! ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif) !!!!)
--------------------
... 'but Father, Jesus drank wine at Cana and danced' ... 'Not in the presence of the Blessed Sacrament, he didn't', Father replied
Posts: 472 | From: ireland | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
rosamundi
Ship's lacemaker
# 2495
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
The Roman church simply does not understand the basis of salvation, therefore they can't find it or teach others how to find it.
Gordon, did you deliberately set out to come across as unbelievably rude and ignorant with this little comment?
The Catholic Church teaches that Salvation comes from God alone, our salvation flows from God's initiative of love for us, salvation is a gift from Christ, and that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, and that apart from the Cross, there is no other ladder by which we can get to heaven. Still, the Christian faith is not a "religion of the book." Christianity is the religion of the "Word" of God, a word which is "not a written and mute word, but the Word is incarnate and living". If the Scriptures are not to remain a dead letter, Christ, the eternal Word of the living God, must, through the Holy Spirit, "open [our] minds to understand the Scriptures."
Deborah
--------------------
Website.
Ship of Fools flickr group
Posts: 2382 | From: here or there | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
the_raptor
Shipmate
# 10533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by rosamundi:
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
The Roman church simply does not understand the basis of salvation, therefore they can't find it or teach others how to find it.
Gordon, did you deliberately set out to come across as unbelievably rude and ignorant with this little comment?
The Catholic Church teaches that Salvation comes from God alone, our salvation flows from God's initiative of love for us, salvation is a gift from Christ, and that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, and that apart from the Cross, there is no other ladder by which we can get to heaven. Still, the Christian faith is not a "religion of the book." Christianity is the religion of the "Word" of God, a word which is "not a written and mute word, but the Word is incarnate and living". If the Scriptures are not to remain a dead letter, Christ, the eternal Word of the living God, must, through the Holy Spirit, "open [our] minds to understand the Scriptures."
Deborah
In the words of my generation. Owned.
--------------------
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
|
|
Ceesharp
Shipmate
# 3818
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
The Roman church simply does not understand the basis of salvation, therefore they can't find it or teach others how to find it.
Gordon, I've been confronted by people who hold the same views as you for the last 30 years, and it's always hurtful. Even more hurtful is that all these years later my daughter meets with the same attitude from some people in her CU at university.
I didn't want to join in this argument, but enough is enough.
[ 20. February 2006, 16:08: Message edited by: C# ]
Posts: 629 | From: West Midlands, UK | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gordon Cheng
a child on sydney harbour
# 8895
|
Posted
Hi C# and others,
I wasn't intending hurt; but you must be aware that this is simply the historic Protestant position egarding the Catholic church, and similarly that the Catholic church has since the time of the Reformation insisted that this historic position is wrong, recent dialogues between Protestant and Catholic groups not withstanding. Those RCs aware of their history will know that the changes that have made these dialogues possible come because Protestantism in many parts of the world has drifted from its historic roots and come theologically closer to Catholicism.
Justinian, the passages you cite have no bearing on the basis by which we are declared not guilty before God. Anyone who stands before God without having placed their trust in Jesus' death will indeed be judged according to their works, and condemned. Good works, on the other hand, flow naturally from saving faith. But it doesn't at all follow that they form the basis of God's "not guilty" verdict.
Rosamundi, referring to the RC catechism you said:
quote:
apart from the Cross, there is no other ladder by which we can get to heaven.
The way this is phrased by the Catechism reveals the difference we are discussing. In RC teaching, as your links show, Christ opens the way by his death on the cross, after which our effort (inspired by his grace) must ascend the ladder.
This is precisely what I am denying is the case. For those who trust in Jesus, the ladder has been ascended. We are, in the New Testament's repeated phrase "in Christ". And Christ is in heaven. No ascending remains to be done, and we can be completely free of the fear of God's judgement.
--------------------
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
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
Those RCs aware of their history will know that the changes that have made these dialogues possible come because Protestantism in many parts of the world has drifted from its historic roots and come theologically closer to Catholicism.
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 ...
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gordon Cheng
a child on sydney harbour
# 8895
|
Posted
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.
I agree that having less anti-Catholic bigotry around would be a good thing.
I would also want to insist that highlighting theological differences is not bigotry but clarity; indeed it is the exact opposite of bigotry because only once you look at the facts of the matter can discussion begin.
--------------------
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
|
|
rosamundi
Ship's lacemaker
# 2495
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
I would also want to insist that highlighting theological differences is not bigotry but clarity; indeed it is the exact opposite of bigotry because only once you look at the facts of the matter can discussion begin.
