´óÏó´«Ã½

I have something to confess......

And that is that after re-reading my post on the other thread, I think I shouldn't have said some of that. My apologies to William and the readers of his blog.

And I have another confession to make.

I have been scheming with with Helio and Dylan_Dog to have another get-together with some of the regulars of the blog, like last year. The opportunity is Darwin Day 2009. As that is a week day and the Saturday after that is Valentines, the date is set to Saturday the 7th of February. Any others, non-believers and believers of any flavour, who would like to join up for dinner are most welcome to do so. If you'd like to join, then please post.

Maybe useful to point out after a less than subtle post I made earlier today, that Helio and Dylan_Dog do make for better company. :)

greets,
Peter

Peter K, don't beat yourself up so. Ego te absolvo! Though if you have been putting dodgy videos on youtube of desecration, it may not 'take'.

Well thanks PTL, I didn't know you were a priest.:)

No, I only ever put two bits on YouTube, neither dodgy I think, certainly none of it about crackers. Too busy sofar.

Go on PTL, tell him about the priesthood of all believers!

And a confession from me...

I really want to ask about kicking Bishop Brennan... but there are more important questions.

I'd still find it helpful if someone could explain to me the Catholic view of confession and absolution from a Catholic point of view rather than simply relying on Protestant critiques. And this is especially important given what I've read above. Here's the quote:

"...(although sins that offend GOD directly are graver in nature than those that offend man)..."


My understanding is that all sins offend God. (offend as in the transgress meaning is what I mean)

For example, if I call God names, as I have done, names which contradict his character, like unfaithful, this is no less a sin than stealing from my neighbour.

Indeed, it is my understanding, that recognising that all sins are directly against God, is something which will encourage me to respect all. Because all people are of equal worth in the sight of God. Like I was trying to say on another thread, accountability is important to morality and I am accountable for my actions and attitudes towards God and other people.

And, just to mix it up a bit, what about the idea that God can, and I would argue does, absolve those who have not confessed?

One other thing, extending forgiveness, Catholic or Protestant is, in my view, most certainly not about encouraging a process of abasement in an individual. In other words it's not a 'psychological beat 'em up session. Surely it ought to be a celebration. Surely forgiving one another should be a delight to both parties.

Categorising sins - as the Roman Catholic Church does (into mortal and venial) - is fraught with danger. For instance, lying is regarded as a venial sin, yet the Bible says that unrepentant liars end up in hell. (Rev.21v8)

Of course, those who take the Biblical position know that all kinds of sin can be forgiven, by genuine repentance and faith in Christ. Any other way is the route to uncertainty and anxiety. Definitely not recommended!

And a confession from me:

I was watching Celine Dion on TV tonight.

That will be doing the rosary 300 times for you John. :D

Count me in for the dinner Peter!

I'd love to go to the dinner, guys, unfortunately I won't be in the country till later in the year. Cheers anyway and hope it goes great.

Yes, count me in as well Peter. Should be able to make it on the 7th

As for the topic of this thread I always wondered about this as well and not just in the Catholic church either.

I remember attending a service in a well known independant evangelical church in East Belfast some time ago (mid eighties). I think the subject of the sermon was adultery and so on. The pastor ( a fiesty Scotsman) was quite happy that to his knowledge, there where no divorced people (whether Christian or not) participating in communion (breaking of bread) at his church on a Sunday morning. Yet, I couldn't help thinking that, givin the location of the church there were bound to be some ex - paramilitaries within the church membership, maybe even "born again Christians" who had committed murder. He didn't seem bothered by that at all (i.e. that there may have been former murderers at his communion rail on a Sunday morning). He was far more hung up on life style issues such as divorce, which appeared to be unforgivable, even if it was the innocent party in such a situation.

Peter

Agreed.

And here's the other thing about that, if someone is in need of forgiveness, then communion is exactly what they should be participating in.

Peter K:

Count me in for the dinner too.
Looks like it will again be the priesthood of (mostly) non-believers.

Peter;

"if someone is in need of forgiveness, then communion is exactly what they should be participating in."

You mean before they've repented. I could be reading you wrong, but are you suggesting that even those who have not asked for forgiveness, nor even seek forgiveness, should participate in communion?

Or are you saying that those who DO seek forgiveness should participate in communion as a sign and precursor of that forgiveness?

Because there's another sacrament for that purpose...

Bernard/Peter:

In most evangelical churchs with open tables they do not encourage non Christians to participate in the breaking of bread (or communion) and they usually spell out, in no uncertain terms, under which circumstances one may participate.

