40 lashes for 75 Year Old Woman

[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.

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:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

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:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

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 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 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?

"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.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

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?

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.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

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 ). 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

[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.

[quote]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?

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 ). 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

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