The problem is, Gordon, that you are coming across as the worst kind of "my way or the Highway to Hell" bigot.
You need to work on your communication skills - I know some Sisters who can help you with that.
Deborah
[I call myself a Catholic and don't know the difference between nuns and Sisters? Meh]
[ 20. February 2006, 21:12: Message edited by: rosamundi ]
--------------------
Website.
Ship of Fools flickr group
Posts: 2382 | From: here or there | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
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.
I agree that having less anti-Catholic bigotry around would be a good thing.
I would also want to insist that highlighting theological differences is not bigotry but clarity; indeed it is the exact opposite of bigotry because only once you look at the facts of the matter can discussion begin.
You're not looking at the facts, though. You're looking at something with you're preconceived ideas and then slamming others then they don't meet your standards of purity.
I can't imagine why any Catholic would give you the time of day, never mind anything else.
C
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
Justinian, the passages you cite have no bearing on the basis by which we are declared not guilty before God.
You really can't cope with the idea that Matthew disagreed with Paul (almost certainly) and Paul as read by Luther (definitely) can you? You are imposing an alien theology on the author of a text.
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cheesy*:
You're not looking at the facts, though. You're looking at something with you're preconceived ideas and then slamming others then they don't meet your standards of purity.
Well, to be fair to Gordon, it is a fact that Catholicism is not Calvinist.
The question is whether or not this makes them un-Biblical Semi-Pelagians. Gordon probably thinks so. I don't.
--------------------
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
|
|
Emma Louise
Storm in a teapot
# 3571
|
Posted
Cheng.... sometimes I worry that you really do believe what you write.
Posts: 12719 | From: Enid Blyton territory. | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by Cheesy*:
You're not looking at the facts, though. You're looking at something with yourpreconceived ideas and then slamming others then they don't meet your standards of purity.
<slightly corrected my own crap grammar ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif) >
Well, to be fair to Gordon, it is a fact that Catholicism is not Calvinist.
The question is whether or not this makes them un-Biblical Semi-Pelagians. Gordon probably thinks so. I don't.
Since when has Calvinism been a measure of Real Christianity&trade ?
Calvinism will be Chapter 1 in my forthcoming tome 'Biblical-but-bollocks'.
C
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
I wasn't intending hurt; but you must be aware that this is simply the historic Protestant position egarding the Catholic church, and similarly that the Catholic church has since the time of the Reformation insisted that this historic position is wrong, recent dialogues between Protestant and Catholic groups not withstanding.
Gordon, please, please read the JDDJ at some stage, will you? There's plenty to disagree upon still, but really, by going on about salvation you are simply painting yourself into a tight little corner in which most Protestants are not sitting anymore, and really, never have been.
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
The way this is phrased by the Catechism reveals the difference we are discussing. In RC teaching, as your links show, Christ opens the way by his death on the cross, after which our effort (inspired by his grace) must ascend the ladder.
Not "must", Gordon, "will" - if we don't resist grace. That dignity however does the human being possess, that he can let God's grace work through himself, completely, more or less, or not at all.
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
For those who trust in Jesus, the ladder has been ascended. We are, in the New Testament's repeated phrase "in Christ". And Christ is in heaven. No ascending remains to be done, and we can be completely free of the fear of God's judgement.
Calvinism - the digital doctrine of salvation which samples with one bit per lifetime. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
--------------------
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
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
Justinian, the passages you cite have no bearing on the basis by which we are declared not guilty before God. Anyone who stands before God without having placed their trust in Jesus' death will indeed be judged according to their works, and condemned. Good works, on the other hand, flow naturally from saving faith. But it doesn't at all follow that they form the basis of God's "not guilty" verdict.
quote:
45Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.
46And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.
Gordon, how much more explicit do you want? This is what Jesus of Nazareth himself says shall happen at the judgement. If you wish to take the words of Saul of Tarsus over those of Jeusus of Nazareth, be my guest (especially given that almost all of Paul's epistles are explicitely written to specific people, and none of those are Gordon Cheng or Justinian). Just call yourself a Pauline (or possibly a Calvinist) rather than a Christian please. And don't accuse others of failing to read scriptures when you deny clear meanings of the Gospels. (You can accuse them of being mistaken and of heresies (which require you to have Tradition) - but that is another story).
You can legitimately say that the bible is unclear and that your interpretation is [something] (and that you believe that your interpreations are the correct ones) - but your statements "not even the slightest scintilla" and "no bearing on" are completely and utterly wrong and betray a deep and profound ignorance of the complexities of the bible.
