There was rather a lot on on Good Friday, and I involved myself with a good portion of it. I've said morning prayer (ooh, I think that's an absolute link as opposed to a relative one - that's a step in the right direction) on my own before, and most frequently during last summer, but noticed that it was on this morning, so I went. Fr. Paul said he thought it made more sense as a communal activity, and I would tend to agree, but it's not always so easy to manage when you're not a monk. We had enough time to say a Rosary after that, so we did.
I then hastened to Southernhay United Reformed Church for an ecumenical service which was going down. Not sure what to say about it really. Readings, hymns, the poem I posted above, a sermon in which The Passion was mentioned three times.
A Good Friday procession followed, led by a dirty big cross (six people to carry) then the Salvation Army. It was good. Delian, who's a deacon at Sacred Heart said it was usually a bit chaotic, but this year it was good. We were, on the whole, quiet, letting the procession speak for itself. Maybe it's because central Exeter is pedestrianised, but we didn't get catcalls like James did; not that I could hear anyway. We stopped at various places in the city centre, for a reading, a hymn and a prayer. I'm not sure how many people joined us, except for one Big Issue seller wearing a "McShit" t-shirt who stayed right to the end, the end being the cathedral green, where we erected our cross next to two others.
After little while at home, it was time to go back to Sacred Heart for the Stations of the Cross. It's a very simple service and a very good idea, to my mind.
Friday, 9 April 2004
Wednesday, 7 April 2004
There's a lot of Bible on the blog these days. I don't want anyone thinking that the only reason I believe in a) Christianity and b) Catholicism is because I read it in a book which I happened to be told was factual.
So, in the interests of variety, an old post on the resurrection.
James' original post. Very much liked the cut of his jib.
So, in the interests of variety, an old post on the resurrection.
James' original post. Very much liked the cut of his jib.
Faith Alone? - quick verse
How I could possibly have forgotten this, I have no idea:
Therefore, my dear friends, as you have always obeyed--not only in my presence, but now much more in my absence--continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you to will and to act according to his good purpose. (Phil 2:12-13)
Faith Alone? pt. 3
Image via WikipediaThis seems to be a free-for-all now, so let's go. In my opinion, deeds are a display of true faith. I think the emphasis of this passage you two are going on about is that any faith without deeds is not likely to be a true faith. I don't interpret this to mean that you need to do deeds simply because having faith on it's own is not enough.No fisking - no editing.
James 2:24 - You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.
That's what I expect Will means. Frankly, I agree with everything he says - from this verse in isolation, I would never argue that works were necessary for salvation. To my mind there are two apparent senses of "justified". Firstly it might mean that works show that a man is living by faith. Secondly it might mean that a man is made just by faith through works. And there's nothing in the passage to convince me that one of these must be the primary sense. I could try looking at the Greek perhaps, but I think it would probably be a waste of everybody's time.
On the other hand, I do think that Scripture, especially the gospels, cumulatively justify the Catholic position.
Matthew 7:21-27, Matthew 3:3-10, Matthew 4:17, Matthew 5:48, Matthew 6:14:15, Matthew 10:21-22, Matthew 10:32-33, Matthew 10:37-39.
I had a feeling I'd run out of steam. Nyeh.
Anyway, these all have something to do with accepting the gospel of our Lord and getting off our arses and doing something with it. To me the idea that I have to meet God halfway and not just let him wash over me is actually fairly overwhelming. It's a tendency, a general state of affairs, and I daresay each one of these passages may be read entirely contrary to my own beliefs, but I think that to deny our co-operation in the work of God is to take an agenda to the gospel.
On the plus side for Gavin:
How do you account for the fact that James 2:24 flatly contradicts what you say?
I have to give that up, on reflection. Not that I think it especially impressive that I abandoned a line of argument before Gavin even mentioned it.
On the plus side for me, I'm moving into context now. "Context"'s a big word, and the only sensible answer is to read the Bible to see what it says really. Order your copy today.
Now, having said that, I think there's probably enough going on in James 2 of itself to undermine Gavin's position. I mean, Luther had to abandon the whole of James before he could make his theology work. Apparently he couldn't read it in a harmonious way. But we've got to.
