40 lashes for 75 Year Old Woman

[Strike For The South]

Can you feel the peace on your back? I'm sure she can (http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/03/09/saudi.arabia.lashes/index.html?eref=edition)

Glad to see there're moving forward as a society. :thumbsup:

[Vuk]

A society cannot move forward when an oppressive religion is holding them back. I am afraid that unless they move past islam and get rid of sharia law, things like this will continue forever.

Here (http://www.gulf-times.com/site/topics/article.asp?cu_no=2&item_no=277431&version=1&template_id=44&parent_id=24) is another really sad one. :sad:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

A society cannot move forward when an oppressive religion is holding them back. I am afraid that unless they move past islam and get rid of sharia law, things like this will continue forever.

Here (http://www.gulf-times.com/site/topics/article.asp?cu_no=2&item_no=277431&version=1&template_id=44&parent_id=24) is another really sad one. :sad:

This is also a problem in America, actually.

Islam isn't the issue, it's the jurisprudence applied, the same with Dark Age Europe or Puritan collonists.

Education and access to scripture, in its original language and form, are some of the answers to reforming a theocracy. Bemoaning the current religion is completely pointless.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

I'm glad we're funding and arming these barbarians.

[rory_20_uk]

It is the interpretation of the religion, but all religions suffer from in essence being based on events hundreds of years ago, and those that are more progressive basically try to "interpret" the in many cases clear cut statements that were made: women are less than men, gays are evil, etc etc.

~:smoking:

[LittleGrizzly]

Blanket criticism of any religion will get you nowhere... if anything such criticism makes people cling to thier religion even stronger, reform of the religion is the hope, that people will suddenly abandon religion is nothing more than an atheist fantasy.

The saudis have got to be one of our worst allies, in terms of the treatment of its own population... what should be done about saudi arabia ??

the article gives some hope though... mention of reforms near the end of the article..

[Rhyfelwyr]

This is also a problem in America, actually.

Islam isn't the issue, it's the jurisprudence applied, the same with Dark Age Europe or Puritan collonists.

Education and access to scripture, in its original language and form, are some of the answers to reforming a theocracy. Bemoaning the current religion is completely pointless.

How can you compare the Puritans to Wahhabists? They were strict and God-fearing but they never supported a theocracy in the Saudi sense (remember why they ended up in the US), and their ideals were based very much on the equality of all people (so a man can't rape a woman and the victim goes to prison). Plus any Puritan would balk at the tradition and legalism of Wahhabist practices.

And the Puritans were reformed (I don't mean Reformed, though obviously they were), because they made sure people got access to scripture.

Not a very fair comparison I think. :no:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

How can you compare the Puritans to Wahhabists? They were strict and God-fearing but they never supported a theocracy in the Saudi sense (remember why they ended up in the US), and their ideals were based very much on the equality of all people (so a man can't rape a woman and the victim goes to prison). Plus any Puritan would balk at the tradition and legalism of Wahhabist practices.

And the Puritans were reformed (I don't mean Reformed, though obviously they were), because they made sure people got access to scripture.

Not a very fair comparison I think. :no:

As far as I know most American Puritans could not read Latin, let alone Greek or Hebrew. So that isn't access to Scripture.

Generally speaking Puritans tended to try to derrive law and doctrine from translated scripture, often in a litteralistic way. They were fundamentalists who hung or burned witches.

I think it's quite apt.

[Meneldil]

Ow, that's not fair.

Burning witches is fun, and it makes Salem a great place.

[KukriKhan]

Questions:


Fahd told the policeman he had the right to be there, because Sawadi had breast-fed him as a baby and was therefore considered to be a son to her in Islam, according to Al-Watan. Fahd, 24, added that his friend Hadian was escorting him as he delivered bread for the elderly woman. The policeman then arrested both men.


... In his ruling, the judge said it was proved that Fahd is not Sawadi's son through breastfeeding.

1) Was the trouble with proving "son-ship" the failure in finding three male witnesses who saw the woman breastfeed the guy 24 years ago?

2) How should the delivery of the bread to the woman have gone, instead? Recruit some female member to deliver?


... court has sentenced a 75-year-old Syrian woman to 40 lashes

3) Does the lash-master have any discretion? Could he make a lash of 10 strings of nerf-balls to slide across her back 4 times? Or are lash details spelled out?

4) Does the Syrian government have any standing in the matter? Could they intervene for mercy? Will she face additional puishment there, upon deportation?

[Strike For The South]

Ow, that's not fair.

Burning witches is fun, and it makes Salem a great place.

Salem witch trials 1692

The lashing of 75 year old woman for having 2 unrelated men in her house 2009

Close.

[Aemilius Paulus]

How can you compare the Puritans to Wahhabists? They were strict and God-fearing but they never supported a theocracy in the Saudi sense (remember why they ended up in the US), and their ideals were based very much on the equality of all people (so a man can't rape a woman and the victim goes to prison). Plus any Puritan would balk at the tradition and legalism of Wahhabist practices.

And the Puritans were reformed (I don't mean Reformed, though obviously they were), because they made sure people got access to scripture.

Not a very fair comparison I think. :no:
I do hope you are not merely bating. Because that is what seems you are exactly doing.

The two were basically perfect comparisons. Both were ultra-conservative "purist" sects who saw themselves as beacons of hope and truth among the general "sinfulness" of the society around themselves. And while 40 lashes might seem horrific (the woman may not survive) the Puritans performed witch trials and burning, something that had no chance of survival. The trials had two outcomes: death and death. Little comfort it was to know that you were innocent while suffocating.

So, heck, in this respect, the Wahhabists are better than the Puritans. At elast they have some semblence of fair trial. Exceedingly harsh, but fair in their own twisted way. Of course, the Wahhabists are also four hundred years more modern, but that is another debate. Puritans did support theocracy. The pnly reason US did not go that way because it was flooded by hundreds of thousands other immigrants. Plymouth and Mayflower were small specs of land in an ocean of immigration.

[a completely inoffensive name]

It will end sooner or later. Saudi Arabia's days like this are numbered. Oil consumption will eventually be reduced almost to zero within our lifetimes (judging no one here is over 60). Without that money that whole peninsula's economy will collapse and they will find it difficult to maintain such a tight control over their population when they have no money any more. Its all a waiting game at this point, if you want to do something after reading stories such as this, do your hardest to reduce oil consumption and promote renewable energy. Ruining them financially will do more to undermine their backward laws and society then any invasion force. Not trying to sound radical here, but it really is the easiest and most efficient way of standing up to awful regimes like this.

[Lemur]

Not in the same league, since it doesn't involve horsewhipping, but this demonstrates that irrational punishment on religious grounds is not the exclusive province of the Muslims:

Nine-year-old girl has been raped by her stepfather (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7930380.stm) since she was six. Finally she gets pregnant with twins. If she attempts to carry them to term she will probably die. (The human body is amazing and flexible, but no nine-year-old girl is ready to bear twins.) Anyway, mom helps her procure an abortion. Bishop excommunicates mother and doctors, but not the girl.


Cardinal Re, who heads the Roman Catholic Church's Congregation for Bishops and the Pontifical Commission for Latin America, told La Stampa that the archbishop had been right to excommunicate the mother and doctors.

"It is a sad case but the real problem is that the twins conceived were two innocent persons, who had the right to live and could not be eliminated," he said.

"Life must always be protected, the attack on the Brazilian Church is unjustified."

Note: I am not trying to derail this into yet another abortion thread. I just wanted to point out that rigid adherence to religious dogma is a universal danger.

[Major Robert Dump]

Excommunication is a bigger deal in MTW2 than in real life. It's almost like a gift these days, now you have an excuse to change religions

[Lemur]

The Catholics I know in RL wouldn't be the least bit happy about it.

[Aemilius Paulus]

Wow, Lemur. I never thought something like this happened these days. Vatican sure tries hard to earn its bad publicity. First the Holocaust deniers and now this... There is always some sort of scandal around them.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05678a.htm

Excomunication is a very serious thing however:

1. It is a medicinal punishment, which should be lifted as soon as the excomunicated person makes reparation and seeks Absolution.

2. It does not prevent the administering of Extreme Unction, so that the penitant's soul is not placed in peril.

So, MRD, not a reason to change religion.

As usual, however, the British press presents this as some great cursing and casting out.

[KukriKhan]

I've been technically excommunicated since 1972.

The pope answers none of my letters.

I'm crushed.

(and damned?)

[Lemur]

I've been technically excommunicated since 1972.
Is that like being a little bit pregnant?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I've been technically excommunicated since 1972.

The pope answers none of my letters.

I'm crushed.

(and damned?)

Uh really?

As I understand it (and that's not fully) you aren't damned, unless you've been convicted of heresy.

[KukriKhan]

Is that like being a little bit pregnant?

I guess so. The facts remain static, but the judgment prevails.

I am doomed to hllfire. No one should listen to me.

[LittleGrizzly]

The cat was dead anyway so i may as well ask... why ?

Incase you didn't guess that is directed at Kurki's excommunication...

[KukriKhan]

The cat was dead anyway so i may as well ask... why ?

Incase you didn't guess that is directed at Kurki's excommunication...

Married outside the Church (a Dutch Reformed girl), then (gasp!) divorced, then married again outside the Church (a Baptist), then divorced, then married a reformed Morman girl - all whilst professing a dis-inclination to believe a need for Savior-ism, in writing, to Rome.

Either I am :a:an excommunicated fornicating apostate, or :b:an insignificant single dude who has never been officially married. Rome says :a:, sez Padre Julio, my local priest (and I agree).

Weird how ex-commun-ication happens more on married stuff than theological stuff, huh?

[Crazed Rabbit]

As far as I know most American Puritans could not read Latin, let alone Greek or Hebrew. So that isn't access to Scripture.

I rather think you're mistaken. The Puritans used English bibles (Geneva and King James Version), of course, because Latin was the language of the Roman Catholic Church. You have heard of the big protestant religious struggle, right? The Reformation?


Generally speaking Puritans tended to try to derrive law and doctrine from translated scripture, often in a litteralistic way. They were fundamentalists who hung or burned witches.

I think it's quite apt.

Really? How often did they do that?

Now, in your first post you said:

This is also a problem in America, actually.

Which of course it is not and has never been on the same scale as Saudi Arabia and only existed as a small problem before America, as a country, was ever formed! That statement is completely wrong.


Not in the same league, since it doesn't involve horsewhipping,

Or any physical punishment at all. It doesn't deserve mentioning in the same thread.

This isn't a barbaric punishment; that's an insult to barbarians. It's an inhuman punishment, for both the woman and the men.

CR

[Diana Abnoba]

I think that it is disgusting. Why? They were not doing anything wrong. But a very strict, rigid, and insane interpretation of scriptures, which most sane people seem to think are open to more liberal interpretation, has led people to override their own judgment and minds, and conform to authoritarianism.

Blind following of any sort of rule negates the possibility of morality.

[CountArach]

Disgusting. Utterly disgusting and morally unjustifiable.

[Major Robert Dump]

The Catholics I know in RL wouldn't be the least bit happy about it.

well they didn't find dead babies buried in their church basement I'm sure. Not yet, at least.

[Fragony]

It's culture, they have it, you just got to respect that. If anything imho this calls for intercultural dialogue, we can really learn from eachother.

[Xiahou]

Married outside the Church (a Dutch Reformed girl), then (gasp!) divorced, then married again outside the Church (a Baptist), then divorced, then married a reformed Morman girl - all whilst professing a dis-inclination to believe a need for Savior-ism, in writing, to Rome.

Either I am :a:an excommunicated fornicating apostate, or :b:an insignificant single dude who has never been officially married. Rome says :a:, sez Padre Julio, my local priest (and I agree).

Weird how ex-commun-ication happens more on married stuff than theological stuff, huh?

What did they send you a letter? I don't know all the rules, but marriages to non-Catholics are often considered non-sacramental in nature. You can't receive the sacrament of marriage more than once(unless a spouse dies), but if you never received it in the first place.... :shrug:

I guess, I'm just wondering how you know that you're excommunicated....

[naut]

It's culture, they have it, you just got to respect that. If anything imho this calls for intercultural dialogue, we can really learn from eachother.
:beam:

[rasoforos]

It does not matter whose religion is worse.

Humans have a built-in sense of what is right and what not. Both mentioned cases, the Islamic and the Catholic one, are wrong.

Religion manages to mess up with our inate sence of justice and leads to such barbaric acts...

[naut]

Religion manages to mess up with our inate sence of justice and leads to such barbaric acts...
I'd say it's not religion; it's ideology as a whole or more precisely the fact that such things tend to remove our own personal responsibility for such acts through the notion that a higher power has taken authority and will be accountable. Thus we are freed from the burden of culpability and morally are satisfied, regardless of how barbaric the act may actually be.

[/Ramble, Ramble, Ramble, Waffle, Waffle, Waffle]

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I rather think you're mistaken. The Puritans used English bibles (Geneva and King James Version), of course, because Latin was the language of the Roman Catholic Church. You have heard of the big protestant religious struggle, right? The Reformation?

The Geneva and KJV largely follow the Latin, not the Greek so much. Anyway, you siezed on that and ignored my larger point. No Gree or Hebrew, ergo no direct access to scripture.


Really? How often did they do that?

About as often as English Puritans, probably. Salem is just the worst example, the fact that the judges gave such credence to wide-ranging and absurd accusations says a lot.


Which of course it is not and has never been on the same scale as Saudi Arabia and only existed as a small problem before America, as a country, was ever formed! That statement is completely wrong.

Are you sure? One of the problems Obama had was the charge that he was not a Christian and he had to plug into the Black Church community in Chicago to get elected. Religion is big buisness in America, it has determined the election of the last two presidents at least.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Sorry if this discussion on Puritanism seems off topic, I'll leave it up to the mods if they think it deserves a thread of its own.


As far as I know most American Puritans could not read Latin, let alone Greek or Hebrew. So that isn't access to Scripture.

I don't know why you would not consider an English Bible to express the scipture effectively. In any case, the Reformed doctrines which the Puritans followed were created by theologians who could read Greek and Hebrew perfectly well. While checking the meaning of a word in Greek here or there can be helpful when seeking to understand a passage, I cannot think of one mainstream Protestant doctrine which could not be derived either from an English or Hebrew/Greek translation.


Generally speaking Puritans tended to try to derrive law and doctrine from translated scripture, often in a litteralistic way. They were fundamentalists who hung or burned witches.

I think it's quite apt.

Which mainstream branch of Christianity did not burn witches? Puritanism outlasted the witch-burning craze just as any other denomination did.


I do hope you are not merely bating. Because that is what seems you are exactly doing.

Well I was just responding to a point someone made.


The two were basically perfect comparisons. Both were ultra-conservative "purist" sects who saw themselves as beacons of hope and truth among the general "sinfulness" of the society around themselves. And while 40 lashes might seem horrific (the woman may not survive) the Puritans performed witch trials and burning, something that had no chance of survival. The trials had two outcomes: death and death. Little comfort it was to know that you were innocent while suffocating.

Puritans were not 'conservative', they were really pretty radical, and made religion something that every individual can participate in equally. Also, the Puritans didn't see themselves as a beacon of light in a sea of sin, if anything they were harder on themselves than any non-Christians, that's why they became so puritanical in the first place. The idea of not judging non-believers, but at the same time judging each other to ensure they were working out their own salvation, was pretty central to their beliefs. And again, the witch hunts were carried out by all branches of Christianity. The more sober Puritans were more condemning of such supersitious practices.


So, heck, in this respect, the Wahhabists are better than the Puritans. At elast they have some semblence of fair trial. Exceedingly harsh, but fair in their own twisted way. Of course, the Wahhabists are also four hundred years more modern, but that is another debate. Puritans did support theocracy. The pnly reason US did not go that way because it was flooded by hundreds of thousands other immigrants. Plymouth and Mayflower were small specs of land in an ocean of immigration.

The Puritans did not support a theocracy, they believed in the seperation of church and state, although they thought that both had their role in society. Certainly, they would not enforce Beliefs as the Wahhabists do, neither would they be irresponsible as Christians in allowing any belief to go unchecked (see my sig). Also, the Pilgrims that went to New Plymouth were not Puritans, nor were they recognise as such at the time, as unlike the Puritans, they refused to take part in the Anglicanised Church of England in the wake of the Restoration in 1660, hence their fleeing to America.

[rory_20_uk]

Anyone that views a book that had more excluded from than included, was finalised hundreds of years after the event and hasn't added any new information that has been found over the years is highly suspect where reliability is concered. The apocrypha is many times longer than what is included. And even this is miniscule considering the levels of literacy at the times being addressed and the spread of Christianity from the Middle East to first Italy and then further afield.

Of the 12 apostles we have 3 books under their names, and one compilation. Far more time is spent pandering to St Paul's ego with the letters than anything approaching contemporary works.

It is a good insight into seeing what the Roman Emperors wanted to be known, but little more.

~:smoking:

[rvg]

:whip: :whip: :whip:

Whip it! Whip it Good! Whip it! Whip it Good!

:whip:

[Fragony]

Religion is a factor of course but what we have here is a (religiously inspired) juridical system in a society with laws that are highly unfair towards women.

[rasoforos]

I don't know why you would not consider an English Bible to express the scipture effectively. In any case, the Reformed doctrines which the Puritans followed were created by theologians who could read Greek and Hebrew perfectly well. While checking the meaning of a word in Greek here or there can be helpful when seeking to understand a passage, I cannot think of one mainstream Protestant doctrine which could not be derived either from an English or Hebrew/Greek translation.





As a Greek speaker let me tell you one thing...

...not only have they not translated it properly (i.e word for word) but you can even see phrases added and missing allover the place. The New Testament translations are pretty much worse than the subtitles you find in an illegal Chinese made movie DVD...

[Seamus Fermanagh]

What did they send you a letter? I don't know all the rules, but marriages to non-Catholics are often considered non-sacramental in nature. You can't receive the sacrament of marriage more than once(unless a spouse dies), but if you never received it in the first place.... :shrug:

I guess, I'm just wondering how you know that you're excommunicated....

He's not excommunicated unless this formal step was taken by the church. By removing himself from communion with the church, he has initiated a state of de facto excommunication by choice.

