|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: The Episcopal Church
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
... has been made.
No it hasn't.
As I said above, by that criteria, all churches will stand against the gates of hell.
Evensong, the point was made but you didn't understand it.
However, inasmuch as a church is only a church if it holds to the confession of St Peter, you are right - all churches will stand against the gates of hell.
However, not all earthly organisations which call themselves churches hold faithfully to the full revelation of Jesus as Christ with all that it entails. Those organisations may be apostate churches from which the lamp stand has been - or will eventually be - removed or they may be false churches which never held to that revelation in the first place.
[ 17. July 2013, 08:12: Message edited by: daronmedway ]
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
...not all earthly organisations which call themselves churches hold faithfully to the full revelation of Jesus as Christ with all that it entails. Those organisations may be apostate churches from which the lamp stand has been - or will eventually be - removed or they may be false churches which never held to that revelation in the first place.
Hmm, this is getting close to 'No True Scotsman' territory, IMO. It would be easy to define what 'having the lampstand removed' looks like in order to fit our concept of which churches are apostate and which are genuine.
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
In that case great care should be taken in establishing what such an eventuality would entail for said churches. What we can't do is deny the possibility of such an eventuality. That would be to deny what has been revealed in Scripture.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
In that case great care should be taken in establishing what such an eventuality would entail for said churches. What we can't do is deny the possibility of such an eventuality. That would be to deny what has been revealed in Scripture.
Certainly we can't deny the possibility, I agree. What I'm saying, I think, is that we should - IMO - just consider whether our own church is at risk of having its lampstand removed. Perhaps it's not our place to speculate on the status vis-a-vis lampstands of other churches.
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
On the surface of things that would seem to be the most humble attitude to take. However, if one truly believes that a church is danger of apostasy - with the concomitant spiritual dangers that such a state presents to its membership - it would be most unloving not to humbly warn them of their predicament. It's what Jesus did.
[ 17. July 2013, 09:41: Message edited by: daronmedway ]
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
... has been made.
No it hasn't.
As I said above, by that criteria, all churches will stand against the gates of hell.
Evensong, the point was made but you didn't understand it.
However, inasmuch as a church is only a church if it holds to the confession of St Peter, you are right - all churches will stand against the gates of hell.
However, not all earthly organisations which call themselves churches hold faithfully to the full revelation of Jesus as Christ with all that it entails. Those organisations may be apostate churches from which the lamp stand has been - or will eventually be - removed or they may be false churches which never held to that revelation in the first place.
No new point was made. You just reiterated what you said in the first place here and ignored my question and response here.
But that's not a newsflash.
You often ignore questions posed. You're almost as slippery and full of lush rhetoric as mousetheif is.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
Correct profession is insufficient, but it is important. TEC would do well to remember that...
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
rugasaw
Shipmate
# 7315
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
On the surface of things that would seem to be the most humble attitude to take. However, if one truly believes that a church is danger of apostasy - with the concomitant spiritual dangers that such a state presents to its membership - it would be most unloving not to humbly warn them of their predicament. It's what Jesus did.
What do you mean by "It's what Jesus did."? That Jesus told everybody and not just the church that he is the way. Or that he through a hissy fit at the money changers in the temple? Neither of those examples I would fit under humbly warning a church and that churches membership of apostasy.
--------------------
Treat the earth well, It was not given to you by your parents. It was loaned to you by your children. -Unknown
Posts: 2716 | From: Houston | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
I think he's referring to Rev 2:5
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
There are three parts to what we know as "The Church":
- The One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - prior to the Great Schism, there was no doubt as to what this meant.
- Schismatics - the Roman Catholic Church and most of its derivatives, including the TEC.
- Heretics - these are Protestants who veer so far from Authoritative teaching (especially the Holy Trinity) that it is very questionable whether they are part of The Church at all. Sometimes I wonder if ++Kathryn falls into this category.
I have noticed many Anglicans (not all) talking of themselves as if they exclusively are THE Church, guided and sustained by the Holy Spirit - meaning that when they make changes which divide them from other Christians that they are right, and everyone who disagrees with them are wrong and and are in danger of Eternal Damnation.
I'll be generous enough to admit that this is how it sometimes seems to me, re. some Anglicans, but I am probably missing something.
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
... has been made.
No it hasn't.
As I said above, by that criteria, all churches will stand against the gates of hell.
Evensong, the point was made but you didn't understand it.
However, inasmuch as a church is only a church if it holds to the confession of St Peter, you are right - all churches will stand against the gates of hell.