What struck me about the sermon I was talking about was that the preacher (the pastor of the church) did not specify that a divorced Christian, even if they were "born again" after they were divorced, or were "born again" and the innocent party in such a situation (e.g their spouse had left them) could take part in the breaking of bread. I formed the impression from his sermon that Christians in these circumstances would not be admitted to the communion table even though it was an open table, and yet, former muderers, rapists or whatever would have been. The preacher seemed quite proud of the fact that there were No divorcees (whether born again or not) participating at the communion table at his church on a Sunday morning.

Bernard
To your mind, what is fundamental to receiving God's forgiveness?
That is to say, what is necessary and sufficient?

GV

Bernard

Thank you for the question, I am happy to attempt an answer. (even if it is limited)

I think the first thing that I would want to say is that I wouldn't automatically make a distinction between repentance and participating in communion. You seem to be suggesting that a prior event, i.e. repentance, is required before a person eats the bread and drinks the wine, but it is possible, I think, and probably should be the case, that the very act of eating and drinking is an act of repentance, and of faith in Jesus. Why else would one participate if it was not to receive Christ, to receive his forgiveness and pardon, and to look to him for life?

Another thing I would say is that I do not separate participation in communion from the reading, declaration and hearing of God's word and prayer, and would suggest that it is through the communication of the word of God that he, by his Spirit, calls and confronts our hearts, brings life and grants repentance. Participation in communion then is our response of faith when we look to Christ and realise that as bread and wine feeds our physical bodies so we truly live in him.

This then is why I said that if one was in need of forgiveness then one should participate, for in doing so that person is looking to Christ. Of course, to participate, without looking to Christ is a different matter. Communion then, in my view is for those who realise their need of forgiveness, and who by the work of God have come to see that forgiveness is something he delights to give.

Maybe I should say too then, that my view of communion is not simply one of remembrance but is one which sees God at work in the sacrament and add that it is God's declaration of forgiveness in his word centered on the finished work of Jesus, which brings new life and enables faith and repentance.

If I could put it this way, the gospel is less about me demonstrating my commitment to God, and more about recognising that the one who is truly committed is God, in Jesus, and when that happens one has stopped trusting oneself (repented) and started trusting another, (faith).



BTW, what does baptism have to do with it?! ;-)

Peter, just a very quick response, a bit rushed today.


"This then is why I said that if one was in need of forgiveness then one should participate, for in doing so that person is looking to Christ."

But surely that's the whole point of confession!

"Of course, to participate, without looking to Christ is a different matter."

I think the point is that many people DO participate without looking to Christ - perhaps less so in protestant congregations, but in catholic mass there is, albeit distastefully, something of a social element. Many people will receive communion simply because they are at mass, without even thinking about the need to repent.

"Communion then, in my view is for those who realise their need of forgiveness, and who by the work of God have come to see that forgiveness is something he delights to give"

In my view, that is what confession is for!

Of course, communion also has that element, but given that it's the actual reception of the body and blood of Christ, I think it's reasonable to demand a prior acceptance of the need to repent. and if there is really that prior acceptance, well then, why have you not gone to confession?

I should perhaps point out that i have taken communion many times without prior confession.

so i don't know where that leaves my argument. I do think it makes sense, but my abiding by it is a different matter

Also, of course, it's questionable just how soon before communion one should confess. If I confess one week, three days, or one day before confession, I've obviously sinned hundreds of times in the meantime.

So it's a strange issue alright.

Many people will receive communion simply because they are at mass, without even thinking about the need to repent.

Bernard: I've never been to a mass before so I can't really comment.

However, even in many Presbyterian churches non-Cristians (i.e.those who have haven't made some sort of profession or are born again or saved) are discouraged from taking communion. In the Baptist, Elim, and paticularly the Brethren movement the pressure is even stronger and it's clearly spelled out who can and can't take part in the breaking of bread as they refer to it. Things are much more liberal in the Anglican and Methodist denominations though.

Seems fair enough to me.

It has certainly been mentioned in some catholic churches, though probably not to the same degree. But i understand that there is a problem with people receiving communion out of habit more than anything else, so it makes sense that that must be addressed

Bernard

I'm not quite sure where to begin, for I do not merely wish this to become a discussion about the differences between Protestantism and Catholicism. We have many faults of our own, without me pointing out yours.

What I think I will say however is this. In my post 18 I tried to emphasis God's revelation of himself in Jesus. Of course those were not the words I used, but that is what I was thinking. So, why would I want to do that? Well, because it is very easy for us to be seduced by the need to do things in order to be accepted by God, and while Protestants have often accused Roman Catholics of this, we are guilty too.

Let me then try to keep this as simple as I can avoiding the usual theological ping pong which might otherwise ensue.

There are, really, in the end, only two ways of approaching God, either on the basis of our performance, or on the basis of His, and I have come to see that I cannot manage the first! Bernard, I'm just not zealous enough, or committed enough, or repentant enough or sincere or obedient enough; but Jesus was. And so, instead of looking to myself, and promising God that this year will be better, I've given up and concluded that Jesus is my only hope, and this, it seems is what the bible calls faith.