He is most probably an apostate, possibly a heretic as well depending on adherence to a non-sanctioned doctrine or the specific denunciation of some accepted doctrine.

Also, Kukri seems to be a standup fellow with whom I'd enjoy the chance to chat whilst consuming an adult beverage.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

As a Greek speaker let me tell you one thing...

...not only have they not translated it properly (i.e word for word) but you can even see phrases added and missing allover the place. The New Testament translations are pretty much worse than the subtitles you find in an illegal Chinese made movie DVD...

You speak Greek like they did in 70 AD? Must be hard for you in everyday communication...

[Fragony]

You speak Greek like they did in 70 AD? Must be hard for you in everyday communication...

On tops the writer of the english Bible could speak ancient Greek as well as Hebrew, he was a converted jew if I am not mistaken. Edit, nope. William Tyndale, not a converted jew but proficient in the old languages including hebrew, not that hebrew matters for the new testament, nor Greece.

[Crazed Rabbit]

It is a good insight into seeing what the Roman Emperors wanted to be known, but little more.

Ah, more incorrect smugness.


The Geneva and KJV largely follow the Latin, not the Greek so much. Anyway, you siezed on that and ignored my larger point. No Gree or Hebrew, ergo no direct access to scripture.

Oh please. The differences are not so great that the people didn't have access to the scripture.



About as often as English Puritans, probably.

So you're just assuming here? And that's supposed to be the foundation for your argument?


Are you sure? One of the problems Obama had was the charge that he was not a Christian and he had to plug into the Black Church community in Chicago to get elected. Religion is big buisness in America, it has determined the election of the last two presidents at least.

You're comparing our tendency to elect Christians to whipping a 75 year old woman for getting bread delivered by a man?

What crazy, moral relativist world are you coming from? How could those things be compared?

It always amazes me the lengths moral relativists will go to.


Also, Kukri seems to be a standup fellow with whom I'd enjoy the chance to chat whilst consuming an adult beverage.

And adult beverage, eh?

https://img136.imageshack.us/img136/9527/118401663500665full.jpg

Sorry :sweatdrop:

CR

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

I decided I wasn't going to point out my doubts about rasforos being a biblical scholar. Didn't seem fair.

[LittleGrizzly]

You speak Greek like they did in 70 AD? Must be hard for you in everyday communication...

You wouldn't be able to read english from 70 AD ?

Sure its changed a bit but with a little knowledge im sure people could make something out of it...

Ah, more incorrect smugness.

Was it not Constantine who held the (forgetting the right word) 'convention' at nicea ?

[Rhyfelwyr]

It is a good insight into seeing what the Roman Emperors wanted to be known, but little more.

Like when the Roman Catholic Church only officially incorported 12 of the apocryphal books at the Council of Trent in 1546 because they backed up their teachings?

Before then, those apocryphal books were usually printed in Catholic Bibles (as with the early KJVs), but in a seperate section from the OT and NT, and were not considered useful for doctrine.

[rvg]

You speak Greek like they did in 70 AD? Must be hard for you in everyday communication...

You wouldn't be able to read english from 70 AD ?


Nope. Especially considering that English did not exist at that time. Don't need to go that far though, just try reading Chaucer in his original writing. Late 14th century.

[Fragony]

Was it not Constantine who held the (forgetting the right word) 'convention' at nicea ?

Council. What about it.

[LittleGrizzly]

Nope. Especially considering that English did not exist at that time.

I suspected as much... point stands all the same...

Don't need to go that far though, just try reading Chaucer in his original writing. Late 14th century

I have seen some fairly old texts in english and it seemed mostly readable with a little knowledge, now ill admit im not sure when these works date from....

Council.

I was so close with convention! thanks.

What about it.

It shows a roman emporer having a big influence in the construction of the bible..

[rasoforos]

You speak Greek like they did in 70 AD? Must be hard for you in everyday communication...

You will be surprised how little Hellenistic Greek differs from modern Greek...

The Greek language has very good continuity so anyone with a good enough vocabulary and knowledge of the slightly different grammatical rules can read the New Testament. Classical Greek and Homeric Greek are a different story though.

So yes I can read it from the prototype.

And it is very different from the English translations. You can accept it or you can not accept it but I would appreciate it if you were not trying to be ironic.


Must be hard for you in everyday communication...

Hmmm bait...pass.

[Fragony]

It shows a roman emporer having a big influence in the construction of the bible..

Did little to the bible only church hyrarchy.

edit: that is total bull shame on me

[InsaneApache]

You speak Greek like they did in 70 AD? Must be hard for you in everyday communication...

My dad, who lives in Greece, can read ancient Greek writing. AFAIK the alphabet has changed marginally since ancient times. One or two extra letters added and others in which the pronuniation had changed. So yes, modern Greeks can read and talk, more or less, as they did when Jesus was a lad.

Hope that helped clear things up for you.

[Rhyfelwyr]

What doctrine interpreted through the KJV does not stand in the Greek translations?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Ok, look there's a lot of mis-information going on here.

Firstly, Constantine did not influence the formation of the Bible himself, Nicea was concerned with doctrinal matters and the Old Latin Bible was already in existence. With that said, the first systematic expression of canon which was accepted universally was the Vulgate. This is why I mentioned Latin, the decisions of canon and attendent arguements are recorded in Latin.

As far as translation goes, any translation is a misrepresentation. So you cannot derrive doctrine from a translation. You can read it, but you can't do serious theology with it.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

What doctrine interpreted through the KJV does not stand in the Greek translations?

It doesn't matter, though many of the passages on homosexuality etc. are corrupt. The text itself was produced from what are now known to be faulty manuscripts and is also corrupt in that way.

Consider one example, the difference between WORD and LOGOS.

[rvg]

As far as translation goes, any translation is a misrepresentation. So you cannot derrive doctrine from a translation. You can read it, but you can't do serious theology with it.

Are you implying that God's word is so shallow that it can only be properly expressed in one language?

[rasoforos]

What doctrine interpreted through the KJV does not stand in the Greek translations?

One small example I unearthed really quick messing up with Revelations. The last verse reads:

'The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.'

Now look at the prototype:

'Ἡ χάρις τοῦ Κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ μετὰ πάντων τῶν ἁγίων· ἀμήν.'


The grace of Lord Jesus Christ with all the saints, amen. <--- Direct translation word by word

Now you can see that, even if you translate saints as 'the christians' or 'the faithful' (and that is fine since the word 'αγιος' did not have the meaning it used to) the verse is quite badly, and not word to word, translated.


I also had a look at the translation of certain protestant denominations in Greek and surprise surprise they even deleted 'αγιων' from the ancient text. A bit off topic

Considering that verses 22:18 and 22:19 are copyright notices sentencing to eternal damnation whoever adds or removes words from the book then you can see that something is amiss here. I will be the Devil's advocate here and think that the word was omitted to comply with the protestant view about saints.

There are other discrepancies that you can find online but I do not want to plagiarize.

[rvg]

One small example I unearthed really quick messing up with Revelations. The last verse reads:

'The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.'

Now look at the prototype:

'Ἡ χάρις τοῦ Κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ μετὰ πάντων τῶν ἁγίων· ἀμήν.'


The grace of Lord Jesus Christ with all the saints, amen. <--- Direct translation word by word

Now you can see that, even if you translate saints as 'the christians' or 'the faithful' (and that is fine since the word 'αγιος' did not have the meaning it used to) the verse is quite badly, and not word to word, translated.


I also had a look at the translation of certain protestant denominations in Greek and surprise surprise they even deleted 'αγιων' from the ancient text. A bit off topic

Considering that verses 22:18 and 22:19 are copyright notices sentencing to eternal damnation whoever adds or removes words from the book then you can see that something is amiss here. I will be the Devil's advocate here and think that the word was omitted to comply with the protestant view about saints.

There are other discrepancies that you can find online but I do not want to plagiarize.

Are those discrepancies present in the Latin translation?

[rasoforos]

Sorry but I cannot speak Latin :no:

[Rhyfelwyr]

One small example I unearthed really quick messing up with Revelations. The last verse reads:

'The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.'

Now look at the prototype:

'Ἡ χάρις τοῦ Κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ μετὰ πάντων τῶν ἁγίων· ἀμήν.'


The grace of Lord Jesus Christ with all the saints, amen. <--- Direct translation word by word

Now you can see that, even if you translate saints as 'the christians' or 'the faithful' (and that is fine since the word 'αγιος' did not have the meaning it used to) the verse is quite badly, and not word to word, translated.

I also had a look at the translation of certain protestant denominations in Greek and surprise surprise they even deleted 'αγιων' from the ancient text. A bit off topic

It is odd that a Protestant denomination would do that, since the literal translation is much more Calvinistic (and the message is more consistent with the rest of the scripture). What denomination removed the Greek word?


Considering that verses 22:18 and 22:19 are copyright notices sentencing to eternal damnation whoever adds or removes words from the book then you can see that something is amiss here. I will be the Devil's advocate here and think that the word was omitted to comply with the protestant view about saints.

There are other discrepancies that you can find online but I do not want to plagiarize.

When it says 'book', is it not referring to the book of Revelation as a whole? That is one argument used by the churches which use the apocrypha, and they are correct in that sense. Although I still believe the apocrypha are not divinely inspired. As I said, both Protestants and Catholics acknowledged the apocrypha, they were just polarised after Trent, eithering incorporating them more fully or removing them completely.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

You speak Greek like they did in 70 AD? Must be hard for you in everyday communication...

You wouldn't be able to read english from 70 AD ?

Not at all. It's trying to read english from 1500 AD. Hence my assumption about Greek.

Sorry for making an ass out myself on that count. I still would like to see what a bible scholar/translator would have to say about any specific issues rasforos has.

[rasoforos]

It is odd that a Protestant denomination would do that, since the literal translation is much more Calvinistic (and the message is more consistent with the rest of the scripture). What denomination removed the Greek word?



The page belongs to the Apostolic Pentecostal Church.

Firstly I apologise if some of the information is inacurate because I do not know a lot about protestant christianity. If the said church is not protestant then please accept my apologies.

This is the link http://www.christianity.gr/apokalypsis/index.php?kefalaio=22

You can scroll down and see that the verse '21' under 'αρχαιο κειμενο' = 'ancient text' says:

Η χάρις τοῦ κυρίου ᾽Ιησοῦ μετὰ πάντων.

This is false. The ancient text says, as we mentioned:

Ἡ χάρις τοῦ Κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ μετὰ πάντων τῶν ἁγίων· ἀμήν.


So we have an intentional change in the original by omitting part of the final verse.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Are you implying that God's word is so shallow that it can only be properly expressed in one language?

No, I'm quite explicitely saying there is no one near competant enough to produce the translation.


Are those discrepancies present in the Latin translation?

I believe that particular one originates with Jerome. Early Protestants essentially tried to Ape the Vulgate quite a lot. So you can add "flawed method" to "bad sources".

This is why Greek and Hebrew are necessary for serious theological courses.

[Rhyfelwyr]

The page belongs to the Apostolic Pentecostal Church.

Any church with 'Apostolic' in its name is probably not that likely to reflect the views of mainstream Protestants. Since Apostolic usually equates to Episcopal (although not always), it tends to mean Catholicism without the Pope.

Also the Pentecostals are quite an unorthodox bunch. And they make a very strange combination alongside the apostolic tradition. :shrug:


I believe that particular one originates with Jerome. Early Protestants essentially tried to Ape the Vulgate quite a lot. So you can add "flawed method" to "bad sources".

This is why Greek and Hebrew are necessary for serious theological courses.

Calvin used Greek and yet the 5 points of TULIP are all evident within the KJV. Similarly you could teach Catholic doctrines with a KJV, or Orthodox doctrines, or liberal doctrines, or any doctrine you want, just as surely as you could do it with a Latin or Greek translation.

I have yet to see any doctrine interpreted through a KJV to be proven inconsistent with other translations.

Looking into the original Greek/Hebrew words can help clarify minor points of detail (there are some gems supporting the Trinity for example), but I really don't think it is necessary to understand either the message of the Bible, or any broad Biblical outlook.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Any church with 'Apostolic' in its name is probably not that likely to reflect the views of mainstream Protestants. Since Apostolic usually equates to Episcopal (although not always), it tends to mean Catholicism without the Pope.

Actually, all the largest Protestant Churches are Episcopalian. Consider, the largest denomination in the world after Catholicism and Orthodoxy is Anglicanism. Also, "Catholicism without the Pope" is very different to "with the Pope".

Catholic religion is hardly something to be sniffed at, and it is much better than a lot of the Christian alternatives. Unless you prefer Phelps.


Also the Pentecostals are quite an unorthodox bunch. And they make a very strange combination alongside the apostolic tradition. :shrug:

Which is, frankly, putting is mildly. I'm not going to discount visions and profecies any more than the ability to cause a man to a explode by pointing and cursing him. I'll even buy into demons and witchcraft, but not that often.


Calvin used Greek and yet the 5 points of TULIP are all evident within the KJV. Similarly you could teach Catholic doctrines with a KJV, or Orthodox doctrines, or liberal doctrines, or any doctrine you want, just as surely as you could do it with a Latin or Greek translation.

You mean the five sola's? The KJV was explicitely written to confirm them, part of the problem.


I have yet to see any doctrine interpreted through a KJV to be proven inconsistent with other translations.

Looking into the original Greek/Hebrew words can help clarify minor points of detail (there are some gems supporting the Trinity for example), but I really don't think it is necessary to understand either the message of the Bible, or any broad Biblical outlook.

You're missing the point, when you translate something you inflict your prejudices upon it. Therefore no translation is safe. As I said, a WORD is not the same as a LOGOS. In order to read the Bible as it was intended you need to learn and inhabit it's text, the same as anything else. Demanding that it conform to you is a bit much if you think it's infallable.

[Major Robert Dump]

Am I the only one here who thinks she deserves it?

[rvg]

Am I the only one here who thinks she deserves it?

Hmm... Tough call. On one hand she's clearly guilty of being a moron and not following the laws of the country she was visiting, after all, when in Rome.... On the other hand, she's 75 and 40 lashes might kill her. Death sentence for mingling would be harsh even by Saudi standards.

[Major Robert Dump]

She was obviously trying to score some young sausage and those guys obviously have a thing for baseballs in socks. I bet the breastfeeding part happened when he was 15.

Those laws are in place for a reason, they are tried and tested and true. If it weren't for such social regulation, most places in the Middle East would be backwards, oppressed, hungry and uneducated.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Actually, all the largest Protestant Churches are Episcopalian. Consider, the largest denomination in the world after Catholicism and Orthodoxy is Anglicanism. Also, "Catholicism without the Pope" is very different to "with the Pope".

Catholic religion is hardly something to be sniffed at, and it is much better than a lot of the Christian alternatives. Unless you prefer Phelps.

Largely due to the fact that the Reformed churches tend to fragment much more, so no one denomination can claim to have a large membership. I would consider the Anglican Church to be no more than a rival Papacy, since it effectively stuck the king in place of the Pope. And I agree the Catholic Church is not to be sniffed at. It's a real enigma for me, because on the one hand it is Christian and can spread the message of salvation, on the other hand it doesn't do this as effectively as other churches, and I believe that it will be the harlot church of revelation. This isn't a particularly anti-Catholic view, since many of the early Christian writers accepted that Rome fitted the bill for the future apostasy within the church.

Suggesting Phelps is the only alternative to the apostolic churches is quite unfair. :no:


Which is, frankly, putting is mildly. I'm not going to discount visions and profecies any more than the ability to cause a man to a explode by pointing and cursing him. I'll even buy into demons and witchcraft, but not that often.

Same, I think we agree its sounds pretty dodgy.


You mean the five sola's? The KJV was explicitely written to confirm them, part of the problem.

I was referring TULIP (total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistable grace, perseverance of the saints). And the monarchy at the time was not favourable to the Puritans and their Calvinist views.


You're missing the point, when you translate something you inflict your prejudices upon it. Therefore no translation is safe. As I said, a WORD is not the same as a LOGOS. In order to read the Bible as it was intended you need to learn and inhabit it's text, the same as anything else. Demanding that it conform to you is a bit much if you think it's infallable.

I know, like Jeremiah 31:33 says, the law of the New Covenant is written on our hearts, not tablets of stone at with the Old Covenant (nor is the New Covenant simply written in the hearts of the Bishops of the apostolic tradition, so I don't need their opinions to create doctrine thank you very much). I accept your point that the word is open to interpretation when we come to translate it, but I still challenge you to disprove the accuracy of the teaching of any Calvinist or Reformed doctrine through the Greek translation.

IMO the English is perfectly adequate for conveying the message of the Bible, any theologian worth the name would know to check up on the original Greek/Hebrew versions before establishing a major doctrine. I do not think this is a sufficient reason to deny the average person the word of God, and place all the power in a select priesthood, we know where that led to before...

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Hmm... Tough call. On one hand she's clearly guilty of being a moron and not following the laws of the country she was visiting, after all, when in Rome....
I know MRD is channeling Swift, but I can't tell with you...

[rvg]

I know MRD is channeling Swift, but I can't tell with you...

I thought I was quite clear. A law might be dumb, but it's still a law.

[rvg]

It's a real enigma for me, because on the one hand it is Christian and can spread the message of salvation, on the other hand it doesn't do this as effectively as other churches, and I believe that it will be the harlot church of revelation. This isn't a particularly anti-Catholic view, since many of the early Christian writers accepted that Rome fitted the bill for the future apostasy within the church....

And Luther was a drunk, a heretic, and an antisemite. This isn't a particularly anti-Protestant view, but merely a a historically accurate statement.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

She was having bread delivered to her.

Presumably for sustenance, and not to complement the young sausage.

Are you saying that she should starve to avoid 40 lashes? Furthermore, since she's a Syrian native, is it possible that she was ignorant of how the ridiculously complex Wahhabist nonsense works?

As a side note, I vote we test the weapons systems we sell to the Saudis on their religious police.

[rvg]

She was having bread delivered to her.

Presumably for sustenance, and not to complement the young sausage.

Are you saying that she should starve to avoid 40 lashes? Furthermore, since she's a Syrian native, is it possible that she was ignorant of how the ridiculously complex Wahhabist nonsense works?