--------------------
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
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Just call yourself a Pauline (or possibly a Calvinist) rather than a Christian please.
My apologies for crossing the line with this remark.
--------------------
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 IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
I wasn't intending hurt; but you must be aware that this is simply the historic Protestant position egarding the Catholic church, and similarly that the Catholic church has since the time of the Reformation insisted that this historic position is wrong, recent dialogues between Protestant and Catholic groups not withstanding.
Gordon, please, please read the JDDJ at some stage, will you?
To your great surprise possiblly, Ingo, I saw this and read it before entering into this discussion. It is a carefully worded document which suggests to me that parts of the Lutheran denomination have shifted ground, and the Roman Catholic denomination hasn't (indeed how could it, because if God wills something and the Roman Church pronounces on the matter, that matter is settled for eternity isn't it?)
This is a masterpiece of ambiguity, for example:
quote:
The justification of sinners is forgiveness of sins and being made righteous by justifying grace, which makes us children of God. In justification the righteous receive from Christ faith, hope, and love and are thereby taken into communion with him
in other words our faith, hope and love are now seen as an integral part of the "justification" package.
But this view is not traditional Lutheranism (as I've absolutely no doubt that you understand, Ingo, being the bright brain surgeon that you are) and more to the point, it is the most dreadful confusion of what the Bible actually says.
Paul in Romans:
quote:
Rom. 5:8 but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. 9 Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God.
so certain is our future salvation that Paul here speaks of our justification as past. You will notice that it is entirely on the basis of the blood of Christ, that is to say, his death on the cross. We are now in heaven with him, as Paul teaches elsewhere.
Divine Outlaw Dwarf and Justinian , the question of whether the teaching of Paul can be separated off from the teaching of the rest of the New Testament is extremely important, but not one that I'm proposing to address here. True Roman Catholics rightly recognize the unitary divine authorship of scripture working in and through the multiplicity of human authors. This is one of the many things they get right, that liberalism doesn't.
Justinian the specific verses you highlight reinforce the truth that sinners are condemned on the basis of their works, a point agreed by historical Protestantism. As for the righteous, you will notice that their attitude to the "least of these my brothers" is key to their fate. In Matthew's gospel, if you check how "brothers" is used by Jesus, it refers to his disciples:
quote:
Matt. 12:46 While he was still speaking to the people, behold, his mother and his brothers stood outside, asking to speak to him. 48 But he replied to the man who told him, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?” 49 And stretching out his hand toward his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers!
In other words, in Mt 25 Jesus is referring to the attitude of Christians to their fellow believers. Anyone who calls Jesus "Lord" and despises their Christian brothers and sisters is a liar, and their profession of faith is not to be believed. They're telling porkies! This is in no way the same as regarding their good works as part of the basis of their justification before God.
BTW It's not necessary to appeal to Paul or any other writer to get this understanding from Matthew's gospel, but it is only to be expected that when we turn to a Paul, a John or a Peter, they would say the same as the words of Jesus recorded in Matthew.
(Oh and BTW the 2nd, this in no way excuses Christians from the duty of doing good to all men. It just isn't the basis for our right-standing with God.)
--------------------
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
|
|
Demas
Ship's Deserter
# 24
|
Posted
Gordon - I've split the case of Jesus v. Paul (50) 1 GLR 3 off into another thread - if you wouldn't mind popping by I would love to hear from you...
--------------------
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
|
|
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
As for the righteous, you will notice that their attitude to the "least of these my brothers" is key to their fate. In Matthew's gospel, if you check how "brothers" is used by Jesus, it refers to his disciples:
quote:
Matt. 12:46 While he was still speaking to the people, behold, his mother and his brothers stood outside, asking to speak to him. 48 But he replied to the man who told him, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?” 49 And stretching out his hand toward his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers!
In other words, in Mt 25 Jesus is referring to the attitude of Christians to their fellow believers.
It's remarkable, how the Scriptures always seem to fit your beliefs perfectly. I can't help thinking of the old gentleman Procrustes, and his famous bed.
--------------------
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
|
|
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
It wasn't intended to be an argument, Gordon. I decided a while back that there is no more point in arguing with you than with an Eliza program. You may respond, but you don't hear and understand anything that's said to you. Your mind is completely closed.
That's why I haven't argued with you on this thread, and it's why I haven't called you to hell over it. I simply can't imagine that it would have any effect at all.
