Diocese's largest number ordained

[Jason]

Guy wrote:

Yes, satan is very real and so is hell. When was the last time you preached or heard preaching on hell?

Guy

But why would you preach on satan or hell independently? If it comes up as part of preaching about what we are saved from, or the like, then well and good. But to preach on hell to assuage our evangelical conscience doesn't seem like the right approach to me.

[Guy]

Jason said:

If it comes up as part of preaching about what we are saved from, or the like, then well and good. But to preach on hell to assuage our evangelical conscience doesn't seem like the right approach to me.


For clarification-
That is what I was meaning - if it comes up as a part of preaching about what we are saved from.

[Alex M]

Hi Jordan

So my question to you, and to others on this thread who sincerely believe the ordinal to be inappropriate at this point, is: what exactly is that 'something' that the apostles alone possessed that ministers do not possess today? Can you pinpoint it?

It's a great question and I am still thinking through your posts about this - which are greatly appreciated btw.

The argument I am putting to Matt is really the classic "not proven" argument. I am not saying he is wrong - simply that his argument is not sufficiently made to justify such an a bold claim by the Archbishop (or the Ordinal). I am not denying that such grounds may exist.

[Phil Weickhardt (Phool)]

Hmmm, maybe there are very few Anglican (orthodox included) that believe in satan enough to preach on the dangers of hell.

Spiritual warfare is very real today as it was in Paul's time. In the modern and post-modern era we have been conditioned not to believe in things that can't be proven (ahhh, empiricism and reason).

There is (still) a war on. It would only be one of satan's lies (hmmm, one of his names was Prince of Lies, the arch-deciever) that would have us accepting that we no longer struggle:

"For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places." Eph 6:12, NASB

[Jereth]

Jason wrote:

But why would you preach on satan or hell independently? If it comes up as part of preaching about what we are saved from, or the like, then well and good.

Hi Jason,

It's definitely important for believers and unbelievers to understand exactly what Jesus saves us from.

Hell and judgment are in the Bible for other reasons too -- to reveal God's character to us (because hell is a consequence of his holiness and justice, eg. Rom 2:6-11), to reveal the extent of human wickedness, to warn us against apostasy and sin (eg. Heb 10:26-27, Mark 9:42-48), to provoke us to worship (eg. Heb. 12:28-29), to frighten unbelievers into repenting (Luke 3:7-9) and other reasons. So I think there are many occasions on which preaching hell is necessary and it would be good if preachers/bible study leaders etc. resisted the temptation to avoid the topic.

Personally I have noticed a tendency for some evangelicals to avoid traditional language of hell (torment, fire, wrath) in favour of "softer" options and euphemisms like annihilationism and "being separate from God" (cf. Lewis' great divorce)

Guy & Alex mention a tendency in some quarters to steer away from supernatural / spiritual topics. Maybe it's because people worry that unchurched scientists will think we're stupid to believe in demons, angels, spirits, etc.

But most Christians I know (including Angican ones) are quite comfortable talking about angels, demons and Satan. I have heard many testimonies about spiritual oppression and if I'm honest with myself I'd have to admit it is something I have experienced at least a few times in my life too. Just look at the way western society is falling apart -- you'd have to be quite mad to think that spiritual evil didn't exist. Just today I heard a new report that the most commonly prescribed PBS medications to Australian women are anti-depressants.*

At my church St. Judes we had a very good sermon and Bible study series on spiritual warfare back in 2007, called "the good fight".

Jereth

* http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24811777-2702,00.html
(but don't worry guys, I don't think we're far behind, I've done heaps of anti-D scripts for blokes this year as well )

[Jason]

Guy wrote:

Jason said:

If it comes up as part of preaching about what we are saved from, or the like, then well and good...


For clarification-
That is what I was meaning - if it comes up as a part of preaching about what we are saved from.

Thanks for the clarification.

[Jason]

Jereth wrote:

Hi Jason,

It's definitely important for believers and unbelievers to understand exactly what Jesus saves us from.

