RT @LIAint: Just read @world_mag's "In the Shadow of War" about the people of the Nuba Mountains. Anyone else read it yet? 
Click to Print
Include Comments
The Episcopal Church, Wiccans, and the Divine Feminine
I suppose nothing The Episcopal Church does should shock me any more. Nonetheless, it does.
In this holiest of Christian seasons, on the evening before Passion Sunday, the Cathedral of All Souls Episcopal Church in Asheville, N.C., hosted an event in its parish hall for an organization called The Mother Grove Goddess Temple. The purpose of the event? To celebrate the spring equinox of course. Wait, you say, that’s not Christian, that’s pagan. But there’s more. According to Mother Grove’s website, its mission “is to create and maintain a permanent sanctuary where people of all faith traditions may openly and safely celebrate the Divine Feminine.” According to Byron Ballard, a Wiccan priestess and a member of the temple, Mother Grove “isn’t a Wiccan group, though some of us are Wiccans.” Just in case you were wondering, Ballard goes on to explain that “Wiccans may also refer to themselves as witches.”
Here’s Mother Grove’s description of the event: “The celebration will consist of raising a circle, singing, ‘whistling in the wind’ and flying prayers written on paper airplanes. Ballard will lead the ritual, explaining that it is a joyful expression of the beginning of spring and coming together as a community.”
Many churches rent their parish halls to community organizations like the Boy Scouts and Alcoholics Anonymous. But to organizations whose teachings are entirely incompatible with traditional Christian beliefs? Oh, wait. The Episcopal Church (TEC) doesn’t care about traditional Christian beliefs. Probably more important to them was the fact that the Saturday event was “open to all faith traditions.” I’d be curious to know if they’d play host to traditional Anglicans (like myself) who oppose the direction TEC has taken. Somehow I think not.
As one person speculated on the StandFirm website, devoted to traditional Anglicanism, I wonder if it would be reasonable to say that All Souls Episcopal Church isn’t a Christian group, though some of them might be Christians.
back to top392 Comments to “The Episcopal Church, Wiccans, and the Divine Feminine”
The Wiccan pentagram is ubiquitous. A vague mush belief system with no creeds demanding loyalty, no holy book or prophet’s teachings to study/memorize/live by.
All Souls Episcopal has as the saying goes exchanged the truth of God for a lie.
They are to be pitied above all men.
Report comment to moderator
Many years ago, my husband and I attended a seminar put on by a Lutheran church close to our own Lutheran church. We were amazed to find it riddled with New Age beliefs. In the class a book was used and it featured many New Age authors. It was an eye-opener for both of us. I later read, “The Aquarian Conspiracy”, which advocates for New Age ideas and found many of these same authors in it.
In the class and in the book we found that ‘Holy Spirit’ and ‘Christ”, along with many other Christian terms, were being used, but no they were no longer meant any of the traditional ways. We brought the book to our pastor, but he chose to ignore it. We eventually ended up leaving that church.
In more research I found these ideas at the seminary level. So, none of this surprises me in this church either. I am still in a Lutheran church and am not condemning all of them or any other church. I am just saying things like this have infected a lot of church bodies and all members better be reading their bibles and making sure what they and their children are taught is really the truth.
Report comment to moderator
“On October 12, 1945, His Holiness Pope Pius XII proclaimed Mary, Virgin of Guadalupe,
as Empress of all the Americas.
On this glorious and memorable day at Rome, the Holy Father asked for world peace and unity – the very foundations of correct living. He added that to obtain this peace and unity one must have recourse to the Virgin Mary, to her who is the Voice of Faith and Hope of Christians.”
Yikes.
Report comment to moderator
Some get so upset when I say the Episcopal Church are no longer servig God. This is just more proof, that they have fallen away from God and His Word.
Report comment to moderator
At some point, a group looses their right to call themselves a “church.” They have obviously crossed the threshold. Not sure what they should call themsleves instead….but it shouldn’t be church.
Report comment to moderator
Oh, wait. The Episcopal Church (TEC) doesn’t care about traditional Christian beliefs. Probably more important to them was the fact that the Saturday event was “open to all faith traditions.” I’d be curious to know if they’d play host to traditional Anglicans (like myself) who oppose the direction TEC has taken. Somehow I think not.
Good smear, Marcia. It has condescension, presumption and invective. Nice!
Report comment to moderator
#6 Steve G
Name calling again?
Report comment to moderator
Bob Buckles 03.26.10 AT 12:58 PM
#6 Steve G
Name calling again?
–
he has been doing that to me now for two days. It seems if you disagree with him, he has to resort to name calling.
On the issue of the Episcopal Church – The leadership are the ones leading the Church astray. There are still some in the Episcopal Church who love God, His Son and the Word but are fighting for their churches soul.
Report comment to moderator
Bob,
Personally, I think this mother grove group sounds a flaky as they come. I’ve seen a few of these types that I call “earth muffins” at contras and events held at the local UU church. Big time flakes, but meh, live and let live.
But reading #6, I can’t say that I see Steve G calling Marcia any names. He’s criticizing, I think, her tone – she is using the fact that the church is hosting this flaky group to go off on the Episcopal Church, in general.
Maybe you disagree that with the words “Oh Wait,” her tone becomes kind of sarcastic towards the Episcopals, and presumes who they would and would not host in the next sentence.
But saying what you find someone’s tone to sound like, is not calling the person names.
Report comment to moderator
Bob: Me? What name did I call anyone?
Or do you mean my pointing out that Marcia’s engaging in a full-on “personal attack” against The Episcopal Church in general, because of an event that one local church agreed to allow to use their facilities on an off-day?
Report comment to moderator
Good segue back to the days of Salem, Marcia. Do you enjoy your role as a priestess of the centuries-old tradition of witch hunting?
Watch out though. You’d probably have been burned back then too, simply for daring to write this column, in spite of clear directions from the Bible about the role of women.