Might I say too that it might be better to call this grace than Protestantism for it is God's activity and not mine. I have been an active Protestant all my life but have only recently discovered that it is better to trust God than oneself.

Maybe though I should also reply directly to your last question, you ask, "why have you not gone to confession?" Well, perhaps because I don't see the need for any priest other than Jesus, the only one who who has given himself as a sacrifice for the sins of the world.

Ah yes well, that's the argument that i tried to outline above, with a large quote from the previous pope.

I'm all for "Grace, and not works", but i think there's meaning to be gained from saying "works through grace"

I think we can look at grace as being the precursor to a concrete definite worldly need to ask for confession, not just inwardly, but outwardly.

It is not that we only receive grace through confession, but that it is grace that makes us need to confess.

Very brief again, and off the cuff, but I hope you get my drift.

"instead of looking to myself, and promising God that this year will be better, I've given up and concluded that Jesus is my only hope"

True. But I would argue that accepting Jesus as the only hope leads to you wanting to promise that next year will be better.

We don't confess in the hope that we'll never sin again. We confess in the knowledge that we will sin again, and that we therefore must represent...not just theoretically, or abstractly, but concretely and definitely, and to our peers, who are also sinners.

third line up should obviously say "repent", not "represent"...I've been listening to too much Gangsta Rap!

This is an interesting conversation - my own take on Communion, however, would be rather different.

When Jesus met his disciples and broke bread with them on the eve of His crucifixion I believe He did not institute a sacrament rather He simply gave them one of his impossible but life changing commandments.

He chose bread and wine, the dietary staples of the time, to represent Himself and told His followers to remember Him every time they ate or drank. This was nothing to do with sin, repentance, forgiveness, reward or community - this was a straight-forward injunction to make His life present in every moment of their waking lives. It stands today as a call to sacrificial living: a call, not to a sacrament, but to a life of sacrament.

Christ, about to die, about to confirm His ministry with His life, is not here inviting his followers to a banquet he is commanding them to continue His work. He is saying that that work is to become the substance of their continued existence, as necessary to their living as food and as sustaining.

It is not surprising that very early in its existence the fledgling church came up with an easier option for its members.

Portwyne;

I must confess I don't think about these doctrinal and sacramental aspects of faith as much as I should. You've gave a very interesting account, I'm wondering how you think this squares, or differs, with the following, from the catechism?

"The Eucharist is "the source and summit of the Christian life. For in the blessed Eucharist is contained the whole spiritual good of the Church, namely Christ himself,

1325 "The Eucharist is the efficacious sign and sublime cause of that communion in the divine life and that unity of the People of God by which the Church is kept in being. It is the culmination both of God's action sanctifying the world in Christ and of the worship men offer to Christ and through him to the Father in the Holy Spirit."138

"Our way of thinking is attuned to the Eucharist, and the Eucharist in turn confirms our way of thinking."140

PArticularly, you say;

"He is saying that that work is to become the substance of their continued existence"

I'm interested in what you think of this;

"The mode of Christ's presence under the Eucharistic species is unique. It raises the Eucharist above all the sacraments as "the perfection of the spiritual life and the end to which all the sacraments tend."201 In the most blessed sacrament of the Eucharist "the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ and, therefore, the whole Christ is truly, really, and substantially contained"

Bernard

"accepting Jesus as the only hope leads you to wanting..."
So accepting Christ as your only hope leads to personal transformation. And we don't earn our salvation.
You do sound awfully evangelical ( ; (In the best sense of the term).

What I have found surprising is the width of opinion in the Catholic Church on these matters (a wide variety of takes on Trent, within certain limits). That's shocking to an evangelical. For us the Church is defined by the message and the members. Whereas I imagine you'd have a deeper and broader definition. Chatting on US Roman Catholic blogs brings this out. It's sad that in NI conversation is difficult.

GV

Graham;

Scott Hahn (who i believe used to be some sort of Protestant, though i could be wrong, has published a series of collections entitled "Catholic for a Reason".

On page 93 of the first volume there is an interesting essay on grace and works...

it's well worth a read.

Bernard

Scott Hahn was an evangelical - Confessional Reformed I think. I'd probably find more to disagree with in Hahn than, say, a Roman Catholic apologist like Peter Kreeft, who gives the best presentation of the gospel I have ever read.

(I know urls seem to be taboo, but I'm sure you won't mind









They're short articles, and well worth the read.
I'll have a dig around for Hahn.

GV

Ah yes, i don't entirely agree with much of what Hahn says myself.

The essay i'm referring to wasn't written by Hahn, he was the editor of the collection. I mention him because I haven't got the book to hand, and can't remember who wrote the particular essay. But it was very good. I'll have a perusal of those articles when i get the chance.

