NP: hope they study together what St Paul says is an appropriate response to the wonderful grace we recieve....
Now, NP, repeat many times after me, "I before E except after C."
If you must inflict your rantings upon us, at least do us the courtesy of spelling them correctly!
Where'd you come by that, NP? I can't imagine anyone at Drenched in Grace would be at all familiar with it. If you want them to comply with it, you should say why, and perhaps give them the reference so they can read it. I'm sure you'd agree that it would come as some surprise to them that anyone would suggest this. Who's this Paul guy? I think they'd better be informed as to who he is as well. But you need to use the full name when you are introducing someone for the first time.
I have been praying for the Inclusive Church, this conference and an early patron and his peoples a lot in the last week. I tried to send them an email on the weekend but their contact at spam screening screens out real people as well as bots!
May God bless them, and may they continue to ignore the taunts of bickerers such as Jannes and Jambre, who slander even celestial beings and bring harsh words even to baptisms and bondings.
I feel sopping wet already . . .
Wow looks like a great conference, drawing us together across some differences at least, from all around the world. Too bad I cannot get time off from work to attend.
I hope they will have a workshop on the holiness and ethical transformations typically involved in Coming Out. Whether anybody thinks St. Paul knew about what we moderns mean by Coming Out, or not.
We should take up a collection and offer NP and others ... Akinola of Nigeria comes to mind, for some reason ... a free registration to attend.
I wish them well, though it is a shame they couldn't get better 'keynote' speakers. Lovable as she is, Lucy Winkett is hardly in the Premier League. What about the others?
drdanfee - do you really want a conference spoilt by the replies, "Yes we have answered this already, and often, so please can you stop repeating yourself?"
So why are the so-called "orthodox" immune to Romans 6:1-2, I wonder?
I mean, we still haven't heard any of them condemn Akinola for his attempt to influence the writing of laws to imprison innocent people in Nigeria. To the contrary, in fact; they support Akinola to the fullest, and look at him with admiration.
Are they going to continue in their sin, then? I guess so....
I think NP maybe should meditate upon verse 2 for a while: By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it?
Maybe NP's "Sin" (a Medieval concept, derived from the Great Flood, in German ;=) just isn't?
Maybe t h a t is the Truth that liberates from Medieval concepts on the whole?
... liberates us to Biblical concepts, instead of Heathen ones?
RPNewark - great point!
Ford - people who talk about God's grace ought not to pick and choose what they take on the subject from God's word........we are certainly drenched in grace but St Paul and St James and, in fact, the whole bible, as you know, is very clear on what is an appropriate response to our Holy God's wonderful grace.....this ain't controversial.
1 John 4:15-21 "If anyone acknowledges that Jesus is the Son of God, God lives in him and he in God. And so we know and rely on the love God has for us. God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in him. In this way, love is made complete among us so that we will have confidence on the day of judgment, because in this world we are like him. There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment. The one who fears is not made perfect in love. We love because he first loved us. If anyone says, “I love God,” yet hates his brother, he is a liar. For anyone who does not love his brother, whom he has seen, cannot love God, whom he has not seen. And he has given us this command: Whoever loves God must also love his brother."
Matthew 23:13 "“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the kingdom of heaven in men’s faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to." See also Luke 11:52
Titus 3:9-11 “Avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and arguments and quarrels about the law, because these are unprofitable and useless. Warn a divisive person once, and then warn him a second time. After that, have nothing to do with him. You may be sure that such a man is warped and sinful; he is self-condemned.”
James 2:9-13 "But if you show favoritism, you sin and are convicted by the law as lawbreakers. For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it... Speak and act as those who are going to be judged by the law that gives freedom, because judgment without mercy will be shown to anyone who has not been merciful. Mercy triumphs over judgment!"
Malachi 2:5-9 There was a covenant of peace and reverence with Levi and those who violate that covenant God causes to stumble. The Lord Almighty says “I have caused you to be despised and humiliated before all the people, because you have not followed my ways but have shown partiality in matters of the law."
Can you please stop rubbishing a conference that hasn't even happened yet? You really don't need to be so aggressive all the time!
'...is hardly in the Premier League. What about the others?'
I thought Jesus said that the first (premier league?) shall be last & vice versa.
What an unkind remark -- is it characteristic of this league then ?
(I hasen to add I have no knowledge of the person denigrated here. But the comment hardly encourages me to engage ...
Cheryl - you quote 1 John - do have a read of the first couple of chapters and see what it says about the importance of holiness (on his terms, of course) to God:
The problem we have in the AC is that a few peopl claim they are walking in the light while condoning behaviour which the AC bishops have consistently said is "incompatible with scripture".