However, not all earthly organisations which call themselves churches hold faithfully to the full revelation of Jesus as Christ with all that it entails. Those organisations may be apostate churches from which the lamp stand has been - or will eventually be - removed or they may be false churches which never held to that revelation in the first place.
No new point was made. You just reiterated what you said in the first place here and ignored my question and response here.
But that's not a newsflash.
You often ignore questions posed. You're almost as slippery and full of lush rhetoric as mousetheif is.
I'm flattered. But in answer to your question: Scientology and Latter Day Saints are two extreme examples.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Evensong asked:Ah I see, so it's not that Jesus is Messiah as Peter said, it's a particular belief you have to believe in about Jesus to be saved? How did the Reformers decide what that was then? Or did they all have different beliefs about that too then?
Evensong, to be honest, sometimes I don't answer your questions because they simply don't warrant a reply. However, in the interests of charity I will answer. When Peter said Jesus is the Christ he meant a whole lot more than a surname, Evensong. He meant that Jesus was the personal fulfilment of the Jewish messianic hope and all that that entails. This is the rock on which the church is built and the way to find out what that rock is, funnily enough, is to read the whole bible Christologically, just as Jesus taught.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:
Evensong asked:Ah I see, so it's not that Jesus is Messiah as Peter said, it's a particular belief you have to believe in about Jesus to be saved? How did the Reformers decide what that was then? Or did they all have different beliefs about that too then?
Evensong, to be honest, sometimes I don't answer your questions because they simply don't warrant a reply. However, in the interests of charity I will answer. When Peter said Jesus is the Christ he meant a whole lot more than a surname, Evensong. He meant that Jesus was the personal fulfilment of the Jewish messianic hope and all that that entails. This is the rock on which the church is built and the way to find out what that rock is, funnily enough, is to read the whole bible Christologically, just as Jesus taught.
Well said.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
...when they make changes which divide them from other Christians that they are right, and everyone who disagrees with them are wrong and and are in danger of Eternal Damnation.
I'll be generous enough to admit that this is how it sometimes seems to me, re. some Anglicans, but I am probably missing something.
No, you berk. There are indeed groupings that like to imply that membership and agreement with their doctrines are essential for salvation, but they tend not to be the Anglicans, and where they are, they're not generally the particular Anglicans you're gunning for here.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
Just to be clear, Scientology is an organisation that adopted the title "Church" for purposes of tax exemption, whilst the LDS are a religion derivative from historic Christianity, constituting a false iteration of the Christian Church. Neither organisation ever had a lampstand to begin with, though the LDS pretend to hold the lampstand monopoly.
I don't think either is a suitable example for an apostate church. Since the Salvationists don't practice baptism or celebrate the Eucharist, they might be a better example of an apostate Christian group. They're doctrinally orthodox in many ways, yet crucially they don't provide for the two great sacraments of the gospel. The same would be true of the Society of Friends. These groups are outside the Church, even if unequivocally Christian in the case of Salvationists, and historically true for most Friends.
Still, while the foregoing communities lack the sacramental means of grace available to those within the Church, I would think that few of us would declare Salvationists and Friends to be devoid of supernatural grace or the fruits of the Spirit.
So what are the practical ramifications of that sort of apostacy?
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
Just to be clear, Scientology is an organisation that adopted the title "Church" for purposes of tax exemption, whilst the LDS are a religion derivative from historic Christianity, constituting a false iteration of the Christian Church. Neither organisation ever had a lampstand to begin with, though the LDS pretend to hold the lampstand monopoly.
Good point, but they still show that organisations can self identify as churches for reasons other than Christ. Now the question, as you rightly point out, is this: are there any mainstream Christian churches which have abandoned - or are in the process of abandoning - a truly biblical vision of Christ? I think the answer is yes, quite a few including the one in which I am a minister.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
I have noticed many Anglicans (not all) talking of themselves as if they exclusively are THE Church, guided and sustained by the Holy Spirit - meaning that when they make changes which divide them from other Christians that they are right, and everyone who disagrees with them are wrong and and are in danger of Eternal Damnation.
I'll be generous enough to admit that this is how it sometimes seems to me, re. some Anglicans, but I am probably missing something.
I don't see why we can't believe what the RCC and the Orthodoxen believe in terms of our own church. They can't both be right so we may as well join in the stupidity.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bostonman
Shipmate
# 17108
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mockingale:
quote:
Originally posted by Bostonman:
In the meantime, how lame is it to call TEC to Hell from the pews of the ELCA?
