|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Preaching the gospel to Roman Catholics
|
Gordon Cheng
a child on sydney harbour
# 8895
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
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.
(Specifically, the question of whether God's gift of righteousness is imputed or imparted is thoroughly fudged. It's like reading one of Duo's posts, only not as cross)
--------------------
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
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
It's more a question of attitude. It's good news, Gordon. Bloody cheer up already.
What better news could there be - from the egotistical point of view of wanting to be cheered up - that before the foundation of the universe God created us to enjoy eternal life, regardless of any works or merit? Our names are written in the book of life. Are, not will be, or not were once, or might be if certain things happen or are done.
Calvinism (in the broad sense, not the precise TULIP sense) is really a logical outcome of taking the eternal nature of God seriously, his omnipotence and omniscience.
The passages Gordon quoted are what the old CofE prayerbook called "comfortable words". They should make us feel better ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
What better news could there be - from the egotistical point of view of wanting to be cheered up - that before the foundation of the universe God created us to enjoy eternal life, regardless of any works or merit?
That he wants to do so not over and against our nature but within it, not overriding our freedom but co-operating with it, not negating our agency but enhancing it. Thomism is the logical outworking of a relisation that whatever God is (and we cannot know that, stil less input it into a syllogism and end up with double predestination) he can be no sort of thing that competes with us.
[ 21. February 2006, 12:48: Message edited by: Divine Outlaw Dwarf ]
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
AdamPater
Sacristan of the LavaLamp
# 4431
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
Some of those guys are great. Many don't seem liberal and as far as I know aren't. Others I don't know.
So you could as easily say "I don't recognise any of those people there as 'liberal'." So that's one over-statement you'll own up to?
quote:
I can understand the impulse to want to be on the same team as others in the fight against secularism.
There's far more to a life by faith together than taking up arms against a common 'enemy' such as 'secularism'. A joint effort with Muslims, Buddhists or Hindus might achieve that. What you appear to be reluctant to acknowledge is that these people are stuggling to follow one Lord together, that together they have affirmed that quote:
Jesus Christ is Lord. That is the first and final affirmation that Christians make about all of reality.
By your own admission, these people are being led by, and blessed by, the Holy Spirit.
Do you insist on standing by 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.
given that the only salvation they insist on standing by is Jesus?
[ETA I may not be saved by neat code, but it can't hurt trying.]
[ 21. February 2006, 12:55: 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
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Our names are written in the book of life. Are, not will be, or not were once, or might be if certain things happen or are done.
Interestingly this is precisely what the Catholic Church claims was true for the Blessed Virgin Mary from the first instance of her conception. Many professed Calvinists are very unhappy with this. Strange.
![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
--------------------
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:
Do you insist on standing by 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.
given that the only salvation they insist on standing by is Jesus?
Yes, of course.
I dont even see what the rest of your post has to do with anything. Just saying "I stand for niceness and goodness" doesn't mean a thing if you then proceed to let people's tyres down.
In the same way, to have evangelicals like Packer or Colson say that 'we are on about the same thing as Roman Catholics on fundamental issues' or words to this effect doesn't mean a thing, if it's not true. Just means they stuffed up on this occasion. We all make mistakes.
[ 21. February 2006, 13:01: 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
|
|
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
]What better news could there be - from the egotistical point of view of wanting to be cheered up - that before the foundation of the universe God created us to enjoy eternal life, regardless of any works or merit?
The news that he certainly and irresistibly so created all of us for that?
Know anybody who lost his faith, Gordon? If so, was it real? Whether so or not, are you assured of your salvation? Can you be certain you will retain your faith?
Ken, as a Universalist you're exempt from the question. For the rest of us, I suspect the knowledge that God wants us - that's everybody - to be saved is rather better news than the doctrine of unavoidable eternal damnation without hope of parole.
quote:
Calvinism (in the broad sense, not the precise TULIP sense) is really a logical outcome of taking the eternal nature of God seriously, his omnipotence and omniscience.
It's the point of application into history that causes problems though. It seems to say, a person who is predestined to reprobation is eternally unable to repent because God's omnipotence is stacked against him. This is Fecking Bad News for said person, and anyone who loves him.
Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
What Greyface said. All of it.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
The only thing worse than a sharp-tongued woman is a sharp-tongued heavenly host.
Off you go and torture fluffy bunnies, Adsy, while I toast a marhsmallow on that little candle you lit. Scoot along now, there's a good boy
To both Gordon for this comment and AdamPater for the one that provoked it:
I'm not putting on the Maple Leaf Tuque just yet, but both of you take this as a hostly warning that enough's enough. Commandment 1 -- Don't be a jerk. Commandment 3 -- attack the issue not the person.