Bernard

It may or may not surprise you but I could agree just about absolutely with everything you have quoted in post # 28 above. Of-course I might not mean by 'Eucharist' exactly the same thing as the Church.

The unrequired thanks we offer to God for the experience of His love is expressed in the service we offer to our fellow man. That 'bounden duty' is the true Eucharist. The common purpose of joyful thankful service unites the people of God and is a sublime expression of communion with the divine. If we take seriously Christ's injunction to consume and be consumed by His passion for suffering humanity then in working out that commitment we are demonstrating the 'whole spiritual good of the Church' and making Christ really and truly present in the world today.

In our endeavours to make the world a better place (to sanctify it) we are offering true worship in and through Christ to the very principle of Love which informed His life and ministry: that worship, that thanksgiving simultaneously reinforces our commitment to service and deepens our communion with God and our fellow Christians.

I truly believe that taking Christ's command to continue His work in the world seriously leads to the perfection of the spiritual life and is the end towards which the life of the Christian should tend. When we live and breathe His mission, eat and drink His will, we represent and re-present Him 'truly, really, and substantially' to the world.

Bernard

Graham has said what I was thinking, but surely calling you an evangelical was a bit of an insult; if anyone had called me an evangelical, I'd have been insulted! :-)

I can see no reason to disagree with your view that obedience is the result of grace rather than the other way around.

Indeed I might add that this is what Jesus taught in the parable of the Prodigal Son, maybe better called the parable of two sons. To quote Tim Keller, "Jesus shows us the father pouncing on his son in love not only before he has a chance to clean up his life and evidence a change of heart, but even before he can recite his repentance speech. Nothing, not even abject contrition, merits the favour of God."

In fact I want to be crystal clear on my view of this, not repentance, not confession, not works, not zeal and no, not faith either, are required in order that we might be accepted by God, all, all, is of his kindness alone.


Which brings me quite nicely to Portwyne.

Portwyne, I'm loving it and hating it all over again!

He gave them an impossible command - yep, it certainly looked impossible.

We are to remember him in all our eating of daily bread - yep
(Although he is especially present in communion)

His life is to be present in every moment of our waking lives - yep, but (Here's the first 'but') he ain't in mine, or if he is, it is in-spite of me!

Our lives are to be a sacrament - well, it's getting tricky here - nice idea, but I can tell you, my life is no means of grace, to me or anyone else.

Christ's followers are to continue his work - to live and breath his mission eat and drink his will - and now I'm getting worried...

Portwyne, and I mean this in the nicest possible way, how in the name of tarnation are we going to make this one happen.

Surely this is Jesus the encourager, Jesus the cheer leader? No?

But, and I'm getting nasty now, and I apologise (deeply!) in advance, if we strip from our understanding of Jesus his being "consubstantial with the Father according to the Godhead... to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person and one Subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten, God the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ", then he can't really be anything other than a good example and a nice guy!

Easier, Portwyne, not easier, necessary, yes, but not easier!

Bernard

You've never been to Harry Bunting's philosophy group at Jordanstown, mayhaps?

GV

Bernard

Hang on a mo -
you can't remember the author

you can't remember the title-

but you can remember the page number?

Memory issues bro!

( :

Graham;

Ha, a quick google search gave me the page number but not the title. I think it had the word "justification in it".

No, I don't know Harry Bunting; I was a Queen's man.

Peter;

again, I have no disagreement with you, just a slight difference in emphasis;

"not repentance, not confession, not works, not zeal and no, not faith either, are required in order that we might be accepted by God, all, all, is of his kindness alone."

I totally agree.

However, I would suggest that an acceptance through kindness neccessarily motivates reprentance, confession, works, zeal and loving faith.

Grace is not through works, but works are through Grace, if you catch me.

A Grace that does not have a flowering in repentance, communion, and works is a misnomer.

Bernard
There was a PhD student who gave a talk there recently, with an interest in Lonergan, who seemed well informed to a pal of mine. Thought he might be you. You remain a mystery man.

Your definition of the Gospel seems pretty much like Peter's and mine. Now to an evangelical this seems odd. Bear with me here. I might tread on your toes, but I don't mean to. The analogies I use aren't meant to be offensive, and I don't think they are, but I've got "form" on winding people up the wrong way, as the police might say...

Anyhoo, as evangelicals, we're used to reading the Bible literally - but i don't mean crude lietralistic interpretation. The idea is find out what the text meant to convey when it was written, then apply. But as God's people live in various times and places, we need to remember that words, analogies and literary forms change in meaning from time to time and place to place. (This is the problem with what Protestant Fundamentalism has become. It treats the Bible as if it was written to Americans last Tuesday).
We use the term literal, as we mean "literal, personal acts of communication from God to his people". The Bible remains an act of personal communication. A lot of Conservative Catholics seem to take the same view. Our assumption is that you read Catechisms and Conciliar decrees in the same way.

