Diocese of Pittsburgh to vote on leaving TEC

[John Dornheim]

God's grace is given to us, through faith in Christ, which faith is a gift of God.

Fairly basic stuff, one would think.

"No man comes to the Father except by me."


Dornheim's "pagans in line for heaven" dream, is contrary to Scripture and to the Lutheran Confessions.

Contrary to McCain's assumption, I do not automatically conclude that people of other faith traditions to be pagans. Some know the mind of Christ better than some of his followers. I cannot confine God's grace to my own very human and sinful limitations.

John Dornheim

[Sublime_Harbinger]

Well, then we will just have to disagree.  I believe that "I don't know the mind of God fully" is an appropriately humble statement for a Christian to make with regard to salvation issues.  "All paths are equal" is simply mistaken and is somewhat patronizing once one studies comparative religions-- the aim of Buddhism and the aim of Christianity, for example, are very different. 

I'm not so sure we disagree *all* that much here.  I just know that some who embrace universalism do so on the shaky foundation of saying, "well, who can know the mind of God," forgetting the context of that Scripture in the process.  That being said, I agree fully that "All paths are equal" (APAE?) mentality is a ridiculous claim for anyone who has studied other religions.

For me, the discussion about universalism only really gets interesting when the question of whether or not the grace of god is irresistable is taken up.  People can dream wonderful dreams to keep them happy at night all they want to (and I personally do hope and pray that God will have more mercy than I think he will) but I am at odds with the idea of anyone getting pulled into heaven against their will.

Some know the mind of Christ better than some of his followers. I cannot confine God's grace to my own very human and sinful limitations.

Knowing the mind of Christ and walking in His footsteps are two different things.  To pick up the earlier example, I am sure that Ghandi to some extent, perhaps even to great extent, knew the mind of Christ with regards to social justice and love for all people.   Whether or not that is knowing the *whole* mind of Christ, and whether or not the actions he took flowed from that knowledge, it's hard to say.  I do agree with the second sentence though.

[Brian Stoffregen]

"No man comes to the Father except by me."

Precisely why I said that all those I would find in heaven are there because of Jesus.

[Brian Stoffregen]

For me, the discussion about universalism only really gets interesting when the question of whether or not the grace of god is irresistable is taken up.  People can dream wonderful dreams to keep them happy at night all they want to (and I personally do hope and pray that God will have more mercy than I think he will) but I am at odds with the idea of anyone getting pulled into heaven against their will.

Well, the word used about about the Father drawing all people to Jesus (John 6:44) and Jesus drawing all people to himself (John 12:32) is exactly the same word as hauling in a net of fish (John 21:6, 11). It is also used of dragging people against their will (Acts 18:19; 21:30; James 2:6). At least in these verses the Bible does present a picture of getting pulled into heaven (or into the boat or into court) against one's will. Do you think that's a bad thing?

[Gladfelteri]

For me, the discussion about universalism only really gets interesting when the question of whether or not the grace of god is irresistable is taken up.  People can dream wonderful dreams to keep them happy at night all they want to (and I personally do hope and pray that God will have more mercy than I think he will) but I am at odds with the idea of anyone getting pulled into heaven against their will.

Well, the word used about about the Father drawing all people to Jesus (John 6:44) and Jesus drawing all people to himself (John 12:32) is exactly the same word as hauling in a net of fish (John 21:6, 11). It is also used of dragging people against their will (Acts 18:19; 21:30; James 2:6). At least in these verses the Bible does present a picture of getting pulled into heaven (or into the boat or into court) against one's will. Do you think that's a bad thing?

Well, the Vatican II Pastoral Constitution on the Church, Gaudeum in Spes does say, in so many words, that we must be open to the possibility that God can bring people into heaven by extrordinary means we know nothing of.  But that is a far cry from unitarian universalism. 

I suspect unitarian universalism is becoming so popular in some of the liberal Churches because the concept fits so well with post-modernism.

Blessings,
Irl

[MMH]

Just wondering what role our confession of Christ's descent into hell plays in people's ruminations upon these matters.

BTW- this is one of the reasons I am ticked off at ELW and its complete ignoring of FC IX.

[Team Hesse]

but I am at odds with the idea of anyone getting pulled into heaven against their will.

Ahhhhh, free will rears its ugly head.
I think we all get dragged into heaven against our will (we are in bondage to sin and cannot free ourselves).  How else can we explain what happened to Saul of Tarsus on the Damascus Road?  or the words to Luther's explanation to the Third Article of the Creed?  " I cannot, by my own reason or strength, believe in my Lord Jesus Christ or come to him, but the Holy Spirit ..."

Lou

[peter_speckhard]

but I am at odds with the idea of anyone getting pulled into heaven against their will.