Sorry – this column is SO beyond PATHETIC!
Report comment to moderator
… Really … it reads like an over-the-top parody of the paranoid conspiratorial right wing. Unfortunately, your serious …
Report comment to moderator
er … you’re serious ….
Report comment to moderator
SteveG,
I don’t care for the tone in Marcia’s post either, but I don’t think she is attacking The Episcopal Church “because of an event that one local church agreed to allow to use their facilities on an off-day.”
Rather, it sounds to me like she is pointing out that the one event shouldn’t be seen as surprising, because The Episcopal Church is already known (in her view) to not “care about traditional Christian beliefs” – most likely based on their stance on homosexuality.
Report comment to moderator
Pauline, I believe it also because the leadership of the Episcopal Church has shown a habbit of disregarding of God’s Word. This is just another expalin of such behavior.
Report comment to moderator
Most Episcopalians look on the critiques lobbed in their direction by those who are ignorant of our church polity with a mixture of wry amusement and unconcern.
Marcia’s tone is meant to convey disdain. She should know that Episcopalians are characterized by an inability to abide bigotry in any form, and a sincere sadness for those Christians who seem to have forgotten The Great Commandment.
We don’t care what you think of us (or at least, I don’t). If people who warp Christianity to justify antipathy towards gay people (to use but one example) DIDN’T criticize Episcopalians, it would mean that we weren’t doing our jobs.
Report comment to moderator
Pauline: It’s rubbish. The church’s stance on homosexuality (which is not settled by the way) is possible because, like the Catholic church it developed from, it does not recognize Scripture as the only source of spiritual guidance. It also includes reason and tradition (whereas the RC church includes tradition and authority) along with Scripture as the “three-legged stool” on which sound doctrine rests.
I understand this conflicts with the conservative evangelical sola scriptura belief, but I also understand that the discussions on homosexuality are not just a weak-willed capitulation to culture, as most of its critics think.
In any case, her attack is mean-spirited, unfair and dishonest.
Report comment to moderator
In any case, her attack is mean-spirited, unfair and dishonest. — Why because she believes in God’s Word and again a Church within the Episcopal Church has rejected God’s Word?
Report comment to moderator
Or is it because she has reveal the fact this church is in bed with the enemy of God.
Report comment to moderator
I have often said if I ever become a missionary aimed at a Lost People Group the LPG I would pick would be the Wiccan contingent serving in the armed forces.
Do you know how many times I encounter the pentagram or other Wicca related things?
The one thing I’ve never got to hear but would love to do so would be the “testimony” of a Wiccan.
Report comment to moderator
Did SteveG say that the church is acting out of reason by abandoning what is true for a substitute? (not meant as offensive) Proverbs is a whole book about wisdom and reason, and playing around with the paranormal (aka false supernatural) is not wise.
About the comment, it is not a personal attack rather a sarcastic remark stating the fact that the Episcopalian church is not following “sola spcriptura” as you put it. I fail to see what is dis-honest about saying a true statement sarcastically, nor how it is unfair, however sarcasm can indeed be mean-spirited, but Marcia’s tone in the blog is far from being so.
Spinoza though is quite humorous as s/he lacks the knowledge of what the Bible actually says about the role of women, instead going with whatever everyone else says, I am guessing, as there is nothing in the Bible that would prohibit a woman from writing. Also, their is nothing conspiratorial in this piece, no outlandish claims were made.
Report comment to moderator
Why would a Church that say they worship Jesus, permitted a group like the Wiccans, and the Divine Feminine, who are know to worship a false god., use their building?
Why would people get upset when Christian question a church like this relationship with God?
Report comment to moderator
Rom116: Did SteveG say that the church is acting out of reason by abandoning what is true for a substitute?
What substitute would that be?
For about 75 percent of the history of Christianity, the Bible has NOT been considered the sole source of spiritual truth. The Roman Catholic Church and the various Orthodox churches have always considered it as one of several. In the case of the Roman Catholics, the Bible stands alongside the authority of the Pope and the Magisterium, and church tradition.
The Anglicans, at the time they split from the Catholics, retained the tradition side but rejected authority in favor of reason. The Episcopalians, being the American arm of the Anglicans, continue that approach. And while the question of homosexuality is not settled within TEC, the arguments for greater acceptance of it have to do with very carefully weighing what the scriptural passages mean and how applicable they are today considering the context in which they were written.
The idea that only the Bible is the only source of spiritual truth is very new for Christianity. It arose with the Protestant Reformation, so it’s been around for only 1/4 of the history of Christianity.
It may well be that in rejecting the value of reason, tradition and even authority, you’re the one “abandoning what is true for a substitute.”
In any event, to claim that the Episcopal Church and other denominations that have softened the stance on homosexuality are just giving in to the culture is false. You can disagree with the outcome of the debate; you can even disagree with the question being raised at all. But you cannot, if you care about being honest, write it off as unthinking compromise.
Report comment to moderator
Awh the justification given to embrace sin and reject God’s Word.
Report comment to moderator
And while the question of homosexuality is not settled within TEC, the arguments for greater acceptance of it have to do with very carefully weighing what the scriptural passages mean and how applicable they are today considering the context in which they were written.
–
meaning God’s Word is wrong, we are right.
Report comment to moderator
In any event, to claim that the Episcopal Church and other denominations that have softened the stance on homosexuality are just giving in to the culture is false. You can disagree with the outcome of the debate; you can even disagree with the question being raised at all. But you cannot, if you care about being honest, write it off as unthinking compromise.
–
well God’s WOrd has the finial say on the subject. any sexual relationship out side of marriage is a sin. An marriage is between one man and one woman, per God’s Word.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG,
Whether going by “sola Scriptura” or not, it’s true that one “traditional Christian belief” is that homosexual acts are sinful.