As a side note, I vote we test the weapons systems we sell to the Saudis on their religious police.

Don't get me wrong, I sympathize with her. Wahhabist ideology is sickening, their methods are an insult to any sensible human being, however, Saudi Arabia is *their* country and they can run it whichever way they want. If they try to impose their ways on other countries, THAT is where I would see a problem. The way it is, I cannot dictate to them how they should and should not live.

[Rhyfelwyr]

And Luther was a drunk, a heretic, and an antisemite. This isn't a particularly anti-Protestant view, but merely a a historically accurate statement.

All true to an extent, although the heretic bit is more personal opinion I would say. Luther really didn't like Calvin for what its worth, although Calvin said "If Luther a thousand times calles me a devil, I will ever acknowledge him to be an industrious servant of God"

Calvinism has spent too long on the defensive and its reflected in the churches today, for all the talk of anti-Catholicism, Calvinists have always shown a respect to other denominations within the bounds of Christianity that is rarely shown in return.

[rvg]

Luther really didn't like Calvin for what its worth, although Calvin said "If Luther a thousand times calles me a devil, I will ever acknowledge him to be an industrious servant of God".


Without Luther there would be no Calvin. It all stems from Luther.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Without Luther there would be no Calvin. It all stems from Luther.

And credit to him for it, he did great work for the Christian faith! But he would have identified more closely with Catholicism than Calvinism.

[rvg]

And credit to him for it, he did great work for the Christian faith! But he would have identified more closely with Catholicism than Calvinism.

If schism and discord is "great work", then yes.

[Rhyfelwyr]

If schism and discord is "great work", then yes.

He didn't just cause a schism out of badness. Calvin devoted his life to freeing the scripture from past traditions and superstitions, to the point he lived in a constant state of mental and phyiscal exhaustion. He actually did work hard to reconcile with Luther, through the work of Melancthon, who both Calvin and Luther respected. Unfortunately, Luther was a bit crude at the discussions table, in fact he went so far as to scrawl scriptural verses all over it when Calvin tried to explain his viewpoint on the eucharist to him.

So yes, I believe Calvin served the Christian cause very well, and tried to work as well as he could with fellow Christians, while remaining true to his beliefs.

EDIT: Wait, I think you mean Luther. He also worked hard to reconcile with the Papacy, unlike Calvin he merely viewed himself as reforming it. He wasn't so keen to work with Calvin though. I'm guessing you are Catholic so probably you would agree with him in this respect.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Don't get me wrong, I sympathize with her. Wahhabist ideology is sickening, their methods are an insult to any sensible human being, however, Saudi Arabia is *their* country and they can run it whichever way they want. If they try to impose their ways on other countries, THAT is where I would see a problem. The way it is, I cannot dictate to them how they should and should not live.

So you're a 'let the genocide happen' kind of guy, as long as it stays strictly in-country?

I'm sorry, but I don't think we can get a moral pass for letting injustice happen without doing anything just because they're in a different country.

CR

[rvg]

So you're a 'let the genocide happen' kind of guy, as long as it stays strictly in-country?

I'm sorry, but I don't think we can get a moral pass for letting injustice happen without doing anything just because they're in a different country.

CR

Not at all. The difference between Wahhabism and Genocide is that Wahhabism is a set of rules and however idiotic those rules might be, as long as you follow them the powers that be will leave you alone. There is no set of rules in genocide. Jews can't stop being Jewish, Tutsis can't stop being Tutsi, Armenians and Assyrians can't stop being Armenian and Assyrian. So, it's a big difference.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Largely due to the fact that the Reformed churches tend to fragment much more, so no one denomination can claim to have a large membership. I would consider the Anglican Church to be no more than a rival Papacy, since it effectively stuck the king in place of the Pope.

Not theologically correct, as historically the King controlled appointments, a power the Pope appropriated (arguably unconstitutionally) in the 11th Century. If you remove the Pope then the Church automatically becomes an arm of the state, given that European monarchies are theocratic. The King, however, is not theologically equivilant to the Pope, nor is the Primate of Britain.


And I agree the Catholic Church is not to be sniffed at. It's a real enigma for me, because on the one hand it is Christian and can spread the message of salvation, on the other hand it doesn't do this as effectively as other churches, and I believe that it will be the harlot church of revelation. This isn't a particularly anti-Catholic view, since many of the early Christian writers accepted that Rome fitted the bill for the future apostasy within the church.

Many of the most considered and philosophical Christians I have met have been Catholics, Anglicans, Methodists and similar denominations. I have not many Evangelical Christians of the same stamp, those that are usually from clerical families.


Suggesting Phelps is the only alternative to the apostolic churches is quite unfair. :no:

He is a direct result of a relaxed attitude to Church governance.


I was referring TULIP (total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistable grace, perseverance of the saints). And the monarchy at the time was not favourable to the Puritans and their Calvinist views.

The Elizabethan and Jacobean Monarchies were Calvinist Episcopalians. A predeterministic theology helps to support an oppressive regime.


I know, like Jeremiah 31:33 says, the law of the New Covenant is written on our hearts, not tablets of stone at with the Old Covenant (nor is the New Covenant simply written in the hearts of the Bishops of the apostolic tradition, so I don't need their opinions to create doctrine thank you very much). I accept your point that the word is open to interpretation when we come to translate it, but I still challenge you to disprove the accuracy of the teaching of any Calvinist or Reformed doctrine through the Greek translation.

A Bishops will have devoted 20+ years of his life to ministry before investiture, his education, bredth of knowledge and vocation invarriable make him far better to pronounce on theological issues than a member of his congregation. The Bishop here is a sensetive man who is widely read and an excellant preacher. His Dean is cut from a similar mold. If you do not have such men who devote their lives to the Chruch, you are in a sorry state; if you have them and ignore them you are worse.


IMO the English is perfectly adequate for conveying the message of the Bible, any theologian worth the name would know to check up on the original Greek/Hebrew versions before establishing a major doctrine. I do not think this is a sufficient reason to deny the average person the word of God, and place all the power in a select priesthood, we know where that led to before...

This assumes that the congregation do not require direct access to scripture, at that point you have talked yourself into Catholicism circa 1350.


All true to an extent, although the heretic bit is more personal opinion I would say. Luther really didn't like Calvin for what its worth, although Calvin said "If Luther a thousand times calles me a devil, I will ever acknowledge him to be an industrious servant of God"

Calvinism has spent too long on the defensive and its reflected in the churches today, for all the talk of anti-Catholicism, Calvinists have always shown a respect to other denominations within the bounds of Christianity that is rarely shown in return.

You have not shown a great respect for Catholics here, have you?


Without Luther there would be no Calvin. It all stems from Luther.

Actually, Luther followed Huss, and Huss followed Wyclif.

John Wyclif was the first to challenge transubstantiation, argue for the translation of scripture and for the circumscribing of Papal power. His teaching was condemned at Blackfriars in 1382. After the Law of Burning was passed in 1407 he was condemned a heretic and his bones were dug up and burned.

Significantly, during his lifetime he was only banned from Oxford and retained his rural benefice, to which he retired.

[A Terribly Harmful Name]

The view that such absurdities that can happen as long as it's their country is very pragmatic and one I agree with. Above all Saudi Arabia is an important oil provider and allied to the US in the region, so interfering with their fanatical lunacy as some kind of world policeman will do no good for either parties or the whole world for the matter. The last thing we need is to cut down essential energy sources merely because of our sensibilities.

And I'm curious on how this religious discussion sprung up :inquisitive:.

EDIT - I'm surprised at some of the statements here. First, Philipvs, the only true example of oppressive regime in this period would have to be Spain. Second, Catholics are not the anti-christ, although their own hierarchy and their persistent interference in secular matters means they are far more prone to corruption than other denominations. Clerical Celibacy, in fact, one of the many non-Scriptural institutions of this Church, can be ascerted as one of the causes of the frequent sexual scandals involving Catholic priests.

That said the Catholics I've met are usually more moderate than the Evangelical rabble I had to deal with more than once.

[Strike For The South]

Don't get me wrong, I sympathize with her. Wahhabist ideology is sickening, their methods are an insult to any sensible human being, however, Saudi Arabia is *their* country and they can run it whichever way they want. If they try to impose their ways on other countries, THAT is where I would see a problem. The way it is, I cannot dictate to them how they should and should not live.

I don't want to change there laws. I agree if you go to SA you need to abide by there laws. I posted this here so we could talk about how much better we are than the Saudis!

[Rhyfelwyr]

Not theologically correct, as historically the King controlled appointments, a power the Pope appropriated (arguably unconstitutionally) in the 11th Century. If you remove the Pope then the Church automatically becomes an arm of the state, given that European monarchies are theocratic. The King, however, is not theologically equivilant to the Pope, nor is the Primate of Britain.

Not necessarily, look at the nationalised churches under the absolutist monarchs.


Many of the most considered and philosophical Christians I have met have been Catholics, Anglicans, Methodists and similar denominations. I have not many Evangelical Christians of the same stamp, those that are usually from clerical families.

Well the only Christians I've met who have any knowledge of the scripture (in English) are from the Reformed branch of Christianity, often the smaller sects. For example, I have a friend who is a Reformed Baptist, and a relative in the Plymouth Brethren, both are much more evangelical and theologically learned than any one else I've met in RL. Similarly, on the Christian forums I frequent, usually people will state how they have free will because they think they do, before a Calvinist actually refutes them with scripture,.


He is a direct result of a relaxed attitude to Church governance.

He's like an internet troll thrown into RL, and there is nothing Christian about him on any level. I suspect he is more a direct result of several generations of inbreeding rather than a lack of church governance, why do you think its only his family at the Westboro Baptish Church?


The Elizabethan and Jacobean Monarchies were Calvinist Episcopalians. A predeterministic theology helps to support an oppressive regime.

To call them Calvinist is stretching things quite a bit. Generally, they viewed Arminianism as a 'compromise' between Calvinism and Catholicism. It's the organisation of a church that allows it to be oppressive, not the doctrine, otherwise how would the doctrine be enforced?

History is testament to the fact that the Catholic Churhc was quite apt at being oppressive without being deterministic.


A Bishops will have devoted 20+ years of his life to ministry before investiture, his education, bredth of knowledge and vocation invarriable make him far better to pronounce on theological issues than a member of his congregation. The Bishop here is a sensetive man who is widely read and an excellant preacher. His Dean is cut from a similar mold. If you do not have such men who devote their lives to the Chruch, you are in a sorry state; if you have them and ignore them you are worse.

Every individual should devote their lives to the church. The church shouldn't be constrained within the four walls of a building, faith must be something evident in a person as they go about their everyday tasks, in every part of their life. Look at how Jesus took the common people as his disciples, to make them fishers of men. Anyone can grow in their understanding of the scriptures by living the Christian life, "the way" as they referred to it when Jesus was around. A system which teaches that only certain people can devote their life to "the way", that only they are capable of forming doctrines, is extremely dangerous.

At University last term, I studied the Scottish Covenanters, namely those murdered in the wake of the Restoration in 1660. And when I read their letters which they had written when they were sentenced to death, I was really shocked at just how comprehensive their knowledge of the scripture was. These were ordinary people, and yet they were certain in their beliefs, referencing from all over the Bible, you can't say they were just brainwashed with Calvinist propaganda. I have never seen anything like this with, say, the Catholics who were persecuted immediately prior to the restoration.


This assumes that the congregation do not require direct access to scripture, at that point you have talked yourself into Catholicism circa 1350.

The English version is accurate enough to be considered scripture, you can double check the Greek for those very rare occassions when it is needed to clarify a point of doctrine. If they can't, it's not a big deal, they've still got the bulk of the good book.


You have not shown a great respect for Catholics here, have you?

Ordinary Catholics are mislead by their leaders, sometimes to the point that their salvation is threatened. Should I pretend that this is acceptable in the name of toleration? Maybe I should also kiss the Koran and bow to Mecca, why can't we all just get along?


Actually, Luther followed Huss, and Huss followed Wyclif.

John Wyclif was the first to challenge transubstantiation, argue for the translation of scripture and for the circumscribing of Papal power. His teaching was condemned at Blackfriars in 1382. After the Law of Burning was passed in 1407 he was condemned a heretic and his bones were dug up and burned.

Significantly, during his lifetime he was only banned from Oxford and retained his rural benefice, to which he retired.

They were the early seeds of change, although Lutheranism kick started the Reformation on a serious scale. You can't really pick a single date and say that it was the beginning of the Reformation, the Culdees could have been living by it all along.

[rvg]

Ordinary Catholics are mislead by their leaders, sometimes to the point that their salvation is threatened. Should I pretend that this is acceptable in the name of toleration? Maybe I should also kiss the Koran and bow to Mecca, why can't we all just get along?


And this is based on what exactly? Misled how? These just empty words backed by nothing.

[Rhyfelwyr]

And this is based on what exactly? Misled how? These just empty words backed by nothing.

Based on the actions of the previous Pope. And to top if all of a "Palace of All Religions" is now being built in Rome.

[rvg]

Based on the actions of the previous Pope. And to top if all of a "Palace of All Religions" is now being built in Rome.

Still just empty words. Specifics. Give me some specifics.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Still just empty words. Specifics. Give me some specifics.

A sample from John Paul II's Catechism of the Catholic Church:

"The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day."

Here he is kissing the Koran:

https://img7.imageshack.us/img7/4300/koran26.jpg (https://img7.imageshack.us/my.php?image=koran26.jpg)

Here's (http://pjmiller.wordpress.com/2008/02/16/the-creation-of-a-palace-of-religions/) a little background on the plans for a palace of all religions.

[rvg]

A sample from John Paul II's Catechism of the Catholic Church:

"The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day."

Here he is kissing the Koran:

https://img7.imageshack.us/img7/4300/koran26.jpg (https://img7.imageshack.us/my.php?image=koran26.jpg)

Here's (http://pjmiller.wordpress.com/2008/02/16/the-creation-of-a-palace-of-religions/) a little background on the plans for a palace of all religions.

And how exactly is that misleading? And who is being misled? JP2 aside from being a saint, was tolerant and non-bigoted. That is a *good* thing.

[Rhyfelwyr]

And how exactly is that misleading? And who is being misled? JP2 aside from being a saint, was tolerant and non-bigoted. That is a *good* thing.

Obviously the words "I am the way, the truth, and the life" didn't mean anything to him. I would rather preach the word and be deemed a bigot, than lead people away from Jesus in the name of toleration.

[rvg]

Obviously the words "I am the way, the truth, and the life" didn't mean anything to him. I would rather preach the word and be deemed a bigot, than lead people away from Jesus in the name of toleration.

The word you're preaching isn't Christianity. It's Calvinism.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

John Paul II Magnus, when he referenced the "plan of salvation" meant only that there was a path to salvation for those mentioned. He did not assert that their path was equally direct or that The Church was not the preferred path.

[Rhyfelwyr]

The word you're preaching isn't Christianity. It's Calvinism.

They're rather inseperable I would say. Believe it or not, when I bring up the subject of Christianity to non-believers, I don't go straight into the TULIP points. First thing I always ask is, "do you think you are fit to enter heaven, and do you therefore acknowledge the need to accept Jesus' sacrifice for your sins". Any Christian believes this. Only after someone has accepted this would I ever mention Calvinism, and when I do I the first thing I point out is that Calvinism is only one theory, and its not central to a person's salvation.


John Paul II Magnus, when he referenced the "plan of salvation" meant only that there was a path to salvation for those mentioned. He did not assert that their path was equally direct or that The Church was not the preferred path.

Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life. I do not like having to come across as so intolerant, or bigoted, but in all honesty I cannot pretend that what the Catholic Church is beginning to teach is in any way Christian. It is ignoring the most fundamental aspects of the faith. I can try and sugar-coat it but the Book of Revelation doesn't, this mixing with other religions is nothing else than playing the harlot.

[LittleGrizzly]

My respect for Catholicism just doubled... I now officailly have one iota of respect for the Catholic church

On a serious note it is good to see such tolerance!

[Rhyfelwyr]

My respect for Catholicism just doubled... I now officailly have one iota of respect for the Catholic church

On a serious note it is good to see such tolerance!

And its totally un-Christian but who cares?

[rvg]

I do not like having to come across as so intolerant, or bigoted, but in all honesty I cannot pretend that what the Catholic Church is beginning to teach is in any way Christian. It is ignoring the most fundamental aspects of the faith. I can try and sugar-coat it but the Book of Revelation doesn't, this mixing with other religions is nothing else than playing the harlot.

As A. M. Hills once said: "...Such is Calvinism, the most unreasonable, incongruous, self-contradictory, man-belittling and God-dishonoring scheme of theology that ever appeared in Christian thought. No one can accept its contradictory, mutually exclusive propositions without intellectual self-debasement.... It holds up a self-centered selfish, heartless, remorseless tyrant for God, and bids us worship Him."

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life.

Amen.


I do not like having to come across as so intolerant, or bigoted, but in all honesty I cannot pretend that what the Catholic Church is beginning to teach is in any way Christian. It is ignoring the most fundamental aspects of the faith. I can try and sugar-coat it but the Book of Revelation doesn't, this mixing with other religions is nothing else than playing the harlot.

I don't believe JPII was, implicitly or explicitly, advocating a watering down of the truth of Christ being the means of our salvation in God. You are suggesting that ONLY by adopting Christianity as one's personal belief in this life and explicitly can one achieve salvation. All I am suggesting is that I do not know enough of the mind of God to understand the entirety of that plan or the means by which Christ will achieve the salvation of all who would be saved.

By the way, I don't think The Church is really teaching anything "new" here. It has always been the hope of The Church that all in schism -- from whatever cause -- will one day return to share together at the same table.

[LittleGrizzly]

And its totally un-Christian but who cares?

Well not that it bothers me but....

Couldn't Islam technically be praising the same God as Christianity ?

Ill admit my knowledge of Islam is limited to a few documentary's and some minor reading... but the mian difference i see is that in one Christ is a prophet in the other he is the son of god, and that Mohammed was a more important prophet than Christ...

Christianity preaches tolerance (im pretty sure) but also not to worship false idols, im not sure here... would Mohammed be classed as a false idol... or is it only those that are classed as Gods that are false idols ?

