Attending an Anglican bible study

  • Thread starter Thread starter ajcstr
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

ajcstr

Guest
I am attending an Anglican bible study on Romans. The curch is definitely not Anglo-Catholic but I don’t think its at the other extreme either. The pastor told me they are “middle of the road” which is a team that has always confounded me. Anyway, the study is being lead by a member that was a former Presbyterian, but he converted to Anglican and is a big proponent of NT Wright.

It is apparent to me that there is some underlying bias towards Catholics - not strong, but I sense it. There are about 10 people in this thing and the pastor did mention that I was a Catholic. The group leader makes comments like “When Paul is addressing the Church of Rome, he does not mean Roman Catholics, Paul would not know what a Roman Catholic was” (snicker, snicker from the back).
To be fair, he has also made statements like Catholics believe the same basic gospel as the Anglicans so we are in communion with them. And he pointed out thet I would be welcome to receive the Eucharist there but he is not welcome to receive at my church.

I asked him if when Paul talks about justification, are we “declared” justified or are we “made” justified, and he went off on how he is not talking about a Catholic perspective and how we put too much emphasis on Mary. Mary! I asked a question about justification.

Now, I am enjoying the study very much, we are moving at about the pace of one chapter a night but I need some help. In light of the way my last question was received, I want to through this question out here first. He keeps saying that based on what he has read of NT Wright, He has come to the conclusion that Luther and the Reformers “got it wrong” with respect to “justification by faith”. He sited James and and other points where works come into play also. But he also says Roman Catholics got it wrong - I am going to have to ask about this.

But first to the forum - First, do you think he is regarding Roman Catholic theology as a “gospel of works” when he says this (before I tick him off by asking that), and second, is there a “Catholic perspective” on the “New perspective on Paul”? How is what Wright describes as justification similar/different to the Catholic position? We are only on Romans 4, but it sounds pretty similar so far.
 
Why would you study the bible with Protestants? :confused: Every little comment could be a misinterpretation that could be spiritually detrimental to you in the future.

There’s so many amazing Catholic bible studies out there… if there’s none nearby, start your own, there’s resources all over the internet. My mother just finished “the Great Adventure” and loved it, now she’s an OT officionado 🙂

This might even be something to bring up in confession…
 
I am attending an Anglican bible study on Romans. The curch is definitely not Anglo-Catholic but I don’t think its at the other extreme either. The pastor told me they are “middle of the road” which is a team that has always confounded me. Anyway, the study is being lead by a member that was a former Presbyterian, but he converted to Anglican and is a big proponent of NT Wright.

It is apparent to me that there is some underlying bias towards Catholics - not strong, but I sense it. There are about 10 people in this thing and the pastor did mention that I was a Catholic. The group leader makes comments like “When Paul is addressing the Church of Rome, he does not mean Roman Catholics, Paul would not know what a Roman Catholic was” (snicker, snicker from the back).
To be fair, he has also made statements like Catholics believe the same basic gospel as the Anglicans so we are in communion with them. And he pointed out thet I would be welcome to receive the Eucharist there but he is not welcome to receive at my church.

I asked him if when Paul talks about justification, are we “declared” justified or are we “made” justified, and he went off on how he is not talking about a Catholic perspective and how we put too much emphasis on Mary. Mary! I asked a question about justification.

Now, I am enjoying the study very much, we are moving at about the pace of one chapter a night but I need some help. In light of the way my last question was received, I want to through this question out here first. He keeps saying that based on what he has read of NT Wright, He has come to the conclusion that Luther and the Reformers “got it wrong” with respect to “justification by faith”. He sited James and and other points where works come into play also. But he also says Roman Catholics got it wrong - I am going to have to ask about this.

But first to the forum - First, do you think he is regarding Roman Catholic theology as a “gospel of works” when he says this (before I tick him off by asking that), and second, is there a “Catholic perspective” on the “New perspective on Paul”? How is what Wright describes as justification similar/different to the Catholic position? We are only on Romans 4, but it sounds pretty similar so far.
I am not a big advocate of interfaith Bible studies as you have clearly have shown: BIASED.

As for the leaders remark:

“*When Paul is addressing the Church of Rome, he does not mean Roman Catholics, Paul would not know what a Roman Catholic was” (snicker, snicker from the back). *

True because back then the Catholic Church was not as organized or distinguished by different rites. That still is not sufficient to claim the Church of Rome of then was not the one and the same as today.

That is like saying the U.S. government of 1789 is the not the same as the one today. Not the same in terms of organization and structure,but the core beliefs were still there.

And Paul certainly would not have even comprehened the huge divisions that exist in Protestanism and Paul would have not accepted it either.
 
Why would you study the bible with Protestants? :confused: Every little comment could be a misinterpretation that could be spiritually detrimental to you in the future…
Several reasons:

I get more out of it when I am in a group, our parish bible study was moved to the AM so I can’t attend. Also, I have read many books on apologetics and I am of the opinion that whoever wrote the book (catholic or not) does not adequately present the opposing side’s point of view. So I want to hear it from the horse’s mouth so to speak. Finally because this gives me a great chance to dig deeper into my faith, if I hear something presented in a way I am not used to, I can then research why we interpert a passage differently. I remember a tape I listened to by a catholic apologist who maid the point that we have had the bible for 2000 years - no one is going to come up with a verse that has not been pondered by a church father or a Pope, etc.
This might even be something to bring up in confession…
I think that is a very strange comment.
 