I do think it makes sense to use reason and Church tradition, and I think most of us do to some extent anyway whether we think of it in those terms or not. In controversial areas I think I lean more heavily on the tradition part than you, or perhaps The Episcopal Church.
My disappointment with Marcia’s post is that it ends up turning the discussion toward The Episcopal Church in general, rather than the event in question. There could be a fruitful discussion, I would hope, on criteria for deciding what groups may meet in the church facility, whether there are some aspects of Wicca that are not incompatible with Christian teaching, and why people would look for a “divine feminine” (I have read that the devotion to Mary among Catholics is because people want to find a feminine side of God).
Report comment to moderator
Pauline – I read it an I got the impression that this action is just another reason to show the problems The Episcopal Church in general with the Christian Faith.
Am I wrong?
Report comment to moderator
#26 – Oh come on guys – this article is just an old-fashioned witch hunt with real witches! “Oooh look at the picture of the pendant with a star, er I’m mean a Satanic PENTAGRAM, on it. SATAN is at work. Burn, baby, burn.
SICK!
Report comment to moderator
Once you open the door to letting culture determine what is of God and what is not of God. You open the door for Churches like this to embrace sin. The reason you have no foundation to stand on. The foundation for a Christian and a Christian Church is God’s Word. This is the problem facing the Episcopal Church, the foundation of God’s Word is broken. They are not standing on the rock but on sand.
Report comment to moderator
#29 – PR, you have already given into a cultural determination of God – it’s just a fundamentalist protestant culture, and not a very reliable or trustworthy source of objective truth. Your belief that the bible is an objective source of revelation is a culturally determined one. It is wrong. Objective evidence does not support it. The bible itself is a document determined by some very old cultures with dubious relevance to today and little objective truth.
Report comment to moderator
About the only thing the Episcopalian Church is good for these days is providing a sort of market for medical oxygen bottles and life-support systems; if you go to an Episcopalian Church, it is hard to hear anything due to the continual hiss of the oxygen tanks in the (sparsely-inhabited) pews, and maybe the periodic death rattle from yet another expiring parishioner.
There are, of course, curious rituals going on up front, what with the priestesses intoning their chants to the Womb of the Mother Goddess and what not.
And the inter-species marriage ceremonies are sometimes interesting to watch, for those with strong stomachs; although membership in Episcopalian Churches is declining rapidly, some new members are still being added, due to the effort to be more inclusive in such nebulous things as ‘marriage’.
And efforts are being made to expand the Church in exciting new directions by a forward-looking church leadership, led by Elton John and the seven dwarfs: In fact, the next target group for proselytization by the Episcopalian Church is the sea sponge, which combines a certain moral squishiness with the complete lack of a central nervous system. Hence the ideal satisfied Episcopalian parishioner, these days.
Report comment to moderator
Episcopalian Church is the sea sponge, which combines a certain moral squishiness with the complete lack of a central nervous system. – DRILL – Lolo
Report comment to moderator
I had a wiccan friend once. Her ‘testimony’ is that her practices made her feel ‘powerful’ and ‘good’. From the outside looking in, the more deeply she got into it, the harsher and more self-righteous she got.
Report comment to moderator
Telling the truth is NOT an attack. The very idea of having a Wiccan “event” in a church is appalling.
Report comment to moderator
Doesn’t it say somewhere in the Old Testiment that witches are to be killed on sight, and that if someone knows where one can be found that you must go and kill them? I do beleave thats what it said. I could be wrong,but I really do like the Old Testiment very much. It can be so compelling at times!
Report comment to moderator
Let’s play “respect” one more time.
Report comment to moderator
All Souls Episcopal Church allowing The Mother Grove Goddess Temple to use their hall in no way requires them to agree with the beliefs of those they were renting it out to. I think it’s kind of silly what a big fuss is being made because All Souls didn’t act like jerks towards people of a different spirituality. By treating The Mother Grove Goddess Temple group in a fair and positive way they set a very good example for Christianity in general. The best way to assure none of those people considered listening to the message of Jesus would have been to treat them badly. And I think it says something about their lack of insecurity in their faith that they were not threatened by having a different perspective around.
Report comment to moderator
I would say that accomodating goddess worship in a Christian church is more a stamp of approval or weakness than an example of fairness. Knowing and dealing with people of other belifes on a one-to-one basis is much more loving than encouraging their anti-Christian worship. What am I missing?
Report comment to moderator
Allowing people of a different faith to worship in a hall is not encouraging them it’s allowing them to use the space. And just because people follow a religion other than Christianity does not make it anti-Christian it just makes it non-Christian. This whole us versus them mentality is why there are always holy wars going on throughout the world.
What you are missing is that the more negatively you treat people of other faiths the more you convince them that they are right for not choosing Christianity. Allowing them to use the space shows positive qualities and allows them to see the church and meet some of the staff which is an opportunity for discussion and goodwill which is far more likely to draw them to Christianity than the hostility that they often receive from most Christians in general.
It seems like a lot of this fear, hostility, and negativity directed towards non-Christian or even other denominations within Christianity is just a sign of spiritual or personal insecurity. How is someone else worshiping different than us a threat to our beliefs? Treating people badly regardless of the reason just drives them away.
Report comment to moderator
I don’t believe in God, so it doesn’t matter to me whether you refer to the imaginary being as He or She or It, or he or she or it or animal or vegetable.
Do any of you ever read your own commets?
Of course, the answer to that is obvious.
Report comment to moderator
WintersFrost: What you are missing is that the more negatively you treat people of other faiths the more you convince them that they are right for not choosing Christianity. Allowing them to use the space shows positive qualities and allows them to see the church and meet some of the staff which is an opportunity for discussion and goodwill which is far more likely to draw them to Christianity than the hostility that they often receive from most Christians in general.
You know, that’s a very good point.
