tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post7440667368818347105..comments2024-03-29T22:00:02.999+13:00Comments on Anglican Down Under: Beautiful Anglican Accommodation - Down Under's Way ForwardPeter Carrellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comBlogger329125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-8041742596473188202017-09-15T15:30:22.781+12:002017-09-15T15:30:22.781+12:00The 'blessing' of same sex couples (as opp...The 'blessing' of same sex couples (as opposed to marrying them) simply condones fornication (they are after all sexually attracted to each other) outside marriage. Okay so sexual activity is now okay outside marriage...but only for same gender couples...not heterosexual couples. Total madness. We clergy need to get out of this unholy mess ASAP.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-20238547528310660702017-08-30T08:06:20.645+12:002017-08-30T08:06:20.645+12:00NO MORE COMMENTS HERE PLEASE - INSTEAD CONTINUE TH...NO MORE COMMENTS HERE PLEASE - INSTEAD CONTINUE THE THREAD AT THE POST LINK BELOW (WHERE I HAVE POSTED THE LAST FEW COMMENTS ABOVE):<br /><br />https://anglicandownunder.blogspot.co.nz/2017/08/beautiful-anglican-accommodation.html<br /><br />Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-60470116616667089182017-08-30T03:36:04.726+12:002017-08-30T03:36:04.726+12:00Warm thanks to you, Brendan, for another fascinati...Warm thanks to you, Brendan, for another fascinating comment. Your questions at 5:52 are so close to my heart that I have for years considered blogging somewhere about them alone. I will answer tomorrow, as it takes time to write a concise reply. If the result is not also brief, I will post it to a more current thread where Blogger is less likely to inconvenience Peter by misplacing it.<br /><br />Bowman WaltonAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-49694227858494719182017-08-29T17:35:43.647+12:002017-08-29T17:35:43.647+12:00Hi Bryden
Thank you for taking the time to make a...Hi Bryden<br /><br />Thank you for taking the time to make a such a comprehensive response to my question. I agree that they are pivotal verses in helping us understand the process of transformation God seeks to undertake in the mind and the life of the believer.<br /><br />I agree with the ‘two kingdoms’ understanding of the environment we inhabit, and the battle that is ever present for the hearts and minds of the believer, and ultimately Christ’s Bride, the Church. <br /><br />Yes, to submitting our bodies as a living sacrifice, and our minds to the transforming power of God’s Word and his Holy Spirit. I am unaware of the life and ministry of Leanne Payne, however she has clearly had a significant impact upon you. The teaching and ministry of Derek Prince had a similar impact on my life as a new believer (and beyond). He came to Christchurch at least once, and had a powerful ministry in the spirit as well as the Word. Many were healed and delivered from demons in his meetings as I recall.<br /><br />I appreciate that you have also added the sacraments to the Word and the Spirit. This is an emphasis I have begun to appreciate more since my involvement in the Anglican church. Ron, if you are reading this, then I’m sure that will please you!<br /><br />Over the years, I have had the privilege of seeing many people’s lives transform through the process you have outlined, albeit maybe not as well understood as you have expressed. As Paul reminds us in 1 Corinthians 4:20 “For the kingdom of God is not a matter of talk but of power.” (NIV). Surely, this is the transforming power at work in Romans 12:1-2.<br /><br />Blessings…<br />Brendan McNeillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02741263914308842497noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-10743063354669751172017-08-29T16:32:11.008+12:002017-08-29T16:32:11.008+12:003/3