However, I wonder if that's how all Conservative Catholics treat the rulings of their Church. Maybe a rule-book is a more appropriate analogy. For example, your take on salvation isn't the *obvious* reading of the Catechism, which is very Tridentine. But it is a *possible* reading. You're not throwing the Catechism out, nor are you saying that it can mean whatever you like. You're staying within the rules, if you like. And that leaves you room for independent thought, room to even disagree with other Catholics on issues as fundamental as salvation.

(Compare Kreeft with Dulles
and both with Hahn).

The tendency of Evangelicals is to read the Catechism, and tell Catholics what they should believe. Or to listen to Kreeft

, Jay Budzisewski







, or Francis Beckwith



and tell everyone that all conservative Catholics now believe the same thing as we do. Whereas I'm getting the impression that the reality is somewhat more complex than that.

Am I heading in the correct direction here, or am I totally off base?


G Veale

PS - I thought the urls may be of interest- they're not necessary to follow my train of thought here.

"There was a PhD student who gave a talk there recently, with an interest in Lonergan, who seemed well informed to a pal of mine. Thought he might be you"

I can almost guarantee that it was Gaven Kerr...I helped him with some of his research a while back (and he helped me with mine).

As for the substance of what you say, i can find absolutely nothing to disagree with...that seems an accurate representation of how I treat the Gospels and catechism.

I have absolutely no idea if I'm heretical in my views, but, if I am, no one has ever told me, and I've yet to be excommunicated.

I think a lot of confusion stems from the different levels on which the Gospels (and the catechism) can be understood.

A lot of atheists and agnostic have made the argument to me that, yes, you may take a particular metaphysical view of the matter, but many people take a simpler view...and your metaphysical view is only implied in the Gospels.

What these people don't realise is that both the metaphysical view and the simple, literalist (if you like) view are equally correct. they are simply different ways of understanding the same thing....which is no less than you would expect, given the fact that we all have different ways of understanding things.

Not sure if that's reallt relevant to the point you were making, but I can find nothing to disagree with you about...on the surface at least.

Bernard

Yes, it was he...smart chap from what I hear.

And yes, I found that helpful. Although I'm not sure what you mean by "metaphysical" view of the gospels. Could you spell that out a bit? Is it different again than the evangelical (as opposed to Fundamentalist) view I outlined above?

GV

"But as God's people live in various times and places, we need to remember that words, analogies and literary forms change in meaning from time to time and place to place. (This is the problem with what Protestant Fundamentalism has become. It treats the Bible as if it was written to Americans last Tuesday)."

this is very interesting...seems an accurate reflection of modern Fundamentalism, but i'm interested in how a protestant can keep the integrity and stability of the truth amidst all of the changes.

as we need to remember that circumstances, meanings and analogies change, surely there is a need for some kind of apostolic authority?

I can perfectly understand why you may not wish to give that authority solely to the Bishop of Rome, but if not he, then who?

To my mind, a level of trust and authority MUST be placed in an institution, with faith that that institution is informed by the Holy Spirit.

Now, we can accept that the Holy Spirit is operative in the writings and pronouncements of many theists and writers...

in Luther, or calvin, or Wesley, for example.

But that leaves an open door for that authority to be claimed by ANYONE.

To my mind, an element of faith is neccessary. we must believe that the doctrines and traditions which, after all, are invented by humans, are informed by the Holy Spirit...

on what basis do we have this faith, and what safeguards are there that that faith isn't misplaced.

My faith in papal apostolic authority MAY be misplaced, but it seems to be safer ground than a faith in Luther's, Calvin's or Wesley's authority. those were men acting, to a large extent, on their own, whereas the apostolic authority of Rome is based on the acceptance of an already existent community of believers.

I realise that we're now on the broader "why are you protestant/catholic?" discussion, but since you bring it up...

:)

Another Evangelical Protestant misconception is that Priests and Bishops are always checking you out for heretical ideas.

I'm not kidding.

Graham;
re your question about "metaphysical"...I wasn't specifically talking about the Gospels, I was broadening the discussion to one of faith in general...i.e. that my faith is correlated with metaphysical theories, as opposed to a "simple" faith of love and acceptance, with no reference to the nature of realities or conceptions or ultimate ACT.
I think that both types of faith are equally valid, and furthermore, they are often, and happily, intertwined.

Just read 41 - I'll throw my views up on my blog in the morning. Hvae to pop out to see a student about a fire-cracker.

GV

Oh, cheers for 43

Bernard

Firecracker disarmed, bomb-squad dismissed. So I can throw up a reply this avo.

"i'm interested in how a protestant can keep the integrity and stability of the truth amidst all of the changes."