I am Episcopalian. And I can attest that, while I’m not drawn to more conservative/evangelical forms of Christianity, the mocking/hostile tone of the original post and the just hostile/hostile tone of most of the comments are certainly not making it any more likely that I ever would consider it.
Just the opposite.
Report comment to moderator
I’ve always believed people should be able to worship the creator as they see fit. By what ever name you may call him or her. Steve and Winterfrost make some very valid points. There are many christians out there that see beyond their own noses and see that
communication between different religious group is vital. You do not have to agree with each other but you need to understand that
their is a little concept called Freedom of Religion.
It is really sad when I see all the misinformation deliberately put out there by some christian groups just to sow the seeds of hate. Is that what Jesus taught? Most likely not.
Report comment to moderator
#29: We Pagans/Wiccans/Witches do not believe in Satan; he is a Christian entity and since we are obviously not Christian, we have no need for him. How can we worship an entity which we do not believe exists?
And #36: Nowhere in any Bible does it say that Witches are to be put to death on sight. The quote, “Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live…” is literally translated as, “Thou shalt not suffer a “TRAITOR/POISONER” to live…” There are several mistranslations when converting the Hebrew language into Amercian English. This is one of them.
Report comment to moderator
And to everyone else: Jesus said, “Love thy neighbour…” But I am pretty sure that he didn’t mean only the people who live next door to you! He meant EVERYONE! Jesus didn’t teach hatred or to be judgemental of others. He taught love, humility, honour, and acceptance. If he were here today, he would be ashamed of all of you for your selfish and judgemental, unloving thoughts and words. I swear, with all of your bigotry and “holier than thou, I’m better” mindset, you push away more people than you convert!…If I were a newcomer to Christianity and I saw all of your comments, I would look elsewhere for religious enlightenment! The more your judge and assume and fail to learn, the more you prove all of us right! Bright blessings to ALL!
Report comment to moderator
The Cathederal involved was not simply doing something locally, its actions were reflecting the position put forth by the presiding bishop of the Episcopal Church, that is; that Jesus is a way to God not the only way. Their actions are consistant with the actions of the leadership.
As to the quip about a conservative group being able to meet, depending upon the diocese and the dean of the cathederal, I would have to concur with the authors remarks. There are perhaps a half a dozen cathederals that would permit a conservative group to meet out of 105 diocese.
Report comment to moderator
if you are promoting sin, then you are moving away from God and towards the enemy of God
Report comment to moderator
Renting a hall out to a different religious group does not mean that the Episcopal Church believes there are other ways to God other than Jesus, it means they rented out a hall. Attributing a far reaching concept to a singular business transaction is reaching.
If the presiding bishop does believe that there are other ways to God than specifically through Jesus, how is this a threat to you. If Jesus is your way to God and you are successful then what difference does it make if other people might find God another way. I think it’s rather presumptuous of us to assume that we as limited as we are in understanding God believe that He is as limited as our concepts.
Report comment to moderator
I love my neighbor, but I wouldn’t accommodate him in everything he wants. It would be interesting to see if the church would open up its doors to the Ku Klux Klan or similar organizations and still have the supporters.
It is also interesting to see people equate witch burning with simply criticising what someone does or believes.
Report comment to moderator
“I’ve always believed people should be able to worship the creator as they see fit.”
Shouldn’t we worship the creator as He sees fit? Since worship derives its meaning from “worth ship” or the placing of great worth upon something, and your statement places more worth on what the individual sees fitting than what the Creator does, by definition those people would be worshipping themselves, not their Creator.
“Jesus didn’t teach hatred or to be judgemental of others. He taught love, humility, honour, and acceptance.”
By going to the cross, Jesus passed judgment on the sin of the world. While Christians are called not be judges in the sense of passing a final verdict on another human being, we are called in Scripture, repeatedly and emphatically, to judge between right and wrong, good and evil.
“For about 75 percent of the history of Christianity, the Bible has NOT been considered the sole source of spiritual truth. The Roman Catholic Church and the various Orthodox churches have always considered it as one of several. In the case of the Roman Catholics, the Bible stands alongside the authority of the Pope and the Magisterium, and church tradition.”
Even in Protestant tradition, we are expected to use our God given reason, due deference to traditional understanding and teaching, and ability to properly interpret the Word according to reasonable hermeneutical principles. The Bible is not claimed, in the sense you are arguing here, to be the sole source of spiritual truth. It is however, the final arbiter of spiritual truth, for Roman Catholic, Protestant, and historical Christainity as a whole. To the extent that sound hermeneutical principles make the Scriptures very clear that homosexual (and pagan) practices are wrong, the attempts by the American Episcopal churches to wrest meanings never anticipated by the original writers and their intended audiences to justify such behavior is in fact “a weak-willed capitulation to culture.”
Wicca and modern paganism were born amidst nineteenth century spiritual dilettantism. They bear no more connection to ancient religious traditions than the fellow who dresses in a tunic and bronze helmet and dashes around on a white horse during halftime at USC games is Hector of Troy.
Report comment to moderator
“Nowhere in any Bible does it say that Witches are to be put to death on sight. The quote, “Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live…” is literally translated as, “Thou shalt not suffer a “TRAITOR/POISONER” to live…” There are several mistranslations when converting the Hebrew language into Amercian English. This is one of them”
WitchofHecate #45
———–
Wit,
Are you in a time-lock back in Israel IN THE LAND, in tabernacle/temple times?
Therein, was the law applicable.
As for the Word of God..
God has providentially and perfectly preserved HIS Word perfect in the Bible via HIS promises. It is His LIVING Word. And yes, we have it in English.
Fishing around for “Hebrew” nonsense reasons to doubt the Word of God, is N/A. Simply disregard.
Hope that helps.
By the way, it’s time for you to receive Christ.
Why live for nothing, when you can live forever?