Faith Alone? pt. 2
Gavin's first rebuttal.
It's nice to take single verses out of context and against the background of the entire Bible, as you can often prove anything then e.g. the two you quote. And as the Bible "contain[s] some things that are hard to understand” it is a dangerous practice to start picking out bits from here and there on their own.
You have yet to say how the context alters anything at all. Out of context, yes, one can abuse the Bible, but I really don't think I am, and you have yet to demonstrate how I am doing so. As it is, my two out-of-context verses trump your absolutely nothing at all any day. I seem to recall a large part of the "background of the entire Bible" being the insistent request of God that his people live as though they believed in him. I think that's prima facie evidence for the necessity of considering "works" as important, thought not by any means as some sort of alternative route to God.
Also isn't the Bible useful for teaching, rebuking etc? If that doesn't make it an authority what would? Does that fact it is the inspired word of God come into it as well?
I never said the Bible wasn't an authority. In fact, it doesn't seem so very long ago that I appealed to it to attack your extra-biblical idea of sola fide. You and I both believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God, but I don't believe it stands on it's own. How could it? It never says anywhere of what books Scripture comprises. We know this because we were taught it - it was handed on to us as the inspired word of God.
Further[,] have you read John 3:16?
How do you account for the fact that James 2:24 flatly contradicts what you say? By criticising my method of quoting Scripture out of context shortly before doing it yourself - the difference being that you don't actually get round to quoting it, merely giving the reference.
Looking at John 3:16 for the very first time, under the direction of my learned friend, I see it says "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."
How does that [a]ffect your requirement for works and faith to be saved?
It harmonises with Catholic teaching well enough, whilst not agreeing explicitly. Belief which doesn't inspire action should hardly be called belief, neither, surely, can a purely intellectual assent to belief in the Son of God equal the promised "participat[ion] in the divine nature" (2 Pet 1:4).
[The Catholic Church] is an impressively self-consistent, coherent and sincere organisation, but one that I believe has got it wrong.
Well I admire your sincerity.
It is also wrong for you to say that my view is a “groundless assertion” merely because it differs to yours.
Yes, it would be. But that's not what I said, nor why I said it. I think it's wrong of you not to pay enough attention to notice the deliberative way in which I said "insofar as it is stated". That is, you stated no grounds for your opinion, rendering it, with absolute objectivity, an assertion.
I shall email you some more on this, not because I think I am in 'danger' of being wrong and I’m afraid to have it on here, but somebody who is not a Catholic needs to talk to you about your recent experiences away from (no offence intended) other Catholics and no one down in Exeter seems to be bothered to[...].
Well, by all means. Most of the non-Catholic Christians I know have kept pretty quiet about it. I must say that your timing leaves something to be desired... Must point out however, that I don't respond in-depth to e-mails at work, and my yahoo address is generally unused. I promise to read and think about whatever you send me though.
Ooh, hang on. You don't think you're in 'danger' of being wrong? I'm not entirely sure what your inverted commas mean, but I know that I have no intention of ever assuming that I'm safe from "hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ."
If you're right in your new viewpoint it won't do you any harm and it you're not it will be what you need.
Perhaps I am aggressive in my viewpoint but maybe a challenge for you will be good. It will either set you back on your prior path or affirm for yourself your new one.
Well quite.
I have posted this in your comments box so the people who read your blog are aware I have not conceded your point and that I am responding to it. - Gavin
An afterthought. Consider the following:
It's nice to take single verses out of context and against the background of the entire Bible, as you can often prove anything then e.g. the two you quote. And as the Bible "contain[s] some things that are hard to understand” it is a dangerous practice to start picking out bits from here and there on their own.
You have yet to say how the context alters anything at all. Out of context, yes, one can abuse the Bible, but I really don't think I am, and you have yet to demonstrate how I am doing so. As it is, my two out-of-context verses trump your absolutely nothing at all any day. I seem to recall a large part of the "background of the entire Bible" being the insistent request of God that his people live as though they believed in him. I think that's prima facie evidence for the necessity of considering "works" as important, thought not by any means as some sort of alternative route to God.