You realize they're not the same thing, right?
No, I'm such an idiot that I don't know the difference between Lutherans and Episcopalians. But there's full intercommunion between the two organizations: this is pretty similar to calling one diocese of TEC to Hell from another diocese. What's the point? Why spend the energy? If you moved somewhere else, you may well end up back in TEC because of a lack of Lutheran churches. In most of New England, for example. Intellectual, blah blah blah, I know, but where else are you going to go? There are historical and geographical reasons why TEC and ELCA complement one another nicely. I just wouldn't burn any mental bridges.
quote:
For better or worse, the personality of dioceses seem to be dominated by bishops who hold onto their role until they retire. The Lutherans have a pastor that they elect to a term of office as bishop but then he or she returns back to being a pastor.
Read: Anglican bishops function more or less like bishops have functioned for the last 1900+ years.
quote:
I'm bothered largely by the language used and the lazy, heretical theology that it seems to represent by influential people in the TEC episcopacy rather than how TEC approaches the difficult social and liturgical questions of our day. And I'm largely bothered by it because it's made my own little pocket of the Episcopal Church into the barely loyal opposition that would have left for the Ugandans ages ago if it didn't mean leaving the buildings behind.
You found a Lutheran parish that is less objectionably-reactionary than the Episcopal diocese you reside in. That's good for you. I probably would have done the same, and I certainly wouldn't affiliate myself with the sort of would-be-ACNA crowd you're talking about.
But is this the fault of TEC more broadly, or of the bishops of a few dioceses?
Oh, and...
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Sometimes I wonder if ++Kathryn falls into this category.
Your point wouldn't necessarily be more convincing if you spelled her name right, but maybe someone would pay attention. Takes about five seconds to Google.
Posts: 424 | From: USA | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
But in answer to your question: Scientology and Latter Day Saints are two extreme examples.
They don't think Jesus was the messiah?
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Evensong, to be honest, sometimes I don't answer your questions because they simply don't warrant a reply.
LOL. On the previous penal substitution thread you didn't answer a number of questions put to you by myself and Kwesi and others. Not because they didn't warrant a reply - it was because you couldn't square them with your particular interpretation of scripture so you dismissed them and didn't bother engaging.
You ignored anyone that wasn't toeing your particular party line.
You essentially deny what is revealed in Scripture.
Which is rather hilarious because you claim we should not.
But that's nothing new again....most Christians that claim to be "scriptural" are just taking their own particular slants on the bits they like and pretending it is all of scripture.
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
However, in the interests of charity I will answer. When Peter said Jesus is the Christ he meant a whole lot more than a surname, Evensong. He meant that Jesus was the personal fulfilment of the Jewish messianic hope and all that that entails. This is the rock on which the church is built and the way to find out what that rock is, funnily enough, is to read the whole bible Christologically, just as Jesus taught.
Your charity is misplaced.
That's the third time you've repeated your assertion and not responded to the scripture that says it is not enough to confess Jesus is Lord.
I can only assume you're a bit thick.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
I have noticed many Anglicans (not all) talking of themselves as if they exclusively are THE Church, guided and sustained by the Holy Spirit - meaning that when they make changes which divide them from other Christians that they are right, and everyone who disagrees with them are wrong and and are in danger of Eternal Damnation.
For fuck's sake, talk about the pot calling the kettle black ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif) ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
FCB
Hillbilly Thomist
# 1495
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
But in answer to your question: Scientology and Latter Day Saints are two extreme examples.
They don't think Jesus was the messiah?
In the former case, I'm pretty sure the answer is 'no."
--------------------
Agent of the Inquisition since 1982.
Posts: 2928 | From: that city in "The Wire" | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Uncle Pete
Loyaute me lie
# 10422
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by FCB:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
But in answer to your question: Scientology and Latter Day Saints are two extreme examples.
They don't think Jesus was the messiah?
In the former case, I'm pretty sure the answer is 'no."
My comment removed because of confusion between LRH and A.N. Other. As you were.
[ 17. July 2013, 14:59: Message edited by: PeteC ]
--------------------
Even more so than I was before
Posts: 20466 | From: No longer where I was | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
QLib
Bad Example
# 43
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:
Evensong asked:Ah I see, so it's not that Jesus is Messiah as Peter said, it's a particular belief you have to believe in about Jesus to be saved? How did the Reformers decide what that was then? Or did they all have different beliefs about that too then?