Report comment to moderator
to #49 KI:
It seems like you are not appreciating the association of criticism with witch burning but at the same time you are comparing the KKK with a group of Pagans. Vastly different groups with extremely opposite beliefs.
Report comment to moderator
to #1 SAWGUNNER:
Islam is based around the teachings of one prophet, has specific beliefs, demanding loyalty, has a holy book and teachings to study memorize and live by. But I would say that most of Christianity would disagree with it as a religion. So clearly these things do not make a religion any more or less valid than any other.
Wicca is a experiential rather than revealed religion. So it does not rely on the teaching of one prophet. Instead it relies on drawing the good out of the teachings of many and relying on self experience and discovery.
It does have guidelines and writings which are often misunderstood by others just as Christian writings and guidelines are often misunderstood by outsiders.
The idea of one holy book is counter to key basic beliefs in the religion. Each individual is expected to form their own holy book based on their experience and the shared experiences of those around them. This requires them to do a considerable amount of study, self reflection, and to document what they have learned spiritually.
In comparison most revealed religions accept one or more peoples perspective written hundreds to thousands of years ago, doing little to no searching for truth on their own.
Each approach has positives and negatives, Christianity and Wicca are very different in terms of how they approach things.
Report comment to moderator
winter,
Yes…
Quranicism, wicca-ologism, scientology-ites, Hale-Bopp-ism, Bahá’u'lláh-ism, Joey Smith-ism, etc. practitioners, are found throughout America, for one.
It’s the U.S.A. way!
They can all order off of the dollar menu at fastfood world.
It’s simply that we prefer to be Heaven-bound.
“And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.” (Joh 6:40)
Yippee!
Report comment to moderator
I would only like to comment in order to commend Wintersfrost for being one of the most balanced, organized, and straightforward commenters. Thank you for your thoughts!
Report comment to moderator
The purpose of the event? To celebrate the spring equinox of course. Wait, you say, that’s not Christian, that’s pagan.
Unfortunately, the equinoxes are natural events which Christianity hasn’t been able to stop. It’s bad enough that they change the rhythm of life. Let’s please not call attention, or celebrate, or shock Marcia Seligstein.
Report comment to moderator
P.S. Episcopal churches may have promiscuous parish halls, but they don’t allow the religious practitioners of non-Christian or non-standard, Christian faiths to officiate at sacramental offices in the sanctuary.
Report comment to moderator
I will leave the argument over what the church has done up to the Christians. As a non christian I am fascinated by this idea that everyone else is somehow against Christianity and enemies. The truth of the matter Christianity is simply not important to people of other religions. Most religions of the world never had any ideas of being against Christianity, so this is mostly paranoia.
If feeling under attack turns your crank, believe away. But why would anyone in any other religion even care about Christianity. or what its holy book is for or against? Do you worry about what the Buddhist Sutras say? I think not. So why would you think that other religions are concerned about your beliefs or holy book?
Meanwhile before you attack a religion that you know nothing about, educate yourself on the beliefs of that religion. Attacking out of complete ignorance is silly.
As long as you don’t interfere with my right to believe or practice my religion, I have no reason to even care about your religion.
Report comment to moderator
Winters Frost makes some good points. There are several separate issues here that are getting jumbled together.
1) Church buildings aren’t holy which is why Protestants don’t call them sanctuaries. We call them Meeting Houses. And so on that level, does it matter who meets in them?
2) The Episcopal church in large part has abandoned biblical authority. Confronting them with the truth in love is the proper Christian response.
3) What should the relationship be between Christians and the rest of the world, including pagans and other religions, all of them false? Again, we are called to speak the truth in love.
And so, the real criticism here, that I believe Marcia is getting at, is not whether Wiccans use this building or another. It is the fact that portions of Christianity are nearly indistinguishable from the pagan.
Report comment to moderator
Are the non-Christians here the only ones saying that Christians feel their beliefs are threatened by other religions. Which Christians are claiming this?
I don’t feel that my faith is threatened by non-Christian belief systems, I just don’t want them influencing my children.
Report comment to moderator
to 54 MYTOOSENSE:
While I understand your comparison of experiential religions like Wicca as picking and choosing what they believe off of a selection of choices you see as lesser than the main menu of Christianity.
I think a better comparison might be that in revealed religions like Christianity, Islam, or Judaism its like using your great grandmothers recipe for making biscuits. You know you can trust it because it has passed down through the generations and its tried and true. Great grandma knew how to bake and she knows a lot of very wise things about baking or non-baking issues.
Now experiential religions like Wicca are more like looking at some family recipes, following some general cooking guidelines, then creating your own recipe. Sure it could make some biscuits that aren’t the best in some quality or another at first but over time and through experience the recipe is improved until you have your own recipe which is right for you specifically. And may have some improvements or differences you never would have got from great grandmas recipe.
Now either way will eventually feed the hungry and both are valid ways to make biscuits they are just different approaches.
Report comment to moderator
winterfrost,
Any supposed “spiritual teaching” contrary to the infallible Bible is counterfeit.
There may have been recipe-designer, group-hug conventions among the defiant (with baked goods), in Noah’s day. But the horrifying concern, was the forced oversupply of water, made available, for the washing of it all down.
“By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith.” Heb. 11:7
The defiant of our generation also get an opportunity to get “in the ark”.
“But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.” Mt. 24:37
Thus, don’t miss it.
Report comment to moderator
ChristopherBlackwell,
There’s only one remedy for sin..
..the victory at Calvary.
Thus, the Gospel goes out to those, “without Christ”, “having no hope”, and “without God”..
“That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:” Ep. 2:12
Jesus Christ liberates from the penalty and power of sin.
“But not as the offence, so also is the FREE gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many” Ro. 5:15
Report comment to moderator
to #62 MYTOOSENSE:
I’m curious, which infallible Bible are you using as the standard? Even between denominations there is dispute about what books make up the Bible and that is not even taking into consideration variations in translations.