Also isn't the Bible useful for teaching, rebuking etc? If that doesn't make it an authority what would? Does that fact it is the inspired word of God come into it as well?
I never said the Bible wasn't an authority. In fact, it doesn't seem so very long ago that I appealed to it to attack your extra-biblical idea of sola fide. You and I both believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God, but I don't believe it stands on it's own. How could it? It never says anywhere of what books Scripture comprises. We know this because we were taught it - it was handed on to us as the inspired word of God.
Further[,] have you read John 3:16?
How do you account for the fact that James 2:24 flatly contradicts what you say? By criticising my method of quoting Scripture out of context shortly before doing it yourself - the difference being that you don't actually get round to quoting it, merely giving the reference.
Looking at John 3:16 for the very first time, under the direction of my learned friend, I see it says "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."
How does that [a]ffect your requirement for works and faith to be saved?
It harmonises with Catholic teaching well enough, whilst not agreeing explicitly. Belief which doesn't inspire action should hardly be called belief, neither, surely, can a purely intellectual assent to belief in the Son of God equal the promised "participat[ion] in the divine nature" (2 Pet 1:4).
[The Catholic Church] is an impressively self-consistent, coherent and sincere organisation, but one that I believe has got it wrong.
Well I admire your sincerity.
It is also wrong for you to say that my view is a “groundless assertion” merely because it differs to yours.
Yes, it would be. But that's not what I said, nor why I said it. I think it's wrong of you not to pay enough attention to notice the deliberative way in which I said "insofar as it is stated". That is, you stated no grounds for your opinion, rendering it, with absolute objectivity, an assertion.
I shall email you some more on this, not because I think I am in 'danger' of being wrong and I’m afraid to have it on here, but somebody who is not a Catholic needs to talk to you about your recent experiences away from (no offence intended) other Catholics and no one down in Exeter seems to be bothered to[...].
Well, by all means. Most of the non-Catholic Christians I know have kept pretty quiet about it. I must say that your timing leaves something to be desired... Must point out however, that I don't respond in-depth to e-mails at work, and my yahoo address is generally unused. I promise to read and think about whatever you send me though.
Ooh, hang on. You don't think you're in 'danger' of being wrong? I'm not entirely sure what your inverted commas mean, but I know that I have no intention of ever assuming that I'm safe from "hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ."
If you're right in your new viewpoint it won't do you any harm and it you're not it will be what you need.
Perhaps I am aggressive in my viewpoint but maybe a challenge for you will be good. It will either set you back on your prior path or affirm for yourself your new one.
Well quite.
I have posted this in your comments box so the people who read your blog are aware I have not conceded your point and that I am responding to it. - Gavin
An afterthought. Consider the following:
I wouldn't say [Catholicism] was great. I'd say it's inconsistent with the Bible. - GavinI mean, which is it? Impressively self-consistent, or dismissive of the Scriptures? Too ignorant, or too clever by half? I expect what you mean by "self-consistent" is that it doesn't contradict itself because it thinks that Sacred Tradition can trump Sacred Scripture, but that just isn't the case. I could be wrong of course - perhaps you really are arguing two entirely contradictory things. Who can say?
It is an impressively self-consistent, coherent and sincere organisation, but one that I believe has got it wrong. - Gavin
The inspired books teach the truth. "Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures." - Catechism of the Catholic Church
Responding, on a snippet by snippet to basis to another's argument (I believe it is called fisking) is a relatively venerable tradition, for the internet. It strikes me, however, that whereas on my own blog I get the authoritative voice and final say on the editing, Gavin doesn't.
So here's his unadulterated material.
So here's his unadulterated material.
It's nice to take single verses out of context and against the background of the entire Bible, as you can often prove anything then e.g. the two you quote. And as the Bible "contain[s] some things that are hard to understand” it is a dangerous practice to start picking out bits from here and there on their own.
Also isn't the Bible useful for teaching, rebuking etc? If that doesn't make it an authority what would? Does that fact it is the inspired word of God come into it as well?