And, a special to Gordon -- Adam isn't a host on this board and wasn't posting as a host. It's out of bounds to refer the way you have to his hostly role on another Board.
John Holding
Purgatory Host
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
AdamPater
Sacristan of the LavaLamp
# 4431
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
Just saying "I stand for niceness and goodness" doesn't mean a thing if you then proceed to let people's tyres down.
Which sounds very much like "Just saying 'Jesus is Lord' doesn't mean a thing if you then proceed to disagree with me on the interpretation of Paul's Epistle to the Romans." quote:
We all make mistakes.
Indeed. It wasn't my intention to personally attack you earlier; your post shocked me, but that's not an excuse.
[ 21. February 2006, 13:50: 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
|
|
quantpole
Shipmate
# 8401
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Our names are written in the book of life. Are, not will be, or not were once, or might be if certain things happen or are done.
Interestingly this is precisely what the Catholic Church claims was true for the Blessed Virgin Mary from the first instance of her conception. Many professed Calvinists are very unhappy with this. Strange.
I think (pretty much) all Calvinists would say that Mary was destined from eternity (not conception) to bear Christ. They certainly wouldn't be unhappy with someone saying that.
Posts: 885 | From: Leeds | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
It's the point of application into history that causes problems though. It seems to say, a person who is predestined to reprobation is eternally unable to repent because God's omnipotence is stacked against him. This is Fecking Bad News for said person, and anyone who loves him.
It's also bad news for anyone claiming for God to be a good and loving God.
--------------------
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
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quantpole:
I think (pretty much) all Calvinists would say that Mary was destined from eternity (not conception) to bear Christ. They certainly wouldn't be unhappy with someone saying that.
The point I was making was that Ken's account of Calvinism sits quite nicely with the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, something I would think most Calvinists would have a problem with!
[ 21. February 2006, 15:12: Message edited by: Divine Outlaw Dwarf ]
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cymruambyth
Shipmate
# 10887
|
Posted
Question: Who does Gordon Cheng preached the gospel to the Protestants?
--------------------
"Tradition is the living faith of the dead; traditionalism is the dead faith of the living." Jaroslav Pelikan
Posts: 556 | From: The True North Strong and Free | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cymruambyth
Shipmate
# 10887
|
Posted
Lord save us and help us - I really must preview posts. That previous post of mine should read: "Who does Gordon Cheng think preached the gospel to the Protestants?
--------------------
"Tradition is the living faith of the dead; traditionalism is the dead faith of the living." Jaroslav Pelikan
Posts: 556 | From: The True North Strong and Free | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adrian1
Shipmate
# 3994
|
Posted
I know a good many Roman Catholics, most of whom I would count as good friends, and who are far better Christians and ambassadors for the Gospel, not only through their faith but through the way they live their lives, than I'm ever likely to be.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
--------------------
The Parson's Handbook contains much excellent advice, which, if it were more generally followed, would bring some order and reasonableness into the amazing vagaries of Anglican Ritualism. Adrian Fortescue
Posts: 1986 | From: UK | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cymruambyth:
"Who does Gordon Cheng think preached the gospel to the Protestants?
Jesus, I'd imagine. He spoke to Paul on the Damascus road after all!
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gordon Cheng
a child on sydney harbour
# 8895
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cymruambyth:
Lord save us and help us - I really must preview posts. That previous post of mine should read: "Who does Gordon Cheng think preached the gospel to the Protestants?
Martin Luther. He worked it out some time around 1515(+ or -) as he was preaching through Psalms and Romans, and became aware that the"righteousness of God" referred to in Romans 1:17 is a free gift from God, not a standard which we hope to reach by good works.
By the way, I don't deny that there were countless Roman Catholics that believed this before Luther, and certainly more who have believed it since, despite the official teaching of their church.
I also note that had he been allowed to and not been excommunicated, Martin Luther would have continued to teach this as a Roman Catholic.
John Holding, my apologies for crossing the line.
--------------------
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
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
He worked it out some time around 1515(+ or -)
He worked it out? By his own efforts, using his corrupt and fallen reason? Tut, tut. ![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Triple Tiara
Ship's Papabile
# 9556
|
Posted
*** sigh *****
--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.
Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
(Specifically, the question of whether God's gift of righteousness is imputed or imparted is thoroughly fudged. It's like reading one of Duo's posts, only not as cross)
What's the difference? Presumably you must believe that righteousness is imparted at some point, since we don't turn up at the Pearly Gates still in a state of simul iusti et peccatores-ness.