Report comment to moderator
The wiccan gal I met in the army (one of several) said they worship in no temple built with human hands. They have their gatherings out in the woods generally. They dance in a circle and jump over a fire.
If they deny Satan they deny the Triune of the Bible.
Hence they are lost.
Nuf said?
Report comment to moderator
I haven’t followed all of this because the topic doesn’t particularly interest me. However, I noticed Winterfrost questioning Mytoosense’s quote in #62.
It doesn’t matter which Bible it comes from. They all say the same thing.
Go to any translation you want and read the references in Matthew and Hebrews. That’s what they say.
Now if you follow th Torah, Koran, Rules for Radicals, or Communist Manifesto, that’s another matter.
But the Bible says what it says.
Report comment to moderator
In #60, Louise said
I just don’t want them influencing my children.
This will perhaps come as big news to you, but there are people of religious beliefs other than Christianity who say the same thing about Christians. How do we know that you should be allowed to influence their children while they should not be allowed to influence your children?
Because you KNOW that you know all about God and they don’t?
Report comment to moderator
Most of the time people at worldmagblog put their energy into insulting “liberals” and homosexuals and Muslims. I have seen a snipe at Hindus and Buddhists now and them. When they are not considering voting for one for President, give Mormons their lumps now and then.
With this post and thread, we have a little multi-faith branching out. Perhaps the editors of worldmagblog should set a goal for 2010: insult a different faith each week.
Your God is a jealous God (not to mention insecure one). He probably gets bored with so few other beliefs to be jealous of.
FALSE GOD OF THE WEEK!
Report comment to moderator
#65 Sawgunner
I am not a Wiccan nor do I know a lot about Wiccans so I can’t make a statement on what they believe.
I don’t see how denying Satan means denying the Trinity. Satan isn’t part of the Trinity unless you think he’s either the Father, the Son, or the Holy Spirit.
Besides they SAY they aren’t Christians so why do we have to prove it? Everyone agrees Wiccans aren’t Christians including the Wiccans themselves.
It seems you’re trying to say that Wiccans are weird which isn’t a good argument. “Weird” just means different from what you’re used to.
Report comment to moderator
Random Name
I wouldn’t go up to, say, a Muslim woman’s child and try to tell him about Christianity if she didn’t want me to. I would be a bit upset if a Muslim woman tried to tell a young child of mine about Islam. A parent’s job is to teach children how to live insofar as the parent knows how. Trust me they WILL question their beliefs when they get to be teens. Children aren’t logical and must be taught by their parents.
Report comment to moderator
Notice I said a BIT upset. I wouldn’t flip out or be rude. I would just think it was inconsiderate of her.
If my kid had any questions I would answer them as well as I could. I don’t attack other religions or the people in them. I don’t think the other folks in wmb do either.
Report comment to moderator
Wintersfrost, I want to be clear. You (and most other Wiccans) believe that the way to find truth is through your own experiences? You also believe that whatever you experience as true is true? I want to be clear. As I said in #69 I don’t know a lot about Wicca.
Report comment to moderator
to #66 CHAS
There are actually more than a dozen books that are in some Bibles and not others depending on the denomination. Entire books not just translations. And even within books common to all Bibles some whole sentences are in some translations and not in others, phrases added or removed.
Example: Hebrews 11:11
NIV – “By faith Abraham, even though he was past age — and Sarah herself was barren — was enabled to become a father because he considered him faithful who had made the promise.”
TNIV – “And by faith even Sarah, who was past age, was enabled to bear children because she considered him faithful who had made the promise.”
KJV – “Through faith also Sara herself received strength to conceive seed…”
AMP – “Because of faith also Sarah herself received physical power to conceive a child…”
NASV – “By faith even Sarah herself received ability to conceive, even beyond the proper time of life…”
CEV – “Even when Sarah was too old to have children…”
YOUNG – “By faith also Sarah herself did receive power to conceive seed, and she bare after the time of life…”
PHILLIPS – “It was by faith that even Sarah gained the physical vitality to become a mother despite her great age…”
In this example the meaning is not overly changed but you can see what a difference there is between translations. The NIV for example inserted Abraham into the verse.
For a more interesting example if you have some time look up the 10 commandments. Look up the Protestant, Catholic, and Jewish versions side by side. Most of the commandments are the same but not all and the meaning of some of them is very different.
Report comment to moderator
to #72 ESTHER
I didn’t say what I believe one way or the other. I was more commenting that comparing religions like Wicca with Christianity is going to be difficult because they each approach understanding spirituality in different ways. Wicca has a stronger focus on finding truth through personal experience whereas Christianity has a stronger focus on accepting what has been revealed/experienced by those in the past.
Sawgunner’s understanding of Wicca sounds more in line with an episode of Charmed than actual reality. While many Wiccans do prefer to worship or celebrate outside just as many do inside. Wiccans have a respect for the nature and tend to feel more in touch with spirituality when outside.
Sawgunner is correct that Wicca doesn’t have a concept of Satan, Hell, or technically even Heaven. Since reincarnation is the primary belief for the afterlife Wicca doesn’t need a place for good or bad people to go. And Satan is a concept of Abrahamic religions so it doesn’t really have a place in Wicca.
Although even Christianity doesn’t agree about Satan, Hell, or the Trinity. There is great variation in belief from individual to individual and between denominations. So I’m not sure why that test is being held to a different religion when within itself Christianity cannot agree.
Report comment to moderator
Ken – “{Wicca and modern Paganism] bear no more connection to ancient religious traditions than the fellow who dresses in a tunic and bronze helmet and dashes around on a white horse during halftime at USC games is Hector of Troy.”
They have that in their favor – the idea that something is true because it is ancient is one of many really stupid ideas that pervade evangelical Christianity.