Hell and judgment are in the Bible for other reasons too -- to reveal God's character to us (because hell is a consequence of his holiness and justice, eg. Rom 2:6-11), to reveal the extent of human wickedness, to warn us against apostasy and sin (eg. Heb 10:26-27, Mark 9:42-48), to provoke us to worship (eg. Heb. 12:28-29), to frighten unbelievers into repenting (Luke 3:7-9) and other reasons. So I think there are many occasions on which preaching hell is necessary and it would be good if preachers/bible study leaders etc. resisted the temptation to avoid the topic.

What, so preach a one off on "Hell"? A series on "Hell"? Or just hire/buy a copy of "Driven by Eternity" (aka, Drivel about Eternity) by John Bevere (he seemed to go on and on and on and on and on and on about Hell).

Jereth wrote:

Personally I have noticed a tendency for some evangelicals to avoid traditional language of hell (torment, fire, wrath) in favour of "softer" options and euphemisms like annihilationism and "being separate from God" (cf. Lewis' great divorce)

...

Jereth

I dunno Jereth - the bible uses metaphors to inform us about hell (off the top of my head, I think "hell" itself is a metaphor). So what's the metaphor about? What's it trying to communicate? Torment might be a fair description. But what does "fire" point to? Wrath - that's fairly clear. Explaining hell to non-Christians, let alone Christians can be challenging. So in an attempt to reach a much less biblically literate society, we've resorted to "separation from God".

So I think you might be a little uncharitable is suggesting that some evangelicals uses "being separated from God" merely to skate around the thorny issue of hell - that is, to arrive at the same place, but via a different, more palatable route. Annihilationism is another kettle of fish altogether.

I, for one, am not all that fond of talking about "separation from God". It doesn't make much more sense than hell. And it's a (spatial-relational) concept that has difficulties for the doctrine of atonement as far as I'm concerned. Perhaps a better concept might be (the purely relational) "estrangement from God" (or in the bible's terms "enmity with God).  

[jane churchland]

Guy wrote:

When was the last time you preached or heard preaching on hell?

well, now you ask the question, the answer  (I don't actually hear that many sermons, 'cos I'm usually chasing a 2 y.o.) is I heard a man called Guy preach quite a thumper of a hell sermon on Easter Sunday last year. Which I thought was a bizarre choice of topic for the day.

[Guy]

On the topic of Spiritual warefare and the likes, are there any Anglican Churches around that run specific praise and healing services? I remember attending one a few years back, but at for instance, St Judes in Carlton run anything like that or is it all incorporated into the services provided?

Guy
btw, it wasn't me who preached quite a thumper on hell last Easter Sunday. Again- a point of clarification

[jane churchland]

Guy wrote:

 are there any Anglican Churches around that run specific praise and healing services?

 There used to be specific healing services at the cathedral, wednesday nights, I think.  Our church (epiphany Hoppers crossing) has specific prayers for healing with laying on of hands at every communion service. I don't know about st judes.

[Jereth]

Jason wrote:

I dunno Jereth - the bible uses metaphors to inform us about hell (off the top of my head, I think "hell" itself is a metaphor). So what's the metaphor about? What's it trying to communicate? Torment might be a fair description. But what does "fire" point to? Wrath - that's fairly clear. Explaining hell to non-Christians, let alone Christians can be challenging. So in an attempt to reach a much less biblically literate society, we've resorted to "separation from God".

So I think you might be a little uncharitable is suggesting that some evangelicals uses "being separated from God" merely to skate around the thorny issue of hell - that is, to arrive at the same place, but via a different, more palatable route. Annihilationism is another kettle of fish altogether.

Hi Jason,

Thanks for the comments. Please note I'm not trying to be harshly critical of or accusing anyone of wilfully trying to dodge the topic of hell. I can sympathise with the reluctance to speak frankly about hell, it is probably the hardest doctrine in the Christian faith and I feel as uncomfortable talking about it as anyone else. We believe in a God who loves and saves, and the thought of some people being damned for eternity is truly a hard one to come to terms with.