“Then”: so that, the purpose and goal of all ...3/3<br /><br />“Then”: so that, the purpose and goal of all this. “Test and approve” unpacks the double sense of the Greek: both prove and approve; approve, having first tested; both discerning that will and then of course following it faithfully, obediently.<br /><br />And of course such a divine will is three things in this context. For God himself is always “good” and just; and such goodness (of God and God’s purposes) pleases him, brings God pleasure and joy; “perfect” is also “mature/complete” (as in Matt 5:48), and so naturally rounds everything off. There is always a point to all that God does and is!<br /><br />This running commentary, Brendan, has already begun to address your subsequent questions. These verses are absolutely seminal, as I say, regarding the Christian life in general, and so should be able to bring MUCH LIGHT TO BEAR upon our present Anglican dilemmas. They also govern both confessors and their supplicants, in my experience. To summarize therefore. Christians are sanctified by the patient ministry of word-and-sacrament; by private and corporate prayer; by consistent and persistent “acts of mercy” in their ministry and mission in and to and for the world. Via all these things the Holy Spirit conforms us to the Image of Christ Jesus. I wrote <i>God’s Address</i> as an explicit answer both to making things Trinitarian operational, and to guide folk into reading Scripture via a Trinitarian lens - in a Trinitarian vein, as I say. That very ‘reading’ leads most naturally to an entire set of other things (as the workbook also lays out). For the Triune God works in those Ways he has clearly laid out for us in his written Word. It’s only a case of learning (as a disciple!!) ‘How’ to ‘Read’, and so how to “Perform” such a ‘reading’. The trick is ever becoming a practised, virtuoso performer, following the score of the text of the Word (written and Personal) in the power of the Spirit, unto the Father’s Glory.Bryden Blackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15619512328964399016noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-6564336711317832932017-08-29T16:31:07.430+12:002017-08-29T16:31:07.430+12:002/3. The neat thing about v.2 is that it echoes de...2/3. The neat thing about v.2 is that it echoes delightfully and in passing the NT Catechism. See Eph 4:(17-) 20-24, with v.23 directly paralleling Rom 12:2. [See now my <i>God’s Address—Living with the Triune God: A Scripture Workbook in the Style of Manuduction to Accompany</i> The Lion, the Dove, & the Lamb (Wipf & Stock, 2017).] I.e. v.2 compresses an inordinate amount into its full and real meaning - if we but knew it and heard the full echo that Paul is wanting us to invoke.<br /><br />“Conformed to this age/world”: adding the word “pattern” in your translation brings out the Greek verb nicely. All that is opposed to God comprises an entire “scheme” - in both senses of that word. And here there’s often a real difficulty. Many folk are simply blind to the fact that there IS such a ‘world’ which is against God (back to 1:21-22 again). This “period” of history in which we currently live as humans consists of two opposing ‘worlds’, or ‘schemata’, one which is under God’s Kingdom and another which opposes his Rule. Cf. Col 1:12-14. The NT simply makes no sense apart from this Apocalyptic dualism. Now; of course it’s pretty fashionable to discount such a scheme of things in the modern, secular West. The world is the world is the world; and that’s all there is to it. And furthermore, it’s but a natural evolutionary process ... This is one enormous temptation for Western Christians. Nor do I sense many of us have managed to quite reconcile either the natural sciences or the social sciences with our Christian Faith very well. The history of theology these past 200 years is instructive. Indeed; I fancy much of what passes for discussion on That Topic has its roots right here. <br /><br />Next. I write this in <i>God’s Address</i> re Eph 4:20-24. “This archetypal pairing of putting off the old and putting on the new (see too Col 3:1–14), “in the power of the Spirit” (Rom 8:13), via the “renewing of the spirit of the mind”, may be likened to a pair of scissors. Such an instrument is made up of three things: a pair of opposing blades, and a rivet holding them together. This crucial pivot, with a similar contrast of old and new, is exactly what Paul presents again at the turning point of his magisterial Romans, 12:1–2.”