Dear Robert (Denham)thanks for your courteous and well thought out reply.

The clincher is that the Church in every age has allowed the invocation of Saints.

It cannot be traced to the thirteenth century, or the ninth century, it goes back further and further.Bodies that broke away from the unity of the Catholic Church with great vitriol in the forurth , fifth and eleventh century all continue the practice. We see inscriptions from the second century on the tombs of Christians . The argument that you cannot see it in the New Testament is as flawed as a Baptist who cannot see infant baptism.

Yes you can give me , “ what you think the texts mean”...as Protestants do with all the texts which show Catholic doctrine such as ..the breathing of the Holy Spirit, presbyterial annointing of the sick, the Petrine texts etc...but at the end of the day it comes back to the question did Christ found an infallible teaching Church, to which he has promised to be with to the very end of the age ( Matthew 28).

Christ left me a teaching Church, with Peter and his succesors to be its chief spokesman. The Church with certainty can tell me that the practice is Apostolic, because it guards the deposit of faith, “ whether by word of mouth or in her epsitles.” When the Church speaks to me, I hear the voice of Christ.."He that hears you, hears me.”

I believe in ONE HOLY CATHOLIC AND APOSTOLIC CHURCH>

If I was a disciple who followed Christ in the first century, and stood with him as he wept over Jerusalem predicting its fall and destruction. I cannot rush up to him, and say, “ look here Lord, this prediction is nonsense. I have the words of Isaiah here that tells me this ciity has a glorious future.”

All I can say Is you have the words of eternal life...it may look wrong to my reasoning, but you are always right

Similarly with the Divinely commissioned Church..there is no appeal to Scripture above her...Christ gave us the Scripture through the vehicle of the Church, and the Church is to define and teach especially where disputes arise.

Private opinion occurs before the gift of Faith..just as Andrew brought Peter to Christ.

However once one accepts Christ, private judgement stops

If Christ teaches me yes, and history or Scripture seems to say no… it is treason to dissent , as my contradictory interpretation will always be wrong ( there is a way that seemeth right to a man and the end thereof is death)as he is God. All I can say is speak lord , thy servant listeneth.

So the issue is not what Robert ( Denham or Williams or Cameron )thinks the texts say, but what the pillar and foundation of God;s truth has said they mean....as it will instruct me how to act in the household of God.

The characteristic of manmade Churches..a quick aside

A great assembly of Christians occurs in Jerualsem they have rejected the God made plan as they have convinced themselves that its manmade. They claim the supreme and sole authority of Scripture, but discover they cannaot agree on some interpretations. So what do they do, they say, the areas we can’t agree are actually secondary issues ( as if any commandment of Christ is secondary, and that false distinction is actually not in Scripture!).So what we will do , is simply side -step it...such was GAFCON on female ordination and other issues, like divorce and re-marriage. yes they condemend unfaithfulness , but they did not say that divorce was wrong per se.

Here you see the shifting sand of human sicerity, which mirrors the house ( Church) on the sand....I prefer the house on the ROCK., which the wiseman chooses.

I ask you Robert ( Denham), which method is the most noble ,logical and Christ honouring?.

Robert ian Williams - 24 July 2008 05:46 PM

The clincher is that the Church in every age has allowed the invocation of Saints . . .
The Church with certainty can tell me that the practice is Apostolic, because it guards the deposit of faith, “ whether by word of mouth or in her epsitles.” When the Church speaks to me, I hear the voice of Christ.."He that hears you, hears me.” . . .
Similarly with the Divinely commissioned Church..there is no appeal to Scripture above her...Christ gave us the Scripture through the vehicle of the Church, and the Church is to define and teach especially where disputes arise.

Dear Robert
There you have it.  Everything else that you argue flows from these assertions.  If we do not accept them (and I most certainly don’t) then all the other issues you argue for really fall, unless you can argue for them on other grounds (vis, Scripture).  So where do we go from here Robert?  Surely the most productive thing is to acknowledge that we disagree and move on?
Regards,
Bob

Hi Bob

thanks for the welcome.