That being the case, I shouldn't have responded at all to your tortured exegesis. I'll try to refrain in the future.
--------------------
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
|
|
AdamPater
Sacristan of the LavaLamp
# 4431
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
In other words, in Mt 25 Jesus is referring to the attitude of Christians to their fellow believers.
Oh my.... oh my Lord ![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
There's another open-mouthed moment, to go in the special box along with "the Holy Spirit only speaks to us through the Bible" and "God told Abram to go to Canaan in the same way that He told light to come into being".
You poor, benighted, impoverished soul. ![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif)
[Josephine:
Eliza, yes, exactly - must remember that and stop wasting time.
That people in practise realise that is the basis for my bet that Gordon won't get called to Hell again for a while.]
[ 21. February 2006, 01:31: Message edited by: AdamPater ]
--------------------
Put not your trust in princes.
Posts: 4894 | From: On the left of the big pink bit. | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
AdamPater
Sacristan of the LavaLamp
# 4431
|
Posted
Sexist as well? But I'm not a host, as you know.
I don't think you get it: I wasn't being sharp, either. Your last few posts have put me back where we were a few months ago in the "Spiritual Growth threads": simply stunned at the thought-world you seem to inhabit. Stunned once again into praying for you, which is no doubt a good thing, because that's the only possible response given communication is impossible.
But this is hardly appropriate for a debating board. Ciao, bella.
[ 21. February 2006, 02:32: Message edited by: AdamPater ]
--------------------
Put not your trust in princes.
Posts: 4894 | From: On the left of the big pink bit. | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Niënna
Ship's Lotus Blossom
# 4652
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
This is a masterpiece of ambiguity, for example:
quote:
The justification of sinners is forgiveness of sins and being made righteous by justifying grace, which makes us children of God. In justification the righteous receive from Christ faith, hope, and love and are thereby taken into communion with him
in other words our faith, hope and love are now seen as an integral part of the "justification" package.
<snip> it is the most dreadful confusion of what the Bible actually says.
Paul in Romans:
quote:
Rom. 5:8 but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. 9 Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God.
Actually I find that original snippet quite stunningly beautiful and fits (imho) marvelously with scripture. The only twisting or perversion that I can see is your Calvinist perspective on that section. (Hosts, this not meant to be an attact on Gordon C - I am refering to the perspective or approach. Is that ok, or am I crossing the line?).
I just really don't see it changing justification at all. All I see it saying is that because of God's blood, we are made righteous and through Christ we can do all good things. Essentially the justification we receive enables us to produce fruit [of the Spirit] (faith, love, hope). There's no perversion in that at all.
Strangely enough, Gordon Cheng, this thread (as it has been developed) has helped me have a greater appreciation for the beauty and inspiration of the Holy Spirit in Catholism. Like, Ruth, I also admire and appreciate all the gentle patience and intelligence and apt responses of the Catholics on this thread.
--------------------
[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
|
|
Duo Seraphim
Ubi caritas et amor
# 256
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
This is a masterpiece of ambiguity, for example:
quote:
The justification of sinners is forgiveness of sins and being made righteous by justifying grace, which makes us children of God. In justification the righteous receive from Christ faith, hope, and love and are thereby taken into communion with him
in other words our faith, hope and love are now seen as an integral part of the "justification" package.
But this view is not traditional Lutheranism (as I've absolutely no doubt that you understand, Ingo, being the bright brain surgeon that you are) and more to the point, it is the most dreadful confusion of what the Bible actually says.
Paul in Romans:
quote:
Rom. 5:8 but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. 9 Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God.
so certain is our future salvation that Paul here speaks of our justification as past. You will notice that it is entirely on the basis of the blood of Christ, that is to say, his death on the cross. We are now in heaven with him, as Paul teaches elsewhere.
Well don't we get faith, love and hope from justification? Isn't that precisely a part of what "unmerited grace" is about? Indeed the passage from St Paul you quote strengthens that view, rather than undercuts it.
There's also nothing ambiguous about this central statement from the JDDJ
quote:
We confess together that sinners are justified by faith in the saving action of God in Christ. By the action of the Holy Spirit in baptism, they are granted the gift of salvation, which lays the basis for the whole Christian life. They place their trust in God's gracious promise by justifying faith, which includes hope in God and love for him. Such a faith is active in love and thus the Christian cannot and should not remain without works. But whatever in the justified precedes or follows the free gift of faith is neither the basis of justification nor merits it.