It's not all change. Creeds and confessions give us a tradition that guides us (but isn't our final court of appeal).
The essentials seem clear enough. It's just a matter of interpreting texts consistently, honestly and prayerfully.

"surely there is a need for some kind of apostolic authority?"

I think Scripture is self-authenticating. The authority lies in the gospel - the proclamation of Jesus as Savior and Lord. Of course, that only makes sense if certain doctrines are true.

"To my mind, a level of trust and authority MUST be placed in an institution, with faith that that institution is informed by the Holy Spirit."

Why an institution?

"an open door for that authority to be claimed by ANYONE."

Yes, anyone could claim it. But Luther didn't claim authority for himself. He pointed to the authority of the Scriptures. Whatever he taught should be judged by Scripture... and that involves reason (but, for Luther, definitely not Aristotle).
A claim gets you no-where really. Justifying the claim, that's the trick.

"on what basis do we have this faith, and what safeguards are there that that faith isn't misplaced"

Well, I don't have faith in Luther or Wesley. Or the Westminster Confession. My trust is in Scripture. How do I know I've interpreted it correctly? Reason, experience, the example of Christians I know and admire, the witness of Church History (good and bad). I make an inference. And I hope and pray for the Holy Spirit's guidance, and the Father's providential care.

Those are just preliminary answers. I suspect you'll want to test my ideas a bit more than that. But it should get us started.

GV

Just as a brief first response...I don't see how scripture can be self-authenticating, given the discrimination involved in its compilation.

you must recognise the validity of that compilation, and of the rejection of a lot of works.

As for an institution...well, that's just a rational matter.

It seems more rational to trust the authority of an historical institution with a clear line of succession, and also with a clear heirarchy of authority and review, than it does to trust the "self-authenticating authority" of a collection of writings which were, themselves, compiled by such an institution.

that's just a quickie

Ultimately, of course, we have to accept that the authority lies "somewhere".

I think if you accept the authority of a set of compiled writings, you must accept the authority of the Institutions and Councils that decided the compilation.

Whether that authority stretches as far as the present day is another issue, of course...

Bernard,

Actually, Graham beat me too it, and I only have time for a short reply as I'm going to Belfast.


"I can perfectly understand why you may not wish to give that authority solely to the Bishop of Rome, but if not he, then who?"

Jesus. He is Lord and governs His Church by His Word and Spirit.

Might you be talking about having confidence in an accurate interpretation of Scripture?

Well yes...we must have confidence in an accurate interpretation of scripture, an accurate formulation of doctrine and an accurate and reliable account of faith in general.

This is the whole point. if jesus governs His Church by His word and His spirit, we must have confidence that we are in His Church, and not some imposter.

i don't wish to sound like a Free P, but all churches attempt to give an accurate expression to the work of Christ...but they all do so in different ways. which of those ways is authoritative.

We can ask Jesus, of course, but i don't think we're competent enough to make our internal dialogue with god authoritative. We must have a concrete institutionalised method of ATTEMPTING to be authoritative.

After all, our internal dialogue with "Jesus" COULD be the work of the other...

Bernard
1) The Church didn't finally settle on a canon until Florence (and really until Trent). So what was the status of Scripture before that point?
2) How did the Councils recognise God's word? And surely I can recognise God's word without the help of a council?
3) The authority lies with God. The Bible is more (but not less) than a set of revealed truths about God and Salvation-History. In the Bible God speaks. Our words are actions (commands, arguments, rulings etc.) that actually DO things. So God addresses us through Scripture. If we hear his voice, we follow him.
4) What turns opinion, or belief, into knowledge? When is our knowledge certain? Why should this require the voice of an institution? What makes recognising doctrine different than other controversial knowledge claims? A demon *could* be decieving me into thinking that I love my wife, or that abortion is wrong. Or that the external world exists. But the mere possibilty of error doesn't mean that we can't recognise the truth.
5) In any case, there does seem to be some controversy within your denomination regarding what is and isn't authoritative.

The discussion I particpated in was on these blogs. I found it very helpful.





GV (or is that KERP?)

Thanks Graham.

Give me a bit of time and I'll hopefully get back to you today

Those replies probably lack the incisiveness you require. Hopefully we can get into this in a bit more depth next week.

Or email me

[Personal details removed by Moderator]

Just remove this post once you've taken the e-mail down.

will do Graham, hopefully over the weekend.

By remove do you mean complain about this comment?

Yup. As you've done. I'll probably get to read it Mon morn, as it's my school address.

GV

Boys, both the streams of scripture and tradition are polluted sheughs, with many tragic fish-kills along their miserable courses. Drink from one, the other or both if you wish, but don't assume that everyone thinks you're making a sensible choice... ;-)

Now, where did I put my bactericidal ionic ultrafiltration system...?

Come on now Helio, enter into the new found spirit of ecumenism.