Please don’t think that I’m arguing from a conviction that is set in stone. I am arguing from a position of uncertainty, but it is a provisional disagreement with some of the doctrinal views I perceive here. 

Anglicanism has always accommodated a spectrum of doctrinal views (and by “doctrinal views” I am not talking about the matters that are tearing the communion apart at the moment). 

To answer your point 3.

1 John 1:13 ff says that we can be “confident” - I would certainly understand that as “certain” - that if we ask for something according to his will, he will hear us; and that in those circumstances he will grant our request.

The granting of the request is plainly premised on the request being “according to his will”.  The passage self-evidently doesn’t mean that God will give us whatever we ask for, salvation or anything else. It depends on his will.  I’m afraid I can’t read the passage as biblical warrant for certainty of salvation. It just doesn’t say that.

But we could quote passages of scripture at each other all day. It is in part a matter of the interpretation. No-one has yet engaged with my query (and it is a socratic query deriving from ignorance, not an attempt at conversion) in my response to Angus Johnson.

We all believe in the Athanasian creed, apparently. We accept - or Angus accepts - that “we will be judged by our faith and our works”: Matthew 16:27; Romans 2:6-8; 2 Corinthians 5:10; 2 Cor 11:13-15. That’s what I believe too.

The trouble is that if “works” means simply the fruit of faith, faith’s consequence, then it is quite artificial to say that, in any meaningful sense, we will be judged by our faith and our works. It is like saying that petrol and exhaust gases are necessary for a car to operate.  If works are the mere fruit of faith, then it is faith alone that suffices for salvation, and the good works that follow faith are a happy by-product.

This is a strained reading of the passages above; they should apparently be understood only as meaning that we shall be saved by our faith (necessary), and by our works in the sense that that works are the inevitable by-product of faith. Only in that rather forced sense, are we “judged by our faith and works”.

This is simply to say that we will be saved by faith and nothing else deriving from our own efforts. That is the part I am unconvinced about. It is to my mind a tendentious and improbable interpretation of scripture.

Regards,

Tom

Well, I have just read through the entirety of this thread and...WOW...that is all I can really say.

I’d like to go back a bit to the converstation about how we got the canon which is, I think, still very relevant. I’ll agree that the council of trent did not establish the RC canon so much as it verified that which was already in use. Similarly, following the arguement that councils do not create doctrines they affirm pre-existing ones, the council back in the 4th C did not establish the canon so much as verify that which was commonly held to already be in existence. My understanding of what led to the epistles being included in the canon was an appeal to apostolic authorship. From here...we see the early church, through ‘tradition’, establishing the ‘one holy, catholic and APOSTOLIC church. I’m sure that if you go back to the early bishops of Rome they would see a difference between the authority of their teaching in their epistles and the authority of the Apostles’ teaching in theirs. The church did not predate the Apostolic message that we have in the scripture.

Also is it worth highlighting that tradition is not, in and of itself bad? It is just that tradition must be subjected to the teaching of the Apostles - i.e. to the canon. Maybe I am showing a bit of my methodist background but surely we can see that the protestant ‘tradition’ includes room for tradition, reason and experience - however that the ultimate measure of all these is scripture…

Hi Tom
Just a quick clarification: the verse I asked you about was 1 John 5:13 where John says he has written “these things” (i.e., the epistle)

that you may know that you have eternal life.  (Emphasis added)

I’m not quite sure how to reconcile your comments with this verse.

Bob

Tom Blackburn - 24 July 2008 06:23 PM

The trouble is that if “works” means simply the fruit of faith, faith’s consequence, then it is quite artificial to say that, in any meaningful sense, we will be judged by our faith and our works.

I agree. In effect we could say either just as the Bible does. So saying both together seems almost needless repetition, because (genuine) faith will naturally produce works. The key point of Protestant understanding however is that “works” aren’t earning us our adoption, but rather the consequence of it.

It is like saying that petrol and exhaust gases are necessary for a car to operate.  If works are the mere fruit of faith, then it is faith alone that suffices for salvation, and the good works that follow faith are a happy by-product.