The JDDJ also gathers Paul's teachings on justification together. Among them are Paul's statments that the justified are still subject to the power of sin Rom 6:12-14 "since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Rom 3:23; cf. Rom 1:18-3:20; 11:32; Gal 3:22).
So we are indeed justified by God for Christ's sake by grace as a free unmerited gift of God. But we have to work staying in communion with God, to keep from slipping away back to sin and death. Thus to suggest that we can no longer fall short of the promises of Christ because to quote you
quote:
We are now in heaven with him, as Paul teaches elsewhere.
is not in fact what Paul teaches elsewhwere. In fact, he says the very reverse: "Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; for it is God who is at work in you, enabling you both to will and to work for his good pleasure" (Phil 2:12f).
By living our lives in accordance with God's will we please God and we express our love for him and for our fellow humans. We may even manage to gather some more to come along with us. But to say that our good works merit our justification, no - that is not any part of the teachings of the Catholic Church. On the other hand to say that by living good and righteous lives we can deepen our relationship with God - well that certainly is. But in the end all of this comes by God's grace, unmerited by us. Where is the ambiguity?
So for the justified, God's promise is fulfilled now and then fully in God's Kingdom to come. You see, we don't have any difficulty in a promise made as a result of the sacrifice of "our Lord, who was put to death for our trespasses and raised for our justification" (Rom 4:25) being presently operative then, now and for ever to come. Indeed we celebrate that pivotal act of sacrifice and justification as the Eucharist, the really present sacrifice of Jesus Christ - forever then, forever present now and of this moment, forever a promise and guarantee for our salvation.
Which, so it seems to me, is what Paul talks about here:
quote:
Rom. 5:8 but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. 9 Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God.
It occurs to me that you may have read the JDDJ - but not understoood the significance of it or the fact that it is a joint declaration by the Lutheran World Federation and the Catholic Church. The LWF strikes me as representing more than just "some" Lutherans or "part of the Lutheran denomination". Or is it a certain amount of pique at seeing one of the central arguments of the Reformation settled and that both sides have moved on with a solid basis for considering these knotty challenges set out at paragraph 43 of the JDDJ?
quote:
...the relationship between the Word of God and church doctrine, as well as ecclesiology, ecclesial authority, church unity, ministry, the sacraments, and the relation between justification and social ethics?
Incidentally, any Catholic who attends Mass (or Morning Prayer, Vespers, Night Prayer or Benediction) is being exposed to the Word. The Word actually runs through the entire liturgy and is not simply confined to the Liturgy of the Word.
Although it is a couple of pages back, IngoB correctly points out that there was one revelation of God's message to us - in Jesus Christ. But we are still struggling to understand the meaning of that message, although we have the Word and the aid of the Holy Spirit, who continues to guide us, with a living Tradition to aid our understanding.
--------------------
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:
Thus to suggest that we can no longer fall short of the promises of Christ because to quote you
quote:
We are now in heaven with him, as Paul teaches elsewhere.
is not in fact what Paul teaches elsewhwere.
Once again, Duo, this is an error of fact which undermines a key point that you are attempting to establish.
quote:
originally posted by Paul:
Ephesians 2:4 But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, 5 even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved— 6 and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, 7 so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus.
it's on this basis that he immediately concludes:
quote:
8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast. 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.
An excellent passage which shows not only that our works have no part to play whatsoever at any point in our salvation, but nonetheless demonstrates how the Christian life is a life of good works.
I would agree that certain problems between the Lutherans and the Romans have been solved, but only really by the Lutherans departing from the clarity that Luther, and before him Paul, had on the relationship between faith and works.
[ 21. February 2006, 03:15: 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
|
|
AdamPater
Sacristan of the LavaLamp
# 4431
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Joyfulsoul:
Strangely enough, Gordon Cheng, this thread (as it has been developed) has helped me have a greater appreciation for the beauty and inspiration of the Holy Spirit in Catholism.
Me too. On this basis, Gordon's studies may prove to be a truly useful educational tool for the Catholic Church. And they're not even published yet!
--------------------
Put not your trust in princes.
Posts: 4894 | From: On the left of the big pink bit. | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Gordon Cheng
a child on sydney harbour
# 8895
|
Posted
Oh, and while we're on justification, notice how Paul makes justification, sanctification and cleansing a past act here:
quote:
1 Corinthians 6:11 But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.
Again, we are already in Christ and cleansed from sin; because of the work of Jesus our confidence in our standing before God is complete. That's the basis of hope and joy; if there is no such certainty then both hope and joy disappear.