Further have you read John 3:16? How does that effect your requirement for works and faith to be saved?
I also never said the Catholic Church was ignorant or unstable. It is an impressively self-consistent, coherent and sincere organisation, but one that I believe has got it wrong.
It is also wrong for you to say that my view is a “groundless assertion” merely because it differs to yours. Neither of us has got very far into this debate yet and neither has presented any points of view that could be called groundless in our own opinions. We might believe each others are wrong but that does not make them groundless as I am reasonably sure neither of us believes what we believe on irrational grounds.
I shall email you some more on this, not because I think I am in 'danger' of being wrong and I’m afraid to have it on here, but somebody who is not a Catholic needs to talk to you about your recent experiences away from (no offence intended) other Catholics and no one down in Exeter seems to be bothered too.
If you're right in your new viewpoint it won't do you any harm and it you're not it will be what you need.
Perhaps I am aggressive in my viewpoint but maybe a challenge for you will be good. It will either set you back on your prior path or affirm for yourself your new one.
I have posted this in your comments box so the people who read your blog are aware I have not conceded your point and that I am responding to it.
Tuesday, 6 April 2004
Faith Alone?
Image via WikipediaWell, if what you said was true then you'd be right, but I absolutely refuse to grant your conclusion, as your second premise is faulty. It is as plain as daylight to me, looking at the bible, that the idea that "The Bible teaches [a gospel based] solely on faith" is not a given.
Here's Catholic teaching on justification, grace and merit. I would encourage you to peruse it - it's not that long. If you must, however, take this as a hasty non-infallible summary by someone who has much to learn: Faith leads us to works - God takes our works and makes them good, as we are not in any way able to, fully by his own grace. Salvation by works alone is pile of pish, and a slur on Catholic teaching. As I say, see what the Church says.
If the Bible speaks for itself, let it - it wouldn't need your help.
In the meantime, I'll just give you a couple of passages that undermine your (insofar as it is stated) groundless assertion. I don't expect that you won't have an answer, but I do think that it won't do the fullness of Scripture justice. We both know that the Bible "contain[s] some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction." You apparently think that the Catholic Church is ignorant and unstable, but all your arguments have ever done for me is built up my admiration for the fullness and coherence of Catholic teaching.
Just two verses for the moment, and these may well suffice, because the Church's teaching accounts for them and your's doesn't seem to.
Matthew 7:21 - "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven."
James 2:24 -You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.
In fact, this is a bit too easy. How will you account for the fact that James 2:24 flatly contradicts what you say? I think the whole of James 2 mirrors my inept summary of Church teaching rather well too.
Monday, 5 April 2004
Well now - gosh.
I thought that I was probably going to be a little too apprehensive about my 5 month review, but this is ridiculous. I was feeling a little too ill (just a cold) to be properly nervous actually, but even had I been in fine fettle, chewing my fingernails, I needn't have worried 'cos not a bad word was said about me. So I'm past the probationary stage, and properly contracted with a little increment as an award that works out at about £15 per month net. Nice.
I thought that I was probably going to be a little too apprehensive about my 5 month review, but this is ridiculous. I was feeling a little too ill (just a cold) to be properly nervous actually, but even had I been in fine fettle, chewing my fingernails, I needn't have worried 'cos not a bad word was said about me. So I'm past the probationary stage, and properly contracted with a little increment as an award that works out at about £15 per month net. Nice.
Sunday, 4 April 2004
The Curt Jester reminds me that pretty soon it's going to be the anniversary of about a gazillion Catholics being received into the Church. This fact has sort of drifted past me before, but it's great! It's like having another birthday or something.
In fact, come to think of it, my baptism is even more like one big collaborative birthday - Born again, of water and the spirit on the same liturgical day as the liturgical birth of our Lord.
And then there's Pentecost, and that's the Church's birthday, which is to say the body of Christ, which is to say "Huzzah! Once more, it is my and many other people's birthday!"
This religion thing can be fun, although perhaps you're finding all this far less engaging than I am.
It's no good though, I think the Queen is still one birthday ahead of me.