Though on the other hand your point might be that any pope/christian leader shouldn't be so errm... overly friendly to another religion... respectful disagreement perhaps being more your thinking... ?

[rvg]

Couldn't Islam technically be praising the same God as Christianity ?


It praises God of Abraham, which makes it the same God as the Judaeo-Christian one.

[Rhyfelwyr]

As A. M. Hills once said: "...Such is Calvinism, the most unreasonable, incongruous, self-contradictory, man-belittling and God-dishonoring scheme of theology that ever appeared in Christian thought. No one can accept its contradictory, mutually exclusive propositions without intellectual self-debasement.... It holds up a self-centered selfish, heartless, remorseless tyrant for God, and bids us worship Him."

And so the undiscussed but very real traditions of anti-Calvinism (a far more potent force than anti-Catholicism) reveals itself. That is typical of the vitrolic statements that come from those who just cannot accept the gospel for what it is. I pointed out the flaws in Catholicism, made valid comparisons with the Book of Revelation. And yet this is just bile straight out of the heart of man, it makes no scriptural sense at all. Honestly... "man-belittling"? I should hope so, since God is not respecter of persons, thankfully Heaven is not run by men and their ways. "God-dishonoring"? Excuse me? I thought your complaint a moment ago was that Calvinism gave all the credit of salvation to God, its what makes it His complete and glorious gift.

And it is a strange "self-centered selfish, heartless, remorseless tyrant" that sends His only son, both totally human and totally divine, to die on the cross for the sins of those who do not deserve forgiveness. The charge against Calvinists that "their God" is merciless is ridiculous, if there was no justice there would be no need for mercy, and so Jesus suffered at God's hand so that people might enter into Heaven sinless, and still men with their doctrines wil deny this because they must believe that they are somehow deserving of their salvation.

I have never suggested you have to believe Calvinism to be a Christian, though apparently many Catholics would not grant this in return, even if they would for Muslims.

[Rhyfelwyr]

It praises God of Abraham, which makes it the same God as the Judaeo-Christian one.

And this God of Abraham, this messiah, is going to come down to earth in times of great trouble, riding upon a white horse armed with a bow? To unite people of all faiths and usher in a new era of peace?

Hmm, this Koranic figure sounds familiar... oh yes its the exact discription given of the antichrist in the Book of Revelation.

[rvg]

And this God of Abraham, this messiah, is going to come down to earth in times of great trouble, riding upon a white horse armed with a bow? To unite people of all faiths and usher in a new era of peace?

I do not remember reading that anywhere in the koran. Care to elaborate?

[Rhyfelwyr]

According to the Koran, there will be a figure called the 'Mahdi', effectively their messiah, who will come when the world is in a time of great trouble (ties with the 'birth pains' of Revelation). So, this figure goes on a conquering spree, converting all the 'infidel' Jews and ushering in a new era of world peace (firmly supported by Daniel and his weekly cycles, with a peace treaty being signed in the middle of his seven year reign). While Muslims believe the Bible to be a very corroputed account of Jesus' life on earth, they believe that the Book of Revelation is a valid prophecy of the end times, but with one difference... the Second Coming of Christ is for them the coming of the Djallal (their antichrist), similarly the rider with the bow (the antichrist for a Christian) is believed to be their Mahdi.

[A Terribly Harmful Name]

What IF, Rhyfe, the Bible is wrong and God doesn't exist?

[rvg]

According to the Koran, there will be a figure called the 'Mahdi', effectively their messiah, who will come when the world is in a time of great trouble (ties with the 'birth pains' of Revelation). So, this figure goes on a conquering spree, converting all the 'infidel' Jews and ushering in a new era of world peace (firmly supported by Daniel and his weekly cycles, with a peace treaty being signed in the middle of his seven year reign). While Muslims believe the Bible to be a very corroputed account of Jesus' life on earth, they believe that the Book of Revelation is a valid prophecy of the end times, but with one difference... the Second Coming of Christ is for them the coming of the Djallal (their antichrist), similarly the rider with the bow (the antichrist for a Christian) is believed to be their Mahdi.

There, isn't any mention of Mahdi in the Koran. Mahdi is mentioned in Sunna, which is *not* part of the Koran.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Not necessarily, look at the nationalised churches under the absolutist monarchs.[quote]

Not necessarily what? The King does not claim to hold the keys to heaven, nor does the Primate. Therefore, neither are equivilant to the Pope.

[quote]Well the only Christians I've met who have any knowledge of the scripture (in English) are from the Reformed branch of Christianity, often the smaller sects. For example, I have a friend who is a Reformed Baptist, and a relative in the Plymouth Brethren, both are much more evangelical and theologically learned than any one else I've met in RL. Similarly, on the Christian forums I frequent, usually people will state how they have free will because they think they do, before a Calvinist actually refutes them with scripture,.

Being able to quote lots of scripture does not mean understanding it. Many reformed branches try to derrive doctrine from Old Testemant Law, which is incorrect, because the New Covenant nullifies the Law. If you want a scriptural proof, take a look at the passages on divorce in Mark.


To call them Calvinist is stretching things quite a bit. Generally, they viewed Arminianism as a 'compromise' between Calvinism and Catholicism. It's the organisation of a church that allows it to be oppressive, not the doctrine, otherwise how would the doctrine be enforced?

History is testament to the fact that the Catholic Churhc was quite apt at being oppressive without being deterministic.

The Articles of Religion are a mix of Calvinism and Lutheranism, they are decidedly deterministic in tone, and I would say they can be read to contain your TULIP, though they can also be read the other way, which is the genius of their conception.


Every individual should devote their lives to the church. The church shouldn't be constrained within the four walls of a building, faith must be something evident in a person as they go about their everyday tasks, in every part of their life. Look at how Jesus took the common people as his disciples, to make them fishers of men. Anyone can grow in their understanding of the scriptures by living the Christian life, "the way" as they referred to it when Jesus was around. A system which teaches that only certain people can devote their life to "the way", that only they are capable of forming doctrines, is extremely dangerous.

I agree, but you are the one pushing unconditional election, not me. I merely pointed out that priests and bishops are those who devote their lives to God first and formost, they usually give up comfortable lives and nice jobs in order to do it as well.


At University last term, I studied the Scottish Covenanters, namely those murdered in the wake of the Restoration in 1660. And when I read their letters which they had written when they were sentenced to death, I was really shocked at just how comprehensive their knowledge of the scripture was. These were ordinary people, and yet they were certain in their beliefs, referencing from all over the Bible, you can't say they were just brainwashed with Calvinist propaganda. I have never seen anything like this with, say, the Catholics who were persecuted immediately prior to the restoration.

Have a look at the Wycliffites/Lollards, in any case, understanding od scripture requires understanding od context as well as text. Context is something I often find lacking in Protestants, if Catholics have a fault it is that they focus over-much on corporate worships. Of the two the Catholics are acting in good faith, and following the ordinances of what they believe to be the True Church. On the other hand, Protestants insist on making their own decisions, I sometimes wonder how the two will be judged against each other.


The English version is accurate enough to be considered scripture, you can double check the Greek for those very rare occassions when it is needed to clarify a point of doctrine. If they can't, it's not a big deal, they've still got the bulk of the good book.

"I am the Lord Thy God and thout shall have no other Gods before me."

Deliberately archaic, and therefore ambiguous, when written. The commandment could be interpreted as meaning you are allowed multiple Gods, so long as Yahweh is first.


Ordinary Catholics are mislead by their leaders, sometimes to the point that their salvation is threatened. Should I pretend that this is acceptable in the name of toleration? Maybe I should also kiss the Koran and bow to Mecca, why can't we all just get along?

Tollerance and recognition of comminality are not evil things. Hatred is.



They were the early seeds of change, although Lutheranism kick started the Reformation on a serious scale. You can't really pick a single date and say that it was the beginning of the Reformation, the Culdees could have been living by it all along.

Again, Wyclif, Huss, Luther. Each looked back to the one before, fact.


They're rather inseperable I would say. Believe it or not, when I bring up the subject of Christianity to non-believers, I don't go straight into the TULIP points. First thing I always ask is, "do you think you are fit to enter heaven, and do you therefore acknowledge the need to accept Jesus' sacrifice for your sins". Any Christian believes this. Only after someone has accepted this would I ever mention Calvinism, and when I do I the first thing I point out is that Calvinism is only one theory, and its not central to a person's salvation.

You would say. For all your certainty you haven't ever provided a convincing proof.


Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life. I do not like having to come across as so intolerant, or bigoted, but in all honesty I cannot pretend that what the Catholic Church is beginning to teach is in any way Christian. It is ignoring the most fundamental aspects of the faith. I can try and sugar-coat it but the Book of Revelation doesn't, this mixing with other religions is nothing else than playing the harlot.

Jesus said he came only to the Jews, yet he consorted with Caananites, Samaritans and Romans.

[Fragony]

And this God of Abraham, this messiah, is going to come down to earth in times of great trouble, riding upon a white horse armed with a bow? To unite people of all faiths and usher in a new era of peace?

Hmm, this Koranic figure sounds familiar... oh yes its the exact discription given of the antichrist in the Book of Revelation.

Must be true then.

[rvg]

What IF, Rhyfe, the Bible is wrong and God doesn't exist?

Then life is absurd and nothing matters. Which would make me a sad panda, possibly sad enough to put a bullet through my head.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Must be true then.

I'm not presenting it as proof but I believe the Bible and I believe all of it.


Not necessarily what? The King does not claim to hold the keys to heaven, nor does the Primate. Therefore, neither are equivilant to the Pope.

The doctrine of Papal supremacy didn't emerge until a few centuries after Christs' death.


Being able to quote lots of scripture does not mean understanding it. Many reformed branches try to derrive doctrine from Old Testemant Law, which is incorrect, because the New Covenant nullifies the Law. If you want a scriptural proof, take a look at the passages on divorce in Mark.

Maybe not, but reading the scripture is a good step towards understanding it. Few people I know have taken the first step. Also, the Old Testament Law is not redundant, Jesus himself said that he came to fulfil the laws to establish the Covenant of Grace. Do you think the ten commandments are irelevant to a Christian? Because they are now written on our hearts and not stone? One example of Jesus 'filling in the gaps' is the issue of the sabbath. Seventh-Day Adventists say that by worshipping on a Sunday we are failing to keep the Sabbath (which would be Friday-Saturday evening); what they don't acknowledge is that Christ is now our rest and our Sabbath. A classic example of the laws not being made redunant, but made complete.


The Articles of Religion are a mix of Calvinism and Lutheranism, they are decidedly deterministic in tone, and I would say they can be read to contain your TULIP, though they can also be read the other way, which is the genius of their conception.

I'm not going to argue here, since I agree it was their very vague tone that led to the future Calvinist/Arminian/Catholic debates.


I agree, but you are the one pushing unconditional election, not me. I merely pointed out that priests and bishops are those who devote their lives to God first and formost, they usually give up comfortable lives and nice jobs in order to do it as well.

Unconditional election is irrelevant. All men know the laws and have them written on their hearts, that doesn't mean they can brake them just as surely as they did in the days of the Old Covenant. I don't really have a problem with someone devoting their life to the scripture, I just prefer the system in which everyone plays a role in understanding the scripture, while at the same time doing their part for society. Jesus was a pretty collectivist guy after all.


Have a look at the Wycliffites/Lollards, in any case, understanding od scripture requires understanding od context as well as text. Context is something I often find lacking in Protestants, if Catholics have a fault it is that they focus over-much on corporate worships. Of the two the Catholics are acting in good faith, and following the ordinances of what they believe to be the True Church. On the other hand, Protestants insist on making their own decisions, I sometimes wonder how the two will be judged against each other.

That comparison is so vague and generalised it is practically meaningless. Not many theologians considered the context of Paul's writings when they unwittingly brought ancient Greek religious practises into Christianity and discriminating horribly against women as a result - all Catholics and indeed most Protestants were guilty of this.


"I am the Lord Thy God and thout shall have no other Gods before me."

Deliberately archaic, and therefore ambiguous, when written. The commandment could be interpreted as meaning you are allowed multiple Gods, so long as Yahweh is first.

Well I don't think I will be believing in any other God's any time soon.


Tollerance and recognition of comminality are not evil things. Hatred is.

Denouncing everyone who disagrees with you as a "schismatic" isn't very nice either. All Christian beliefs should be tolerated according to article XX of the Westminster Confession of Faith. It's great to agree on things, wouldn't it be great to have a Godly Republic where every Christian denomination could get along? However, I would be an irresponsible Christian if I told a Muslim that they could 'qualify' (what a horrible legalistic word but can't be avioded, this is what happens when we go into the realms of absurdity) as a Christian.


Again, Wyclif, Huss, Luther. Each looked back to the one before, fact.

And the Culdees were around since the days of Celtic Christianity, fact.


You would say. For all your certainty you haven't ever provided a convincing proof.

Proof of what? The need to acknowledge Jesus died for our sins? Please tell me you believe that? I'm pretty sure that's all I presented as a 'fact' of Christianity. I never said you had to believe Calvinism to be a Christian, its not fun because it seems to make you pretty unpopular. But then so does being a Christian these days. To be honest I spend so long pointlessly defending my faith to friends, family, and the more finer details to people on the internet, that sometimes I feel like just quitting evangelising and just keeping things to myself. I used to be like that, but I knew I had to get out my 'comfort zone' to serve God.


Jesus said he came only to the Jews, yet he consorted with Caananites, Samaritans and Romans.

Spiritual Israel, not just the nation, in accordance with the New Covenant.

[Fragony]

I'm not presenting it as proof but I believe the Bible and I believe all of it.

That's ok but Muhammed was just a warlord, hardly the antichrist.

[Rhyfelwyr]

That's ok but Muhammed was just a warlord, hardly the antichrist.

I agree, the antichrist is not a man but a fallen angel (well probably, its not really certain). I don't think Islam is a wicked belief system either. It's got some unpleasant elements, its got some good teachings too. The things is, that is all they are. Just teachings. They do not bring a person salvation. And yet here are major Christian churches proclaiming that Islam is compatible with Christianity, that by worshipping Allah you are worshipping the God of the Trinity as in Christianity. This is not true, and it is an extremely dangerous teaching. Corny as it may sound to you, the antichrist will I believe use such teachings in forcing people to worship him, and to exalt himself above God.

[Fragony]

I don't think Islam is a wicked belief system either. It's got some unpleasant elements, its got some good teachings too. The things is, that is all they are. Just teachings.

I think the problem is that the islam is a whole lot more then religious teachings, it's a religious-political ideoligy and because of the religion part the political consequences aren't to be questioned. It should get with the times or shut up and die, with a little help if needed.

And yet here are major Christian churches proclaiming that Islam is compatible with Christianity, that by worshipping Allah you are worshipping the God of the Trinity as in Christianity

Why not, I use the broadest brush at hand when it comes to religion, Allah is just the arab translation of god.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

As A. M. Hills once said: "...Such is Calvinism, the most unreasonable, incongruous, self-contradictory, man-belittling and God-dishonoring scheme of theology that ever appeared in Christian thought. No one can accept its contradictory, mutually exclusive propositions without intellectual self-debasement.... It holds up a self-centered selfish, heartless, remorseless tyrant for God, and bids us worship Him."

I agree.


And so the undiscussed but very real traditions of anti-Calvinism (a far more potent force than anti-Catholicism) reveals itself. That is typical of the vitrolic statements that come from those who just cannot accept the gospel for what it is. I pointed out the flaws in Catholicism, made valid comparisons with the Book of Revelation. And yet this is just bile straight out of the heart of man, it makes no scriptural sense at all. Honestly... "man-belittling"? I should hope so, since God is not respecter of persons, thankfully Heaven is not run by men and their ways. "God-dishonoring"? Excuse me? I thought your complaint a moment ago was that Calvinism gave all the credit of salvation to God, its what makes it His complete and glorious gift.

Calvin's God was a God responsible for Good and evil, a manipulator of man's every thought and action. From this is is clear that he created men to suffer and chose, apparently randomly, who to save. It's a selfish theology which absolves the believers from their own responsibilities and failures, including their failure to effectively preach.


And it is a strange "self-centered selfish, heartless, remorseless tyrant" that sends His only son, both totally human and totally divine, to die on the cross for the sins of those who do not deserve forgiveness. The charge against Calvinists that "their God" is merciless is ridiculous, if there was no justice there would be no need for mercy, and so Jesus suffered at God's hand so that people might enter into Heaven sinless, and still men with their doctrines wil deny this because they must believe that they are somehow deserving of their salvation.

No, that would by my God of universal love, who guides aand protects, and who earnestly desires the salvation of every soul, no matter their sins.


I have never suggested you have to believe Calvinism to be a Christian, though apparently many Catholics would not grant this in return, even if they would for Muslims.


Spiritual Israel, not just the nation, in accordance with the New Covenant.

Rubbish, Jesus spoke to the Jews, the episode with the Caananite woman in Mathew and the Parable of the Good Samaritan, as well as the sending out of the 70, are clear proof of this. Further, Peter's dream and the conversion of Cornelius makes it very clear that the change happens after the Assension.

Oh, and Paul was a sexist bigot, he wrote to the Corinthians and enforced traditional Jewish practices, which also agreed with Greek prejudices. If you knew your scripture half as well as you claim you would know that Mosaic law makes it clear that women should be seen and not heard.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I agree.

Calvin's God was a God responsible for Good and evil, a manipulator of man's every thought and action. From this is is clear that he created men to suffer and chose, apparently randomly, who to save. It's a selfish theology which absolves the believers from their own responsibilities and failures, including their failure to effectively preach.

No, that would by my God of universal love, who guides aand protects, and who earnestly desires the salvation of every soul, no matter their sins.

You don't like Calvinism, fine. Here are your alternatives:

1. We have free will and are unequal, so that those who are more deserving of salvation will take the opportunity
2. We have free will and are equal, so whoever comes to salvation will do so through luck or life circumstance alone

No.1. contradicts just about everything to do with Christianity, and No. 2 is hardly any more appealing to our sense of individualism than unconditional election.


Rubbish, Jesus spoke to the Jews, the episode with the Caananite woman in Mathew and the Parable of the Good Samaritan, as well as the sending out of the 70, are clear proof of this. Further, Peter's dream and the conversion of Cornelius makes it very clear that the change happens after the Assension.