<br /><br />“Mind”: technically, this word <i>nous</i> had uses in popular mysticism and philosophy, as a specific faculty that engaged such things. Paul may or may not be thinking of this here. Overall, the point is clear enough: our ‘human control centre’ is to engage with the significance of what has happened on account of the Gospel, both externally, objectively in history itself, and to each and every Christian by way of their conversion and incorporation into Christ Jesus, Who in Himself, <b>is</b> the New Age. Once more, this ensures our response is “consistent with” the Gospel (as in the last part of v.1). Yet this “transformation” is no instant thing; it is continuous in this current ‘world’. Cf. 2 Cor 3:18. Our “walk in the Spirit”, who does this transformation work within us, is an ongoing business (Gal 5:25, Rom 8:9-13). My most fulsome experience of the sort of thing envisaged here has been my exposure to the work and ministry of Leanne Payne. Her Pastoral Care Ministries and now, after her retirement and death, the Ministry of Pastoral Care Schools were/are quite extraordinary. They are a special and almost unique expression of what this “transformation” is all about, I warrant. And they surely address the very sorts of things Bowman is raising by way of “invincible ignorance”, etc. Actually, firstly, in the power of the Risen Jesus, such things prove to be NOT invincible, although seemingly, previously they might have appeared so; they are also brought to light/into the Light, and so become “known” - as they were always in God’s Sight anyway. And I’m also referring to intergenerational stuff as well ...Bryden Blackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15619512328964399016noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-7099617976970451832017-08-29T16:29:09.080+12:002017-08-29T16:29:09.080+12:00Well Brendan (1/2); you have picked, what for me, ...Well Brendan (1/2); you have picked, what for me, is an absolutely seminal pair of verses. Only the likes of Jn 1:14 and 3:16 might compare in density and significance.<br /><br />First off, I see you have chosen the NIV translation, which has “in view of God’s mercy”. A nice rendering, given these two verses constitute the fulcrum [what’s the “therefore” there for?!] of the entire letter, coming after the fulsome presentation of “Paul’s Gospel” (16:25), which forms chs 1-11. The conclusion of these chapters may be viewed as 11:32.<br /><br />“I urge” [compare other EVV translations]: Paul often presents his more theological material first, followed by his “hortatory” section, given the second is, in his view, the natural consequence arising out of the first. The ground/basis (of his appeal) comes first; then the appeal itself second.<br /><br />His “appeal”/“exhortation” is addressed to those whom he knows to be his family in the Lord Jesus, the Household of God - “brothers and sisters” - who share in common the Holy Spirit. We are all in this together; but only so on account of God’s gift and doing, his Grace/Mercy.<br /><br />“Offer”/“present”: classic Jewish sacrificial language. And what is so offered up is first off most concrete - as befits an Incarnational belief, and the God of Creation. Yet this entire first verse also leads back directly to ch.1 and vv.18ff. There the matter was “false worship”, worship of the creature(s) rather than the Creator (v.25); and the result of such “folly” (v.22) furthermore involves both “hearts” and “bodies”, which will be taken up directly in 12:1-2. Note too “desire” (1:24): Augustine will make much of this human trait, since in his schema the entire point is to desire the God who made us and yet we stupidly seek after instead false objects of worship. I.e. he beautifully paraphrases Paul.<br /><br />In the OT, “sacrifices” were slaughtered naturally, and so dead (or were vegetable); now, since we Christians are both dead and resurrected in Christ Jesus (Rom 6), we’re able truly to offer our very lives - that supreme gift of God, the Living God, Who Is, is returned to its Source.<br />Yet here too Augustine (in a sermon) plays delightfully: “the trouble with being a living sacrifice is that it has a habit of crawling off the altar!”<br /><br />“Holy”: anything given over unto God, as we Christians should now be, was considered holy in the OT.<br /><br />The “aroma/odour” of any burnt sacrifice in the OT was often described as smelling pleasant or pleasing to God. Cf. 2 Cor 2:14-17.<br /><br />All of which response ‘accords well’ with what we should be doing: creatures are meant to worship their Creator (Rev 4 & 5). This response is the most “logical/rational”, consistent reaction to what chs 1-11 have displayed: the phrase “true and proper” is thus one translation; another is “spiritual”. And “worship” is one of a pair often used: <i>leitourgia</i> = bringing of offerings or performing ceremonial services; <i>latreia</i>, as here = worship/service of God.Bryden Blackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15619512328964399016noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-69795627844284308142017-08-28T18:45:12.318+12:002017-08-28T18:45:12.318+12:00Thankyou, Bowman, for your reminder of 'inheri...Thankyou, Bowman, for your reminder of 'inherited prejudice', which may - or may not - be pastorally considered as a hindrance to the formation of a valid conscience. One excellent example of this was Saint Paul's need of 'conversion', from his formation under the Jewish Tradition - into the grace-filled understanding of Christianity.