In fact, come to think of it, my baptism is even more like one big collaborative birthday - Born again, of water and the spirit on the same liturgical day as the liturgical birth of our Lord.
And then there's Pentecost, and that's the Church's birthday, which is to say the body of Christ, which is to say "Huzzah! Once more, it is my and many other people's birthday!"
This religion thing can be fun, although perhaps you're finding all this far less engaging than I am.
It's no good though, I think the Queen is still one birthday ahead of me.
Saturday, 3 April 2004
Suffering and Freedom
Image via Wikipedia"But this is a God who does not want the joy and happiness of his sons."
No it isn't. God himself is the happiness of his sons. To be content in this world would be nice, yes, but it would be making do with a sort of synopsis of God's goodness. So, I dunno, God is more like Hamlet and this world is like the Cliff Notes. Perhaps more to the point, didn't your Dad ever get you to do something that you didn't want to do, but turned out to be a good idea after all? Like get out of bed and go to school in the morning? The difference is that we get to grow up into people whose intelligence approximates to that of their fathers, and because of our own experience and love know that we have to kick our own kids out of bed. But we don't grow up into God; instead he allows us sonship.
I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Therefore, whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven."It seems that the bad exists just to remind people to "call" God from time to time: kind of post-it !!!"
I can't imagine a more necessary post-it then. It seems to aptly sum up a Christian approach to natural evil, the type that would have confronted Adam and Eve had they never rebelled. Again, if we made do with the world when we could have God, we'd be fools. There's sin too of course, which is turning from love of God to love of the world, and that suffering comes from ourselves. I suppose what you really wonder is why we have to call God anyway.
[W]hat is man that you are mindful of him,
the son of man that you care for him?
You made him a little lower than the heavenly beings
and crowned him with glory and honor.
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.
We maintain that we have a dignity which is absolutely bound up with being like God, with aspiring to be "perfect [...] as [our] heavenly Father is perfect." We also maintain that a part of this dignity is our ability to say no. We can say, "Screw you God, I don't want you." And there is beauty enough in the world for us to seek God, and ugliness enough for us to shun him.
"They will remind of him only when they have bad times!"
I expect you mean remember him. Well, it isn't true. Speaking personally, I'm telling you that I feel drawn to God not only when I'm suffering, but when I'm content and when I'm happy. Not all the time of course.
"Why sacrifice and sorrow have to lead to God and not joy and happiness?"
Well, I sort of accounted for this above, but I'll just restate briefly. a) Joy and happiness do lead to God actually b) It is only natural that a sense of the lack of God should inspire people to look for him.
"Never heard of Saint Francis?"
Well, I've heard of him. newadvent.org tells me there's at least eight though. Don't know anything much about them. Care to share?
Thursday, 1 April 2004
I wouldn't say that I was doing a lot of thinking this evening, but I was thinking. RCIA was on the theme of new beginnings, which is - ahem - apt.
The world seems full of people who, though not queueing up to lynch me, obviously don't understand why anyone would become a Catholic, least of all myself. I can see why they might not, but sooner or later I'm going to have to, for my own spiritual sake even if for no-one else's, get a little more acquainted with why I believe in a catholic and apostolic church over and above churches which view themselves as one amongst many.
On the other side of the fence, I have about 2000 years of Christianity to get acquainted with. It's all a bit much when you thought you had your education out of the way. I figure I'll start small, like reading Justin Martyr's work, whose name, btw, I think I'll take on.
These are bizarre times. Please pray for me.
The world seems full of people who, though not queueing up to lynch me, obviously don't understand why anyone would become a Catholic, least of all myself. I can see why they might not, but sooner or later I'm going to have to, for my own spiritual sake even if for no-one else's, get a little more acquainted with why I believe in a catholic and apostolic church over and above churches which view themselves as one amongst many.
On the other side of the fence, I have about 2000 years of Christianity to get acquainted with. It's all a bit much when you thought you had your education out of the way. I figure I'll start small, like reading Justin Martyr's work, whose name, btw, I think I'll take on.
These are bizarre times. Please pray for me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)