I have just watched the chatroom..and felt it should be re-named the “ Set Agenda”

The Dean sems to feel that modern Roman Catholicism dates from the Council of Trent.. ( an idea popularised by TC Hammond in his book, The HundredTexts).However would he agree with a J W who said modern Christianity began with the Council of NIcea and the invention of the Trinity?
All that Trent did was to set in concrete doctrines and beliefs held for centuries before,and condemn heretical propositions.

Definition of the Holy Trinity in 325 AD does not mean that Christians before that date did not believe our Blessed Lord was God.

Would St Paul have known what was meant by the Hypostatic Union.?Yes , but the term would be unfamiliar tohim.

Similarly the early Church spoke of the assumption of Mary and it was formally defined centuries later....as was the real presence in 1215., when it came under attack

If the Dean holds to a theory that Romanism is a corrupt apostate version of Christianity, it is good for him to reflect that his Baptist friends see infant baptism as one of its dregs and a mark of Constantinian apostasy.

On Grace..the Catholic Church does not confine God’s grace to sacraments. However sacraments are vehicles of that Grace… For example as we confess “one baptism for the remission of sins.” The bishops who drew up that claiuse that Dean Jesnsen regularly recites , believed it meant water baptism. As does every Christian commentator before Calvin, including Luther.

Indulgencesa are biblical as well..and reflect the temporal punishment due our sins...whom the lord loveth he chastises.

The Dean uses the phrase faith alone “ several times and yett he only place where that exact phrase is used iin Scripture is a dirrect refuation of it, in the Book of James.

We also note with interest how Dean Jensen refuses to call Catholics fellow or brother Christians, but fellow creatures under Heaven!

I wonder if he his happy with the GAFCON desire for ecumenical dialogue and co-operation with the Church of Rome?

I too have just watched it today.  I was wondering, Robert, what you made of PJ’s claim that RC and Protestantism are now theologically further apart than in the 16th century?

I think we are further apart because of the apostasy of Protestantism into liberalism. However the differences are so profound, the nature of the Gospel, sacraments, grace, salvation and the Church...that the distance does not mater...or the theological position of the Protestant ....there is still an unbridgeable gulf , whether it is one inch wide or five miles wide.

I do not see Catholicism as Protestantism plus a few extras , it is a different undrstanding of the fundamentals ( outside the holy Trinity) of Christianity.

Robert ian Williams - 17 July 2008 06:17 AM

I think we are further apart because of the apostasy of Protestantism into liberalism. However the differences are so profound, the nature of the Gospel, sacraments, grace, salvation and the Church...that the distance does not mater...or the theological position of the Protestant ....there is still an unbridgeable gulf , whether it is one inch wide or five miles wide.

I do not see Catholicism as Protestantism plus a few extras , it is a different undrstanding of the fundamentals ( outside the holy Trinity) of Christianity.

PJ would certainly agree with you about that.

However in the video he refers the widening gap entirely to changes in official RC positions.  NB ‘official’ - i.e. something may have been popularly believed in the RC church for centuries, but making it part of its defining doctrines inevitably serves to sharpen differences.

When Protestants become liberals I for one consider that they are ipso facto no longer Protestant.  The shift over the centuries from Calvinism to Arminianism is a somewhat different matter....

“Indulgencesa are biblical as well..and reflect the temporal punishment due our sins...whom the lord loveth he chastises.”

Would you care to explain this, with biblical references?

Its nearly midnight and I have school in the morning...but quickly....

If your home was burgled and your family murdered....you would expect the criminals to be punished even if they became Christians.

there is the temporal punishment..but they are forgiiven the eternal punishment by Christ.

Our sin has temporal consequences....

Now tap in on the web “ primer on indulgences “and read the doctrine unfolded....

Robert ian Williams - 17 July 2008 10:37 AM

Its nearly midnight and I have school in the morning...but quickly....

If your home was burgled and your family murdered....you would expect the criminals to be punished even if they became Christians.

there is the temporal punishment..but they are forgiiven the eternal punishment by Christ.

Our sin has temporal consequences....

Now tap in on the web “ primer on indulgences “and read the doctrine unfolded....

Robert, I have to go out right now and can’t “tap into the primer"… can you give references please.

the apostasy of Protestantism into liberalism.

Hi Robert
I find a loose attitude to the Bible disturbing. Seeing churches that were led by great Christians of the past making light of the Word of God is bewildering and upsetting.

I attended a wedding in a Uniting Church with roots going back to John Calvin and Martin Luther, where there was a Bible reading from Genesis chapter 2 which included these words:

The LORD God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.”

In his talk, the minister said explicitly

Of course we don’t believe that today

The couple are no longer married. The wife did not take her vows at all seriously, and the husband is now living with a new woman.

Why should they take promises to God seriously, when the minister tells the congregation he doesn’t take God’s Word seriously?

However, it is not only Protestants who have departed from their faith. Many Roman Catholics hold to the ritual, but not to the distinctive teachings of the Church. This includes laity, but also priests and nuns.