<br /><br />One suspects that some of the failings he was able to confess in his newly-acquired conscience - but which he accepted were subsumed into the redemption of Jesus - were mystically dealt with as part of his journey into the Kingdom of God. Thus: "Thanks be to God for the victory in Christ Jesus" Father Ron Smithhttp://kiwianglo.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-67605782012401525462017-08-28T17:52:56.557+12:002017-08-28T17:52:56.557+12:00Dear Bowman and Bryden
An interesting insight int...Dear Bowman and Bryden<br /><br />An interesting insight into character formation, and the scripting we bring with us into life, and into our lived experience as Christians.<br /><br />I wonder in the light of those thoughts, what you make of Romans 12:1-2:<br /><br />“Therefore, I urge you, brothers and sisters, in view of God’s mercy, to offer your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God—this is your true and proper worship. 2 Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will.”<br /><br />I’m particularly interested in the aspect of ‘being transformed by the renewing of your mind’ – how do you suggest that takes place? While I have my own views, I’d be interested in yours. <br /><br />Secondly, Paul implies that renewal of ones mind is not an automatic process that follows salvation, that it appears to involve some agency or choice on the part of the believer. Thoughts?<br /><br />Third, when someone undertakes the renewing of their mind and therefore begins to approve of God’s good and perfect will, should we think it strange if their teaching and example did not begin to eventually comply at least somewhat more closely to the example of Jesus, and the testimony of Scripture?<br /><br />To me this passage of Scripture appears to have considerable bearing upon the matter in question, not in regard to how God views same sex anything, but rather how we view it.<br />Brendan McNeillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02741263914308842497noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-80916458725261328062017-08-28T17:00:48.867+12:002017-08-28T17:00:48.867+12:00Re your other comment @ August 28, 2017 at 2:08 PM...Re your other comment @ August 28, 2017 at 2:08 PM.<br /><br />Apologies Bowman if you object to that word "idiocy" - but I fail to see how it differs from Wisdom Literature's "Folly" and/or "The Fool", about which the Hebrew language waxes most lyrically ...Bryden Blackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15619512328964399016noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-84940390579864962762017-08-28T16:55:50.237+12:002017-08-28T16:55:50.237+12:00Nice comment Bowman @ August 28, 2017 at 3:26 PM
...Nice comment Bowman @ August 28, 2017 at 3:26 PM<br /><br />I’ve also read a good bit of Lonergan over the uears, whose desire for wholesome “Method” and spiritual “Insight” worthy of “loving subjects” before the triune God dove-tails rather well with your comment. And finally too: Lonergan’s work has been one of the key influences into my own conclusions regarding That Topic (and others).Bryden Blackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15619512328964399016noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-42901175697972852512017-08-28T15:26:44.767+12:002017-08-28T15:26:44.767+12:00"Why, God might even be able to overcome the ..."Why, God might even be able to overcome the effects of entrenched homophobia and sexism in the Church - if only its exponents would accept their own culpability!"