Oh, and Paul was a sexist bigot, he wrote to the Corinthians and enforced traditional Jewish practices, which also agreed with Greek prejudices. If you knew your scripture half as well as you claim you would know that Mosaic law makes it clear that women should be seen and not heard.

By chance, I was reading that very passage with the Cannanite woman last night. Surely it is significant that Jesus states he only came for the lost sheep of Israel, and only then does he heal the woman's daughter. How then can you suggest the New Covenant was not extended to the Gentiles until after the Ascension? Jesus is the lamb slain before the foundation of the world. I know that doesn't fit too nicely with your views on God's foreknowledge, but that's what the scipture says.

There were a lot of traditions in the Mosaic law that were really just there to establish order and traditions within Jewish society. They've done the trick, the Jews have been dispersed throughout the earth, persecuted unlike any other people in history, and yet God has kept His promise and delivered them to the promised land, kept intact as a people through their traditions. And as you well know many of the traditions no longer apply to us Christians, Jesus is quite explicit about that. But he still quite clearly states that he is come to fill in the gaps in the laws and NOT abolish them, since ultimately a sinful race cannot be saved through the laws alone. Unless you come from one of those Judaizing sects I don't know why you are suggesting that we as Christians are bound by the traditions which are explicity given as a statute unto the Jewish people.

You might be trying to portray yourself as the enlightened party, but ultimately your views do nothing but deny Jesus' teachings to the average person, place all claims to doctrine in the hands of a select priesthood, and bury every teaching Christ showed to the disciples under a mountain of tradition based on Greek and Jewish practices irrelevant to any Christian.

EDIT: And I didn't claim any great knowledge of the scripture. I'm not a theologian, just an average member of a congregation who's read the word.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Calvin's God was a God responsible for Good and evil, a manipulator of man's every thought and action. From this is is clear that he created men to suffer and chose, apparently randomly, who to save. It's a selfish theology which absolves the believers from their own responsibilities and failures, including their failure to effectively preach.

This is another of the totally unfair accusations made against Calvinists. John Calvin was a more dedicated soulwinner than any other major theologian I've seen. God knows who is saved, we don't. If someone ignored the word all their life I would still preach to them on their deathbed, you can never tell when God will make His glory shine through.

Plus you are ignoring the obvious fact that Calvinist groups have been on the whole the most dedicated of Christians, there are few others who rival them, one special mention deserves to go to the Methodists though.

[KukriKhan]

Sin.

That's my basic stumbling block. I think I know what it is, but when I try to explain it to others or myself, the explanation isn't satisfying, or does not feel complete.

What is it, how does it get imparted to my individual 'me'? How does somebody else's sin get transferred to me, as in Original Sin? Why is it something from which my individual me must be saved?

I flatter myself that I "know" good and evil when I see them - but I'm not so sure that's accurate, what with the limitations of my human sensory organs and imagination. How cute that miserable little me thinks I know the universe and the mind of the creator.

[InsaneApache]

I don't sin. I'm an atheist. Good job really. :sweatdrop:

[Major Robert Dump]

hmmm, reminds me of the documentary Religulous, with Bill Maher, which had me laughing all the way through, particularly the part about Islam, speaking in tongues and the crucifixion theme park with Fabio Jesus....cept the closing monologue was a huge turn off, very Jerry-Springer-final-thoughtish rubbish that even managed to toss in global warming....anyway, worth 1.99 rental for a good laugh, it really does have some good interviews and its not really offensive unless you think that asking questions is blasphemy

[Louis VI the Fat]

I sin all the time. Then I simply confess and am forgiven. I'm a Catholic. Good job, really. :beam:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

You don't like Calvinism, fine. Here are your alternatives:

1. We have free will and are unequal, so that those who are more deserving of salvation will take the opportunity
2. We have free will and are equal, so whoever comes to salvation will do so through luck or life circumstance alone

No.1. contradicts just about everything to do with Christianity, and No. 2 is hardly any more appealing to our sense of individualism than unconditional election.

Or its something we have no way of understanding the Divine Plan, at which point I invoke "Trust in God" and stop worrying about it. Calvinism creates a bigger problem than either of those you highlighted. According to Calvin God desires the damnation of the majoriety of people, because he witholds his Grace.


By chance, I was reading that very passage with the Cannanite woman last night. Surely it is significant that Jesus states he only came for the lost sheep of Israel, and only then does he heal the woman's daughter. How then can you suggest the New Covenant was not extended to the Gentiles until after the Ascension? Jesus is the lamb slain before the foundation of the world. I know that doesn't fit too nicely with your views on God's foreknowledge, but that's what the scipture says.

Jesus explicitely says he comes only to the people of Israel, he calls her a dog.

This is a nice, contextual, exposition http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=3919 Particually the linguistic use of "dogs".

This is Jesus playing the bigot, because it is expected of him, and then confounding expectations. Not withstanding, Jesus never speaks of an "alegorical" Israel, only of the ethnic people. The Gentiles are contrasted with Israel, especially here. The same contrast is made in Acts during Paul's mission, while the episode regarding Cornelius the Roman demonstrates that prior to this point the Apostles ministered only to Jews.


There were a lot of traditions in the Mosaic law that were really just there to establish order and traditions within Jewish society. They've done the trick, the Jews have been dispersed throughout the earth, persecuted unlike any other people in history, and yet God has kept His promise and delivered them to the promised land, kept intact as a people through their traditions. And as you well know many of the traditions no longer apply to us Christians, Jesus is quite explicit about that. But he still quite clearly states that he is come to fill in the gaps in the laws and NOT abolish them, since ultimately a sinful race cannot be saved through the laws alone. Unless you come from one of those Judaizing sects I don't know why you are suggesting that we as Christians are bound by the traditions which are explicity given as a statute unto the Jewish people.

I haven't said anything about Christians being bound by Mosaic Law, I said Paul was preocupied with it. Paul clearly retains the prejudices of Saul of Tarsus.


You might be trying to portray yourself as the enlightened party, but ultimately your views do nothing but deny Jesus' teachings to the average person, place all claims to doctrine in the hands of a select priesthood, and bury every teaching Christ showed to the disciples under a mountain of tradition based on Greek and Jewish practices irrelevant to any Christian.

Not a fan of Sola scriptura, because it is a result of a distiliation of "Greek and Jewish practices", right down to the Paulian organisation of the Church and the Councils which determined the doctrine you avow. Predeterminism is a Greek philosophy, Providence is Jewish. As far as a "select priesthood", that is complete rubbish. I merely argued that the leaders of the Church should dedicate their lives to their ministry and be fully and appropriately educated. That limits the membership of the priesthood only so far as those who are willing to undertake that education and enter Holy Orders.


EDIT: And I didn't claim any great knowledge of the scripture. I'm not a theologian, just an average member of a congregation who's read the word.

To be fair, you are better than most; you ask quations.


This is another of the totally unfair accusations made against Calvinists. John Calvin was a more dedicated soulwinner than any other major theologian I've seen. God knows who is saved, we don't. If someone ignored the word all their life I would still preach to them on their deathbed, you can never tell when God will make His glory shine through.

You just proved my point, under your theology the sucess or failure of your evangelism is God's decision. Therefore, you are merely a tool and not responsible for your Mission.

On the other hand, if you believe in free will, you have to accept your failure to convert is a failure to preach effectively. You fail God, yourself and, worst of all, the person you failed to convince.


Plus you are ignoring the obvious fact that Calvinist groups have been on the whole the most dedicated of Christians, there are few others who rival them, one special mention deserves to go to the Methodists though.

The "obvious fact"? What about Episcepalians during Cromwell's Republic? Catholics at any timein England up until about 1900? I'm not going to belittle Calvinists as faithful Christians, I think its quite offensive and narrow-minded to say that they are the best of Christians, though.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Or its something we have no way of understanding the Divine Plan, at which point I invoke "Trust in God" and stop worrying about it. Calvinism creates a bigger problem than either of those you highlighted. According to Calvin God desires the damnation of the majoriety of people, because he witholds his Grace.

'Desires' is stretching it a bit. He knows that all humanity is wicked, so in His mercy He chose to save a remnant. To be a peculiar people, a people set apart, and to be humbled whenever God's glory shines through. To say he desires our damnation is to suggest he actively ensures it (here we go again double predestination). I think of it this way: we rebelled against God, and so God cast humanity out and witheld His grace from us. He would be perfectly just in doing so forever! But purely out of mercy, He chose to save a remnant to serve Him and to glorify Him (but its great for us too!). God may desire for us all to come freely to Him (did He desire for Adam to sin?), but He knows that it is not going to happen. And I don't think that this challenges His omnipotency either.


Jesus explicitely says he comes only to the people of Israel, he calls her a dog.

This is a nice, contextual, exposition http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=3919 Particually the linguistic use of "dogs".

This is Jesus playing the bigot, because it is expected of him, and then confounding expectations. Not withstanding, Jesus never speaks of an "alegorical" Israel, only of the ethnic people. The Gentiles are contrasted with Israel, especially here. The same contrast is made in Acts during Paul's mission, while the episode regarding Cornelius the Roman demonstrates that prior to this point the Apostles ministered only to Jews.

One thing I noticed in the article is that it says Jesus is bestowing upon the woman "uncovenanted grace". I've never heard of such a thing before. Whether you hold to a dispensationalist view or the more traditional covenant theology, God's grace has always been granted through the covenants. The covenants are the very source of his relationship with man. Since the woman, being a canaanite, could not have been given grace through the Old Covenant, surely it must have been granted through the New Covenant? Otherwise the grace could not be transferred from God to man?

Just as, by the Old Covenant, Jesus refused to bestow grace upon the woman who was not of the chosen nation, you could argue that under the New Covenant, those who are not of the chosen people are similarly denied grace. Certianly, the scripture makes comparisons national Israel as the chosen nation, with the saved as the chosen individuals. For example:

"But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God." (Romans 2:29)


I haven't said anything about Christians being bound by Mosaic Law, I said Paul was preocupied with it. Paul clearly retains the prejudices of Saul of Tarsus.

OK. I liked the earlier comment you made about Paul writing about spreading the word, even though it is part of the word itself. If anything, I would take the study of Paul's evangelising to show that we should try to preach to people in a way they will be comfortable with, rather than enforcing our own practices upon them. OK Paul liked the Jewish traditions, but they didn't contradict those of the Greeks too much either.


Not a fan of Sola scriptura, because it is a result of a distiliation of "Greek and Jewish practices", right down to the Paulian organisation of the Church and the Councils which determined the doctrine you avow. Predeterminism is a Greek philosophy, Providence is Jewish. As far as a "select priesthood", that is complete rubbish. I merely argued that the leaders of the Church should dedicate their lives to their ministry and be fully and appropriately educated. That limits the membership of the priesthood only so far as those who are willing to undertake that education and enter Holy Orders.

Just because predeterminism is a Greek philosophy doesn't mean it's not in the scripture as well, nor is it limited to Paul's writings where it is evident. On the issue of the priesthood, I still think that you can dedicate 100% of your life to the scripture and 100% to functioning in society, just as surely as Jesus was 100% human and 100% divine. Jesus' teachings are a very living and active set of beliefs, they shouldn't be reserved for some theologian sitting in a room, removed from society.

As for the Episcopalian system whereby landowners could appoint clergy on behalf of the church, here is what Jesus had to say:

"But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them.

But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister" (Mathew 20:25-26)

It is up to the congregation to choose who takes up the role of ministering to them.


To be fair, you are better than most; you ask quations.

Why thankyou. :beam:


You just proved my point, under your theology the sucess or failure of your evangelism is God's decision. Therefore, you are merely a tool and not responsible for your Mission.

On the other hand, if you believe in free will, you have to accept your failure to convert is a failure to preach effectively. You fail God, yourself and, worst of all, the person you failed to convince.

I will gladly be the vessell through which God works; as I grow weaker, so Christ within me grows stronger. To be frank, I could not cope with the responsibility of having to save people, who possibly could? Thankfully, that is one very great burden not placed upon me. Does this mean I am lazy and do not preach? Absolutedly not. Because it is my duty to preach, knowing that the elect will be called.

So I am effectively a tool (yes haha), and salvation is not my responsibilty - but that does not mean I do not preach as you suggested.


The "obvious fact"? What about Episcepalians during Cromwell's Republic? Catholics at any timein England up until about 1900? I'm not going to belittle Calvinists as faithful Christians, I think its quite offensive and narrow-minded to say that they are the best of Christians, though.

Episcopalians didn't have it so bad under Cromwell as people think, indeed the man himself even ensured Bishop Ussher (the earth is 6,000 years old man) was burried in Westminster Abbey. The Irish Catholics weren't so lucky, although for them it was more a battle against a 'foreign power' (even though it wasn't really), rather than a matter of defending their faith. I don't deny there are many god-fearing Catholics and Episcopalians, but really, by the nature of their system they cannot live in a truly Christian society in the way that the Puritans or Presbyterians could. So long as the priesthood is seperated from society, how can there be a preisthood of all believers?

And Catholics didn't have it bad at all after the Restoration, never mind up to 1900 (though the Presbyterian Covenanters endured the Killing Times). Immediately after the Glorious Revolution, the High Anglican Tory Party proved far less tolerant to Presbyterians than Catholics (look at how they forced the 1712 Patronage Act upon the Church of Scotland to defend Episcopalianism in the north, in direct breach of the 1707 Act of Union). And there's a reason there were so many Presbyterians in uprisings such as those of the United Irishmen.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

'Desires' is stretching it a bit. He knows that all humanity is wicked, so in His mercy He chose to save a remnant. To be a peculiar people, a people set apart, and to be humbled whenever God's glory shines through. To say he desires our damnation is to suggest he actively ensures it (here we go again double predestination). I think of it this way: we rebelled against God, and so God cast humanity out and witheld His grace from us. He would be perfectly just in doing so forever! But purely out of mercy, He chose to save a remnant to serve Him and to glorify Him (but its great for us too!). God may desire for us all to come to Him (did He desire for Adam to sin?), but He knows that it is not going to happen. And I don't think that this challenges His omnipotency either.

I'm sorry, I just don't buy the "peculiar people" line. Jesus came first to the Jews, but extended his ministry to the Gentiles as well. Again, Peter's baptism of Cornelius makes it vlear that he believes God makes no distinction between people. God's desire to bring all mankind to him and his love for "the world" are Lutheran as well as Lollard and Catholic. According to Calvin God must have desired that Adam sin, because he let him.

God could have stopped Man's fall and chose not to; how can he then punish man?


One thing I noticed in the article is that it says Jesus is bestowing upon the woman "uncovenanted grace". I've never heard of such a thing before. Whether you hold to a dispensationalist view or the more traditional covenant theology, God's grace has always been granted through the covenants. The covenants are the very source of his relationship with man. Since the woman, being a canaanite, could not have been given grace through the Old Covenant, surely it must have been granted through the New Covenant? Otherwise the grace could not be transferred from God to man?

I believe what she means is that the Grace does not come from the Old Covenant, and that the new Covenant is not finished. The Incarnation is a time of transition when God walks the Earth and can dispense Grace directly. You can buy into that, or not. Mainly I posted that because it breaks doen the passage into contextual parts, and demonstrates what Jesus is refering to at each point.


Just as, by the Old Covenant, Jesus refused to bestow grace upon the woman who was not of the chosen nation, you could argue that under the New Covenant, those who are not of the chosen people are similarly denied grace. Certianly, the scripture makes comparisons national Israel as the chosen nation, with the saved as the chosen individuals. For example:

"But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God." (Romans 2:29)

For this to be true you first need a "chosen people" to be excluded from, I see the New Testemant as completely exploding that elitist mentality.


OK. I liked the earlier comment you made about Paul writing about spreading the word, even though it is part of the word itself. If anything, I would take the study of Paul's evangelising to show that we should try to preach to people in a way they will be comfortable with, rather than enforcing our own practices upon them. OK Paul liked the Jewish traditions, but they didn't contradict those of the Greeks too much either.

My point was that Paul is seriously flawed, for all his piety he struggles to escape the mentality of the Jewish priest, to be honest I think he fails in the extant letters. Paul placed his faith in Mosaic Law, which is why he requires that women do not preach to the congregation.


Just because predeterminism is a Greek philosophy doesn't mean it's not in the scripture as well, nor is it limited to Paul's writings where it is evident. On the issue of the priesthood, I still think that you can dedicate 100% of your life to the scripture and 100% to functioning in society, just as surely as Jesus was 100% human and 100% divine. Jesus' teachings are a very living and active set of beliefs, they shouldn't be reserved for some theologian sitting in a room, removed from society.

You're confusing a theologian and a priest. I'm a speculative theologian, but not a minister. A priest is entirely a member of society, but within that society he functions as a spiritual leader and teacher. He does this as a vocation and is trained and tested for years before he takes up his ministry


As for the Episcopalian system whereby landowners could appoint clergy on behalf of the church, here is what Jesus had to say:

"But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them.

But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister" (Mathew 20:25-26)

It is up to the congregation to choose who takes up the role of ministering to them.

I don't see anything about choice here, just "greatness". The language is so obscure I'm not even comfortable taking a guess.


I will gladly be the vessell through which God works; as I grow weaker, so Christ within me grows stronger. To be frank, I could not cope with the responsibility of having to save people, who possibly could? Thankfully, that is one very great burden not placed upon me. Does this mean I am lazy and do not preach? Absolutedly not. Because it is my duty to preach, knowing that the elect will be called.

So I am effectively a tool (yes haha), and salvation is not my responsibilty - but that does not mean I do not preach as you suggested.

You're still missing the point. When you preach you see yourself as an empty vessel, a tool. If a hammer is used to bang in a nail and the nail breaks it is not the hammer's fault. You see preaching a effectively putting up a sign and seeing who comes to it. I know that's not how you preach, but consider this:

You preach to a room of 100 people, God wants you to convert everyone, this is his plan. You convert one; how do you feel as a servant of God?

Consider the same situation, but this time you know that God will convert who he chooses, so the ninety-nine were damned before they walked though the door; now how do you feel.