--------------------
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
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
So we're agreed? By nature, you are going to hell?
According to my fallen nature on its lonesome, sure. Although let's restrict that to "past age of reason" to be on the safe side, because the whole thing about the effects of only original sin is currently a bit in limbo... However, I also believe that God's salvific will is universal (note: I did not say that everybody will be saved). So the whole idea that God has this list with good and bad people and therefore I'm just a bio-robot as far as salvation is concerned is simply a naive misunderstanding of how eternity works. God does have such a list in the sense that he knows and indeed has predestined all that occurs, but this does not mean that I don't have a really existing choice to resist or comply with His grace. It's not that He knows what I choose because He has predestined the choice taken, rather He has predestined that I shall choose and He knows the choice I make.
--------------------
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 Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
(Specifically, the question of whether God's gift of righteousness is imputed or imparted is thoroughly fudged. It's like reading one of Duo's posts, only not as cross)
What's the difference? Presumably you must believe that righteousness is imparted at some point, since we don't turn up at the Pearly Gates still in a state of simul iusti et peccatores-ness.
We ought to live out what we are. We are righteous, as in "declared not guilty", because of the death of Christ alone, when we put our trust in him as Lord. That's over and done, and our "not guilty" status is never in doubt while we are in Christ, which is for all eternity.
But yes, we still sin, and we shouldn't, and by the Holy Spirit we've been set free from the compulsion to sin or the inability not to sin. However, because we still sin, it is clear that what has been imputed has not yet been imparted.There's still a whole wodge of pecc in our iustus.
Death or our Lord's return will fix this problem instantly, so that at time we really will be who we already are.
--------------------
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
Oh, and this distinction matters because
(a) it respects what the Bible says on the subject
(b) it maintains absolutely the unearned gift character of our salvation.
(c) it maintains absolutely the complete sufficiency of Christ's death for covering all our sins, past, present and future, and so results in glory going to him.
(d) it gives present assurance of salvation
(e) it gives a reason for living changed lives without the smallest atom of a possibility that we might discover some ground within our character or action for boasting.
They are all important reasons. However if the first wasn't true, the rest wouldn't be either. Despite my earlier words about Luther having worked it out, he was only able to do so because God's Spirit showed it to him.
--------------------
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
Perverse as I am, I can't help concluding either that there is no particular point in trying to lead a "good life", or that the most effective path to perfection is suicide. Neither of which sit well with me, notwithstanding the broken intuitions of my fallen nature.
--------------------
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
Gordon, I want to thank you for this thread because you have caused me to think about what the "gospel" means. How extraordinarily valuable! Thank you very much.
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
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.
I am chuffed to bits that we are in complete argreement. PTL, ![[Yipee]](graemlins/spin.gif)
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
Oh, and this distinction matters because
(a) it respects what the Bible says on the subject
(b) it maintains absolutely the unearned gift character of our salvation.
(c) it maintains absolutely the complete sufficiency of Christ's death for covering all our sins, past, present and future, and so results in glory going to him.
(d) it gives present assurance of salvation
(e) it gives a reason for living changed lives without the smallest atom of a possibility that we might discover some ground within our character or action for boasting.
They are all important reasons. However if the first wasn't true, the rest wouldn't be either. Despite my earlier words about Luther having worked it out, he was only able to do so because God's Spirit showed it to him.
Strangely enough this doesn't really speak to me in the least - but I'm thinking that perhaps it is due a cultural thinking difference. In the sense that I am pomo product and my response is: "But how is this relevant to my life?" and "How does this make me feel?"
But anyways - isn't the crux of thread based on what we believe is the "Gospel"? Right?
Well, I am extraordinarily excited because the "Gospel" is the Good News and how could one not be happy at good news?
So, let me share how I see the Good News (the gospel). I am very excited because a thought occurred to me.
Fr. Gregory mentioned in another thread about how the "West" is Christocentric. I thought his perception was apt and precise and I completely agreed with his criticism .
And so, then I thought - well, "What would the gospel look like from a monotheistic trinitarian perspective?" Which I must admit gave me great pause for thought.
The conclusion so far that I have reached is that gospel includes:
1) Salvific
Jesus saves us from our sins by his blood on the cross (this is an expression of the intensity and patience and suffering of love). He also saves us from the sting of death and bring us eternal life.
2) Transformational
God's spirit moves in us to transform our inner selves to be bigger people - in the sense that as we repented and are baptised and the Holy Spirit renews, changes, transforms, and grows us to be people of greater grace and love and hope and faith and inner beauty.