Ahhhhh, free will rears its ugly head.
I think we all get dragged into heaven against our will (we are in bondage to sin and cannot free ourselves).  How else can we explain what happened to Saul of Tarsus on the Damascus Road?  or the words to Luther's explanation to the Third Article of the Creed?  " I cannot, by my own reason or strength, believe in my Lord Jesus Christ or come to him, but the Holy Spirit ..."

Lou

Lou, I think your post leaves conversion out of the equation, as the three dots end the quote mid-sentence. Had St. Paul never been pulled over, so to speak, on the road to Damascus, he would have remained an enemy of God. As it was, he reports having received a new nature, such that while he remained according to the flesh, an enemy of God, the "according to the flesh"  no longer represented who he really was. As a converted believer, he now wills what is right even when he can't do it. Same with the third article. Yes, I cannot convert myself. But that doesn't mean I can't be converted. I can't believe in Jesus by my own reason or strength; but that doesn't mean I can't believe in Him. The Holy Spirit does it; he calls, enlightens and sanctifies you in this life by giving you faith, thus converting your will. The will is the main thing converted, going from having one master to another. There is a difference not only of eternal destination between believers and unbelievers, but also of will, even when we lack the power to carry out our converted will. I will not be in heaven against my will; I will be there despite my sin and weakness. There is a huge difference. Sure, my will is not free-- it is a slave to sin according to the flesh and the law and a slave to Christ according to the spirit and the Gospel, but it is still my will. A bound will is not no will. If as a converted believer you are still going to heaven against your will, would you be relieved to discover you weren't going there after all?   

[edoughty]

Just wondering what role our confession of Christ's descent into hell plays in people's ruminations upon these matters.

BTW- this is one of the reasons I am ticked off at ELW and its complete ignoring of FC IX.

Complete ignoring of FC IX?  Do tell.

Erik Doughty
Minneapolis, MN

[Marshall_Hahn]

It seems the realignment of the Anglican communion is proceeding apace.  According to a report in the Daily Telegraph, the Anglilcan province of the Southern Cone - which includes most of South America excluding Brazil - has voted to allow dioceses which dissaffiliate from TEC to join their province:

Archbishop Venables unveiled the decision of his bishops and other leaders after the plans were overwhelmingly approved by his provincial synod during a meeting in Chile last night.

A handful of conservative American dioceses are already in the process of opting out of the Episcopal Church by voting in their diocesan synods to alter their constitutions.

Up to five are expected to become part of the Southern Cone, which covers most of South America except Brazil, over the next six months or so.

The diocese of San Joaquin in California, which is due to take its final vote in December, is poised to leap first, while Pittsburgh, headed by Bishop Bob Duncan, will have to wait until the middle of next year...

In a letter sent last night, 46 conservative members of the Church of England's General Synod pledged their support. A number of traditionalist parishes in Canada are also likely to affiliate with the Southern Cone province in protest at plans by liberal dioceses to introduce same-sex blessings.


The full report is here:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/11/08/nsplit108.xml

There have been individual parishes making such a jump, but this would be the first time whole dioceses would be affiliatiing with a foreign province.  While it is just a preliminary action of "invitation", this is sure to ratchet up the conflict in the Anglican communion to a whole new level - as if it is not already at a breaking point.

Marshall Hahn

[pr dtp]

but I am at odds with the idea of anyone getting pulled into heaven against their will.

Ahhhhh, free will rears its ugly head.
I think we all get dragged into heaven against our will (we are in bondage to sin and cannot free ourselves).  How else can we explain what happened to Saul of Tarsus on the Damascus Road?  or the words to Luther's explanation to the Third Article of the Creed?  " I cannot, by my own reason or strength, believe in my Lord Jesus Christ or come to him, but the Holy Spirit ..."

Lou

Please do not bear false witness - but post the quote in its entirety.  As noted above, the passage distinctly describes the work of the Holy Spirit.  It seems you are saying everyone has that work done, but the evidence of the world indicates that this is not so. 

The problem with "all" dragged into heaven, kicking and screaming is that it denies the eschatological passages, from Matthew 13 and 25, to this week's epistle, to the entire Apocalypse of Jesus Christ.

Evil people exist, who refuse the grace offered in Christ.  Some by overt decision (Ted Turner and the deceased Ms. O'Hare come to mine), some by being simply to laze to understand the natural law as point to something larger than themselves.  Either way, Romans 2 is clear, they will be judged by their own consceince, against the law of God.

And without a relationship Christ gives us, with the Father, that judgment is hopeless.  Having been gathered into that relationship, given faith, granted repentance, we have the assurance of that relationship.  Those that reject it, have rejected it.  This isn't about a pass into a spiritual disneyland.  It is about eternity, as the family of God, the bride of Christ.