Report comment to moderator
No, Spinoza, nobody believes that Christianity is true “because it is ancient.” It is true because it is true–because it tells the truth.
Now, do you disbelieve it (at least partly) because it is ancient? That would be as stupid as your accusation. The idea that we’re automatically smarter or more likely to be right than our ancestors is quite stupid.
Report comment to moderator
Wintersfrost, the idea that self-created truth is actually “true” in any meaningful sense should be absurd on the face of it. If I decide that my truth includes the ability to drink poison or the right to murder, will the universe adjust accordingly? No, I’m sorry, it will not–because truth is something that we know or don’t know, something that fist reality, and not a personalized list. Either Jesus is God or He isn’t, for instance–if He is God, then He is the Creator, the only way to God, the only Savior from sin, and so forth. It doesn’t matter whether you “believe” He is. He either is, or He isn’t. And you either believe truth or you believe falsehood.
Does your “truth” line up with the universe as it really is–with “true truth”? If not, it isn’t truth at all, and it’s worse than useless, because it is in danger of leading you away from genuine truth.
Being the arbiter of your own truth is the way to insanity. The universe won’t adjust to make your self-chosen truth really “true.” Lining up what you believe with what is really true is the only way to find reality.
Report comment to moderator
to #77 CHERYL D.
I’m not suggesting the people who follow experiential religions are self-creating truth. In fact I’m saying very much the opposite. There is a difference between making up truth and discovering truth. People of some religions take a different approach and rather than blindly accept things as truth they instead seek out truth.
You are right that Jesus either is or isn’t God. And with revealed religions the idea is to accept whatever revelation your brand of religion has. It should be noted that even among revealed religions, Abrahamic religions, even down to denominations within those there is not agreement on that question and many other questions. So the challenge with revealed religions is to accept and believe in the right one.
Experiential religions just take on more of a personal responsibility by working to find the truth and the truth as it relates to them.
Report comment to moderator
No they don’t, but those who want to make an extra dollar certainly do.
What did Jesus say?
Let’s get down to business – any church who would allow anyone to use the building which has been consecrated to GOD, but rented out for the use of pagan rituals is a sham. You don’t need to go any further -
Report comment to moderator
Are the halls of Episcopal Churches consecrated? I’m not familiar with the specifics on the Episcopal Church so I don’t know but that is an interesting point. If it is consecrated but the officials ok its use in order to bring in money to the church does that make a difference? What if its not consecrated?
Report comment to moderator
to #81 VICTORIA
I did some research and it turns out Cathedral of All Souls Episcopal Church and the Parish Hall were both built and consecrated at the same time but are separate buildings. The Parish Hall is not the main church and is used for holding events. So while it is technically consecrated in the literal sense its use is more on the mundane side. I could understand the church being uncomfortable with the idea of renting out the Cathedral to pagans but I can see how they might not be bothered by renting the parish hall out.
Report comment to moderator
To enlighten and educate about Wicca, Wiccan and their beliefs:
The Wiccan Rede
(Full Version)
________________________________________
Bide within the Law you must, in perfect Love and perfect Trust.
Live you must and let to live, fairly take and fairly give.
For tread the Circle thrice about to keep unwelcome spirits out.
To bind the spell well every time, let the spell be said in rhyme.
Light of eye and soft of touch, speak you little, listen much.
Honor the Old Ones in deed and name,
let love and light be our guides again.
Deosil go by the waxing moon, chanting out the joyful tune.
Widdershins go when the moon doth wane,
and the werewolf howls by the dread wolfsbane.
When the Lady’s moon is new, kiss the hand to Her times two.
When the moon rides at Her peak then your heart’s desire seek.
Heed the North winds mighty gale, lock the door and trim the sail.
When the Wind blows from the East, expect the new and set the feast.
When the wind comes from the South, love will kiss you on the mouth.
When the wind whispers from the West, all hearts will find peace and rest.
Nine woods in the Cauldron go, burn them fast and burn them slow.
Birch in the fire goes to represent what the Lady knows.
Oak in the forest towers with might, in the fire it brings the God’s
insight. Rowan is a tree of power causing life and magick to flower.
Willows at the waterside stand ready to help us to the Summerland.
Hawthorn is burned to purify and to draw faerie to your eye.
Hazel-the tree of wisdom and learning adds its strength to the bright fire burning.
White are the flowers of Apple tree that brings us fruits of fertility.
Grapes grow upon the vine giving us both joy and wine.
Fir does mark the evergreen to represent immortality seen.
Elder is the Lady’s tree burn it not or cursed you’ll be.
Four times the Major Sabbats mark in the light and in the dark.
As the old year starts to wane the new begins, it’s now Samhain.
When the time for Imbolc shows watch for flowers through the snows.
When the wheel begins to turn soon the Beltane fires will burn.
As the wheel turns to Lamas night power is brought to magick rite.
Four times the Minor Sabbats fall use the Sun to mark them all.
When the wheel has turned to Yule light the log the Horned One rules.
In the spring, when night equals day time for Ostara to come our way.
When the Sun has reached it’s height time for Oak and Holly to fight.
Harvesting comes to one and all when the Autumn Equinox does fall.
Heed the flower, bush, and tree by the Lady blessed you’ll be.
Where the rippling waters go cast a stone, the truth you’ll know.
When you have and hold a need, harken not to others greed.
With a fool no season spend or be counted as his friend.
Merry Meet and Merry Part bright the cheeks and warm the heart.
Mind the Three-fold Laws you should three times bad and three times good.
When misfortune is enow wear the star upon your brow.
Be true in love this you must do unless your love is false to you.
These Eight words the Rede fulfill:
“An Ye Harm None, Do What Ye Will”
What Wicca Isn’t:
Wicca does not embrace the concepts of sin, heaven or hell, the evils of sex or nudity, confession, Satanism, animal sacrifice, or the inferiority of women. Wicca is not a fashion statement, and you do not have to dress a certain way to be a “real Wiccan.”