Episcopalians didn't have it so bad under Cromwell as people think, indeed the man himself even ensured Bishop Ussher (the earth is 6,000 years old man) was burried in Westminster Abbey. The Irish Catholics weren't so lucky, although for them it was more a battle against a 'foreign power' (even though it wasn't really), rather than a matter of defending their faith. I don't deny there are many god-fearing Catholics and Episcopalians, but really, by the nature of their system they cannot live in a truly Christian society in the way that the Puritans or Presbyterians could. So long as the priesthood is seperated from society, how can there be a preisthood of all believers?

The preisthood is not seperated from society. How many Catholic or Anglican priests do you know? How many have you met and spoken to? Just one example: This Christmas Day the Bishop of Exeter talked about reading the Grinch to his grandchildren and how much he was looking foward to his roast turkey in his sermon. Hardly sperate from society!


And Catholics didn't have it bad at all after the Restoration, never mind up to 1900 (though the Presbyterian Covenanters endured the Killing Times). Immediately after the Glorious Revolution, the High Anglican Tory Party proved far less tolerant to Presbyterians than Catholics (look at how they forced the 1712 Patronage Act upon the Church of Scotland to defend Episcopalianism in the north, in direct breach of the 1707 Act of Union). And there's a reason there were so many Presbyterians in uprisings such as those of the United Irishmen.

Catholics were barred from all positions of authority until the last century, including commisions in the Forces, members of Parliament were required to take Communion in an Anglican Church. As far as Scot's Episcopalians went, they have the same right to Church Government as anyone else. May I remind you that Scotland tried to force Presbyterianism on England during the Civil War.

Why do you think the Covenanters were hated, that was what the Covenant was about, after all.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I'm sorry, I just don't buy the "peculiar people" line. Jesus came first to the Jews, but extended his ministry to the Gentiles as well. Again, Peter's baptism of Cornelius makes it vlear that he believes God makes no distinction between people. God's desire to bring all mankind to him and his love for "the world" are Lutheran as well as Lollard and Catholic. According to Calvin God must have desired that Adam sin, because he let him.

God could have stopped Man's fall and chose not to; how can he then punish man?

Actually, the official position on this for most Calvinists is that Adam had free will, but by his sin, both his descendents and himself lost forever that free will to do good or evil, instead being totally corrupted and enslaved by sin. Below is Chapter IX of the Westminster Confession of Faith:

I. God has endued the will of man with that natural liberty, that is neither forced, nor, by any absolute necessity of nature, determined good, or evil.

II. Man, in his state of innocency, had freedom, and power to will and to do that which was good and well pleasing to God; but yet, mutably, so that he might fall from it.

III. Man, by his fall into a state of sin, has wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation: so as, a natural man, being altogether averse from that good, and dead in sin, is not able, by his own strength, to convert himself, or to prepare himself thereunto.

IV. When God converts a sinner, and translates him into the state of grace, He frees him from his natural bondage under sin; and, by His grace alone, enables him freely to will and to do that which is spiritually good; yet so, as that by reason of his remaining corruption, he does not perfectly, or only, will that which is good, but does also will that which is evil.

V. The will of man is made perfectly and immutably free to do good alone in the state of glory only.


I believe what she means is that the Grace does not come from the Old Covenant, and that the new Covenant is not finished. The Incarnation is a time of transition when God walks the Earth and can dispense Grace directly. You can buy into that, or not. Mainly I posted that because it breaks doen the passage into contextual parts, and demonstrates what Jesus is refering to at each point.

OK, we have both stated our positions on this now.


For this to be true you first need a "chosen people" to be excluded from, I see the New Testemant as completely exploding that elitist mentality.

Well I disagree, and I've given the scripture behind my position in the past. Although I don't think 'elitist' is a fair word to use, since it suggests that Christians are somehow 'better' than anyone else. According to Arminianism, a Christian can judge others regarding their salvation, a Calvinist will always be humbled.


My point was that Paul is seriously flawed, for all his piety he struggles to escape the mentality of the Jewish priest, to be honest I think he fails in the extant letters. Paul placed his faith in Mosaic Law, which is why he requires that women do not preach to the congregation.

I don't disagree, none of the disciples were perfect, they were just men after all. This does not mean the scripture is not divinely inspiried or God-breathed, rather we should just be aware of the disciples flaws when reading the scripture (Moses made an idol but that's doesn't make people question the Pentateuch after all).


You're confusing a theologian and a priest. I'm a speculative theologian, but not a minister. A priest is entirely a member of society, but within that society he functions as a spiritual leader and teacher. He does this as a vocation and is trained and tested for years before he takes up his ministry

I just really don't like the idea that people are making a profession out of something that should go alongside peoples actual profession or role in a society. For what its worth, this goes for ministers within the Presbyterian polity as well.


I don't see anything about choice here, just "greatness". The language is so obscure I'm not even comfortable taking a guess.

Well he is being pretty clear that it is the followers and not a prince/landowner that should be responsible for selecting mininsters.


You're still missing the point. When you preach you see yourself as an empty vessel, a tool. If a hammer is used to bang in a nail and the nail breaks it is not the hammer's fault. You see preaching a effectively putting up a sign and seeing who comes to it. I know that's not how you preach, but consider this:

You preach to a room of 100 people, God wants you to convert everyone, this is his plan. You convert one; how do you feel as a servant of God?

Consider the same situation, but this time you know that God will convert who he chooses, so the ninety-nine were damned before they walked though the door; now how do you feel.

How I feel has got nothing to do with anything. If I save a single soul I don't care who is responsible, I just praise the Lord! Why must you circumvent scripture (preach and the elect will be called) to devise a system where I must feel terrible because I can't save eveyone I meet? What human could cope with the responsibility of having to save people?


The preisthood is not seperated from society. How many Catholic or Anglican priests do you know? How many have you met and spoken to? Just one example: This Christmas Day the Bishop of Exeter talked about reading the Grinch to his grandchildren and how much he was looking foward to his roast turkey in his sermon. Hardly sperate from society!

Well coming from Scotland I don't really see any Anglican priests, although Catholic priests are somewhat active in the community. As much as its great when the priests/bishops do go out and preach, did they really have to dedicate their lives to learning how to do that? Wouldn't it be great if they were out there working with the average person, sharing the everyday tasks. I like the hands on approach, but when the priests are seperated, even partially, from society, this becomes impossible. There are of course exceptions, for example the missionaries in the third world, they are outstanding evangelisers, full credit to them!


Catholics were barred from all positions of authority until the last century, including commisions in the Forces, members of Parliament were required to take Communion in an Anglican Church. As far as Scot's Episcopalians went, they have the same right to Church Government as anyone else. May I remind you that Scotland tried to force Presbyterianism on England during the Civil War.

Why do you think the Covenanters were hated, that was what the Covenant was about, after all.

The National Covenant of 1638 was about protecting the Church of Scotland from the attempts of the monarchy to enforce Arminianism. The Covenanters fully supported the Parliamentarian forces, as seen in the 1643 Solemn League and Covenant.

The conflict which arose as a result of the attempts to enforce Presbyterianism was not a Scottish/English conflict as some would like to portray it. The 'Political Presbyterians', the majority faction in the English Parliament, supported a restoration with the guarantee of a 3-year trial of the Presbyterian polity. On the other hand, the Independents, including Cromwell, were fiercely opposed to such a settlement.

The exact same division was evident in Scotland. When you say "Scotland tried to enforce Presbyterianism in England", you are referring to an offshoot of the Covananter faction, who were vehemently opposed by the Scottish people and a majority within the Kirk. This offshoot faction were known as the 'Engagers', and led by the Duke of Hamilton they raised an army explicitly against the orders of the Kirk. These Engagers were widely viewed as traitors to the Covenanting cause, and they were so hated they were attacked by peasants right through Ayrshire and the Borders. Thankfully, Cromwell defeated them at Dunbar. After their defeat, legislation was passed banning anyone known to have taken part in the Engager rebellion from holding any civil office.

So, not a case of Scotland v England, rather True Covenanters/Independents v Engagers/Political Presbyterians

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Actually, the official position on this for most Calvinists is that Adam had free will, but by his sin, both his descendents and himself lost forever that free will to do good or evil, instead being totally corrupted and enslaved by sin. Below is Chapter IX of the Westminster Confession of Faith:

I. God has endued the will of man with that natural liberty, that is neither forced, nor, by any absolute necessity of nature, determined good, or evil.

II. Man, in his state of innocency, had freedom, and power to will and to do that which was good and well pleasing to God; but yet, mutably, so that he might fall from it.

III. Man, by his fall into a state of sin, has wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation: so as, a natural man, being altogether averse from that good, and dead in sin, is not able, by his own strength, to convert himself, or to prepare himself thereunto.

IV. When God converts a sinner, and translates him into the state of grace, He frees him from his natural bondage under sin; and, by His grace alone, enables him freely to will and to do that which is spiritually good; yet so, as that by reason of his remaining corruption, he does not perfectly, or only, will that which is good, but does also will that which is evil.

V. The will of man is made perfectly and immutably free to do good alone in the state of glory only.

Well, to be honest I don't buy it. If you look at Job, the entire book is about what happens to a righteous man when God withdraws his protection. Satan is charged to leave him nothing but his life; yet despite all the assaults of the Accuser Job continues to praise God.


Well I disagree, and I've given the scripture behind my position in the past. Although I don't think 'elitist' is a fair word to use, since it suggests that Christians are somehow 'better' than anyone else. According to Arminianism, a Christian can judge others regarding their salvation, a Calvinist will always be humbled.

You've argued from the Gospel, where Christ preaches to the Jews, I have argued that you cannot read those statements back onto the later Christian communits as a "spiritual Israel" and I have provided an example of Jesus making it clear he speaks to the Jews. Further, Jesus fulfills the Law, which means being the Jewish Messiah.

Now, Acts 10-11 establishes that up to that point the word was only preached to the children of Israel, the circumcised. I won't type the whole thing out, consider this passge though; the words of Peter after he accepts that God wishes the conversion of the Gentiles:


"I truly understand that God shows no partiality, but in every nationanyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him. Acts 10.34-5


I don't disagree, none of the disciples were perfect, they were just men after all. This does not mean the scripture is not divinely inspiried or God-breathed, rather we should just be aware of the disciples flaws when reading the scripture (Moses made an idol but that's doesn't make people question the Pentateuch after all).

Actually, people do for just that reason. To be honest though, few Theologians today believe Moses even wrote Exodus, it was written down about 600 B.C. as far as we know. It can't be earlier because Hebrew wasn't written much earlier than that (200 years tops). More to the point though, if you accept that Paul is flawed when he talks about women and his Doctrine, he can be flawed elsewhere. Personally, I see no reason to believe Paul's writings are infallible, or directly inspired by God. It seems much more profitable to me to see them as the beggining of the intellectual tradition in Christianity.


I just really don't like the idea that people are making a profession out of something that should go alongside peoples actual profession or role in a society. For what its worth, this goes for ministers within the Presbyterian polity as well.

Not a proffesion, a vocation. Isn't it what Peter, Paul and others did?


Well he is being pretty clear that it is the followers and not a prince/landowner that should be responsible for selecting mininsters.

Except that the landowners are the "great men" in the Christian community, and they can only select from ordained priests, and only invest duely elected bishops. That is, if it is medieval lay investiture you are talking about. Bear in mind, the medieval world is a total theocracy, more than Iran.


How I feel has got nothing to do with anything. If I save a single soul I don't care who is responsible, I just praise the Lord! Why must you circumvent scripture (preach and the elect will be called) to devise a system where I must feel terrible because I can't save eveyone I meet? What human could cope with the responsibility of having to save people?

It matters if Calvinism makes you feel better, given that a Christian life is meant to include suffering and an awareness of your sins. As to "coping", it's something you learn to live with, the hardest part is having non-Christian friends for some people. Mind you, that depends on the amount of Hope and Faith you have. Don't misunderstand me, preaching is God's work, but it is performed by men with his help.


Well coming from Scotland I don't really see any Anglican priests, although Catholic priests are somewhat active in the community. As much as its great when the priests/bishops do go out and preach, did they really have to dedicate their lives to learning how to do that? Wouldn't it be great if they were out there working with the average person, sharing the everyday tasks. I like the hands on approach, but when the priests are seperated, even partially, from society, this becomes impossible. There are of course exceptions, for example the missionaries in the third world, they are outstanding evangelisers, full credit to them!

A priest, a good priest, dedicates his life to helping people, only a small part of his time is spent preaching, he visits the sick, the condemned, teaches children, comforts the bereaved etc. You have lay preachers in every denomination as well, but presbyte and episcopal denominations have people who take it upon themselves to dedicating their lives to leading congregations. In point of fact, you will find that "elders" in Evangelical Churches perform the same function in the same way, but they often don't take on the responsibility of sheperd or carer for their community. Instead they claim a superiority with the term they use for themselves.

Your hero, Calvin, was a priest and arguably more sperated from the masses than most.


The National Covenant of 1638 was about protecting the Church of Scotland from the attempts of the monarchy to enforce Arminianism. The Covenanters fully supported the Parliamentarian forces, as seen in the 1643 Solemn League and Covenant.

The conflict which arose as a result of the attempts to enforce Presbyterianism was not a Scottish/English conflict as some would like to portray it. The 'Political Presbyterians', the majority faction in the English Parliament, supported a restoration with the guarantee of a 3-year trial of the Presbyterian polity. On the other hand, the Independents, including Cromwell, were fiercely opposed to such a settlement.

The exact same division was evident in Scotland. When you say "Scotland tried to enforce Presbyterianism in England", you are referring to an offshoot of the Covananter faction, who were vehemently opposed by the Scottish people and a majority within the Kirk. This offshoot faction were known as the 'Engagers', and led by the Duke of Hamilton they raised an army explicitly against the orders of the Kirk. These Engagers were widely viewed as traitors to the Covenanting cause, and they were so hated they were attacked by peasants right through Ayrshire and the Borders. Thankfully, Cromwell defeated them at Dunbar. After their defeat, legislation was passed banning anyone known to have taken part in the Engager rebellion from holding any civil office.

So, not a case of Scotland v England, rather True Covenanters/Independents v Engagers/Political Presbyterians

That rather proves my point, the situation was confused and the English blamed the Scots. It doesn't make the bishops responsible for what happened later. And it doesn't change the fact that the Archbishop of Canterbury arguably had a responsibility to protect Scottish Bishops against all comers.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Well, to be honest I don't buy it. If you look at Job, the entire book is about what happens to a righteous man when God withdraws his protection. Satan is charged to leave him nothing but his life; yet despite all the assaults of the Accuser Job continues to praise God.

Job's ability to face his trials comes through the transformation which God had already wrought within him, whereby Job was 'born again'. So although God withdrew His direct protection, it was still by God's work that Job was able to endure the tribulation he faced.


You've argued from the Gospel, where Christ preaches to the Jews, I have argued that you cannot read those statements back onto the later Christian communits as a "spiritual Israel" and I have provided an example of Jesus making it clear he speaks to the Jews. Further, Jesus fulfills the Law, which means being the Jewish Messiah.

Now, Acts 10-11 establishes that up to that point the word was only preached to the children of Israel, the circumcised. I won't type the whole thing out, consider this passge though; the words of Peter after he accepts that God wishes the conversion of the Gentiles:


"I truly understand that God shows no partiality, but in every nationanyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him. Acts 10.34-5

I firmly believe that Jesus was the Jewish Messiah as prophesied throughout the Old Testament, however the New Covenant was very much an extension of God's grace, rather than a replacement of Israel as the chosen nation (would God abandon them when they were promised their inheritance?). The passage you quoted shows that God will not make a distinction between those of any nation "who fears him". So there will be no distinction between Jew/Gentile in Heaven, but God will still keep His covenant with Israel on earth, by which the Jews are chosen as a people to honour and glorify God.

Remember also that "the circumcised" might not be necessarily referring to a literal circumcision:

"In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ" (Colossians 2:11)

Considering the references to circumcision, the fact that we are promised to see the glory of 'New Jeruslam', the references to ethnic Israel are so strong it is hard to dismiss them.


Actually, people do for just that reason. To be honest though, few Theologians today believe Moses even wrote Exodus, it was written down about 600 B.C. as far as we know. It can't be earlier because Hebrew wasn't written much earlier than that (200 years tops). More to the point though, if you accept that Paul is flawed when he talks about women and his Doctrine, he can be flawed elsewhere. Personally, I see no reason to believe Paul's writings are infallible, or directly inspired by God. It seems much more profitable to me to see them as the beggining of the intellectual tradition in Christianity.

I'm quite surprised that people would question the Pentateuch just because Moses wasn't perfect, which of the authors who put pen to paper for the scripture were? In any case, I still won't question what is stated in 2 Timothy 3:16, but rather when Paul is simply recording actions which he took rather than writing direct scripture, we should check to see if his actions were consistent with the more direct parts of scripture (ie not recorded events but rather the author making direct statements, or recording statements by Jesus). In the case of Paul's organisation of the church in Corinth, I don't believe he was.


Not a proffesion, a vocation. Isn't it what Peter, Paul and others did?

I think it depends if it is missionary activity to the unsaved, or ministering to a congregation in a community where Christianity is firmly consolidated (ie for a good few generations). Once Christianity becomes dominant, the people should be able to work with each other to grow in the faith, and not rely on the work of a missionary. To be a travelling missionary could be a full-time occupation, but in a community of Christians I don't think it is necessary.


Except that the landowners are the "great men" in the Christian community, and they can only select from ordained priests, and only invest duely elected bishops. That is, if it is medieval lay investiture you are talking about. Bear in mind, the medieval world is a total theocracy, more than Iran.

So Jesus is suggesting the congragation should elect their landlords? Also Jesus doesn't mention ordained priests or bishops, he just says the congregation is to select a minister from amongst themselves. I was referring to the issue of lay investiture, although not necessarily within the theocracies of the medieval period (was thinking more post-Reformation Scotland, where church and state ran in parallel, but crucially seperate, lines; Catholic monarch and Reformed Kirk)


It matters if Calvinism makes you feel better, given that a Christian life is meant to include suffering and an awareness of your sins. As to "coping", it's something you learn to live with, the hardest part is having non-Christian friends for some people. Mind you, that depends on the amount of Hope and Faith you have. Don't misunderstand me, preaching is God's work, but it is performed by men with his help.