[John Dornheim]

It seems the realignment of the Anglican communion is proceeding apace.  According to a report in the Daily Telegraph, the Anglilcan province of the Southern Cone - which includes most of South America excluding Brazil - has voted to allow dioceses which dissaffiliate from TEC to join their province:

Archbishop Venables unveiled the decision of his bishops and other leaders after the plans were overwhelmingly approved by his provincial synod during a meeting in Chile last night.

A handful of conservative American dioceses are already in the process of opting out of the Episcopal Church by voting in their diocesan synods to alter their constitutions.

Up to five are expected to become part of the Southern Cone, which covers most of South America except Brazil, over the next six months or so.

The diocese of San Joaquin in California, which is due to take its final vote in December, is poised to leap first, while Pittsburgh, headed by Bishop Bob Duncan, will have to wait until the middle of next year...

In a letter sent last night, 46 conservative members of the Church of England's General Synod pledged their support. A number of traditionalist parishes in Canada are also likely to affiliate with the Southern Cone province in protest at plans by liberal dioceses to introduce same-sex blessings.


The full report is here:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/11/08/nsplit108.xml

There have been individual parishes making such a jump, but this would be the first time whole dioceses would be affiliatiing with a foreign province.  While it is just a preliminary action of "invitation", this is sure to ratchet up the conflict in the Anglican communion to a whole new level - as if it is not already at a breaking point.

Marshall Hahn

And what should we say of the priests and parishes who are opposed to these moves?
John Dornheim

[Gary Hatcher]

And what should we say of the priests and parishes who are opposed to these moves?

We can say that they are opposed to these moves.  Should they state why they are opposed we will then have deeper insight as to their opposition. 

[Marshall_Hahn]

And what should we say of the priests and parishes who are opposed to these moves?
John Dornheim

As far as Bishop Duncan's position, he has already answered that question, which you have raised before:

It is clear to most on both sides, that continuing efforts to convince, at best, and coerce, at worst, will only deepen the failure of all.  A charitable and gracious provision for the minority to stay within the realigned fellowship of the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh or to be given freedom to separate from us and align more directly with the wider Episcopal Church has also emerged as a course for which there is, I believe, a strengthening consensus...
If Resolution One passes, our work in the year ahead would likely include determination of the Province with which the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh might re-align, development of acceptable options available to minority congregations, and negotiation, both nationally and with plaintiffs locally, about a mediated alternative to continuing or escalating litigation...
It is in this spirit that I share with you one of my convictions about what our God is calling us to in our stewardship of assets in the years ahead of us.  It is my growing conviction that all the things we presently hold in common need to continue to be administered for the good of all, even if we find ourselves in two different Anglican Provinces at the end of the day.  

The full account of his address is here:

http://www.pgh.anglican.org/news/local/duncanaddress110207

It seems quite clear that Bishop Duncan's advice is that those priests and parishes within his diocese who disagree with this move will be allowed to separate from the diocese amiacbly, and, with respect to parishes, with their property.  I believe this is an example of what another participant in this forum has called an "amicable divorce".

Marshall Hahn

[Pr. Jerry]

It seems the realignment of the Anglican communion is proceeding apace.  According to a report in the Daily Telegraph, the Anglilcan province of the Southern Cone - which includes most of South America excluding Brazil - has voted to allow dioceses which dissaffiliate from TEC to join their province:

Archbishop Venables unveiled the decision of his bishops and other leaders after the plans were overwhelmingly approved by his provincial synod during a meeting in Chile last night.

A handful of conservative American dioceses are already in the process of opting out of the Episcopal Church by voting in their diocesan synods to alter their constitutions.

Up to five are expected to become part of the Southern Cone, which covers most of South America except Brazil, over the next six months or so.

The diocese of San Joaquin in California, which is due to take its final vote in December, is poised to leap first, while Pittsburgh, headed by Bishop Bob Duncan, will have to wait until the middle of next year...

In a letter sent last night, 46 conservative members of the Church of England's General Synod pledged their support. A number of traditionalist parishes in Canada are also likely to affiliate with the Southern Cone province in protest at plans by liberal dioceses to introduce same-sex blessings.


The full report is here:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/11/08/nsplit108.xml

There have been individual parishes making such a jump, but this would be the first time whole dioceses would be affiliatiing with a foreign province.  While it is just a preliminary action of "invitation", this is sure to ratchet up the conflict in the Anglican communion to a whole new level - as if it is not already at a breaking point.

And what should we say of the priests and parishes who are opposed to these moves?

I suppose the same thing we say about the Priests and parishes in the Episcopal Diocese of Newark who opposed the leadership and direction of their former Bishop, J.S. Spong...  Only hopefully, I might add, with a bit more charity than those who dissented from Spong were shown.

Pax Christi;
Pr. Jerry Kliner, STS