[ 21. February 2006, 03:41: 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
|
|
Niënna
Ship's Lotus Blossom
# 4652
|
Posted
I wouldn't disgree. But I might suggest that sanctification was started because of Christ and continues because of Christ. Essentially,
quote:
being confident of this, that he who began a good work in you will carry it on to completion until the day of Christ Jesus. (Philippians 1:6, NIV)
Hence, we were sanctified and we now are being sanctified by continuing to abide in him. Surely this understanding of the sanctifying process through abiding in Christ is present in John 15, no?
[ 21. February 2006, 04:02: Message edited by: Joyfulsoul ]
--------------------
[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
|
|
Duo Seraphim
Ubi caritas et amor
# 256
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
quote:
Originally posted by Duo Seraphim:
Thus to suggest that we can no longer fall short of the promises of Christ because to quote you
quote:
We are now in heaven with him, as Paul teaches elsewhere.
is not in fact what Paul teaches elsewhwere.
Once again, Duo, this is an error of fact which undermines a key point that you are attempting to establish.
quote:
originally posted by Paul:
Ephesians 2:4 But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, 5 even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved— 6 and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, 7 so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus.
it's on this basis that he immediately concludes:
quote:
8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast. 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.
An excellent passage which shows not only that our works have no part to play whatsoever at any point in our salvation, but nonetheless demonstrates how the Christian life is a life of good works.
![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif) That is precisely what the JDDJ said. It is also precisely what I just said. It's what the Catechism says. And Paul: "so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus..." which is a reference to the fulfillment by God of His promises to the justified. Given that this poor world is manifestly not heaven, can you conceive that it is just possible that St Paul meant that by God's grace, quite undeserved by us and not becuase of anything we have done, we became the heirs of Christ, able to call God "Abba, Father" (or actually "Daddy"), rather than we are actually and literally in heaven upon earth. In other words, it's metaphor rather than a literal statement of fact.
What you have evaded, in trying to score a trivial point off me, is that you have once again set up a straw man form of Catholicism, which bears no resemblance to what the Catholic Church teaches and what Catholics actually believe.
Joust with your phantom Catholic Church if you must. But you do a grave disservice to the unity of God's Church in doing so. Or come up with a genuine criticism of Catholic doctrine which you can point to as actually being part of the Magisterium by reference to the documents concerned, rather than these fluffy and inaccurate generalisations.
--------------------
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
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
Gordon, this is the Catholic view
quote:
St. Augustine, Epistle 194, 5.19:
What merit of man is there before grace by which he can achieve grace, as only grace works every one of our good merits in us, and as God, when He crowns our merits, crowns nothing else but His own gifts?
Your misunderstanding is that St Paul contrasts grace vs. merit. He does not. He contrasts grace vs. debt. We can't make God owe us anything by any of our actions. God cannot be made our debtor. If you come to my house and wash my dishes for me, then I owe you some reward for it. You can justly expect it. If my son washes up the dishes, then I don't owe him anything for it. It's only just that he does it. He can claim nothing of me for it, it would be unjust of him to do so. Nevertheless, being a father I may well think that my son merits a reward for doing the dishes. Not because I owe him a reward, but because I love my son, I'm delighted in him being a good boy, and I freely feel like giving him a reward for it. Now, you are a dad. So you should be able to relate to that. Our Abba is the same, except that in Him there is not a hint of other motives (i.e., a human dad may indeed have some sort of bribery in the back of his mind, God does not).
St Paul is not opposed to God rewarding the merit of good works, as is clear from
quote:
Romans 2:6-8 (RSV):
For he will render to every man according to his works: to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; but for those who are factious and do not obey the truth, but obey wickedness, there will be wrath and fury.
--------------------
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
|
|
Niënna
Ship's Lotus Blossom
# 4652
|
Posted
An addition to my previous post:
In Thessalonians, quote:
It is God's will that you should be sanctified: that you should avoid sexual immorality (1 Thes 4:3, NIV)
Paul uses the phrase you should be sanctified, I think, to demonstrate that we participate in holiness through avoiding things that would damage the sanctifying process made availible by Christ's sacrifice.
This, I believe, adds support to the idea that sanctification was enabled by Christ and will continue as we abide and follow Christ. So, we were sanctified and now we are being sanctified...