Paul altered his message and even contradicted himself according to the different audiences he was addressing, so that there is this clash between what he writes in Romans and 1 Corinthians. But taking the latter, which NP wants to quote. The context is a world out there and a purist community, that was not (there) but should be. So he says you have to go out into the world amongst all this prostitution and cultic activity, obviously, to bring them in, but then once in you ought to be pure and he lists these things. Now it is just that this is one aspiration of a church community, and he is saying you can judge the insiders and if this behaviour is going on then drive them out - to maintain purity. So here is one context.
There is nothing to suggest that this should apply in all places, nor in all times, nor that the list of sins he comes up with is fixed. It only becomes so if you give what he wrote in a particular situation and particular place, and in his opinion (and he says you are not under apostles and this one or that but Christ) some sort of absolutism of this text, and apply it across the board as some kind of manner not even Qur'anic exegites would apply within Islam.
It gets applied to one bishop: someone whose marriage was over, who is in a loving relationship, and who is a model of stability for others. It should and can never apply to such relationships.
The objection that Archbishop of Canterbury makes is that TEC should have done the theology first and then approved the bishop. Well, OK, we are all doing the theology, and there is also a pause; then the same Archbishop wants every Church to move on the issue (or any controversial issue) at one pace - a Covenant. Well this is too much to ask, and it isn't going to happen longer term. So the Churches will have to decide, one by one, with whom they are going to be with be in Communion.
I would go to such a conference, but it is just so expensive, and so I hope they put the transcripts online and some reporting of what happened in the workshops.
"the whole bible, as you know, is very clear on what is an appropriate response to our Holy God's wonderful grace.....this ain't controversial."
Show me one person who says it is controversial? Show me a quote from anyone claiming we are NOT called to metanoia. Just one. People are saying that monogamous homosexual relationships are not something we are called to turn away from, but no-one, as far as I know, is claiming that acceptance of Christianity means we don't have to amend our lives. Are they? Who?
Interesting that you quote 1 John. Let's see:
10 If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.
Now, then. Jesus said quite clearly we ought not to judge. It is one thing to say that you have judged TEC's doctrine on homosexuality and believe it to be in error. Paul allows that. It is quite another to say that because of this, the people in TEC are a bunch of faithless heathens selling out to the world and plotting to oppress the faithful remnant. This last bit is called reviling and both Jesus and Paul speak very clearly against it. You claim that Paul allows you to do this. This is the self-deception 1 John speaks of. Your continual quoting of Scripture, which I fully expect you will do in response to this, merely reveals that you are decceiving yourself. 1 John says that means the truth is not in you. Your willingness to twist Paul's words to say something in direct opposition to Jesus constitutes making Jesus a liar, since what He said is directly opposite to what you are claiming Paul means. As you say, both can't be right. Thus, we see the Scripture revealed in you.
Ford - there are bishops in the AC who say people can enjoy behaviour "incompatible with scripture"....this is an abuse of grace and contradicts so much in the bible, I have no space to include it here...but Rom 6:1 sums it all up.
C.S. Lewis: "There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, 'Thy will be done,' and those to whom God says, in the end, 'Thy will be done.'
Ford, as you seek to continue to avoid your "clobber verses" with the defence that we ought not to judge, your weak argument is weakened further by your attempt to put words in my mouth.....pls note, I have never said what you say i.e. "the people in TEC are a bunch of faithless heathens selling out to the world and plotting to oppress the faithful remnant". These are your words....not mine.
What I have said many times (even I am getting tired of repeating it but I have to as too many people do not seem to realise it is true) is that the bishops of the AC have said consistently in 98 and since that certain behaviour is "incompatible with scripture" ...... and many of us in the AC do not wish to have our agreed AC position changed by the unilateral actions on one province.....and many of us regard teaching that behaviour "incompatible with scripture" is suddenly good and holy is nothing but false teaching, contradicting God's word.
Do have another read of what comes before 1 John 1 v 10...... hidden sin is still sin and is still unacceptable to God....we need to walk in the light (i.e. repenting, not hiding or justifying sin)
Every time I have heard Lucy Winkett, I have found her compelling and accessible. I would certainly put her in my own 'premier league' of speakers. I am not sure who Neil would have in his (I would also include Ched Myers and James Alison).
Sharon Moughtin-Mumby taught me Hebrew and Old Testament at Cuddesdon. She knows her stuff. Don't know the others.
JBE - you are right to point out that James Alison is in a league of his own! I simply don't know about the people programmed for this conference, except for lucky Lucy who seems to have prospered...though I say again...not quite in the same league!