What I think has happened is that, in our natural human discomfort with hell evangelicals have shifted, unconsciously, towards psychologically "easier" great divorce language with a neglect of other biblical revelation. I don't think Lewis was entirely wrong. But when that sort of language is used almost exclusively (as has been the case in my experience -- "God will give them exactly what they want: an eternity separate from Him" was a standard evangelical description for hell as far back as my days in AFES) it creates an unhelpful (and wrong) imbalance. Hell becomes entirely deprivation and no retribution, also you almost get the impression hell will somehow be desirable because it is sinners getting "exactly what they want". cf. the Bible and Jesus' teaching that hell will be intense, everlasting torment, weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Maybe another reason for this conceptual shift is that the modern west has literally lost the concept of retributive justice. I remember Phil Jensen make this point some time ago at an AFES national conference. Criminals go to jail and suffer deprivation/separation from society, but there is no corporal punishment, no retribution. Kids get sent to their room without dinner and XBOX, but can't be spanked.

I, for one, am not all that fond of talking about "separation from God". It doesn't make much more sense than hell. And it's a (spatial-relational) concept that has difficulties for the doctrine of atonement as far as I'm concerned. Perhaps a better concept might be (the purely relational) "estrangement from God" (or in the bible's terms "enmity with God).  

Yep, I think you're right.. "separation from God" doesn't really make sense if we believe that God is omnipresent and involved in all of creation. We shouldn't let biblical imagery of separation from blessing lead us to believe that it equals separation from God himself. God will be present in hell, inflicting his vengeance.

God bless,
Jereth

[Jason]

Thanks Jereth for your reply. I agree with much of it.

I wonder about this though...

Jereth wrote:

What I think has happened is that, in our natural human discomfort with hell evangelicals have shifted, unconsciously, towards psychologically "easier" great divorce language with a neglect of other biblical revelation. I don't think Lewis was entirely wrong. But when that sort of language is used almost exclusively (as has been the case in my experience -- "God will give them exactly what they want: an eternity separate from Him" was a standard evangelical description for hell as far back as my days in AFES) it creates an unhelpful (and wrong) imbalance. Hell becomes entirely deprivation and no retribution, also you almost get the impression hell will somehow be desirable because it is sinners getting "exactly what they want". cf. the Bible and Jesus' teaching that hell will be intense, everlasting torment, weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Yes, it is easier to use the language of separation/divorce. Yes, it creates a very unhelpful imbalance if used exclusively (as does almost any biblical doctrine, e.g., focus on Jesus' humanity exclusively, and you end up Arian; focus on his divinity, and you end up Docetic).

But does God giving over the sinner to exactly what they want necessarily mean deprivation to the exclusion of retribution? I'm thinking of Romans 1:18-32 where God's expression of his retributive wrath is giving people over to their sinful desires and actions - giving them exactly what they want. The real problem is, that's only part of God's retributive action (as Romans 2:5-11 shows).

And I'm not so sure Philip Jensen is right to suggest that the focus in our society has landed on deprivation almost to the exclusion of retribution. You only have to hear some of the families coming out of court after sentencing to know retribution is alive and well! Also, deprivation can be a form of retribution can't it?

[Jereth]

Guy wrote:

On the topic of Spiritual warefare and the likes, are there any Anglican Churches around that run specific praise and healing services? I remember attending one a few years back, but at for instance, St Judes in Carlton run anything like that or is it all incorporated into the services provided?

Hi Guy,

I was intrigued earlier this year to hear our minister tell us about an "exorcism" he once performed on a church building. A lot of really bad stuff had happened over several years in connection with this church and it was felt that there was need to cleanse it from evil power. I suspect that the exorcism of the building itself was partly symbolic, yet at the same time it was appropriate and beneficial in the circumstances.

I've also recently heard Peter Adam relate a personal experience of an exorcism during his time as a parish minister. Creepy stuff. I think he said there is actually an Anglican prayer book procedure for exorcism.