<br /><br />Father Ron, please forgive a rather technical question, but the answer may be dear to your heart. In the last century, Roman authors of manuals for confessors (eg H. J. Ward's multi-volume work) were clear that souls can be in a condition of *invincible ignorance*. That was a diagnosis, not an insult; a solution, not a problem. <br /><br />The C20 manualists reasoned that the formation of the conscience according to natural influences (eg parents, peers, heroes, local custom, etc) is prior to the divine influence mediated through the Church (eg confessors, preachers, teachers, scriptures, etc). Roughly-- below a certain age, you *believe* what your father tells you, but only *consider* what your priest tells you, and humans cannot naturally develop in any other way. So there will be confessions in which adult penitents admit to thoughts or deeds that s/he knows that God or at least the Church disapproves, but for which s/he feels no contrition because of some strong childhood influence. <br /><br />Two examples. A woman sold sex to support herself and her daughter. (A) Her daughter knows that sex for money is forbidden, but she also reveres her mother and knows that she bought her food, shelter, and clothing with it. Her sentiments of reverence and gratitude intercept her priest's injunction to stop using sex to use men to get what she wants. (B) The daughter has a granddaughter who does not know her grandmother's past. In reaction against her own childhood, the daughter has inculcated in the grand-daughter both a puritanical aversion to sex and a distrustful, instrumental view of men. These sentiments disrupt her marriage, and when her priest challenges them, she finds herself suspicious of the priest as a man rather than able to accept a Christian view of sex, men, and marriage.<br /><br />The guidance of the manuals was that, provided that the penitent generally respects the teaching of the Church, a contrition that is hollow by reason of *invincible ignorance* is not an obstacle to absolution. For when a soul teeters between a bad influence and a good one, why should one weaken the good one by withholding absolution and communion? The confessor's duty is, not to punish a soul's natural struggles with the truth, but to be consistently clear about what that truth is for as many years as it takes for the penitent to come to the spiritual freedom in which reassessment is possible.<br /><br />Your comment above (and others with other views) have obliquely invoked cases of conflict between subjective certainties incidental to formation and objective propositions taught in the Body of Christ. My question: did your Anglican teachers agree with the Roman manualists with respect to *invincible ignorance*?<br /><br />Bowman Walton<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-71652110865334127742017-08-28T14:08:10.486+12:002017-08-28T14:08:10.486+12:00"Of course, in the midst of all this, what wi...<br />"Of course, in the midst of all this, what with erudition and/or plain idiocy, and all bits in between..."<br /><br />"Bryden must be talking about a conversation elsewhere. Everyone here makes sense."<br /><br />"Aha Bowman! I see from your comment @ August 22, 2017 at 7:43 PM that your sense of "sense" is as accommodating at Peter's "Beautiful accommodation". Now a lot more 'makes sense' ... We're in deeper trouble than I realised!"<br /><br />Bryden, I do not see anything more clearly when people are being called idiots. God will judge all lapses of charity in the Body. <br /><br />Bowman Walton<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-70208116575510512882017-08-28T10:02:52.204+12:002017-08-28T10:02:52.204+12:00In response to you all - especially Bryden in his...<br />In response to you all - especially Bryden in his last comment - I invoke the final thoughts of the Apostle Paul, after the recital of his own shortcomings.<br /><br />"But thanks be to God for the victory in our Lord Jesus Christ" - (over Paul's so obvious shortcomings.)<br /><br />Why, God might even be able to overcome the effects of entrenched homophobia and sexism in the Church - if only its exponents would accept their own culpability!<br /><br />"Christ is our corner-stone, on Him alone we build!"Father Ron Smithhttp://kiwianglo.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-65356498889607803912017-08-26T12:14:54.541+12:002017-08-26T12:14:54.541+12:00Aha Bowman! I see from your comment @ August 22, 2...Aha Bowman! I see from your comment @ August 22, 2017 at 7:43 PM that your sense of "sense" is as accommodating at Peter's "Beautiful accommodation". Now a lot more 'makes sense' ... <br /><br />We're in deeper trouble than I realised!Bryden Blackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15619512328964399016noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-37888903808022563632017-08-23T05:52:39.745+12:002017-08-23T05:52:39.745+12:00(Cont'd by Bowman, 2/3) (above are 3/3 and 1/3...