Is the function of Christ really to rescue sinners?

[504Katrin]

Of course Catholics are predominate here. But when I study and work with Jews, I don’t consider their views “utter claptrap.” I may not agree with them, but I also find it useful to give them more than a dismissive gesture.

:hug3:

 

[St_Francis]

I may suggest that you speak for yourself only.

:hug3:

So would you say that Jewish thinkers would agree with Sprong’s comment? Does Sprong, an Anglican bishop, say anything here which relates to Jewish teaching?

The reality is that what Sprong is saying here is, in addition to being absurd from the Christian point of view, incoherent. It is incoherent because to say it requires two opposite beliefs: that Christ has power and the Christ has no power. Jews believe that Christ does not have power, so they would see this statement differently than Catholics would.

Just because someone has thought an idea does not mean the idea has validity.

 

[bcuster]

“The function of the Christ is not to rescue the sinners, but to empower you and to call you to be more deeply and fully human than you’ve ever realized there was the potential in you to be. Maybe salvation needs to be conveyed in terms of enhancing your humanity rather than rescuing you from it.”

upworthy.com/best-explanation-of-religion-i-have-ever-heard-and-im-practically-an-atheist?c=ufb1
Notice how this is an “either/or” statement. Christ’s purpose is not this but that. Always be wary of such statements and test both for veracity.
The first clause of the statement is false. We are sinners and we need rescuing. Jesus came to redeem us. Once we accept his redemption (rescue) we can grow into the full human people God created us to be. The problem is, some people want to side-step the first step and just “grow” in humanity without the repentance necessary in accepting redemption. So the second can not be true until we accept the falsity of the first. If we reject our need for salvation, we can’t pretend we are growing in our humanity. It can’t happen without Christ’s redemption.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

The problem is that Spong thinks enhancing humanity means being sexually liberal, ignoring God and traditional Christian doctrine and or practice. To a degree he is right, God created us human to be something better ( I do not believe Adam and Eve were created perfect but had to become perfect ), but he is quite wrong to say that doesn’t mean we don’t need saving. We need saving, from death and from our sin, something which mr Shelby spong (I refuse to give this man any episcopal title) would object to as an outdated Christian notion.

 

[gracepoole]

:hug3:

Right back atcha!

 

[Darryl_B]

The Anglican church has been trying to reinvent itself for quite a while now. Their numbers have dropped considerably in my country, and the Evangelical church I go to is primarily ex-Anglicans who had all sorts of compaints about the Anglican church, the primary ones being an incoherent message and lack of direction.

 

[St_Francis]

Right back atcha!

Do you seriously not see that problems with the statement you called “refreshing”?

 

[gracepoole]

Do you seriously not see that problems with the statement you called “refreshing”?

You keep missing the point. Go ahead and disagree – but at least be civil when doing so. Your first post does not speak to civility.

 

[St_Francis]

You keep missing the point. Go ahead and disagree – but at least be civil when doing so. Your first post does not speak to civility.

Would you consider this more civil:

The words of Bishop Sprong are indeed wondrously wrought; it is amazing to see the indiscriminating spontaneity of randomized ideas conjoined in such an adventitious manner.

 

[St_Francis]

Really, Grace, you have me quite confused. You post something which goes against Catholic and Christian thinking and which is internally inconsistent, you call it refreshing with no explanation, you ask what others think, and when they tell you, you complain that they are not civil!

Yes, I too have known people of many other faiths, and when they share something of their faith with me, I accept it as a part of what they believe. Faith traditions generally show respect for one’s Creator and a general consistency or they die out.

However, these words of Sprong’s are not part of a faith tradition. They express ideas which should be repugnant to any Christian, disparaging as they do the tremendous suffering Christ experienced in order to save us.

Even a non-Christian should be aghast not only at the lack of logic, but at the idea of someone’s besmirching his own religious beliefs in such a way.

And then you call me uncivil because I called these statements claptrap? Just because aspersions are dressed up in “refreshing”-sounding words does not reduce their wickedness–frankly, I used the word claptrap instead of words which were closer to my sentiments.

 

[gracepoole]

Would you consider this more civil:

The words of Bishop Sprong are indeed wondrously wrought; it is amazing to see the indiscriminating spontaneity of randomized ideas conjoined in such an adventitious manner.

Civility does not equal bad writing.

Really, Grace, you have me quite confused. You post something which goes against Catholic and Christian thinking and which is internally inconsistent, you call it refreshing with no explanation, you ask what others think, and when they tell you, you complain that they are not civil!