I agree that some have departed..individual Catholics can go astray, but not the magisterium on faith and morals. After all there was scandal in the early Church at Corinth....the wheat and the tares grow up together. Hasn’t the Uniting Church endorsed homosexuality...which shows the structure of that denomination is rotten

Mind you I have seen as much divorce and re-marriage in “conservative “denominations like the Church of Englland in South Africa...which is fully endorsed by the structure of the denomination.

Within the Catholic Church , persons have abused ( under severe criticism of the Pope) the annullment system...However the abuse of a doctrine does not mean that it is wrong.

Robert ian Williams - 17 July 2008 04:57 AM

The Dean sems to feel that modern Roman Catholicism dates from the Council of Trent.. ( an idea popularised by TC Hammond in his book, The HundredTexts).However would he agree with a J W who said modern Christianity began with the Council of NIcea and the invention of the Trinity?
All that Trent did was to set in concrete doctrines and beliefs held for centuries before,and condemn heretical propositions.

I would contend that the Council of Nicea set as doctrine those elements of Christianity that could be ascertained as truth from its earliest remaining sources (i.e. The New Testament and Scripture as a whole).
However the Council of Trent set in concrete many of those beliefs which grew up around Christianity over many years but are not verifiable as being part of Christianity to begin with, thus in setting many of these things as concrete doctrine it set itself apart as a distinct entity which up to this point had not exsisted.

A Roman Catholic would of course disagree and say that Protestants are the ones who put wrong teaching into concrete but there you go.

However if you want to know what the Dean thinks then you should proabably ask him.

The Dean sems to feel that modern Roman Catholicism dates from the Council of Trent.

Yes, that is true. The Catholic church prior to Trent embraced huge theological diversity. Trent dogmatised a certain doctrinal slant, mostly as a polemic against protestantism. Hence, modern Roman Catholicism is a younger religion than Protestantism.

Craig Schwarze - 18 July 2008 12:11 AM

Hence, modern Roman Catholicism is a younger religion than Protestantism.

Oh Craig, you bad, bad boy.  You know you’ll be punished for that, don’t you? :-)
Bob

Hey, it’s ok - the Pope has issued a special indulgence to mark the occasion. No extra time in Purgatory for me!

Craig no non -Catholic can gain the spiritual advantage of an indulgence.

I never like joking about eternal matters...and find that very bad taste.

if you believe in the authority of a teaching Church, please reflect on the fact that the bishops who defined the Trinity , were also believers in the eucharistic sacrifice, baptismal regeneration and the real presence and prayers for the dead

There you go again cherry picking what you will accept as true...you would claim infant baptism was true, but the Baptist says, it is a false innovation and cannot be seen in the NewTestament.

You reply to the Baptist you see too little and you then look at me and say, you see too much!

How do we know the correct interpretation?

Look at the person of Peter in the New Testament..promised that his Faith
( after his restoration) will never fail and he will confirm his brethren. Indeed in one of the Councils recognised by GAFCON the bishops proclaimed Peter has spoken through Leo.

You completely fail to answer my challenge about the phrase “faith alone “( used by the Dean)is only found in that form in the Epistle of James ,and to refute it!

As for Bob’s comment ..."you wll be punished.”.. I expected better of man of the calibre of Bob Cameron.

Craig no non -Catholic can gain the spiritual advantage of an indulgence.

But, according to JPII, all us good non-Catholics are actually “anonymous Catholics”. Isn’t that right?

I never like joking about eternal matters...and find that very bad taste.

Some beliefs (like papal indulgences) are so absurd that satire is the appropriate response.

if you believe in the authority of a teaching Church,

I believe in the authority of the scriptures

There you go again cherry picking what you will accept as true...you would claim infant baptism was true, but the Baptist says, it is a false innovation and cannot be seen in the NewTestament.

Yes, sometimes Christians disagree about what the scripture teaches. Fancy that!

It happens in your precious Catholic church too. I’ve a Catholic friend who believes homosexuality is ok, and women should be ordained. I read a book a while ago by a catholic clergyman who didn’t believe Jesus rose physcially from the dead, only spiritually. Father Bob on the Saffron show on JJJ seems to believe all religions lead to God and hence evangelism is wrong. There’s a group of Catholics who essentially believe that JPII was a raving heretic and not a true pope at all. I could go on and on!

Your “teaching church” has not created the unity you claim.

You reply to the Baptist you see too little and you then look at me and say, you see too much!

Yes, probably true.

How do we know the correct interpretation?

We read the Word of God, we pray for guidance, we talk about it with our teachers and our fellow Christians, and after all that, we follow our conscience.

How do we know the correct interpretation?

John Knox told Queen Mary the answer to this one.

She asked him:

You interpret the Scriptures in one way, and they in another. Whom shall I believe, and who shall be judge?

Knox:

You shall believe God who plainly speaketh in his Word, and farther than the Word teacheth you, you shall believe neither the one nor the other.

The Word of God is plain in itself; and if there appear any obscurity in one place, the Holy Ghost who is never contrary to himself, explains the same more clearly in other places, so that there can remain no doubt, but unto such as are obstinately ignorant.