[eta, bible version]
[ 21. February 2006, 04:18: Message edited by: Joyfulsoul ]
--------------------
[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
|
|
Gordon Cheng
a child on sydney harbour
# 8895
|
Posted
There is no such person as the one rewarded in Romans 2:6-8, Ingo. You need to read this passage as part of the argument, to discover that the sum total of people thus rewarded is big fat zero. Read on to the conclusion of the section (Romans 1:17-3:20). It is a sustained polemic against people who think they can gain righteousness by their good works, and ends with these words:
quote:
Rom. 3:10 as it is written:
“None is righteous, no, not one;
11 no one understands;
no one seeks for God.
12 All have turned aside; together they have become worthless;
no one does good,
not even one.”
13 “Their throat is an open grave;
they use their tongues to deceive.”
“The venom of asps is under their lips.”
Rom. 3:14 “Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness.”
Rom. 3:15 “Their feet are swift to shed blood;
Rom. 3:16 in their paths are ruin and misery,
Rom. 3:17 and the way of peace they have not known.”
Rom. 3:18 “There is no fear of God before their eyes.”
Rom. 3:19 Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God. 20 For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.
Context always matters, but in this discussion in Romans it is particularly important.
Duo, and Ingo I doubt that you will get far along the line of arguing that the Reformation differences are a matter of the past, unless you see the discussion in terms of Romanism and liberal Protestantism. You would do better if you realized that the Joint declarations between various protestantisms and the Roman church only really work if itis assumed that the Protestants have moved on from the theological issues highlighted at that time. Some have, some haven't.
[ 21. February 2006, 04:22: 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
|
|
Gordon Cheng
a child on sydney harbour
# 8895
|
Posted
Joyfulsoul, similar observations can be made about the past, present and future tenses of salvation generally. You were saved; you are being saved; you will be saved.
All three statements are true once it is recognized that our future salvation has been unalterably secured by a past act; the death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus. If even the faintest doubt creeps in about that past act, however, the ability to speak of salvation in the present and future disappears completely. So to observe that salvation is also future is not to introduce any element of uncertainty. Assurance comes about because of what Jesus has already accomplished. the writer of Hebrews puts it like this:
10:14 For by a single offering [Jesus] has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.
[ 21. February 2006, 04:28: 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
|
|
Luke
Soli Deo Gloria
# 306
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by rosamundi:
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
I would also want to insist that highlighting theological differences is not bigotry but clarity; indeed it is the exact opposite of bigotry because only once you look at the facts of the matter can discussion begin.
The problem is, Gordon, that you are coming across as the worst kind of "my way or the Highway to Hell" bigot.
You need to work on your communication skills - I know some Sisters who can help you with that.
Deborah
Wouldn't good communication skills mean you would tell Gordon off in a more pleasant manner?
--------------------
Emily's Voice
Posts: 822 | From: Australia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Duo Seraphim
Ubi caritas et amor
# 256
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
Duo, and Ingo I doubt that you will get far along the line of arguing that the Reformation differences are a matter of the past, unless you see the discussion in terms of Romanism and liberal Protestantism. You would do better if you realized that the Joint declarations between various protestantisms and the Roman church only really work if it is assumed that the Protestants have moved on from the theological issues highlighted at that time. Some have, some haven't.
The fact that some haven't managed to move on is a matter of great regret for us. I do however take comfort that they appear to be in the minority. So they should be - we are called to unity in Christ through our common baptism, not disunity.
As for the rest, I think all you have managed to establish is that Catholicism is not your brand of Calvinism. I think we can take that as read.
--------------------
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
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
Gordon, you can interpret the passage I cited in that larger context: the "patience in well-doing" leading to eternal life cannot be achieved by just following the Mosaic law (Jews) or natural law of conscience (Gentiles), but rather requires the faith in God which is reckoned as righteousness. Basically, St Paul argues here against Jews claiming that they have no need for Jesus, or for that matter against (modern and ancient) pagans ignoring the gospel because being a "generally good person" should be enough for making it to heaven anyway.
Be that as it may, I note that you chose to ignore my explanation of merit vs. debt. But St Paul says quite clearly that he's just denying works as causing debt: "Now to one who works, his wages are not reckoned as a gift but as his due." (Rom 4:4). But he's not condemning all works as valueless: "In Christ Jesus, then, I have reason to be proud of my work for God." (Rom 15:17). I would still appreciate your thoughts on that distinction.
--------------------
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
|
|
Gordon Cheng
a child on sydney harbour
# 8895
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Gordon, this is the Catholic view
quote:
St. Augustine, Epistle 194, 5.19:
What merit of man is there before grace by which he can achieve grace, as only grace works every one of our good merits in us, and as God, when He crowns our merits, crowns nothing else but His own gifts?