Calvinism doesn't really have much of a feel-good factor, we all know how Calvinists are stereotyped. Well, when I say that there is nothing better than knowing God and even getting a glimpse of His ways, but the Calvinistic interpretation really brings a shock to someones system when they've lived in sin; I've yet to see a prominent Puritan that didn't have a mental disorder (they tend to be anxiety related).

Also, I believe Calvinism because it is the conclusion I have come to from my studies of the scripture, not because it absolves me from any responsibility in saving people. Sometimes if I'm weak I'll get myself upset because I know there are many people in my live not saved, but I know it is just an emotional response which has no root in the scripture.

I don't know, maybe I could learn to cope with knowing I failed to save people in a free will scenario, but really it is irrelevant since I preach as well as I can and if I fail I don't get down I just remember its up to God and keep on trying. Even in a free will scenario, you can't take sole responsibility for saving people. An Arminian says its up to the individual, a Calvinist says its up to God. In neither case is the preacher responsible, in both cases they play their role.


A priest, a good priest, dedicates his life to helping people, only a small part of his time is spent preaching, he visits the sick, the condemned, teaches children, comforts the bereaved etc. You have lay preachers in every denomination as well, but presbyte and episcopal denominations have people who take it upon themselves to dedicating their lives to leading congregations. In point of fact, you will find that "elders" in Evangelical Churches perform the same function in the same way, but they often don't take on the responsibility of sheperd or carer for their community. Instead they claim a superiority with the term they use for themselves.

Your hero, Calvin, was a priest and arguably more sperated from the masses than most.

I don't disagree, although remember that 'elders' were often known as such for their positions of influence in a community, rather than church hierarchy, especially in the times of the American colonists.

And I think your charge against Calvin is very unfair, he laboured so hard in spreading the Gospel (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dlk2okPED7Q&feature=related) that he left himself so exhausted he died from it


That rather proves my point, the situation was confused and the English blamed the Scots. It doesn't make the bishops responsible for what happened later. And it doesn't change the fact that the Archbishop of Canterbury arguably had a responsibility to protect Scottish Bishops against all comers.

The Archbishop of Canterbury had no right to take anything to do in affairs north of the border, any more-so than the Scottish Kirk would in undermining Anglicanism in England. The Crowns might have been united but the churches were very much independent. In any case, I wouldn't say that the English or Scots blamed each other at the time, rather certain elements in the Scottish Kirk portrayed the New Model Army of being one of 'sectaries', or supporting the breakaway of church communities from larger society. The issue that sparked it off was the rise of the Baptists and Quakers in northern England, a volatile region since it was also home to most of the practising English Catholics, and they felt threatened by the Kirk's potential for expansion, especially since the Scots so easily took Newastle in 1640.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Job's ability to face his trials comes through the transformation which God had already wrought within him, whereby Job was 'born again'. So although God withdrew His direct protection, it was still by God's work that Job was able to endure the tribulation he faced.

No evidence of this, nowhere does it say Job was in any way transformed by God, this is the Accuser's arguement. Job is protected from harm by God, and this is why he fears him. It is explicit that God withdraws his protection, Job is required to face Satan alone this is the test.


I firmly believe that Jesus was the Jewish Messiah as prophesied throughout the Old Testament, however the New Covenant was very much an extension of God's grace, rather than a replacement of Israel as the chosen nation (would God abandon them when they were promised their inheritance?). The passage you quoted shows that God will not make a distinction between those of any nation "who fears him". So there will be no distinction between Jew/Gentile in Heaven, but God will still keep His covenant with Israel on earth, by which the Jews are chosen as a people to honour and glorify God.

Now you're arguing the other side of your own arguement. Jesus was the Messiah, but he did not offer the Jews temporal deliverence, only spiritual deliverence.


Remember also that "the circumcised" might not be necessarily referring to a literal circumcision:

"In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ" (Colossians 2:11)

Considering the references to circumcision, the fact that we are promised to see the glory of 'New Jeruslam', the references to ethnic Israel are so strong it is hard to dismiss them.

In this instance it explicitely refers to the Jews (and possibly Samaritans), not gentiles. Read Acts 11. The whole sequence is about accepting Gentiles who do not follow the Law into the Church.


I'm quite surprised that people would question the Pentateuch just because Moses wasn't perfect, which of the authors who put pen to paper for the scripture were? In any case, I still won't question what is stated in 2 Timothy 3:16, but rather when Paul is simply recording actions which he took rather than writing direct scripture, we should check to see if his actions were consistent with the more direct parts of scripture (ie not recorded events but rather the author making direct statements, or recording statements by Jesus). In the case of Paul's organisation of the church in Corinth, I don't believe he was.

People question the Pentateuch because A: it wasn't written by Moses (wrong language) and B much of it is impossible. The Exodus, for example, is neither physically nor politically consionable without a complete warping of time and space, a spontanious explosion of births after the Jews leave and all the border posts between Memthis and Jesusalem being suddenly unmanned when the 200 mile long line of Jes past through. Not to mention, Judea at that time was part of the Egyptian Empire, even by the latest possible date.

As far as Paul goes, his woffling of circumcision and no-circumcision sould like one racist trying to justify no-racism to another racist. "Well, they're not really proper Jews, but it's ok because they think like Jews." This is the same man who said that a just man had nothing to fear from the authorities after he himself was involved in the first marytering.


I think it depends if it is missionary activity to the unsaved, or ministering to a congregation in a community where Christianity is firmly consolidated (ie for a good few generations). Once Christianity becomes dominant, the people should be able to work with each other to grow in the faith, and not rely on the work of a missionary. To be a travelling missionary could be a full-time occupation, but in a community of Christians I don't think it is necessary.

Who trains the missionaries? Copies out scripture, teaches Hebrew and Greek? At some level you need proffesional instructors, less so now because anti-intellectual Christians have access to printed books and the internet, but even so. In any case, ministering to a congregation requires a minister. Otherwise, it isn't ministering.


So Jesus is suggesting the congragation should elect their landlords? Also Jesus doesn't mention ordained priests or bishops, he just says the congregation is to select a minister from amongst themselves. I was referring to the issue of lay investiture, although not necessarily within the theocracies of the medieval period (was thinking more post-Reformation Scotland, where church and state ran in parallel, but crucially seperate, lines; Catholic monarch and Reformed Kirk)

Lay investiture requires either canonical election or Papal apointment. The situation was never one the Church was happy about. My point was that it is in no way the same as Gentile lords, because there are no Gentiles involved. Also, there's nothing about election there, it merely says "greatest". One can make an arguement for sacredotal Kingship from this, as Kings are acclaimed by the lords to be the greatest man in the Kingdom.

Actually, election is a popularity contest. What Jesus is more likely saying is that the best should be minister, regardless of popularity or birth.


Calvinism doesn't really have much of a feel-good factor, we all know how Calvinists are stereotyped. Well, when I say that there is nothing better than knowing God and even getting a glimpse of His ways, but the Calvinistic interpretation really brings a shock to someones system when they've lived in sin; I've yet to see a prominent Puritan that didn't have a mental disorder (they tend to be anxiety related).

Cromwell got over his fear of Hell by becoming convinced he was one of the elect, didn't he? I can personally see Calvinism as being either really great or really miserable, depending on whether or not you believe you are elect.


Also, I believe Calvinism because it is the conclusion I have come to from my studies of the scripture, not because it absolves me from any responsibility in saving people. Sometimes if I'm weak I'll get myself upset because I know there are many people in my live not saved, but I know it is just an emotional response which has no root in the scripture.

You just made compassion a weekness.


I don't know, maybe I could learn to cope with knowing I failed to save people in a free will scenario, but really it is irrelevant since I preach as well as I can and if I fail I don't get down I just remember its up to God and keep on trying. Even in a free will scenario, you can't take sole responsibility for saving people. An Arminian says its up to the individual, a Calvinist says its up to God. In neither case is the preacher responsible, in both cases they play their role.

The preacher has to preach effectively in order to persuade, the audience responds to the preacher. So it is partially your fault, and since you are the one carrying the word it is your responsibility to persuade. You fail when you give up.

You say that if you fail you just tell yourself it's up to God, if I fail I can't do that. So Calvinism does comfort you and stop you from feeling responsible. You say maybe you could "learn to cope". Well, the rest of us are managing, it's not that hard.


I don't disagree, although remember that 'elders' were often known as such for their positions of influence in a community, rather than church hierarchy, especially in the times of the American colonists.

I disagree somewhat, in America places without ministers look to their "elders" for theological and temporal leadership. These men essentially filled the role of priests in a theocracy.


And I think your charge against Calvin is very unfair, he laboured so hard in spreading the Gospel (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dlk2okPED7Q&feature=related) that he left himself so exhausted he died from it

Missionary or no, he was still a university intellectual, and he notably argued for translation of scripture, not education of the laity. He was not what you described your ideal minister as, I doubt he built many houses, or cutt many hedges.


The Archbishop of Canterbury had no right to take anything to do in affairs north of the border, any more-so than the Scottish Kirk would in undermining Anglicanism in England. The Crowns might have been united but the churches were very much independent. In any case, I wouldn't say that the English or Scots blamed each other at the time, rather certain elements in the Scottish Kirk portrayed the New Model Army of being one of 'sectaries', or supporting the breakaway of church communities from larger society. The issue that sparked it off was the rise of the Baptists and Quakers in northern England, a volatile region since it was also home to most of the practising English Catholics, and they felt threatened by the Kirk's potential for expansion, especially since the Scots so easily took Newastle in 1640.

That is not true. Under Catholicism the Archbishop of Canterbury routinely claimed to be the Primate of All Britain. In the post-reformation world the Sctoish Bishops might reasonably look to him for protection and he might then petition the king. Technically speaking the Archbishop does not currently claim such primacy (personally I don't see why not, it would make the running of the Church in Scotland, Ireland and Wales somwhat simpler).

[Rhyfelwyr]

No evidence of this, nowhere does it say Job was in any way transformed by God, this is the Accuser's arguement. Job is protected from harm by God, and this is why he fears him. It is explicit that God withdraws his protection, Job is required to face Satan alone this is the test.

It doesn't specifically state that Job was transformed by God, but it does say that he was righteous, and does the rest of the scripture not support the idea that God transforms the hearts of those who believe? I'm not arguing the order of believing/transformation here, but surely even an Arminian would grant that Job, already being a God-fearing man, had been transformed by the grace of God?

Therefore, though God withdrew his direct protection of Job, Job's ability to face his tribulations and retain his faith did ultimately rest of the change the Lord wrought in him.


Now you're arguing the other side of your own arguement. Jesus was the Messiah, but he did not offer the Jews temporal deliverence, only spiritual deliverence.

That is indeed what Jesus came to do, but that does not change the fact that God, the Trinity in its entirety, had a special covenant in existance with Israel, which is still very much in existance. The New Covenant certainly has parallels in its message (delivering a chosen people to the promised land), but just because Jesus came as a Jewish Messiah, does not mean that the prophecies of him oppose the idea that he could be a saviour also for the Gentiles (and since he is the lamb slain before the foundation of the world..). Indeed, Jews today do not recognise Jesus because he did not conquer the world in the military sense that they imagined, but through the Second Coming He will surely be King of all the earth? His Kingdom is not of this world, but the one to come...


In this instance it explicitely refers to the Jews (and possibly Samaritans), not gentiles. Read Acts 11. The whole sequence is about accepting Gentiles who do not follow the Law into the Church.

Fair enough, this really ties into our discussion about the Cannanitish woman and whether or not we accept the idea of uncovenanted grace, since obviosuly if it was covenanted it must have been by the New Covenant.


People question the Pentateuch because A: it wasn't written by Moses (wrong language) and B much of it is impossible. The Exodus, for example, is neither physically nor politically consionable without a complete warping of time and space, a spontanious explosion of births after the Jews leave and all the border posts between Memthis and Jesusalem being suddenly unmanned when the 200 mile long line of Jes past through. Not to mention, Judea at that time was part of the Egyptian Empire, even by the latest possible date.

As far as Paul goes, his woffling of circumcision and no-circumcision sould like one racist trying to justify no-racism to another racist. "Well, they're not really proper Jews, but it's ok because they think like Jews." This is the same man who said that a just man had nothing to fear from the authorities after he himself was involved in the first marytering.

With the Pentateuch stuff here its a bit off the top of my head, but I'm guessing that a few command posts wouldn't stop a mass migration. Presumably if they did alert Pharaoh then it would take a while to summon/gather a large army, and by the time they caught up with the Jews they might be somewhere about the Red Sea? Also, Judaea must have been the frontier of the Jewish Empire, and so all there would be to stop the Jews would be a few client states, and all the ones up the shore would be more largely autonomous city states, with little military capacity.

As for Paul, I said he wasn't perfect, the scripture records his errors, and we should be wary of them. We should aim to be like Jesus, not Paul.


Who trains the missionaries? Copies out scripture, teaches Hebrew and Greek? At some level you need proffesional instructors, less so now because anti-intellectual Christians have access to printed books and the internet, but even so. In any case, ministering to a congregation requires a minister. Otherwise, it isn't ministering.

Since Jesus disciples kick-started the process of evangelising, there should always be people able to train themselves through the Gospel. You make a valid point in the copying out of scripture though, I guess I tend to think in the era of the printing press. That would be a valid occupation if there was a demand for Bibles, similarly I've no problem with someone dedicating their life to missionary work. Although all you need to do to minister is read the Gospel in your spare time. If everyone is learned in the word, they can just pick someone they like to lead the services.


Lay investiture requires either canonical election or Papal apointment. The situation was never one the Church was happy about. My point was that it is in no way the same as Gentile lords, because there are no Gentiles involved. Also, there's nothing about election there, it merely says "greatest". One can make an arguement for sacredotal Kingship from this, as Kings are acclaimed by the lords to be the greatest man in the Kingdom.

Actually, election is a popularity contest. What Jesus is more likely saying is that the best should be minister, regardless of popularity or birth.

I agree its a bit vague, but you can tell that Jesus sees the power as lying in the congregation, certainly that is how it would have been for the early converts without established hierarchies watching over them.


Cromwell got over his fear of Hell by becoming convinced he was one of the elect, didn't he? I can personally see Calvinism as being either really great or really miserable, depending on whether or not you believe you are elect.

No Calvinist ever believes for certain that they are of the elect, because they won't know until they persevere to the end (hence the Puritan frenzy). It's not because they could lose salvation, rather that they would have been mistaken in thinking that they had it in the first place. If you are of the elect, you work out your salvation with fear and trembling, hoping to the end. If you are not of the elect, you will happily live a life of sin and pay for it at the end.


You just made compassion a weekness.

Well, I just remind myself that they are no different from me, and I know that I'm in no position to expect forgiveness. Often, people demand forgiveness from God, demand that they be justified for what they are, and they denounce Him if He will not do it. If you are an Arminian, do these people appear to be humbling themselves before God? :no:

"For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it"(Matthew 16:25)


The preacher has to preach effectively in order to persuade, the audience responds to the preacher. So it is partially your fault, and since you are the one carrying the word it is your responsibility to persuade. You fail when you give up.

You say that if you fail you just tell yourself it's up to God, if I fail I can't do that. So Calvinism does comfort you and stop you from feeling responsible. You say maybe you could "learn to cope". Well, the rest of us are managing, it's not that hard.

Jesus gives me comfort to, maybe I should abandon him because of it?

Also, you just commented on my views on compassion, how on earth could you bear to live with yourself knowing a person is in Hell because of you? God is just in punishing those who transgress against Him, but a lot of those people never harmed us, by inaction we would be condemning them to Hell. If people truly thought about the consequences of this, how could they live with it?


I disagree somewhat, in America places without ministers look to their "elders" for theological and temporal leadership. These men essentially filled the role of priests in a theocracy.

Yes, as Christianty has declined, it was inevitable that this would happen. But Christianity has reached the point where if it is to survive, revival will have to come from the bottom up, because, besides God, there's little at the top to provide such a resurgence. Even at a coffee morning after my church's service today, people were commenting on just how useless/uncaring other ministers were, and how their congregations are plummeting because of it.


Missionary or no, he was still a university intellectual, and he notably argued for translation of scripture, not education of the laity. He was not what you described your ideal minister as, I doubt he built many houses, or cutt many hedges.

He never lived in the ideal society, I said it would have to be a consolidated Christian community for several generations (OK it was Christian but not the way Calvin envisaged it). Calvin was a missionary, he went to spread the gospel to a population disillusioned with Catholicism (heck they were even willing to adopt the Bogomil heresies in the past), and his life was devoted to that work. Even at Geneva he had to restart after the authorities kicked him out, he didn't have the control some people claim he did.


That is not true. Under Catholicism the Archbishop of Canterbury routinely claimed to be the Primate of All Britain. In the post-reformation world the Sctoish Bishops might reasonably look to him for protection and he might then petition the king. Technically speaking the Archbishop does not currently claim such primacy (personally I don't see why not, it would make the running of the Church in Scotland, Ireland and Wales somwhat simpler).

Even the Scottish Bishops would never have wanted to return to the Anglican Church, since many of them, especially in the north-east, were strongly Calvinistic. And if Rowan Williams ever tries to do what you are suggesting, I will be drawing up the 2009 National Covenant and taking up arms against the Kingdom of Antichirst.

OK I'm semi-joking but still.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

It doesn't specifically state that Job was transformed by God, but it does say that he was righteous, and does the rest of the scripture not support the idea that God transforms the hearts of those who believe? I'm not arguing the order of believing/transformation here, but surely even an Arminian would grant that Job, already being a God-fearing man, had been transformed by the grace of God?

Therefore, though God withdrew his direct protection of Job, Job's ability to face his tribulations and retain his faith did ultimately rest of the change the Lord wrought in him.

Presumably though God was allowing Job to demonstrate his own righteousness. I'm not going to argue about the power of God to transform, but it Job will always follow God regardless becuase of God's power over him then all God has done is allowed the Accuser to torment him.

Is that Good? (We trigger our old friend Epicurus here.)