I've seen a young woman patient recently who, on all accounts, appears demon possessed. She simply does not fit any psychiatric diagnosis as far as I can tell, nor does she respond to any therapy. It seems the medical profession simply can't help her and I wonder if she'd be the sort of person who would need a Christian exorcism. (not that I'm about to try...)

Jason wrote:

But does God giving over the sinner to exactly what they want necessarily mean deprivation to the exclusion of retribution? I'm thinking of Romans 1:18-32 where God's expression of his retributive wrath is giving people over to their sinful desires and actions - giving them exactly what they want. The real problem is, that's only part of God's retributive action (as Romans 2:5-11 shows).

Yep, I definitely agree that part of God's wrath is giving people over to sin - what they want. My issue is simply that the pendulum has (IMO) swung too far in the direction of deprivation/separation (akin to "go to your room"/"confiscate the XBOX" style of punishment), whereas the Bible talks a lot more about God's active judgment of sinners.

And I'm not so sure Philip Jensen is right to suggest that the focus in our society has landed on deprivation almost to the exclusion of retribution. You only have to hear some of the families coming out of court after sentencing to know retribution is alive and well!

Just to correct the record: I think Phil Jensen was actually contrasting retributive justice with rehabilitative "justice". Also, he did make the point that normal everyday people do still thirst after retribution (as you say!); what he was attacking was the philosophy of the ivory tower "intelligensia" (that's a real Phil Jensen word, hehe) -- namely, the university legal experts, criminologists and the like who, according to Phil, nowadays think of sentencing and jail in terms of rehabilitation rather than retribution.

cheers,
Jereth

[Tim Patrick]

[Moderator's comment]

Hey all,

This thread has shifted quite a ways from the OP. Could I suggest that if you're keen to continue it, you start a new thread with an appropriate title.

I know these things can end up with a life and direction of their own but it's helpful for future readers and visitors if the title of the thread kinda matches the content.

Thankings,

Tim

[Jenny George]

jane churchland wrote:

Guy wrote:

 are there any Anglican Churches around that run specific praise and healing services?

 There used to be specific healing services at the cathedral, wednesday nights, I think.  Our church (epiphany Hoppers crossing) has specific prayers for healing with laying on of hands at every communion service. I don't know about st judes.

St Judes' Estates congregation has regular healing services (well as "regular" as Estates ever gets!)

It's actually one of the times they connect most with the community because heaps of people on the housing flats come down and join the service because they want prayer.

[Alex M]

I know these things can end up with a life and direction of their own but it's helpful for future readers and visitors if the title of the thread kinda matches the content.

Uhhh... Tim's raised predestination! We'll have to discuss that too now!

[Bogong]

Guy wrote:

... When was the last time you preached or heard preaching on hell?

I heard a ripper on 2 Peter 2 last night at St Michael's North Carlton (a less 'conservative' church than most people on this forum attend). There was a picture of a burning lava pit on the screen during the sermon.

Most of the sermon's I hear in their evening service are full of the joy and love of Christ's message. But they occasionally throw in one reminding us of the alternative to following Christ!

[Danny Saunders]

We recently did a series on Zechariah. It was incredibly Christological and we got "hell" in there a few times towards the end, chapters 12-14. What a great book to preach on. (Incidently, in Luther's commentaries on Zechariah he leaves out chapter 14 altogether in one and says only: "I know not what the prophet speaks" in another - a warning to our post-rapture, premillenialist friends - let's not get too excited, it's not as simple as one might think listening to Chuck Missler's 66/40).  

[bryanjhickey]

Just a clarification, Danny, Chuck is a pre-trip pre-mill kinda guy. And let's be honest, he sure has got a knack for creative bible exposition :)

[Danny Saunders]

bryanjhickey wrote:

Just a clarification, Danny, Chuck is a pre-trip pre-mill kinda guy. And let's be honest, he sure has got a knack for creative bible exposition :)

Thanks Bryan, I think you'll find that's pre-trib not "pre-trip"(although I was sure he was post-trib), anyway maybe he's also post-trip, hence the creative bible exposition??