(Cont'd by Bowman, 2/3) (above are 3/3 and 1/3)<br /><br />Bates then looks at (5) efficacy in St Paul (104)--<br /><br />"Contemporary Christian notions of grace also frequently fail to take into account the effective nature of grace. That is, the aim of God’s gift of the Christ is to set us free from our slavery to sin, the law, and evil powers and to transform us so that we become new creatures, righteous in the Messiah (Rom. 5: 20– 21; 2 Cor. 5: 17– 21; Gal. 1: 1– 6; 6: 15; Titus 2: 11– 14). In the Christ, we are ruled by grace, 'grace reigns through righteousness unto eternal life' (Rom. 5: 21; cf. Rom. 5: 17; 1 Cor. 15: 10). It is inappropriate, then, to suggest that God’s gift of the Messiah, if the gift is accepted and subsequently held, would be ineffective in bringing about God’s transformative aims." <br /><br />Ten points for you too, Peter! For Bates, it is Jesus's rising from the dead in the V-shaped story that suggests that grace is transformative for those who give him pistis or allegiance.<br /><br />He concludes (105)--<br /><br />"So we should not set grace at odds with the required behavioral changes (good deeds) associated with allegiant union to Jesus the king. In short, we cannot say in an unqualified fashion that final salvation is by grace and by faith apart from embodied obedience, for this misunderstands the nature of both charis ('grace') and pistis ('faith') in antiquity and in Paul’s Letters. We must recognize the bankruptcy of our current selves, especially our self-centered indulgences and ambitions. Through participation in the Christ’s death and resurrection, we must die to our old selves with the Messiah and become new selves, and in so doing follow the road of obedient service that our Lord commands by enacting allegiance. For Paul 'faith' recognizes we are utterly dead and totally undeserving of God’s grace, but the grasping of God’s life-from-the-dead grace demands a trajectory of loyal obedience."Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-82600720166728175172017-08-23T05:52:07.231+12:002017-08-23T05:52:07.231+12:00Hi Peter,
I rise to defend both Grandfather Brend...Hi Peter,<br /><br />I rise to defend both Grandfather Brendan and Father Ron-- and you!<br /><br />As you know, I have been reading Matthew W. Bates's Salvation by Allegiance Alone: Rethinking Faith, Works, and the Gospel of Jesus the King (Baker Publishing Group. Kindle Edition). Among many other points, Bates makes plain, much as Ron does, that all discussion of charis or grace in the NT is anchored in the V-shaped story of the descending-ascending Redeemer who was enthroned by the Father as king of heaven and earth.<br /><br />To render this notion precise, Bates cites John Barclay's famous six meanings attached to the key word charis or grace (p 104)--<br /><br />"John Barclay shows that 'grace' (charis) has been susceptible to six differentiable meanings for those who have interpreted Paul’s Letters: (1) superabundance— the size of the gift; (2) singularity— the pure benevolence of the gift; (3) priority— giving at the ideal advance time; (4) incongruity— lack of merit in the recipient; (5) efficacy— the ability of the gift to achieve its intended purposes; (6) noncircularity— the absence of obligation to reciprocate by giving a gift in return." <br /><br />As I read you all-- <br /><br />Grandfather Brendan is minimising Barclay's (6) noncircularity. <br />You Peter are emphasising Barclay's (5) efficacy.<br />Father Ron, is emphasising Barclay's (4) incongruity.<br /><br />What does St Paul actually say? Turning to the apostle's own use of charis, Bates looks first at Brendan's (6) non-circularity (104)--<br /><br />"Paul himself does not necessarily 'perfect,' or take to its extreme limit, each one of these nuances of grace. In fact, he does not even include all of them in his own understanding of grace, as noncircularity in particular is alien to Paul. In other words, Barclay has convincingly demonstrated that it is a misunderstanding of grace (gift) in antiquity and in Paul’s Letters to suggest that grace could not truly be grace if it requires obedience as an obligatory return. We are undeserving of God’s gift of the Messiah— shockingly so!— in ancient contexts as well as contemporary. Yet the modern notion of the 'pure gift' (a gift that requires no reciprocation) seeks to perfect grace along the wrong axis and does not align with the ancient evidence pertaining to grace."<br /><br />Ten points for Brendan! :-) As Bates reads St Paul and the NT as a whole, it is Jesus's enthronement in the ascent of the V-shaped story that suggests our duty to reciprocate.Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-39861100760672222122017-08-23T02:37:41.088+12:002017-08-23T02:37:41.088+12:00Cont'd