It's love all round on this thread at the moment. PK started it with an apology, Bernard's an evangelical, Graham is referencing Roman Catholic sites, Portwyne, as usual, loves everybody, I'm just glad to be part of it all and even you have called yourself a Christian, work with us man, work with us!

As for that bacterial ironic supralapsarianism thingy, did you find it?

And what's a sheugh?

In the neck of the woods where I grew up sheugh referred to the drainage ditches which ran either side of country lanes and minor roads. Pollution would have been normal - think solution of cow-pat in rain.

Actually, when I think of it, people would not have said 'cow-pat' they would have used 'pakell'.

I have to agree with Helio on this one, however, (sorry, Sorry, SORRY). Both Scripture and Ecclesiastical Authority are unsafe and uncertain moral and spiritual guides. I have never met a Christian - evangelical or otherwise who did not to some extent cherry-pick or interpret Scripture. Equally I do not see how moral authority can reside in an institution which has, by its actions, at many times in its history, comprehensively negated the injunction to love which lies at the heart of Christianity.

Fortunately for me, since I reject the authority of both Scripture and the Church, I believe authority is not something to be valued. Authority gives one only the similitude of safety. Authority diminishes the critical faculties. Authority undermines the conscience of the individual.

We have, to borrow from Joyce, a duty to forge our standards and test our commitments in the smithy of our own souls. We neither have nor need any other sure guide in that process than our experience of the one knowable thing about God: His essential love.

Luther, Zwingli and the like got it wrong: what they should have opposed to the Church's claim to authority was not scripture but love.
I would suggest 'soli amoris, sola caritate' would have been a better maxim and is the standard by which we should judge our actions and shape our sentiments. Do our deeds arise from emotional commitment to the welfare of others and is that commitment practically worked out in service to others?

Christ's message was tough butsimple - I don't see what more guidance or authority than that we need.

Portwyne Bernard Graham

And apologise you should Portwyne! And there was me thinking that I was only going to have to respond to Bernard and was therefore going to draw a middle line between the authority of an institution (which is by no means always going to be guaranteed to be certain or always correct) and the endless individualism of Protestantism, whose, 'personal relationship with Jesus' mantra often looks like every man for himself, because Protestants do community badly, correction, Protestants don't do community, (that was me confusing hope with reality again) and then you pop up, and I love it and hate it again. Portwyne, would you please stop provoking these feelings in me, I've quite enough personalities as it is!!


So what is there to say?

Seems to me that while Portwyne doesn't like the word authority, this actually is about some kind of authority, and the options and emphasis appear to be these. One, and, correct me if I'm wrong everyone (probably didn't need to make that request really, did I). Bernard, seems to emphasise the role of the Church, centered on the clergy, in interpreting and determining practise and doctrine. Two, Graham and I have emphasised the Bible as our only rule to direct us how we may glorify and enjoy him(God). (little reference to westminster there!), illuminated by the Holy Spirit, and 'worked out' in and by the church, but here church means all of us. Now Portwyne says no, no church, and no bible but love and our experience of God. Surely though Portwyne this means that you have to be an accurate interpreter of your experience of God, so that you do not become mistaken, and surely this means that you are your own authority. So I suppose what I'm saying is that, scripture, the church and spiritual experience all play a part, so that the 'whole person' and community present and historic is involved.

What I think we might all be agreed on is that the source of all our knowledge of what is good is ultimately God, in Christ, (Portwyne, can you live with the words, 'in Christ'?) The question then seems to be, how is this knowledge made know to us?

Maybe this is something we can pursue.

Bernard this was not the answer I had planned to give, but please blame Portwyne for that, it is most certainly his fault for posting comment 61, however I hope that some of what I have said here says explains your concerns relating to authority and internal dialogue.

And Portwyne on the point, "Christ's message was tough but simple - I don't see what more guidance or authority than that we need." I am inclined to agree with this and am reminded of someone, whose name I have forgotten, who said, 'It is not that Christianity has been tried and found wanting, it is that it has been found difficult and left untried.'

Hi Guys and happy new year.

May I add a few thoughts to the discussion on interpretation.

According to my reading, while there have certainly been other experiments, followers of Christ throughout history have never strayed too far from a *broadly* literal reading of scripture.


It seems to me that in one important sense, discussions like this can complicate things much more than they need to, at least for some readers.

I agree that understanding cultural and historical contexts are important and very helpful.

But lets not forget that Christ came as a joiner to speak to ordinary people using farming parables to explain the mysteries of the universe.

As Twain is credited as saying;-

"It's not the parts of the Bible I don't understand that bother me, it's the parts I do understand."

There are certainly parts of the bible I could not say I understand the details of eg prophecy.

But I contest that using a plain reading as a foundation, taking all scripture in context of other scripture, will give any sincere seeker 99% of the attitude and lifestyle they need for relating to God and their neighbours in their homes, workplaces and communities.