3) Return to Shalom/Redemptive Work
As we pray, "Father, your kingdom come and your will be done on earth as it is in heaven" -- in a sense, God our Father is bringing us back to Shalom. The restoration of a "relationship" with the Divine. So as God had walked with Adam and guided him in working in the garden of Eden, so we find meaning in participating in God's kingdom by following him to do the good works that he has prepared for us. To be a part of grand commission so powerfully stated in Isaiah 61 - to bring justice and mercy and to share in the love of God with others - especially the poor, the widowed, the down-trodden, and the suffering ones.
I believe this is the full gospel that Jesus preached. (I think there is something very special about the role of the trinity in the gospel that perhaps has not been elaborated fully in this discussion about the gospel - so I am very happy to discuss the role of the trinity in the full gospel.)
What do you* think?
*(Gordon Cheng and anyone and everyone)
[ 22. February 2006, 04:19: 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
|
|
GoodCatholicLad
Shipmate
# 9231
|
Posted
Question for Gorden Cheng, you bio says Anglican but no offense I never met an Anglican/Episcopalian with your point of view and I used to be a member of an Episcopal church for a couple years, granted it was the San Francisco Bay Area. they were nothing at all like you. Perhaps Anglicans in Australia are a different breed of cat. Your postings sound more like an American Southern Baptist, but then the Episcopal church I attended was 99.999% the liturgy was the same as the local RC parish down the road except the lady priest who would never ever knock the RCC or any other church for that matter. Your posts are entertaining even though it's like watching an ant kick Ayer's Rock. Perhaps another hobby? The Catholic bashing it ain't workin".
--------------------
All you have is right now.
Posts: 1234 | From: San Francisco California | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gordon Cheng
a child on sydney harbour
# 8895
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by AdamPater:
Perverse as I am, I can't help concluding either that there is no particular point in trying to lead a "good life", or that the most effective path to perfection is suicide. Neither of which sit well with me, notwithstanding the broken intuitions of my fallen nature.
If this were so then the confession 'Jesus is Lord' would have been evacuated of meaning.
Joyfulsoul, lots of good stuff there, but a few significant ideas seem to be missing. For example, the Bible is primarily a book of judgement, but there's not a lot of that i n what you said.
GoodCatholicLad, there wouldn't be many American Episcopalians like me. Paul Zahl might come close, or Mark Noll, or Ashley Null definitely (all googleable). My theology would be reflective of Thomas Cranmer, the 1662 book of Common Prayer, and the 39 Articles of Religion. So it would be consistent with historical Anglicanism and a lot of the Anglicanism that you would find in Africa or Asia, theologically speaking anyway.
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.
--------------------
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
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
For example, the Bible is primarily a book of judgement,
Based on what?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Niënna
Ship's Lotus Blossom
# 4652
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
Joyfulsoul, lots of good stuff there, but a few significant ideas seem to be missing. For example, the Bible is primarily a book of judgement, but there's not a lot of that i n what you said.
Yes, that is because my theology is based on Jesus's own words, "I have not come to condemn the world but to save the world" (John 3).
--------------------
[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
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
For example, the Bible is primarily a book of judgement,
Based on what?
A statistical survey of the themes and content of most of the books after Genesis 3:5 and before Revelation 22:21.
There is judgement to be found on most pages, together with the means of escaping from the same.
--------------------
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
Joyfulsoul: the light was lit to enable us to see, but we are judged and condemned by what it reveals.
[cross post]
[ 22. February 2006, 04:55: Message edited by: Demas ]
--------------------
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
|
|
Niënna
Ship's Lotus Blossom
# 4652
|
Posted
In addition, I also see the bible primarily as a book of Life - I believe the hebrew words is l'chaim (?) - Jesus came to bring us life. That is the gospel - abundant life.
Inherent in that message is the idea that we are dead or dying or struck with illness. I certainly have no problem with the idea that I need salvation.
Because I need salvation - the whole sense and full meaning of it - I need salvation from the deadness of my sins - I need salvation to live and to be transformed within (which is constant growing process until my last breath) and I also need salvation in my relationships (with God, my family, friends, job, the "world").
[ 22. February 2006, 05:12: 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
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
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?
I sure would like to know!
--------------------
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
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
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)
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Duo Seraphim
Ubi caritas et amor
# 256
|
Posted
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. Now you are suggesting that Catholicism is somehow different to Christianity - again without a shred of proof and without any refence to any Catholic doctrine. Assertion is not debate. Ante up. Right now you are simply looking like a Catholic basher with his metaphorical fingers stuck in his ears.
Jofulsoul - thank you for your various posts on this thread. It shouldn't surprise you to learn that the only thing I would add to your take on gospel is that we Catholics (and others) have Tradition to aid and expound our understanding of the Bible. Otherwise I like what you said.