True because back then the Catholic Church was not as organized or distinguished by different rites. That still is not sufficient to claim the Church of Rome of then was not the one and the same as today.
I was actually tempted to say that he didn’t know what the New Testament was either. But that’s beside the point - I am looking for some practical info on this “new perspective on Paul” and how it differes from the catholic perspective.
 
And Paul certainly would not have even comprehened the huge divisions that exist in Protestanism and Paul would have not accepted it either.
I would love to read THOSE epistles !! But we have to realize that we are biased too. Look, there are a lot of intelligent people that forgot more about the Bible than I know. I am still learning. Problem is for all the time they have dedicated to studying the Word, they can’t agree either and they will each declare they they are right to the last breath. To me, that is where the authority of the Church comes in. Again though, lets get back to my original questions. (PLEASE lets not turn this into a discussion on authority.)
 
Anglicans rock, man. You keep attendin’ that study! 👍😛
 
Some Anglicans are pretty sure they invented the via media.

GKC
I am attending an Anglican bible study on Romans. The curch is definitely not Anglo-Catholic but I don’t think its at the other extreme either. The pastor told me they are “middle of the road” which is a team that has always confounded me. Anyway, the study is being lead by a member that was a former Presbyterian, but he converted to Anglican and is a big proponent of NT Wright.

It is apparent to me that there is some underlying bias towards Catholics - not strong, but I sense it. There are about 10 people in this thing and the pastor did mention that I was a Catholic. The group leader makes comments like “When Paul is addressing the Church of Rome, he does not mean Roman Catholics, Paul would not know what a Roman Catholic was” (snicker, snicker from the back).
To be fair, he has also made statements like Catholics believe the same basic gospel as the Anglicans so we are in communion with them. And he pointed out thet I would be welcome to receive the Eucharist there but he is not welcome to receive at my church.

I asked him if when Paul talks about justification, are we “declared” justified or are we “made” justified, and he went off on how he is not talking about a Catholic perspective and how we put too much emphasis on Mary. Mary! I asked a question about justification.

Now, I am enjoying the study very much, we are moving at about the pace of one chapter a night but I need some help. In light of the way my last question was received, I want to through this question out here first. He keeps saying that based on what he has read of NT Wright, He has come to the conclusion that Luther and the Reformers “got it wrong” with respect to “justification by faith”. He sited James and and other points where works come into play also. But he also says Roman Catholics got it wrong - I am going to have to ask about this.

But first to the forum - First, do you think he is regarding Roman Catholic theology as a “gospel of works” when he says this (before I tick him off by asking that), and second, is there a “Catholic perspective” on the “New perspective on Paul”? How is what Wright describes as justification similar/different to the Catholic position? We are only on Romans 4, but it sounds pretty similar so far.
 
I am attending an Anglican bible study on Romans. The curch is definitely not Anglo-Catholic but I don’t think its at the other extreme either. The pastor told me they are “middle of the road” which is a team that has always confounded me. Anyway, the study is being lead by a member that was a former Presbyterian, but he converted to Anglican and is a big proponent of NT Wright.

It is apparent to me that there is some underlying bias towards Catholics - not strong, but I sense it. There are about 10 people in this thing and the pastor did mention that I was a Catholic. The group leader makes comments like “When Paul is addressing the Church of Rome, he does not mean Roman Catholics, Paul would not know what a Roman Catholic was” (snicker, snicker from the back).
To be fair, he has also made statements like Catholics believe the same basic gospel as the Anglicans so we are in communion with them. And he pointed out thet I would be welcome to receive the Eucharist there but he is not welcome to receive at my church.

I asked him if when Paul talks about justification, are we “declared” justified or are we “made” justified, and he went off on how he is not talking about a Catholic perspective and how we put too much emphasis on Mary. Mary! I asked a question about justification.

Now, I am enjoying the study very much, we are moving at about the pace of one chapter a night but I need some help. In light of the way my last question was received, I want to through this question out here first. He keeps saying that based on what he has read of NT Wright, He has come to the conclusion that Luther and the Reformers “got it wrong” with respect to “justification by faith”. He sited James and and other points where works come into play also. But he also says Roman Catholics got it wrong - I am going to have to ask about this.

But first to the forum - First, do you think he is regarding Roman Catholic theology as a “gospel of works” when he says this (before I tick him off by asking that), and second, is there a “Catholic perspective” on the “New perspective on Paul”? How is what Wright describes as justification similar/different to the Catholic position? We are only on Romans 4, but it sounds pretty similar so far.
I think non-Catholics should be able to belittle Catholics without a Catholic troublemaker in their midst.

Even though their anti-Catholic bent wasn’t provoked by you, butt out and give them their privacy.
 
And unfortunately, some dress up like Lady Gaga for Mass.
But we all know that the Spirit of Vatican 2 is their inspiration for it! 😃

And I’d walk out if my priest dressed as Lady Gaga. Any singers since 1979 are too liberal, Modernist, and revisionist. My parish only allows pre-1979 costumes in the liturgy.
 
But we all know that the Spirit of Vatican 2 is their inspiration for it! 😃

And I’d walk out if my priest dressed as Lady Gaga. Any singers since 1979 are too liberal, Modernist, and revisionist. My parish only allows pre-1979 costumes in the liturgy.
Pre-1979? Gary Glitter? LOL
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top