Yes, I too have known people of many other faiths, and when they share something of their faith with me, I accept it as a part of what they believe. Faith traditions generally show respect for one’s Creator and a general consistency or they die out.

However, these words of Sprong’s are not part of a faith tradition. They express ideas which should be repugnant to any Christian, disparaging as they do the tremendous suffering Christ experienced in order to save us.

Even a non-Christian should be aghast not only at the lack of logic, but at the idea of someone’s besmirching his own religious beliefs in such a way.

And then you call me uncivil because I called these statements claptrap? Just because aspersions are dressed up in “refreshing”-sounding words does not reduce their wickedness–frankly, I used the word claptrap instead of words which were closer to my sentiments.

Civility confuses you? When someone tells me he doesn’t accept evolution, or she believes one must be “born again” to be saved, my first response isn’t disgust or anger.

 

[JamesCaruso]

Would you consider this more civil:

The words of Bishop Sprong are indeed wondrously wrought; it is amazing to see the indiscriminating spontaneity of randomized ideas conjoined in such an adventitious manner.

Thank you, St. Francis. I appreciate the adventitious opportunities offered by CAF for augmenting one’s vocabulary.

 

[St_Francis]

Civility does not equal bad writing.

I have no idea what you would consider civil. I tried to point out that Sprong’s ideas which you call refreshing are **extremely problematic **for a Catholic. Since you had called those same words “refreshing,” I did not say, “Gee, you think blasphemy is refreshing?” I tried to bring the extremity of your error to your gaze, I tried to explain the problems with his statements to your attention, but you seem to be so focused on my having used the word claptrap to describe them, which I used instead of the words “inssulting blasphemy,” that you are unable to see that you are calling the scurrilous slap in the face that Sprong delivered to Christ’s suffering “refreshing.”

You seem ignorant also of Christ’s teaching about motes and beams as well.

Civility confuses you?

Did I write that?

When someone tells me he doesn’t accept evolution, or she believes one must be “born again” to be saved, my first response isn’t disgust or anger.

And neither of these statements would call for disgust or anger. Insults to Christ, however, ought to evoke anger and sorrow.

 

[gracepoole]

I have no idea what you would consider civil. I tried to point out that Sprong’s ideas which you call refreshing are **extremely problematic **for a Catholic. Since you had called those same words “refreshing,” I did not say, “Gee, you think blasphemy is refreshing?” I tried to bring the extremity of your error to your gaze, I tried to explain the problems with his statements to your attention, but you seem to be so focused on my having used the word claptrap to describe them, which I used instead of the words “inssulting blasphemy,” that you are unable to see that you are calling the scurrilous slap in the face that Sprong delivered to Christ’s suffering “refreshing.”

You seem ignorant also of Christ’s teaching about motes and beams as well.

“Extremely problematic” vs. “utter claptrap.” That seems to sum it up nicely. Is it that Sprong’s another Christian that incenses you so? Or do you also describe any non-Catholic dogma as you have?

 

[St_Francis]

“Extremely problematic” vs. “utter claptrap.” That seems to sum it up nicely. Is it that Sprong’s another Christian that incenses you so? Or do you also describe any non-Catholic dogma as you have?

I posted one assessment twice and another assessment once. Read what I already said about what he wrote.

 

[JamesCaruso]

“Extremely problematic” vs. “utter claptrap.” That seems to sum it up nicely. Is it that Sprong’s another Christian that incenses you so? Or do you also describe any non-Catholic dogma as you have?

You guys are really going at it! I hope things cool a bit.

But on the statement about Sprong being “another Christian,” it is a stretch from his video to think of him as a Christian at all. As I recall, he only claims to be expressing himself from within the Christian tradition he grew up in, and he makes it sound like almost any tradition is good enough and would have led him to the same place. To me he seems to place himself above all religions, which he regards as myths, a very common secular and even atheist perspective. His view is too simple and too universal like an “all you need is love” Beatles lyric that purports to sum up the totality of man and his highest aspirations. I find him a bit hard to take, but not someone who incenses me. The brotherhood of mankind may be a good starting point, or “becoming more human,” as he puts it, but if that is our final resting place, it does not leave us much further along the way than cave men who have acquired a bit of English culture. For me, Sprong give the appearance of an intellectual without the quality of one. That’s just how he comes across to me. YMMV. Peace. James

 

[gracepoole]

You guys are really going at it! I hope things cool a bit.