Yes good doctrine is important and historical context and theological streams of thought are important too.

But I contend that the really big questions in life have pretty clear answers in scripture. even different denominations have much more in common on the key issues that which would divide them.

I would say I would be more than happy to fellowship with a believer in any stream of the Church who is in love with the risen Christ.

I am not by any means devaluing the discussion above, I simply mean to compliment it.

sincerely
OT

Hi guys,

I'm afraid I'm too rushed off my feet to give an adequate reply to everything, but just a quick point.

Peter, I emphasise the role of the church, but in much the same way as you do, i.e. that doctrine should be " 'worked out' in and by the church"

The clergy has a central role, but only insofar as, in any organisation, there is a group of people with the time and inclination to look somewhat deeper.

Whereas I agree that the church is "all of us", surely there must be a "class" of people with the time and inclination to do the research and consider the options. I.e. the church may be all of us, but don't you think there should should be a class whose very FUNCTION is to ask and answer those questions. We are, of course, all free to make up our own monds on doctrine, but it help to have a functional body of people who, in communication with one another, settle on a thoroughly researched and thought out consensus?

Otherwise, as you say, we can all simply live according to our own interpretations, no matter how ill-judged.

at the end of the day though, i actually agree with OT. all of the REALLY important questions have quite simple answers

Spelling and grammar illustrate how rushed that was.

:)

OT (welcome to the discussion) and Bernard.

I'm busy too, so just a quick thought or two.

In reading the various comments on this thread about church, authority, communion and so on I don't detect any substantial difference between us, and I take heart from this.

OT, your quote from Twain is similar to the one I posted, which was, I have discovered, from G.K. Chesterton.

I agree too, that in the end Christianity is simple and yet, perhaps, especially when I think of my own life, it is this very simplicity which is my greatest judge.

I suspect too, that as each of us has emphasised Christ, that whatever our particular denominational or non-denominational background we would be happy to worship together.

Bernard maybe I'll get back to my preferred view of the church later, which, although I am a member of PCI, is thoroughly non-denominational, non-hierarchal, local, informal and communal. Pie in the sky in other words!

Come to think of it, maybe if we spent more time eating pie in church, we'd know more about forgiveness!

Peter, not only can I live with "in Christ", I would positively endorse it!

It is in Christ that we see perfection of humanity identified with the Divine, and, in His life and teaching, God's love perfectly worked out in word and deed.

I have to agree with 'most everybody here - the message of Christ is simple and, I would even go on to say, doctrine and dogma not only obfuscate it, they give us another excuse to avoid acting on it.

OT
(1) I think that allegorisation was a hindrance prior to the 16th century. Quite often we have strayed *too* far from a literal meaning.
(2) I think one concern is that we could use "scholarship" to make the Bible say whatever we want.
(3) Another concern is that scholarship could create a divide between the Bible and the average church member.

How do we address these concerns? Remember that common sense (not abstrct academia) would dictate that we shouldn't take everything literally ("wind your neck in you big bag of wind ye!" etc"). So encourage reading amongst Church members (commentaries new AND old).
Most of my students (11-16 year olds in High School, wide ability range) can get their heads around the hermeneutical issues (without ever encountering the word hermeneutics) when discussing Genesis 1 etc.

GV

Hope this broadens the discussion.
It might be enriching for everyone to dabble a little bit in the theology of liberation. Boff, Sobrino, Guttierez would maintain that the pinnacle of God's revelation is neither the scriptures or church teaching. God's revelation is to be found most powerfully in human historical experience i.e. praxis.
So much of what I have read above I would describe as 'the tail wagging the dog.'
The Vatican, over the last thirty years influenced heavily by Ratzinger, attacked such theology as Marxian and claimed it was bereft of any spirituality. (It hadnt been in existence long enough to form a spirituality!) It did the same decades earlier with theolgians who, thanks to our Protestant brother and sister scripture scholars, began to introduce catholics to a rich theology rooted in a much deeper understanding of the scriptures.

Our theology has to be influenced by our experience. Rahner put it beautifully, "It is not my intention to denegrate those who have gone before us. We are their grateful children. However, I dream of a courageous new world-wide theology. It would be a theology which would not simply turn the pages of our familiar friend Denzinger (Canon Law.), regurgitating church medieval history. It would break new ground. It would be a theology which listens to the wisdom from the East, a theology which hears the cries for freedom in Latin America and a theology which hears the sound of African drums beating."
When I read such stuff I was filled with hope for the future. Tragically, the church has refused to go down the path of enlightenment and still spends most of its energy discussing and legislating such things as, who is eligible for communion, what is considered mortal and venial etc... etc.. etc.. I think this is real sinfulness (and whether it is venial or mortal is ultimately, totally irrelevant.)