Evensong, to be honest, sometimes I don't answer your questions because they simply don't warrant a reply. However, in the interests of charity I will answer. When Peter said Jesus is the Christ he meant a whole lot more than a surname, Evensong. He meant that Jesus was the personal fulfilment of the Jewish messianic hope and all that that entails. This is the rock on which the church is built and the way to find out what that rock is, funnily enough, is to read the whole bible Christologically, just as Jesus taught.
Well said.
Well no - not all that well said - because, apart from being very patronising, it ends with a chronological impossibility. How can Jesus have taught anyone to read "the whole bible" Christologically? Surely what he actually did was teach scriptural interpretation that was largely in line with the Talmud?
And even if Jesus had taught reading the bible Christologically, it's not as though there's agreement about what that means, how it's to be done or what results from such a reading. Whilst all may not choose to use that terminology, presumably pretty much everyone who calls themselves Christian thinks they are reading the bible Christologically. So doesn't this just mean 'read the bible the way my church reads it and think what my church thinks'?
--------------------
Tradition is the handing down of the flame, not the worship of the ashes Gustav Mahler.
Posts: 8913 | From: Page 28 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by FCB:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
But in answer to your question: Scientology and Latter Day Saints are two extreme examples.
They don't think Jesus was the messiah?
In the former case, I'm pretty sure the answer is 'no."
And the the latter case (no pun intended) the answer is that their Christology is hereterodox by addition.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
But in answer to your question: Scientology and Latter Day Saints are two extreme examples.
They don't think Jesus was the messiah?
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Evensong, to be honest, sometimes I don't answer your questions because they simply don't warrant a reply.
LOL. On the previous penal substitution thread you didn't answer a number of questions put to you by myself and Kwesi and others. Not because they didn't warrant a reply - it was because you couldn't square them with your particular interpretation of scripture so you dismissed them and didn't bother engaging.
You ignored anyone that wasn't toeing your particular party line.
You essentially deny what is revealed in Scripture.
Which is rather hilarious because you claim we should not.
But that's nothing new again....most Christians that claim to be "scriptural" are just taking their own particular slants on the bits they like and pretending it is all of scripture.
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
However, in the interests of charity I will answer. When Peter said Jesus is the Christ he meant a whole lot more than a surname, Evensong. He meant that Jesus was the personal fulfilment of the Jewish messianic hope and all that that entails. This is the rock on which the church is built and the way to find out what that rock is, funnily enough, is to read the whole bible Christologically, just as Jesus taught.
Your charity is misplaced.
That's the third time you've repeated your assertion and not responded to the scripture that says it is not enough to confess Jesus is Lord.
I can only assume you're a bit thick.
Evensong, it's very difficult to give cogent replies to incoherent questions. Debating with you is like holding a conversation with Roger Irrelevant: completely hatstand.
This.
[ 17. July 2013, 15:17: Message edited by: daronmedway ]
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
rugasaw
Shipmate
# 7315
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
I think he's referring to Rev 2:5
Surely he's not because in the book of Revelation (if taken literally) Jesus did nothing but reveal to a singular person.
--------------------
Treat the earth well, It was not given to you by your parents. It was loaned to you by your children. -Unknown
Posts: 2716 | From: Houston | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anna B
Shipmate
# 1439
|
Posted
Yesterday, walking along the beach, my husband, son and I came across several pairs of horseshoe crabs mating. Very optimistic of them, given that our hurricane season gets worse every year.
"Are they alive?" my son asked, and I confirmed that they were, then explained that the female buries herself in the sand and lays eggs for the male to fertilize. He responded, "That's gross."
The Episcopal Church is a lot like those horseshoe crabs. Those of us who do not have our heads in the sand are poised to take advantage of those who do. It is futile to suppose that the encounter can be avoided.
Our Presiding Bishop, being a marine biologist, is no doubt thoroughly familiar with the process.
--------------------
Bad Christian (TM)
Posts: 3069 | From: near a lot of fish | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mockingale
Shipmate
# 16599
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bostonman:
You found a Lutheran parish that is less objectionably-reactionary than the Episcopal diocese you reside in. That's good for you. I probably would have done the same, and I certainly wouldn't affiliate myself with the sort of would-be-ACNA crowd you're talking about.
But is this the fault of TEC more broadly, or of the bishops of a few dioceses?
There are assholes on both ends. All I want is to occupy the middle, with less 21st century political angst of either flavor and more preaching about the meaning(s) of the Gospel and the love of God. I know there are Episcopal parishes out there like that, but most of what I've found in my travels in the last five years has been a distract(ing/ed) mess.
