| Messages (newest first): |
[Sort by Oldest first]
|
|
Page 1/135 |
First |
Previous |
Next |
Last
|
|
| lines in the sand |
| 1 [21688] Posted by: nersenpaul |
Tuesday 19 June 2012 - 10:10pm |
| Tiresome. Do unitarians etc not have blogs to say what they don't believe? 60m people in the Uk....around 10,000 attending with unitarians.... Really in tune with modern Brits???..... I hope the cofE never becomes that relevant and modern ....... |
|
|
|
| Reports of an Alternative Trust Fund established in Southwark |
| 2 [21687] Posted by: nersenpaul |
Tuesday 19 June 2012 - 10:04pm |
| Davidr, your argument was clear but weak, not applying scripture to issues it addresses but to justify what you think on another issue .....a sensible discussion is possible..... but your attempt to use texts re tax to argue for paying for teaching even if one considers it incompatible with scripture isn't persuasive given what the NT says re how to react to false teaching ...... Which ain't to subsidise it |
|
|
|
| lines in the sand |
| 3 [21678] Posted by: nersenpaul |
Tuesday 19 June 2012 - 09:09am |
| ..... a few who don't agree with the mind of the Communion (and other things no doubt) are leaving..... acting with Integrity. Better they go to tiny groups like the unitarians (while they still exist)with whom they agree ..... By leaving, they show more integrity than those who make certain vows and then demand to be housed and paid while they undermine the church from within..... No integrity in that.... |
|
|
|
| Reports of an Alternative Trust Fund established in Southwark |
| 4 [21677] Posted by: nersenpaul |
Tuesday 19 June 2012 - 08:55am |
| Davidr, your not even succeeding in point scoring..... We are told to pay taxes..... In scripture. We are also told to have nothing to do with false teachers...... You seem to want to wriggle out of the latter...... But fail to show a single relevant verse in the NT which challenges those setting up the trust fund? |
|
|
|
| Reports of an Alternative Trust Fund established in Southwark |
| 5 [21662] Posted by: nersenpaul |
Monday 18 June 2012 - 11:42am |
| Mark, the context of how Paul opposes Peter on the issue you raise and how he refers to false teachers in Galatians, Philippians and elsewhere is helpful.... But not for trying to justify payments to anyone teaching anything incompatible with scripture |
|
|
|
| Fulcrum Perspectives: Women Bishops Legislation |
| 6 [21661] Posted by: nersenpaul |
Monday 18 June 2012 - 10:58am |
| Mark - nice words...... But what are you willing to offer to opponents of WO? Anything more than a code they don't think protects them? |
|
|
|
| Reports of an Alternative Trust Fund established in Southwark |
| 7 [21653] Posted by: nersenpaul |
Sunday 17 June 2012 - 09:00pm |
| Davidr, can you see a difference between rendering unto Caesar what is Caesar's ..... and the voluntary church giving of which the NT speaks? |
|
|
|
| Fulcrum Perspectives: Women Bishops Legislation |
| 8 [21646] Posted by: nersenpaul |
Sunday 17 June 2012 - 08:33am |
| So, in summary, regardless of Romans 14, some are willing to see people Once Again leave the cofE on this issue..... The attitude of Watch seems to be using nice words to say 'Good riddance'? JClatworthy says 'opponents of women bishops are probably right to fear that unless there is legally required provision, eventually they will die out'....... Really? Like the RCs who have more attending in England than the cofE? Or like revisionists in the cofE who attract so few and fewer each week despite being perfectly in line with The Garudian? Just who is dying out in the cofE? Have a look at the US.... In the whole State of New Hampshire, only around 10k attending.....in a whole state.. Maybe it should be more liberal??! That must be where it's going wrong.... |
|
|
|
| Reports of an Alternative Trust Fund established in Southwark |
| 9 [21645] Posted by: nersenpaul |
Sunday 17 June 2012 - 08:21am |