But on the statement about Sprong being “another Christian,” it is a stretch from his video to think of him as a Christian at all. As I recall, he only claims to be expressing himself from within the Christian tradition he grew up in, and he makes it sound like almost any tradition is good enough and would have led him to the same place. To me he seems to place himself above all religions, which he regards as myths, a very common secular and even atheist perspective. His view is too simple and too universal like an “all you need is love” Beatles lyric that purports to sum up the totality of man and his highest aspirations. I find him a bit hard to take, but not someone who incenses me. The brotherhood of mankind may be a good starting point, or “becoming more human,” as he puts it, but if that is our final resting place, it does not leave us much further along the way than cave men who have acquired a bit of English culture. For me, Sprong give the appearance of an intellectual without the quality of one. That’s just how he comes across to me. YMMV. Peace. James

I guess what interests me here is the acknowledgement that religion serves many purposes. While I don’t equate Catholicism with belief in Greek gods, for example, both provide(d) stabilizing forces for communities. Sprong aside for the moment, does noting this fact make one a blasphemer?

 

[JamesCaruso]

I guess what interests me here is the acknowledgement that religion serves many purposes. While I don’t equate Catholicism with belief in Greek gods, for example, both provide(d) stabilizing forces for communities. Sprong aside for the moment, does noting this fact make one a blasphemer?

Why would it?

 

[504Katrin]

I have no idea what you would consider civil. I tried to point out that Sprong’s ideas which you call refreshing are **extremely problematic **for a Catholic. Since you had called those same words “refreshing,” I did not say, “Gee, you think blasphemy is refreshing?” I tried to bring the extremity of your error to your gaze, I tried to explain the problems with his statements to your attention, but you seem to be so focused on my having used the word claptrap to describe them, which I used instead of the words “inssulting blasphemy,” that you are unable to see that you are calling the scurrilous slap in the face that Sprong delivered to Christ’s suffering “refreshing.”

You seem ignorant also of Christ’s teaching about motes and beams as well.

Did I write that?

And neither of these statements would call for disgust or anger. Insults to Christ, however, ought to evoke anger and sorrow.

Just being curious if you would agree with me that you might want to give this statement another thought as it doesn’t seem to be Catholic to me? Christians are followers of Christ, and are to follow his example, right? So how did Jesus take insults, with anger and sorrow? Wouldn’t you want to be just like him?

I put this out there because I think you might like the thought. I’m not good at following the leader either, so… but I still say something if I think I can be helpful to someone else.

“Faith traditions generally show respect for one’s Creator” you said earlier. With anger and sorrow though, we show Him just the opposite. I’m working hard on that one as well.

 

[St_Francis]

Just being curious if you would agree with me that you might want to give this statement another thought as it doesn’t seem to be Catholic to me? Christians are followers of Christ, and are to follow his example, right? So how did Jesus take insults, with anger and sorrow? Wouldn’t you want to be just like him?

I put this out there because I think you might like the thought. I’m not good at following the leader either, so… but I still say something if I think I can be helpful to someone else.

“Faith traditions generally show respect for one’s Creator” you said earlier. With anger and sorrow though, we show Him just the opposite. I’m working hard on that one as well.

While Christ might have borne insults to Himself, how did He react to the insults to His Father perpetrated by the moneychangers in the temple?

If someone says something nasty about me, I would shrug it off or offer it up. But if someone were to insult someone I love–one’s mother is the usual example–then I might rightfully take action.

St Thomas Aquinas Summa Theoligica Second Part of Part Two Q 188 Reply 1:
Reply to Objection 1. Not to resist evil may be understood in two ways. First, in the sense of forgiving the wrong done to oneself, and thus it may pertain to perfection, when it is expedient to act thus for the spiritual welfare of others. **Secondly, in the sense of tolerating patiently the wrongs done to others: and this pertains to imperfection, or even to vice, if one be able to resist the wrongdoer in a becoming manner. **…

Here is how the Catholic Encyclopedia explains it: [Anger is a] desire of vengeance. Its ethical rating depends upon the quality of the vengeance and the quantity of the passion. When these are in conformity with the prescriptions of balanced reason, anger is not a sin. It is rather a praiseworthy thing and justifiable with a proper zeal. It becomes sinful when it is sought to wreak vengeance upon one who has not deserved it, or to a greater extent than it has been deserved, or in conflict with the dispositions of law, or from an improper motive.