I’m not too sure about you exhaust analogy, even happy exhaust :)). Perhaps a better analogy might be knowing when a candle is lit when it gives off both light and heat. I can say I feel its warmth, or I can say I see its light. Then again I could say both which in this case probably isn’t needless repetition.

(I’ve also more to say later on your questions re assurance, though I’m not sure it’ll be tonight.)

Tom I think it would help if you could clarify in your mind the distinction between justification and sanctification.  Article 11 on Justification says “we are declared righteous before God, only for the merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ by faith, and not for our own works or deservings. “ so when we believe, God imputes to us the righteousness of Christ.  This is the basis of our certainty of eternal life.  We then have a permanent relationship with God as our Father. As the catechism says, baptism signifies this, that by faith I was made a member of Christ, the child of God, and an inheritor of the Kingdom of heaven.
Now nothing can separate me from the love of Christ. 

Then article 12 says “good works (which) are fruits of Faith, and follow after Justification, cannot put away our sins.... and do spring necessarily of a true and lifely Faith...” This is the growing maturity of the process of sanctification.  But it is never complete in this life.  Article 17 reminds us that ‘we may depart from grace given, and fall into sin, and by the grace of God may arise again, and amend our lives.” so “those are to be condemed who say that they can no more sin as long as they live here, or deny the place of forgiveness to such as truly repent.”

Justification gives us the security of membership in God’s family forever, by adoption and grace.  Sanctification is the process of developing Godly character. If we sin, as we all do, our Father will discipline us in this life, and maybe we will lose some reward in the next at the final judgement of our works, but we will never lose our relationship of sonship and eternal life.
In Matthew 6, the Lord’s Prayer, Jesus is speaking to his “disciples”, i.e., those who are already sons of God by faith.  Forgiveness of others allows sons to experience the close fellowship with their Father.  Unforgiveness blocks that experience, but does not destroy our sonship, or cause us to lose the assurance of eternal life.  As in Hebrews 12 on chastening.

Cranmer’s homilies on Justification, and the one on Good Works, are a great exposition of what the Bible says about all this. 
You can find reviews of them here:  http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3818/is_200104/ai_n8933740/pg_4?tag=artBody;col1

See also T C Hammond “In Understanding be Men” on Justification

Cheers

Frank

Tom , Reformation Anglicanism was not inclusive..that myth grew up in the nineteenth century to accomodate the birth of the aberation of Anglo-catholicism within her ranks.

The Church of England was essentailly and exclusively Protestant at its final birth in 1559.This uniformity was held together by the full coercive power of the State.The development of parties and tendencies grew as the centurues progressed and the grip of the Monarch and parliament grew weaker.

In its original 1559 settlement it could not hold the faithful remnant of Catholics who wished to remain in communion with the Catholic Church , and the succesor of St Peter and it eventually could not hold the Puritans in either...who were harried out of the land. Both sides paid with their blood.

Bob Cameron sees the issues clearly....but the gift of Catholic faith is a revelation as it was to Peter… “For flesh and blood has not revelaed this to you, but my Father in heaven.”

No Bob, there are souls out there ....souls precious to the Creator who made them ..precious to He who died for them ...floundering and as long as they have questions about the Catholic Church ( the controversy is of your making ) , I will defend her as best I can, and where the Holy Spirit wills and leads, souls will follow to the glory of Christ and the exaltation of our Holy Mother the Church.

The trouble with Adrian’s analysis is that there were epistles and writings which some in the early Church, prior to the final settling of the canon thought were inspired.  Some early figures rejected Heberews fior instance. A church was needed to sift and decide. A church with the stamp of the divine founder ..one that speaks not as the pharisses , but with authority. That is why the Epistle of Barnabas does not appear in your Bible.

PS ....Tom ask Bob about the last verse of St John’s ‘Gospel.

David McKay said:

Some Christians like the slogan Once Saved, Always Saved and believe that, belief in Jesus’ death and resurrection means we are saved eternally no matter what we do. Even if we turn our backs on Christ and stop believing.

But this is not taught in the Bible.

Doesn’t 2 Tim 2:13 teach this?