NP: what the bishops said at Lambeth 98 is not consistent with the resolutions the General Synod had made years before affirming lay people who live in same sex relationships, and is not consistent with the fact that they have all, including the most conservative bishops, ordained people who are living in same-sex relationships. The Lambeth 98 document was so unworkable form the beginning that's its signing was simple stupidity on the part of the English bishops. I imagine they thought at the time it would be the best way to keep the Africans happy and keep away any controversy. How short-sighted and low on principles they were!
Mark - I agree with you that there has been too little principle in the CofE....too much fudge and compromise for a quiet life.
So, we should move to a consistent position....not telling lies to lay people that somehow God accepts certain sins for them but not for clergy....it is a silly position, you are right in that
I think Jenny Te Paa may not be everyone's cup of tea, but I don't think she can be regarded as lower division. Here is where you can find a slightly out-of-date CV.
She was also a member of the Lambeth Commission on Communion which produced the Windsor Report.
I think there is something ever so slightly patronising, though, about characterising speakers in this way. The Bible is full of people who were thought of little account, called to speak ...
The Windsor report tried to initiate a listening process. Let's listen to what people have to say.
Only that's a non-starter in contemporary Britain, unless the CofE loses all ties with the State.
"... and many of us in the AC do not wish to have our agreed AC position changed by the unilateral actions on one province..."
Agreed with whom? God?
"as you seek to continue to avoid your "clobber verses" with the defence that we ought not to judge"
What? I'm not seeking to avoid anything, have been quite clear in my refusal to just dismiss those verses, actually. Second, you simply can't, or won't see that the verses you claim justify sitting in judgement on people do not actually talk about that at all. Fine. Thy will be done.
You talk all the time about "faithful" bishops, thus there must be faithless ones, or why make the distinction? You make it pretty clear who the faithless ones are. You frequently make reference to the mistreatment of Conservatives by liberals, in TEC and elsewhere, look a the conversation we just had about Mark Lawrence. You continually sneer at "inclusive" churches being nearly empty as evidence of the failure of this attempt to get people into church. You continually, like your consevo heroes, refer to people following the trends of society. You DO say these things NP, they're in print. But fine, if I'm misrepresenting you, acknowledge that, while they are horribly misguided in their understanding of Scripture, people in TEC are just as faithful and sincere in their beliefs as you are, they do believe they are following the Gospel, they read and respect Scripture, and they are not plotting and scheming to marginalize and silence conservatives and take over, perhaps destroy the Church.
Ford - we were never taught (not by the Lord or any of his Apostles) to accomodate false teaching ..... we have clergy promoting what the AC bishops have consistently said is "incompatible with scripture".....we cannot tolerate this as the bible has more authority for most of us than VGR, Integrity or CA
"Ford - we were never taught (not by the Lord or any of his Apostles) to accomodate false teaching ..... we have clergy promoting what the AC bishops have consistently said is "incompatible with scripture".....we cannot tolerate this as the bible has more authority for most of us than VGR, Integrity or CA"
What does this selfrighteous nonsense have to do with anything I said?
Sorry, Ford..... those who teach people that it is fine to do things which are "incompatible with scripture" cannot be faithful at the same time. They may be sincere...but they are still wrong in contradicting scripture.
Before you go off on one, I am not pushing my own views. I am saying I want the AC to stick to the agreed position of the AC bishops which is consistent with the RCC and most Christian biblical teaching in the last 2000 years.
1 Cor 5:12
1 John 2:15-17
"those who teach people that it is fine to do things which are "incompatible with scripture" cannot be faithful at the same time."
But why is it that you only accuse liberal bishops of being faithless, then? I know you like to believe people like +Duncan and +Akinola are Godly people, but everyone else can see by their actions that they are not. They are doing things incompatible with the Gospel, regardless of what they teach others, so how do they get to be called "faithful"? Merely because they pretend to follow things they forced on everyone else? Sure, they follow the great British principle of manipulating things to get their way while making it look like a democratic decision. We here in Newfoundland are long acquainted with that political ploy. Even then, they don't comply with the rules they forced on everybody else, so what makes them faithful?
Please note that comments are limited to 400 words. Comments that are longer than 400 words will not be approved.
Cookies are used to remember your personal information between visits to
the site. This information is stored on your computer and used to refill
the text boxes on your next visit. Any cookie is deleted if you select
'No'. By ticking 'Yes' you agree to this use of a cookie by this site. No
third-party cookies are used, and cookies are not used for analytical,
advertising, or other purposes.