Father Ron wins at least 10 points for...Cont'd<br /><br />Father Ron wins at least 10 points for linking the whole discussion of grace to the story of Jesus as the descending-ascending Redeemer who became king. But what of Ron's further emphasis on (4) incongruity? <br /><br />Bates says little about (4) beyond what I have quoted. It does seem likely that, for Bates as for Ron, the Redeemer's whole descent is motivated by God's desire to reach even those farthest from God. I am tempted to see that aspect of charis or grace in the passages that Peter cited yesterday-- St Luke 7:36-50 and St John 8:1-11-- and also in such healing stories as those in St Mark 5. In St Paul, we would see (4) incongruity in any of the passages in which he stresses that he has received grace despite his unworthiness. <br /><br />The difficulty is that just as we should not pit the undeservedness of charis against its reciprocity and effectiveness, so we should not pit the incongruity of charis against its reciprocity and effectiveness. Our challenge is to understand what the latter mean where persons have disorders (eg psychopathology) that appear to be constitutive. <br /><br />Bowman WaltonAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-38778187752457658192017-08-22T22:19:08.589+12:002017-08-22T22:19:08.589+12:00Hi Ron
I rise to Brendan's defence!
Paul writi...Hi Ron<br />I rise to Brendan's defence!<br />Paul writing to the Romans at the beginning of that letter talks about calling people to "the obedience of faith."<br />Obedience to God's commands, to Christ's commands is an important outworking of the faith which saves us, faith in Jesus' saving act on the cross and faith which receives the new life of the risen Christ within us.<br />That life is a holy life and we do not honour the risen Christ when we live an unholy life (see, e.g. Romans 6, which makes the point that if we wilfully persist in sinning, then we misunderstand what identifying with Christ's death and resurrection mean).<br />Now, by all means argue here as to what Christ requires of homosexuals, and it may or may not be relevant to observe that Christ said nothing directly about the matter. (He did of course speak indirectly because he did not derogate the Law except in matters such as food and sacrificial customs; cf the relevant one of the 39A which distinguishes moral, civil and ceremonial law).<br />But I suggest Anglicans who confess their sins at each service of worship and look for absolution can scarcely be as sanguine about the importance of repentance as your comment appears above!Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-78680360003538386822017-08-22T21:40:58.103+12:002017-08-22T21:40:58.103+12:00"Our salvation does not depend upon what we a..."Our salvation does not depend upon what we approve or disapprove of in others. It is dependent upon our repentance from sin, faith towards God in Christ, and our continued obedience to his word." - Brendan - <br /><br />Here again, Brendan, you are putting words into the mouth of God. What you seem to forget is that, at the Incarnation, the WORD became flesh and lived amongst us, at times seemingly flouting the entrenched theology of his fellow Jews. What Christians today have to do, and it may be far too challenging for some; is to interpret the words about God (the Bible in its entirety) in the Light of Christ Who IS The definitive Word of God.<br /><br />Jesus, in His Incarnate life, spoke parables of the unrelenting love of God for sinners (like ourselves, Brendan), warning only that those of us who are prone to judge others on the matter of their salvation, might just find ourselves outside of the company of the saints. Consider the parable of the Pharisee and the Sinner, reflecting on Jesus' statement about their relative capacity for redemption: "Which of them went away justified".<br /><br />Another of your dogmatic statements, Brendan, disturbs me. When you say that homosexual love is unacceptable to God, just how do you know this - except for your own interpretation of the 'clobber verses' in the N.T. It should be remembered that Jesus said not one word about Same-Sex Love or Blessings. If God hates Gays, why did Jesus not make this explicit in his own teaching on marriage and relationships in general? On the other hand, Scripture does tell us that: "Where charity and love are; there is God!"Father Ron Smithhttp://kiwianglo.