The Bible clearly teaches that there is a battle between the flesh and the spirit in each of us, and that at times the flesh will reign. I don’t think it teaches that our flesh cannot control us to such an extent that we effectively ignore the spirit (and Jesus and the father.) I also don’t think it teaches that salvation would be lost in such a situation.

Hi Dannii
But how are we to interpret 2 Tim 2:13 in the light of the previous verse?

Hi David and Dannii

Scriptural texts aren’t tennis balls.....the key is the GAFCON solution, read Scripture, “ respectful of the Church’s historic reading.”

of course as a Romanist I would add and her living interpretative voice

I

David, I’m not entirely sure. I would think it’s along the lines of denying Jesus is God or rejecting his rule, and not something a Christian will do. I’ve heard these verses argued both ways though…

Robert ian Williams - 24 July 2008 08:39 PM

Tom ask Bob about the last verse of St John’s ‘Gospel.

Happy to answer a question about John 21:25 - once I know what the question is!

David McKay - 24 July 2008 10:01 PM

Hi Dannii
But how are we to interpret 2 Tim 2:13 in the light of the previous verse?

Good question David.  I don’t think it is saying what Dannii sees there.  I would have thought that, in the context of the whole “trustworthy saying”, it is saying that even where people fall away (leaving aside the question of whether they were really saved or not) we cannot therefore conclude that God has somehow failed, because he is always faithful and will never act contrary to his perfect, righteous and holy character.
Bob

Hi Robert,
trying to have a reasoned devate with you is reminidng me of writing a letter on the sand of the beach when the tide is coming in. Instead of going back & looking at the passages I have spent time on, you wipe it out with a flurry of a “well that is only what you think” and then move onto another argument that you think may score a point or 2. That is not fair debating, but it is how you have proceeded so far.

Then with generalisations you again have made me look at further issues… such as did the Didache teach invocation of the saints… no.

In fact your generalisation that

Indeed all Christians prior to the Reformation invoked the Saints

But then you claim

Similarly with the Divinely commissioned Church..there is no appeal to Scripture above her...Christ gave us the Scripture through the vehicle of the Church, and the Church is to define and teach especially where disputes arise.

Christ left me a teaching Church, with Peter and his succesors to be its chief spokesman. The Church with certainty can tell me that the practice is Apostolic, because it guards the deposit of faith, “ whether by word of mouth or in her epsitles.” When the Church speaks to me, I hear the voice of Christ.."He that hears you, hears me.”

What is the church? Who is the church? Is Peter the church, or was he the rock upon whom Christ would build his church? Are his successors the church, or were they integral in, yet only part of the church they belonged to? Are the clergy ordained by Peter & his successors the church, or are they integral in yet only part of the church they belong/ed to? (sorry about my poor grammar of finishing the question with a “to") Are people who believe the church, or are they integral to and a part of the church they belong to?

I fear your use of the word “church” strips many godly, believing, obedient Roman Catholics from being in the church. It even deprives you from being in the church of which you claim to be a proud member.
You can never be in the church, unless you become ordained… but then again, your usage of it may well limit it to only one person on earth at the moment, & not even to him full time, only when the pope speaks ex cathedra. Far from being a very broad church, your use of the word means you have a very small exclusive church, tinier than even the Exclusive Brethren.

I don’t mind not being part of your church. The pope has already let it be known that I am not in the real church, & my orders are not recognised.

How I love a God who trusts his people to have faith in him, as revealed through the Scriptures, enlivened by the personal gift of the Holy Spirit, so that we can have arguments like this to help us clarify what the written words mean, rather than to be told we are incapable of understanding anything written, & that we need a papacy to tell us what is so obviously written down, & that we are to shut up & take whatever interpretation is given to us.
Thank you for reminding me of why I rejected Roman Catholicism so long ago. Thank you for reminding me of the over abundant grace, mercy & delight we have in our Lord, who shed his blood for our redemption, & trusts us to minister with him in this world so that people can be delivered from the kingdom of darkness into his glorious kingdom of light.

Thank you Robert. You have just given a marvellous gift of thankfullness!

May God be merciful to you.