I grew up Episcopalian. I loved the church, but I feel like it's losing its way in this long slow culture war in the seminaries that's bleeding down to the rank and file. I still love the liturgy and the devotional resources in the Daily Office.
Posts: 679 | From: Connectilando | Registered: Aug 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
I think we have to remember why TEC sometimes seems that it allows every cock-eyed new idea in the planet.
TEC attracts principally former Roman Catholics and evangelicals in terms of converts. I suggest that for many of them, doctrine was used as a blunt instrument against them. So TEC sometimes hesitates to bring down the hammer against ideas that seem slightly heretical.
That being said, I suggest that the vast majority of sermons and pronouncements are comfortably within the broad scope of generous orthodoxy. Most Episcopalians/Anglicans really are Christian.
As in, they believe in Jesus Christ.
--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by rugasaw:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
I think he's referring to Rev 2:5
Surely he's not because in the book of Revelation (if taken literally) Jesus did nothing but reveal to a singular person.
Part of that revelation was specific instruction as to what should be done with that revelation. John was told to write down what the Holy Spirit had to say to the seven churches on behalf of the risen Christ.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
I think we have to remember why TEC sometimes seems that it allows every cock-eyed new idea in the planet.
TEC attracts principally former Roman Catholics and evangelicals in terms of converts. I suggest that for many of them, doctrine was used as a blunt instrument against them. So TEC sometimes hesitates to bring down the hammer against ideas that seem slightly heretical...
Aaaah, you mean proper Christianity is too hard for them, they prefer the cafeteria style, which they find in TEC, yes?
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Aaaah, you mean proper Christianity is too hard for them, they prefer the cafeteria style, which they find in TEC, yes?
Fuck off, you tiresome scrote. And take your one-eyed, bigoted "proper Christianity" bullshit with you.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by rugasaw:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
I think he's referring to Rev 2:5
Surely he's not because in the book of Revelation (if taken literally) Jesus did nothing but reveal to a singular person.
But the warning is addressed to the church at Ephesus. If we are to follow your argument logically, then the Sermon on the Mount applies only to the crowd to whom Jesus preached.
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
I have noticed many Anglicans (not all) talking of themselves as if they exclusively are THE Church, guided and sustained by the Holy Spirit - meaning that when they make changes which divide them from other Christians that they are right, and everyone who disagrees with them are wrong and are in danger of Eternal Damnation.
For fuck's sake, talk about the pot calling the kettle black
Aaaah, Marvin, well done my friend, you've fallen right into my trap. To be honest, I was hoping someone I really disliked would say it, but you'll have to do.
Well here's how it is. Yes, the RCs and Orthodox DO exclusively claim to be THE Church - but they can justify it by showing historically that they are indeed the Church founded by Jesus Christ through His Apostles.
The Anglican Communion wasn't founded this way, it was founded by men - just like any other Protestant denomination. In this case, I think it was something to do with a cartain King Henry V111 wanting a divorce and other dissenters called "reformers", is that not so?
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Yes, the RCs and Orthodox DO exclusively claim to be THE Church - but they can justify it by showing historically that they are indeed the Church founded by Jesus Christ through His Apostles.
What, both of them? Are they the Two True Churches or something?
quote:
The Anglican Communion was founded by men - just like every other church that has ever been.
Fixed that for you.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Yes, the RCs and Orthodox DO exclusively claim to be THE Church - but they can justify it by showing historically that they are indeed the Church founded by Jesus Christ through His Apostles.
What, both of them? Are they the Two True Churches or something?
I think we're being disingenuous here, aren't we Marvin? I'm sure you don't need a full lecture on the Great Schism, not a man of your intellectual calibre.
quote:
quote:
The Anglican Communion wasn't founded this way, it was founded by men - just like any other Protestant denomination.
Fixed that for you.
Thanks Marvin - but it's wrong now, so I've kindly fixed it back again.
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Evensong, it's very difficult to give cogent replies to incoherent questions. Debating with you is like holding a conversation with Roger Irrelevant: completely hatstand.
I see what you did there.
Methinks you should be renamed The Artful Dodger.
People don't debate with you daronmedway, they just ask questions and listen futilely will you have a one sided conversation with yourself.
[ 18. July 2013, 10:12: Message edited by: Evensong ]
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Yes, the RCs and Orthodox DO exclusively claim to be THE Church - but they can justify it by showing historically that they are indeed the Church founded by Jesus Christ through His Apostles.
What, both of them? Are they the Two True Churches or something?