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-68403679792468928522017-08-22T19:43:11.668+12:002017-08-22T19:43:11.668+12:00"Of course, in the midst of all this, what wi..."Of course, in the midst of all this, what with erudition and/or plain idiocy, and all bits in between..."<br /><br />Bryden must be talking about a conversation elsewhere. Everyone here makes sense.<br /><br />Bowman Walton Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-38628518668075276332017-08-22T19:16:01.642+12:002017-08-22T19:16:01.642+12:00Sam, if you are going to reply to me anyway, might...Sam, if you are going to reply to me anyway, might I ask you to take a look at my 10:23 am to Brendan about his 10:32 of the day before? I have been trying to understand as precisely as I can how the *beautiful compromise* would change the status quo. Perhaps I misunderstand him, but Brendan seems to me to have nailed it.<br /><br />Bowman Walton<br /><br /> Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-59931822222420495832017-08-22T19:04:48.446+12:002017-08-22T19:04:48.446+12:00"Your interpretation of my post falls well sh..."Your interpretation of my post falls well short of the mark"<br /><br />Thank you, Brendan, for a rapid reply.<br /><br />Clearly, it is a very good thing that I made some interpretation of your thought explicit and sought your correction to it. If I had just made assumptions about what I think you think and blundered on, talking past each other might indeed have occurred. And just think what a fine discussion we could have here if everyone was as careful with and respectful of the opinions of others as I am ;-)<br /><br />It is 3 am here; I will respond tomorrow. <br /><br />Blessings,<br /><br />Bowman WaltonAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-24285500946298585522017-08-22T17:18:00.359+12:002017-08-22T17:18:00.359+12:00Hi Peter,
Thanks for getting back to me. I wrote i...Hi Peter,<br />Thanks for getting back to me. I wrote it last night and it was too long to recall right now. It was a reply to Bowman and Ron and I may attempt it again later on<br />Cheers<br />SamSam Andersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08279230294548242422noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-64067112928643754972017-08-22T17:09:17.979+12:002017-08-22T17:09:17.979+12:00Dear Rosemary @ August 21, 2017 at 12:40 PM
You n...Dear Rosemary @ August 21, 2017 at 12:40 PM<br /><br />You now express the fact that you have reached the very point many of your opponents have been striving for - resignation! My profound sympathies ... 2 Cor 1:3-7.<br /><br />Of course, in the midst of all this, what with erudition and/or plain idiocy, and all bits in between, the Lord of the Church is not mocked. Nor is He short-changed or non- plused, having seen it all before. And considering Peter is enjoying a bit of a dip into 1 Cor nowadays, let’s not forget 1 Cor 4:1-4, the context for which is Paul’s ideas of spirituality versus those of the Corinthians (where both 1 & 2 Cor play their respective roles). <br /><br />And curiously, one vital feature remains right on target re our present concerns: the role of the material, including naturally the body - a body compromised surely (sorely?!) by sin, but destined for glorious resurrection; and a body moreover which has long since been also caught up into that singular Corporate Body of Christ, the Church. Paul would have us ‘paint’ and embody our lives with Christ Jesus in the power of the Spirit on a vast, new canvas; and sadly many today are far too small minded, being just too partial - or should that be partisan? Or BOTH?! For to live embodied in the Body is to die to one’s individual body, that both (b)Bodies might become enlivened by the Holy Spirit who brought Jesus back from the dead. But here too we mostly chicken out: real power now?! Surely not! Yet; yes! Real power - NOW - <i>for the sake of the Body!!</i> For the sake of the New Creation God is already bringing into His world. Both Letters are steering their respective ways to their conclusions, 1 Cor 15 and 2 Cor 13.<br /><br />And if we wish to continue dabbling in the older order of things ... Well; we’ll just lose out, being most to be pitied ... Either way, nothing will actually <i>stop</i> what God has begun!Bryden Blackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15619512328964399016noreply@blogger.com