Even though I agree with Demas that we all fall short of that light, I do not see the Bible as a "book of judgment" but a book of hope and life with God's message to us revealed and fulfilled.
[ 22. February 2006, 06:41: 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
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
I am an Anglican. I rejoice in being an Anglican, and for years I have thought I could not possibly be anything else. However, this thread has made me see new beauties in Catholicism and even made me wonder about converting. The graciousness and patience of the Catholics who have posted here has been eloquent. The beauty of some of the official documents quoted here has been striking - especially in the way in which they have restated Biblical truths in a simple yet powerful manner. Biblical truth and renewed lives are a powerful combination; even though I'm not likely to convert I have felt encouraged by the Catholic posters on this thread. Thank you all.
--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin
Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gordon Cheng
a child on sydney harbour
# 8895
|
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.
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.
--------------------
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 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?
I sure would like to know!
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. I would encourage you and all other shipmates to try it for themselves.
-Eliza
--------------------
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
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
Perhaps a quantitative survey isn't the best way to read texts. Frequency of occurence of a theme is by no means the only indicator of the importance of that theme in the narrative structure of the work. (Leaving aside for the moment the, not unimportant, point that the Bible is not one book but several.)
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gordon Cheng
a child on sydney harbour
# 8895
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
Perhaps a quantitative survey isn't the best way to read texts. Frequency of occurence of a theme is by no means the only indicator of the importance of that theme in the narrative structure of the work. (Leaving aside for the moment the, not unimportant, point that the Bible is not one book but several.)
Agreed on all counts. It's a quick and dirty method of getting a vibe. Still there's an awful lot of judgement, by God, against sinful people, in those 66 books. And there is a prima facie case for saying that the idea matters.
--------------------
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
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
Is anyone claiming that it doesn't matter? There is a world of difference, however, between claiming that a theme matters for a text and that the theme is what the text is about. Death, for example, is a theme that features (and matters) in Wuthering Heights. I don't think you could plausibly claim the book was about death.
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
Perhaps a quantitative survey isn't the best way to read texts. Frequency of occurence of a theme is by no means the only indicator of the importance of that theme in the narrative structure of the work. (Leaving aside for the moment the, not unimportant, point that the Bible is not one book but several.)
Agreed on all counts. It's a quick and dirty method of getting a vibe. Still there's an awful lot of judgement, by God, against sinful people, in those 66 books. And there is a prima facie case for saying that the idea matters.
You must read a different bible to me then. I read about judgement, yes, but against those who pervert the message, those who oppress the poor, who are greedy.
When I look at the life of the Christ, I do not see someone 'judging sinners'. I see someone redeeming sinners, lifting up the humble, healing the sick (even though they don't deserve it).
Yes, if Jesus was to walk into my house today for a cup of tea, he would have a lot to say to me and I would be ashamed. But I strongly believe that God does not get some kind of perverse pleasure in 'judging sinners' - he is for us not against us.
For someone so keen on biblical literacy, you seem to have a very shaky understanding of John 3:17.
C
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gordon Cheng
a child on sydney harbour
# 8895
|
Posted
DOD: Ah well. I think given the place that judgement, Hevaen, Hell and Purgatory hold within Roman theology, your argument with them would be as great as your argument with me. I think the Roman emphasis on the seriousness and finality of judgement is another area where they get it pretty much right.
[ 22. February 2006, 09:45: 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 Joyfulsoul:
Gordon, I want to thank you for this thread because you have caused me to think about what the "gospel" means. How extraordinarily valuable! Thank you very much.
Yes, you have managed to hold your own. It's given me alot to think about and I like the way you didn't hide from an issue but dealt with just about everything raised.
--------------------
Emily's Voice
Posts: 822 | From: Australia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gordon Cheng
a child on sydney harbour
# 8895
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
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
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
DOD: Ah well. I think given the place that judgement, Hevaen, Hell and Purgatory hold within Roman theology, your argument with them would be as great as your argument with me. I think the Roman emphasis on the seriousness and finality of judgement is another area where they get it pretty much right.
Gordon, I am fairly familiar with Roman Catholic theologies, and I struggle to name a single Catholic theologian who would claim that judgement is the controlling theme of the gospel, which is what I was disputing.
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
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.
Gordon, I asked this before and it wasn't a rhetorical question.
Are you a Universalist and if not how can you have full and complete assurance accordance to your understanding of salvation?
Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nunc Dimittis
Seamstress of Sound
# 848
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 9515 | From: Delta Quadrant | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