I think we're being disingenuous here, aren't we Marvin? I'm sure you don't need a full lecture on the Great Schism, not a man of your intellectual calibre.
If two true churches can exist and still be inspired by the Holy Spirit after schism and everyone else condemned to hell there is no reason more true churches can exist after schism (The Reformation) and still be inspired by the Holy Spirit.
Marvin has intellectual calibre, you do not. You have an epic logic fail.
[ 18. July 2013, 10:15: Message edited by: Evensong ]
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mockingale:
quote:
Originally posted by Bostonman:
You found a Lutheran parish that is less objectionably-reactionary than the Episcopal diocese you reside in. That's good for you. I probably would have done the same, and I certainly wouldn't affiliate myself with the sort of would-be-ACNA crowd you're talking about.
But is this the fault of TEC more broadly, or of the bishops of a few dioceses?
There are assholes on both ends. All I want is to occupy the middle, with less 21st century political angst of either flavor and more preaching about the meaning(s) of the Gospel and the love of God. I know there are Episcopal parishes out there like that, but most of what I've found in my travels in the last five years has been a distract(ing/ed) mess.
I grew up Episcopalian. I loved the church, but I feel like it's losing its way in this long slow culture war in the seminaries that's bleeding down to the rank and file. I still love the liturgy and the devotional resources in the Daily Office.
Did I miss where you said what you've tried to do about it yourself?
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Yes, the RCs and Orthodox DO exclusively claim to be THE Church - but they can justify it by showing historically that they are indeed the Church founded by Jesus Christ through His Apostles.
What, both of them? Are they the Two True Churches or something?
I think we're being disingenuous here, aren't we Marvin? I'm sure you don't need a full lecture on the Great Schism, not a man of your intellectual calibre.
Wow... how do you imagine your place on this ship, Mark?
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
...futilely...
Is that a word???
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Wow... how do you imagine your place on this ship, Mark?
You go first...
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
I have noticed many Anglicans (not all) talking of themselves as if they exclusively are THE Church, guided and sustained by the Holy Spirit - meaning that when they make changes which divide them from other Christians that they are right, and everyone who disagrees with them are wrong and are in danger of Eternal Damnation.
For fuck's sake, talk about the pot calling the kettle black
Aaaah, Marvin, well done my friend, you've fallen right into my trap. To be honest, I was hoping someone I really disliked would say it, but you'll have to do.
Well here's how it is. Yes, the RCs and Orthodox DO exclusively claim to be THE Church - but they can justify it by showing historically that they are indeed the Church founded by Jesus Christ through His Apostles.
Historically the Emperor Constantine had more to do with founding institutionalised Christianity. If "the church" is an institution rather than the body of those who follow Christ, then I suppose you're right.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
If two true churches can exist and still be inspired by the Holy Spirit after schism and everyone else condemned to hell there is no reason more true churches can exist after schism (The Reformation) and still be inspired by the Holy Spirit.
Marvin has intellectual calibre, you do not. You have an epic logic fail.
- No-one's sending anyone to Hell, unless you mean the Ship's Hell.
- It isn't logical - I've really no idea where the RCs stand now as regards One True Church or no. I'm not even sure where Anglicanism stands, but there you go, it's not my business to judge.
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
.... it's not my business to judge.
Thanks, I've filed that.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Historically the Emperor Constantine had more to do with founding institutionalised Christianity. If "the church" is an institution rather than the body of those who follow Christ, then I suppose you're right.
OK, so what's the body of those who follow Christ supposed to look like? I noticed you used the singular for "body" - not bodies?
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Historically the Emperor Constantine had more to do with founding institutionalised Christianity. If "the church" is an institution rather than the body of those who follow Christ, then I suppose you're right.
OK, so what's the body of those who follow Christ supposed to look like? I noticed you used the singular for "body" - not bodies?
In my experience, what it does look like is a figure with more than the normal number of arseholes.
[ 18. July 2013, 12:06: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
In my experience, what it does look like is a figure with more than the normal number of arseholes.
That's very helpful, Karl - thanks for that.
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
In my experience, what it does look like is a figure with more than the normal number of arseholes.
That's very helpful, Karl - thanks for that.
You misunderstand. Hell is not for being helpful. It's for lots of things, one of which is making observations of a suitable Hellish nature. That was one such.
Still, it might be useful for someone. Asking "Am I one of the arseholes?" could only do some people some good.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
...Asking "Am I one of the arseholes?" could only do some people some good.
Are you then?
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