| Hi Bowman, most operate the communist, unsustainable quota/share system but more areas are thinking of moving to the simple, fair solution in London and your Tec diocese. The reality is that without the money from treasure stored up over centuries, the CofE is not viable financially in its current, failing form....And that treasure is being stretched to pay for a lot of houses and wages despite years of failure by some.....this is exactly how businesses go bust....denial re failure, good money after bad. The inherited assets run out at some point..... Maybe after most of the people run out.... I don't blame the people given the woeful quality of some vicars. Investing in failure despite years of evidence of steep decline ain't a good strategy for the cofE or tec. And the cofE is very screwed up re old man- made rules eg some making articles of faith re parish and diocesan boundaries. .....which I cannot imagine Christ respecting ...... given they're man made rules.....but some worry more if someone crosses a parish boundary than if another teaches anything incompatible with scripture......fruit of a dysfunctional organisation that has been undermined from within for decades..... No surprise some evangelicals no longer want to pay for those who infiltrate and then go against the mind of the church and scripture at will..... Subsidising them has produced zero good..... Probably why scripture tells us to have nothing to do with some teachers in the church....and to use our brains (1Cor5:12). |
|
|
|
| Reports of an Alternative Trust Fund established in Southwark |
| 10 [21615] Posted by: nersenpaul |
Friday 15 June 2012 - 08:11pm |
| Hi Bowman. As always, I appreciate your honesty and fairness. Re the common pot, what we have in the NT is voluntary contributions between churches in agreement, in fellowship with each other. Therefore, I cannot support institutionalised demands to support whoever the institution wants even if it is going against the mind of the church or your own conscience. London diocese does things better (especially for growth) with churches asked to cover their own costs (perfectly fair) and then to make a voluntary contribution to the common pot and free to make partnerships with other parishes with whom they want to partner in genuine fellowship. Sensible, healthy, not penalising growth, and in line with the NT, voluntary giving.
Davidw, I think we're complicit if we pay to support anything incompatible with scripture, in the cofE or not. |
|
|
|
| Fulcrum Perspectives: Women Bishops Legislation |
| 11 [21608] Posted by: nersenpaul |
Friday 15 June 2012 - 04:17pm |
| Thanks Stephen - I think the bishops have been trying to go the extra mile, in line with Romans 14..... People left the Cofe in the past on this issue, it'd be a shame to see the cofE further reduced ......although some groups would say, 'Good riddance!'. I'm glad you wouldn't...... But why not be more generous to your brothers and sisters who disagree on this disputable matter? There are at least 2 churches in the cofE already.. Not acknowledging that reality by forcing rules which lead to more departures doesn't make it go away.....
Another David, Romans 14 has to be read in the context of the whole of Romans and he whole NT and the whole bible .....it's not calling for no judgment re what scripture calls sinful but deals with disputable matters. On WO, it's sad that some evangelicals seem willing to split from others unless they accept WO and extending it..... Glad that Stephen and others want a code ... Can't see why it can't be a tad stronger ..... A bit more generous to those who want to stay in line with what the CofE (and RC) have taught for centuries re scripture . As the bishops suggest, more generosity would be good...... They're not Anti WO....far from it..... But they're being generous .....that's good... And I'm line with Romans 14 |
|
|
|
| Reports of an Alternative Trust Fund established in Southwark |
| 12 [21602] Posted by: nersenpaul |
Friday 15 June 2012 - 01:14pm |
| One solution is for southwark to drop the soviet style quota system which penalises growth to fund terminal revisionist decline .... But it won't as revisionists have stitched up control of the diocese very nicely...And are very pleased to tax evangelicals to fund revisionists.....nobody else will fund them....hardly any attending..... Understandable that some dont want to fund any teaching they consider incompatible with scripture..... Still no answer from anyone for why they should from biblical teaching to the NT church. London has a much more sensible and fair system...which encourages growth..... And makes no trust fund necessary currently.... So, there are Anglican solutions possible....... But they don't suit the revisionists who've gained control of Southwark with evangelicals paying for them...... |
|
|
|
|
Page 1/135 |
First |
Previous |
Next |
Last
| Top
|