Your misunderstanding is that St Paul contrasts grace vs. merit. He does not. He contrasts grace vs. debt.
OK, this is interesting and deserves a reply. Sorry for not getting back on it previously, I wasn't ignoring it deliberately.
The contrast in Paul, strictly speaking, is not grace v merit or debt but grace v works.
So when we do works, good or bad, what follows?
If we do good works, then the payment follows; if bad works then it's a different payment, but still payment nonetheless, since "the wages of sin is death"
You are right when you say that
quote:
We can't make God owe us anything by any of our actions. God cannot be made our debtor.
But God is bound by his own character. "Shall not the judge of all the earth do right?" There's only one answer to this. "Yes". So although we can't "make" God do anything by our works, nevertheless he's bound by his own character—revealed in his word—to punish evil and reward good. His just nature makes him our debtor, whether to punish or to bless.
So when you say:
quote:
The Ingomeister:
St Paul is not opposed to God rewarding the merit of good works, as is clear from
quote:
Romans 2:6-8 (RSV):
[qb]For he will render to every man according to his works: to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; but for those who are factious and do not obey the truth, but obey wickedness, there will be wrath and fury.
I can't but agree. The only thing I can say though (and I believe this is following the trajectory of Paul's argument in Rom 1:17-3:20) is that by nature and by our works we deserve punishment . And as to what those who trust in Jesus 'deserve', well, Paul has not (at this stage of the argument) begun to discuss them. It's not yet possible to answer the question by reference to Romans 2:6-8. You read those verses, even noting the promise of reward, and you say "Well I'm stuffed then".
[code]
[ 21. February 2006, 14:54: Message edited by: John Holding ]
--------------------
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
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
It appears to me then that we are argueing here whether the glass is half-empty or half-full. There's basically no factual content in your latest post I would have much of an issue with. It's more a question of attitude. It's good news, Gordon. Bloody cheer up already. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
"Man cannot live without joy; therefore when he is deprived of true spiritual joys it is necessary that he become addicted to carnal pleasures." --- St Thomas Aquinas
--------------------
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
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
It appears to me that we are presenting the ineffable God of love as an immature child, just because some want to justify Calvin.
They prefer to make an idol out of God, instead of complying to the gospel of Christ.
If God was to choose some and reject others based not on their character and their ethos, but arbitrarily justifying the unjust while condemning others equally unjust, then He would be less than a young child, less than a dead idol.
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gordon Cheng
a child on sydney harbour
# 8895
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
It appears to me then that we are argueing here whether the glass is half-empty or half-full. There's basically no factual content in your latest post I would have much of an issue with. It's more a question of attitude. It's good news, Gordon. Bloody cheer up already.
Mate, I'm happy as a pig in mud.
So we're agreed? By nature, you are going to hell?
--------------------
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
|
|
AdamPater
Sacristan of the LavaLamp
# 4431
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
... I doubt that you will get far along the line of arguing that the Reformation differences are a matter of the past, unless you see the discussion in terms of Romanism and liberal Protestantism. You would do better if you realized that the Joint declarations between various protestantisms and the Roman church only really work if itis assumed that the Protestants have moved on from the theological issues highlighted at that time.
I may be misunderstanding you, here, but I struggle with the implication that it is only "liberal" protestants that have been able to move on from fighting the battles of the Reformation.
There are other efforts at mutual understanding and cooperation than the JDDJ. Are we to understand that the non-Catholic participants of Evangelicals and Catholics Together are all "liberal protestants"?
Did Billy Graham become so unacceptable in his dotage?
--------------------
Put not your trust in princes.
Posts: 4894 | From: On the left of the big pink bit. | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
I would agree that certain problems between the Lutherans and the Romans have been solved, but only really by the Lutherans departing from the clarity that Luther, and before him Paul, had on the relationship between faith and works.
The very idea that Paul was particularly concerned with anything as abstract as 'the relationship between faith and works' suggests that you are reading Paul through 16th century spectacles.
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gordon Cheng
a child on sydney harbour
# 8895
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by AdamPater:
There are other efforts at mutual understanding and cooperation than the JDDJ. Are we to understand that the non-Catholic participants of Evangelicals and Catholics Together are all "liberal protestants"?
Some of those guys are great. Many don't seem liberal and as far as I know aren't. Others I don't know.
I can understand the impulse to want to be on the same team as others in the fight against secularism. I can sympathize with the desire to find as much in common as you can. I just think the people who signed up for this statement made some compromises that I personally would feel unhappy about.
--------------------
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
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