That is indeed what Jesus came to do, but that does not change the fact that God, the Trinity in its entirety, had a special covenant in existance with Israel, which is still very much in existance. The New Covenant certainly has parallels in its message (delivering a chosen people to the promised land), but just because Jesus came as a Jewish Messiah, does not mean that the prophecies of him oppose the idea that he could be a saviour also for the Gentiles (and since he is the lamb slain before the foundation of the world..). Indeed, Jews today do not recognise Jesus because he did not conquer the world in the military sense that they imagined, but through the Second Coming He will surely be King of all the earth? His Kingdom is not of this world, but the one to come...

Read the Sermon on the Mount and tell me Jesus does not revoke the Law. Personally the, "I come not to change the Law" bit seems like one of Christ's little jokes. I get the sense he had a somewhat black sense of humour. I suppose you need that if you're going to be a king crucified by his own people.


Fair enough, this really ties into our discussion about the Cannanitish woman and whether or not we accept the idea of uncovenanted grace, since obviosuly if it was covenanted it must have been by the New Covenant.

Well, if the New Covenant is sealed with Christ's blood... The important point is that Acts has a whole section to establish the point at which the Ministry becomes universal.


With the Pentateuch stuff here its a bit off the top of my head, but I'm guessing that a few command posts wouldn't stop a mass migration. Presumably if they did alert Pharaoh then it would take a while to summon/gather a large army, and by the time they caught up with the Jews they might be somewhere about the Red Sea? Also, Judaea must have been the frontier of the Jewish Empire, and so all there would be to stop the Jews would be a few client states, and all the ones up the shore would be more largely autonomous city states, with little military capacity.

At the time of Exodus the Egyptian and Hittite Empires are butting heads, they meet in Lebanon, it would be like trying to establish a new country in the DMZ in Korea. You'd be smashed between two hammars. Arcaeological evidence is pitifully thin on the ground, most of the cities Joshua is supposed to have "captured" were not even occupied at the time.


As for Paul, I said he wasn't perfect, the scripture records his errors, and we should be wary of them. We should aim to be like Jesus, not Paul.

That raises the question of whether his letters should be ignored in a doctinal debate, which is what I usually do.


Since Jesus disciples kick-started the process of evangelising, there should always be people able to train themselves through the Gospel. You make a valid point in the copying out of scripture though, I guess I tend to think in the era of the printing press. That would be a valid occupation if there was a demand for Bibles, similarly I've no problem with someone dedicating their life to missionary work. Although all you need to do to minister is read the Gospel in your spare time. If everyone is learned in the word, they can just pick someone they like to lead the services.

The problem with the Biblical parralel is that the leaders of the Church then were men who knew Jesus personally. They spoke the language he spoke, they remembered what he said and how he taught. Much of that is Apophrycal now, because it wasn't necessary include it in the Bible. That brings us to another problem, Bishops wrote the Bible, Bishops translated it.

Today, if you have a "part time" Church leader he lacks the literate Greek and Hebrew, so he is at the mercy of the translators (often from another denomination). He might as well have his own Bishop, or priest.


I agree its a bit vague, but you can tell that Jesus sees the power as lying in the congregation, certainly that is how it would have been for the early converts without established hierarchies watching over them.

I think it's very vague, and I fail to see how it disallows a priesthood. Notice he says the Gentiles, contextually it is the Gentiles (Greek and Romans) who do not have a priesthood, but who's leaders (King, Senators etc.) perform priestly functions. You might say that Jesus is actually arguing for a seperate priesthood which is not part of the governmental administration!


No Calvinist ever believes for certain that they are of the elect, because they won't know until they persevere to the end (hence the Puritan frenzy). It's not because they could lose salvation, rather that they would have been mistaken in thinking that they had it in the first place. If you are of the elect, you work out your salvation with fear and trembling, hoping to the end. If you are not of the elect, you will happily live a life of sin and pay for it at the end.

Pretty sure Cromwell did. Anyway, that means that even if you worship God you will go to Hell if he wants you to.


Well, I just remind myself that they are no different from me, and I know that I'm in no position to expect forgiveness. Often, people demand forgiveness from God, demand that they be justified for what they are, and they denounce Him if He will not do it. If you are an Arminian, do these people appear to be humbling themselves before God? :no:

I just don't like a God that destroys children and babies. I have less concern for my own salvation than for all those around me. I care about what happens to people, even if they are not good people.


Jesus gives me comfort to, maybe I should abandon him because of it?

No, but if you follow him because he comforts you, that is not a good reason.


Also, you just commented on my views on compassion, how on earth could you bear to live with yourself knowing a person is in Hell because of you? God is just in punishing those who transgress against Him, but a lot of those people never harmed us, by inaction we would be condemning them to Hell. If people truly thought about the consequences of this, how could they live with it?

You learn to live with it, the first year is the hardest bit, but since you have Free Will, and so does everyone else around you, you keep going and asking God for forgiveness.


Yes, as Christianty has declined, it was inevitable that this would happen. But Christianity has reached the point where if it is to survive, revival will have to come from the bottom up, because, besides God, there's little at the top to provide such a resurgence. Even at a coffee morning after my church's service today, people were commenting on just how useless/uncaring other ministers were, and how their congregations are plummeting because of it.

Either you're in a black spot or your congregation is engaging in trash-talk. All the ministers I have met (and that's a few denominations) have been great people, caring an compasionate.


He never lived in the ideal society, I said it would have to be a consolidated Christian community for several generations (OK it was Christian but not the way Calvin envisaged it). Calvin was a missionary, he went to spread the gospel to a population disillusioned with Catholicism (heck they were even willing to adopt the Bogomil heresies in the past), and his life was devoted to that work. Even at Geneva he had to restart after the authorities kicked him out, he didn't have the control some people claim he did.

It doesn't change the fact that in order to come up with his doctrines he needed a university education, which is the mark of a good priest. Bear in mind that at one time only priests went to universities, it's what they were created for.


Even the Scottish Bishops would never have wanted to return to the Anglican Church, since many of them, especially in the north-east, were strongly Calvinistic. And if Rowan Williams ever tries to do what you are suggesting, I will be drawing up the 2009 National Covenant and taking up arms against the Kingdom of Antichirst.

OK I'm semi-joking but still.

Rowen Williams has a very difficult job right now, I don't think the Bishop Primus et al. are his major concern.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Presumably though God was allowing Job to demonstrate his own righteousness. I'm not going to argue about the power of God to transform, but it Job will always follow God regardless becuase of God's power over him then all God has done is allowed the Accuser to torment him.

Is that Good? (We trigger our old friend Epicurus here.)

This is a fallen world, who expects God to protect them from all suffering? Also, I think Job's suffering did serve a good cause, because it ended up in the scripture, and can inspire Christians nowadays and show that by faith we can persevere to the end.


Read the Sermon on the Mount and tell me Jesus does not revoke the Law. Personally the, "I come not to change the Law" bit seems like one of Christ's little jokes. I get the sense he had a somewhat black sense of humour. I suppose you need that if you're going to be a king crucified by his own people.

I don't think we can start dismissing important parts of the scripture as jokes. Though the laws might not be the same as the were previously, sometimes very difficult to recognise, they are still there, fulfulled by Jesus. Remember, for example, the earlier example I gave of the sabbath - its no longer a day of the week, because our sabbath is now in Christ, not a day of the week. I like how Jesus breaks down the legalistic elements of the law and turns it into something much greater.


Well, if the New Covenant is sealed with Christ's blood... The important point is that Acts has a whole section to establish the point at which the Ministry becomes universal.

And if he was the lamb slain before the foundation of the world, the long-suffering...


At the time of Exodus the Egyptian and Hittite Empires are butting heads, they meet in Lebanon, it would be like trying to establish a new country in the DMZ in Korea. You'd be smashed between two hammars. Arcaeological evidence is pitifully thin on the ground, most of the cities Joshua is supposed to have "captured" were not even occupied at the time.

This has all gotten pretty speculative. I trust that God would be quite capable of fulfilling his promise to Israel, its not difficult to imagine how He could make it happen.


That raises the question of whether his letters should be ignored in a doctinal debate, which is what I usually do.

Well this would be contrary to my favourite 2 Timothy passage. As long as we seperate recorded events from the direct scripture itself, Paul's writings are no diffirent from those of anyone else.


The problem with the Biblical parralel is that the leaders of the Church then were men who knew Jesus personally. They spoke the language he spoke, they remembered what he said and how he taught. Much of that is Apophrycal now, because it wasn't necessary include it in the Bible. That brings us to another problem, Bishops wrote the Bible, Bishops translated it.

Today, if you have a "part time" Church leader he lacks the literate Greek and Hebrew, so he is at the mercy of the translators (often from another denomination). He might as well have his own Bishop, or priest.

I have no problem with having a part-time minister, so long as he is a full-time Christian. The denomination of the Bishops who translated the scripture is irrelevant, since any denominations doctrine could be drawn from any denominations translation (except maybe Jehovas Witnesses who deliberately make changes). So its not like the minister would be at the mercy of a past Bishop, rather he would have the word of God and should, having been chosen by his congregation, deliver it in a way that they are happy with.


I think it's very vague, and I fail to see how it disallows a priesthood. Notice he says the Gentiles, contextually it is the Gentiles (Greek and Romans) who do not have a priesthood, but who's leaders (King, Senators etc.) perform priestly functions. You might say that Jesus is actually arguing for a seperate priesthood which is not part of the governmental administration!

That would be in stark contrast to the services Jesus held. Look at how he would break bread with his disciples and, except for some solitary prayer, live amongst them. He didn't seem to want to seperate priests from the rest of the believers. As for the seperation from the government, I would agree with that; however the church should be a twin pillar of society, not disregarded as it is today.


Pretty sure Cromwell did. Anyway, that means that even if you worship God you will go to Hell if he wants you to.

He didn't, in fact it got too him so much he had to delay some of his campaigns due to depression, sometimes mixed with returning bouts of malaria he picked up in Ireland. Also, nobody will go to Hell who worships God. We will only be given the capacity to truly worship God if He wants us to go to Heaven.


I just don't like a God that destroys children and babies. I have less concern for my own salvation than for all those around me. I care about what happens to people, even if they are not good people.

Good, although I'm not sure what you mean by "good people" (I'm thinking of the other thread where I contrasted the laws of consent with true morality). As for infants, if someone dies as a child, I take it as a sign that they have been predestined to salvation, whether or not they have been baptised by water.


No, but if you follow him because he comforts you, that is not a good reason.

I don't follow him because he conforts me. As for the issue with Calvinism here, I never even thought of the issue raised until I saw it discussed somewhere else fairly recently, so I don't just believe that because I might be comforted in that one issue either.


You learn to live with it, the first year is the hardest bit, but since you have Free Will, and so does everyone else around you, you keep going and asking God for forgiveness.

Hmm, maybe. However I think it's a non-issue because I still don't believe free will exists.


Either you're in a black spot or your congregation is engaging in trash-talk. All the ministers I have met (and that's a few denominations) have been great people, caring an compasionate.

My Gran goes to one of the churches they were talking about. Having asked the minister to call her by her first name, he said he would prefer Mrs.X (with x being in place of the real name, of course :laugh4:). To be honest, I doubt the churches in England can be in a very good state, juding from the total apathy shown to the tide of liberalism sweeping the Anglican church. They might be nice social clubs, but are they strong as churches?


It doesn't change the fact that in order to come up with his doctrines he needed a university education, which is the mark of a good priest. Bear in mind that at one time only priests went to universities, it's what they were created for.

So long as people are literate they can study the scriptures adequately, and should be perfectly able to come to their own conclusions. Scotland was once one of the most literate countries in the world, since the Kirk wanted everyone to be able to read the Bible.


Rowen Williams has a very difficult job right now, I don't think the Bishop Primus et al. are his major concern.

OK, but I'll be on my toes :knight:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

This is a fallen world, who expects God to protect them from all suffering? Also, I think Job's suffering did serve a good cause, because it ended up in the scripture, and can inspire Christians nowadays and show that by faith we can persevere to the end.

Got clearly incites Satan, so Job's suffering is God's doing. If it happened the way it is recorded then God made a righteous man suffer as an example to others. This seems nothing if not cruel. It would essentially be God saying, "No matter how good you are, or how much you love me, I will hurt you."


I don't think we can start dismissing important parts of the scripture as jokes. Though the laws might not be the same as the were previously, sometimes very difficult to recognise, they are still there, fulfulled by Jesus. Remember, for example, the earlier example I gave of the sabbath - its no longer a day of the week, because our sabbath is now in Christ, not a day of the week. I like how Jesus breaks down the legalistic elements of the law and turns it into something much greater.

If you look at the passage, Jesus says he comes not to change the Law until it is fulfilled, then proceeds to revoke or alter Law. This implies that either the Law has already been fulfilled, or Jesus is being ironic, or a bit of both. The Laws are unequivocably revoked time and agin, in the Gospels and Acts, only Paul invokes the Mosaic Laws. Christ only invokes the commandments.


And if he was the lamb slain before the foundation of the world, the long-suffering...

Revelations is alegorical, the New Covenant is sealed with the sacrifice on the Cross, at a particular time. The meeting with the Caananite woman is before that time, Jesus envokes the Old Covenant, after he ascends to Heaven God instructs Peter to extend the New Covenant to the Gentiles, (Acts 10-11).


This has all gotten pretty speculative. I trust that God would be quite capable of fulfilling his promise to Israel, its not difficult to imagine how He could make it happen.

I don't really see why you press this issue, he fullfilled the prophecies, and sent them their King; which they preceeded to execute. The Law is fulfilled, over and done with.


Well this would be contrary to my favourite 2 Timothy passage. As long as we seperate recorded events from the direct scripture itself, Paul's writings are no diffirent from those of anyone else.

The passage which is mistranslated (or archaically translated) in your Bible and which cannot apply to the New Testemant because it hadn't been written? Further, Paul merely talks about instruction in morality, he doesn't say how. You can use the Old Testemant to instruct by opposing it to Christ's pronouncements.

In the following weeks I will be writing a commentary on this passage, until then you will have to accept that this is my considered view, whcih I will demonstrate in due course.


I have no problem with having a part-time minister, so long as he is a full-time Christian. The denomination of the Bishops who translated the scripture is irrelevant, since any denominations doctrine could be drawn from any denominations translation (except maybe Jehovas Witnesses who deliberately make changes). So its not like the minister would be at the mercy of a past Bishop, rather he would have the word of God and should, having been chosen by his congregation, deliver it in a way that they are happy with.

Not really true, the Commandment "Though shalt not Kill" comes from, irrc, the Latin. None of the mainstream English translations carry that wording, and that translation is not accepted by Jews, You get a different doctrine from that. If you compare the NRSV, ESV, RSV and NIV on certain passages you can derrive different doctrine. Some versions use the Long Ending to Mark, some the Short. Passages on abbortion, the prophecies of Isiah etc. are often translated differently by different denominations. Even the Lords Prayer can be rendered in about four basic ways depending on translation and sources.


That would be in stark contrast to the services Jesus held. Look at how he would break bread with his disciples and, except for some solitary prayer, live amongst them. He didn't seem to want to seperate priests from the rest of the believers. As for the seperation from the government, I would agree with that; however the church should be a twin pillar of society, not disregarded as it is today.

He broke bread with his particular Diciples, who went on to be leaders of the Chruch. There were aproximately 14 people at the Last Supper.


He didn't, in fact it got too him so much he had to delay some of his campaigns due to depression, sometimes mixed with returning bouts of malaria he picked up in Ireland. Also, nobody will go to Hell who worships God. We will only be given the capacity to truly worship God if He wants us to go to Heaven.

If you say so, makes worship pointless though, if we're just puppets.


Good, although I'm not sure what you mean by "good people" (I'm thinking of the other thread where I contrasted the laws of consent with true morality). As for infants, if someone dies as a child, I take it as a sign that they have been predestined to salvation, whether or not they have been baptised by water.[quote]

what about a child that doesn't believe in God?

[quote]I don't follow him because he conforts me. As for the issue with Calvinism here, I never even thought of the issue raised until I saw it discussed somewhere else fairly recently, so I don't just believe that because I might be comforted in that one issue either.

Well, that's ok then. It is worth pointing out, however, that just because it hasn't occutred to you before doesn't mean it wasn't in your subconcious.


My Gran goes to one of the churches they were talking about. Having asked the minister to call her by her first name, he said he would prefer Mrs.X (with x being in place of the real name, of course :laugh4:). To be honest, I doubt the churches in England can be in a very good state, juding from the total apathy shown to the tide of liberalism sweeping the Anglican church. They might be nice social clubs, but are they strong as churches?

The Agnlican churches are fighting a loosing battle againt Evangelical Fundamentalists who believe their Bible is the absolute unquestioned word of God, who preach hatred and fear, who pray for homosexuals in the same breath as racists and murders. These churches are popular because they offer a friendly atmosphere to their own communicants, don't demand Baptism, don't use liturgy, sing happy songs and generally make people feel good about themselves without much regard for anyone else.

that may sound like an ironic portrayal, but the point is the selfishness, "I'm saved, I'm Happy". at the same time these denominations are often anti-intellectual and frankly pigheaded. The Evangelical christian Union here wanted to change the Student Union's regulations so that they could discriminate on the basis of belief, race, gender etc. That didn't go down well, so they changed it to "things such as belief". It was voted down heavily. I was stood in front of the Ministers at the time, knowing them a little I was impressed the Evangelicals manged to upset the Catholic, Anglican and Methodist.

at the same time Evangelicals spread a lot of misinformation about other denominations, such as:

1. Saints are sepcial people.

2. Preists are special people, and think they can do magic.

3. Jesus wrote the Bible.


So long as people are literate they can study the scriptures adequately, and should be perfectly able to come to their own conclusions. Scotland was once one of the most literate countries in the world, since the Kirk wanted everyone to be able to read the Bible.

Literate actually literally means having Latin. I would say that in this context to be literate would be to be able to read Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek and Latin; this covers the whole Bible and the Canons of Bibilical authenticity etc.

So most people are illiterate, including me (I only have Latin, and not very Good Latin at that. After I improve that Greek, then Hebrew, then Aramaic.


OK, but I'll be on my toes :knight:

I wouldn't worry, you're not an Episcopalian, so it doesn't affect you either way.