The Neverending Story (The New Christian Chronicles)

Southern Baptists ending talks with Catholic Church ^ | 3/24/01 | AP

[malakhi]

The Neverending Story
An ongoing debate on Scripture, Tradition, History and Interpretation.

Statesmen may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue. - John Adams

Thread 162
TNS Archives

[OLD REGGIE]

That was the only pathetic thing about winning the cup. Borque this and that. Most people out here were totally sick of his Boston crap. We would have won it with or without him. Let Boston win their own cup.

If they win the cup this year it will prove your point. If not??????????

Boston doesn't need the cup, they have the SUPER BOWL!

[RobbyS]

Many Catholics, like Gardiner, managed to find in the Prayer Book, the elements of the old Mass, which, I think, is to read a lot into what Cranmer said. But Cranmer dareed go npo futher. The open resistance of the Prayer Book in the West Country suggests that the "Old Religion" had active support, indicating that the majority of the country was still Catholic in sentiment, and that he was treading on dangerous ground to go further. When he did, of course, it was one reason why he ended up at the stake.

[SoothingDave]

And yes, the efforts to accommodate Anglo Catholics have been encouraging, though conditional ordinations would have been a better way to go (sorry, just couldn't let drop, could I?)

I agree. I don't see why conditional ordinations are not done in this case. I mean it is entirely possible that the previous ordination was valid.

The best statement of what is Anglicanism boiled down to essentials, I think it would be the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral. If you want the essentials of the continuing Anglican Churches the Affirmation of St. Louis is the best statement.

What exactly is your definition of the difference between an "Anglo Catholic" and a "continuing Anglican?" I'm not really sure of the terminology.

SD

[SoothingDave]

Boston doesn't need the cup, they have the SUPER BOWL!

Blasphemy! The Cup is the Supreme Trophy. No championship on earth is as difficult or as demanding in body and spirit to be captured. None.

SD

[ksen]

Exactly. But if she does not repent and leaves "her father's house" I would have to let her go. I would not force her to stay somewhere she has chosen to leave.

If Sarah were to die in that “unrepentant state” wouldn’t you, if it were at all possible, go and gather her home? So does God.

But you have God removing our freedom to reject Him. If we can never lose our salvation, then we are not free and God is forcing us to be saved.

But we are free. We are free from the curse, free from living under the fear of what may happen once we die. We are set free from trying to live up to the demands of the Law in order to please God to get into Heaven. Now we are free to perform good works in order to glorify God and make Him manifest to a lost world.

I don't believe that God desires anyone to be absent from Him, to be punished eternally. But I do believe that the people who end up in such a state are there because of the freedom God gave them to reject Him and His Company.

You are absolutely, 100% correct.

-ksen

[OLD REGGIE]

Blasphemy! The Cup is the Supreme Trophy. No championship on earth is as difficult or as demanding in body and spirit to be captured. None.

Easy for you to say now. BTW Do you have any "crying towels" in your trophy case?

[trad_anglican]

What exactly is your definition of the difference between an "Anglo Catholic" and a "continuing Anglican?" I'm not really sure of the terminology.

Anglo Catholic generally refers to liturgical practice - smells and bells, chasubles, stauary. Continuing Anglicans are those Anglicans who have separated from the "mainline" Anglican church for doctrinal reasons and set up "new" ecclesiastical structures under orthodox bishops. There are continuing Anglican churches in every country in which the "official" Anglican church has embraced priestesses, for example.

The continuing Anglican churches are not monolithic in their liturgical practices. There are low church continuing churches and high church (Anglo-catholic) continuing churches, though the high church types tend to be more prevalent. See how simple it is?

[ksen]

I fear alot of folks on here do not and will not ever understand this.

I think you are probably right.

-ksen

[ksen]

Boston doesn't need the cup, they have the SUPER BOWL!

This is the year Reggie. Boston can tell the rest of the world that "All your Super Bowls, Stanley Cups, World Series are belong to us!"

;^)

-ksen

[ksen]

Easy for you to say now. BTW Do you have any "crying towels" in your trophy case?

I think they have a lot of spare yellow towels that were used for that. ;^)

-ksen

[Invincibly Ignorant]

If they win the cup this year it will prove your point. If not??????????

Prove what point? He was a washed up defenseman in his 20th season. I oughta know, I watched him all year.

Boston doesn't need the cup, they have the SUPER BOWL!

Let's not start counting Superbowls now. Dave and I would both beat ya.

[Invincibly Ignorant]

I saw this and thought of you. It would probably work just fine with your sound card and mixer. ;^)

I love that guitar. Actually, I don't hate the Bruins. They just shouldn't celebrate my cup vicariously. :-)

[saradippity]

Sorry, I read it as one man's opinion about them but thought it was interesting from the perspective of viewing this thread and the many unfounded attacks against one established religion. I was only trying to show them that there was a place for them at the table of organized religion in America. Additionally,I did say "if the shoe fits",I also thanked Reggie for being honest,he and I have wrangled about what I consider his function on these threads before and I thought we had an understanding. Clearly,he knows I am not sweet and I am happy to not have to worry that I might ruin his image of me. Anyway sorry.

[eastsider]

First thing I'd do is to try to lay a foundation for the page. When, where and by whom was it written? What evidence exists for its veracity?

[OLD REGGIE]

Do you believe that the Church ever was one institution? Meaning, of course, during the Apostolic era? It seems to me to be a crucial difference whether the Church was never a discernable institution, and whether it was briefly a discernable institution that then vanished.

This is a simple question, difficult to answer. I certainly can't answer it in an authoritative manner. I believe the original Church was a loosely knit group of cooperating Churches. I see no evidence in the beginning of a clearly defined "governing" body, yet they were able to get together and arrive at "group" decisions simply because they were still small and they were driven to do it this way.

Obviously, as this Church grew, spread out to new territory, and became more complex this type of informal "management" would not have been sufficient.

One thing I am certain of: There is no evidence in Scripture or the early Church of a Dictator (Pope). This, certainly, was a later development and the blanks were filled in retroactively.

[Invincibly Ignorant]

If they win the cup this year it will prove your point. If not??????????

Its already been proven. How many cups did the Bruins win with Ray Borque?

[SoothingDave]

The continuing Anglican churches are not monolithic in their liturgical practices. There are low church continuing churches and high church (Anglo-catholic) continuing churches, though the high church types tend to be more prevalent. See how simple it is?

Thank you. I wasn't clear on the use. Maybe it's just me who would naturally associate high church with orthodoxy, but I was surprised to hear of low church "continuing" churches.

SD

[ksen]

Yes, that was the manner of response I was asking for. Thank you very much. I like to explore and question this area, because it is important - at the crux if you will - of our, perhaps any, religion. I am not being pedantic or trying to engage in a contest here, just continue to explore what the meaning is.

All right, then let’s carry on! ;^)

How do we realize that? Is this something we learn as we learn history: "Julius was Ceasar; Jesus is the Son of God."? I think you/we would say it's different. I once engaged in a historical study of Jesus, exploring all sources I could find, weeding through and trying to determine credibility, evidence, correspondence. This may be what you mean, maybe not, so I ask "how do we realize this?"

I think right away we are going to see how limited this can be if we’re not able to use the Scriptures. The only way to learn the true message about who Jesus is and what He did, is to read the Scriptures. The Bible tells us that faith comes by hearing, and that hearing comes by the word of God.

And again the same question: Is this something we learn as we learn history, in the same manner? And if the history leads to inconclusive results, in our honest view, are we then to choose between: "Don't know" and choosing to believe for some other reason.

Again the same answer. We can only know these things by looking into the Bible.

Is it, therefore, a matter of choosing to believe something we cannot know through historical method alone? Is salvation something we "realize" in the same way we know history? If we know the right history, we are saved? Are the unsaved those who do not know the history right or refuse to know it?

Can the historical method include the Bible? The knowledge of how to be saved can only come from, well maybe I should say can only be grounded in the knowledge of what the Bible has to say about Jesus Christ.

If, on the other hand, it is a choice to believe, on what basis - or criteria - is the choice made?

I guess the choice would have to be between believing God’s testimony as written in the Scriptures, or not. We have to go back to having what the Bible says as the basis for the knowledge with which we can then make an informed decision.

I appreciate your response in your own words, as I appreciate exploring the meaning, what it means to you.

I also enjoy discussing these issues, you know, as iron sharpeneth iron, and all that.

Thanks for your reply.

Your quite welcome. I look forward to continuing this discussion.

-ksen

[SoothingDave]

This is the year Reggie. Boston can tell the rest of the world that "All your Super Bowls, Stanley Cups, World Series are belong to us!"

1979. World Series and the 4th Super Bowl trophy. City of Champions. Pittsburgh, PA.

SD

[SoothingDave]

Easy for you to say now.

Easy to say before, too. I have seen with my own eyes my teams win the World Series, the Super Bowl and the Stanley Cup. Anyone with eyes to see can see that winning four consecutive best of seven series on an "every other night" basis for two months in a sport that is often a war of attrition and a matter of pure desire, both individually and collectively, can see this truth. The Cup is the Supreme Trophy.

SD