Basic Beliefs of Wicca:
While not exclusive to every single tradition, the following are some of the core tenets found in most Wiccan systems:
• The Divine is present in nature, and so nature should be honored and respected. Everything from animals and plants to trees and rocks are elements of the sacred. You’ll find that many practicing Wiccans are passionate about the environment.
• The idea of karma and an afterlife is a valid one. What we do in this lifetime will be revisited upon us in the next. Part of this idea of a cosmic payback system is echoed in the Law of Threefold Return.
• Our ancestors should be spoken of with honor. Because it’s not considered out of the ordinary to commune with the spirit world, many Wiccans feel that their ancestors are watching over them at all times.
• The Divine has polarity — both male and female. In most paths of Wicca, both a god and goddess are honored.
• The Divine is present in all of us. We are all sacred beings, and interaction with the gods is not limited just to the priesthood or a select group of individuals.
• Holidays are based on the turning of the earth and the cycle of the seasons. In Wicca, eight major Sabbats are celebrated, as well as monthly Esbats.
• Everyone is responsible for their own actions. Personal responsiblity is the key. Whether magical or mundane, one must be willing to accept the consquences — either good or bad — of their behaviour.
• Harm none, or something like it. While there are a few different interpretation of what actually constitutes harm, most Wiccans follow the concept that no harm should intentionally be done to another individual.
• Respect the beliefs of others. There’s no Recruiting Club in Wicca, and the Wiccans are not out to preach at you, convert you, or prosetylize. Wiccan groups recognize that each individual must find their spiritual path on their own, without coercion. While a Wiccan may honor different gods than you do, they will always respect your right to believe differently.
http://paganwiccan.about.com/
And yes I am Wiccan.
Report comment to moderator
Learning about other countries,religions,traditions and languages makes us humans more rounded individuals. Most disagreements are born out of lack of knowledge. Here the article brings out her disagreement of sharing a part of a church to a non-Christan religion and that the Episcopal church has drifted away from their original teachings in Christianity. Actually all Christian religions have drifted away from the original teachings. The Bible is a man made, man written document of stories/parables used to teach lessons with. The Bible was edited by a bunch of men down to a “user friendly” size complete with repetitious chapters. Eastern Orthodox use other chapters that the RCC doesn’t use. Also they celebrate the birth of Christ in Jan not Dec. Speaking of the birth of Christ, I find it interesting that we still do not celebrate his birth in spring when he was actually born and not where a pope moved it to complete with the pagans Birth of the New Sun. Look at how many people fear Muslims. How many non Muslim people have read the Koran or listened to another explain their beliefs? Yet the Koran has been an oral tradition with no written book until more recent history. Lack of education and fear of the unknown… I applaud the church for letting the Wiccans use their space. I don’t know if their was a user fee involved and if their was that was one part of the day the congregation didn’t have to pay the utility bill. I have been to Wiccan gatherings located in a church before and we made an offering to the church to defray costs, did our own clean up and set up the tables/chairs for their next meeting for them.
Report comment to moderator
Steve G. and Pauline seem be be upset that the Anglican’s broke away because the Episcopal Church has embraced sodomy. What will they say 20 years from now when a church somewhere embraces pedophilia? God is the same yesterday,today and tomorrow, and He does not change. Form your own religion and invite orgies, drug use, homosexuality, bestiality or your favorite “ality”, just don’t call it Christianity.
Report comment to moderator
I have been puzzled by a few things in the Christian Church and yes I was born,raised and baptized a Methodist. In all that I attended (my dad encouraged finding your own religious path by trying on other “brands” of churches/religions)Catholic, Lutheran, Episcopal,Baptist,Southern Baptist,Protestant(and Judaism) one of the commandments roughly states to not to put any other God before me. To me the worship of Jesus the son of God does just that. That conflict is what sent me on my path to Wicca. I am happy with Wicca because I am worshiping God. Years ago when I married a Catholic we had to go to classes first. One of the questions that got me in hot water with the priest was..why pray to Mary? To me that is like dialing the operator, why not dial direct and I told him so? You know he really couldn’t answer the question. I don’t know if he was buffaloed by my question or if the priest really didn’t know why. They did it because they were taught and told to. All religions have their oddities and quirks- like why are there so few known Messianic Jews? After all they are truly the first followers of Jesus’ teachings. If Jesus’ disciples hadn’t picked up their toys and made their own groups, all Christians would be Messianic Jews anyway. It’s the man made, man named divisions that create the problems of “ality”.
Report comment to moderator
One thing I must get straight, I couldn’t care less what the Episcopalins did with their church; I’ve never really thought much of the denomination since I heard about Henry VIII.
Wintersfrost, how do Wiccans know what’s true and what isn’t. It seems rather dangerous to me. Drawing on an earlier analogy, I might alter Great-Grandma’s cookie recipie but I wouldn’t want to try and discover the laws of baking by experimentation. I might accidently poison hungry people instead of feeding them.
Report comment to moderator
RANDOM 67, that’s correct in more than one way! And these culture wars are supposed to be decided politically through elections.
Our Constitution makes it difficult to have a tyrannical majority, but a tyranny of the minority doesn’t need much support to push its over-reach in trying to change successful, established norms of behavior.
Christians worship the God of Truth, not any of the gods that other beliefs discover in their own “truth.” e in court, intimidate local officials, or have tantrums. Wonder if they’ve ever thought of thaese methods.
There is no escaping the Christan influence in our socieety, so if other religious beliefs want to keep that out of schools they can su
Report comment to moderator
Bronwynskye, Christians don’t worship Jesus INSTEAD of God, they believe Jesus IS God. They believe He’s an atribute or person of God.
I’m not Catholic, so I don’t believe in praying to Mary. My Catholic friends explain it by saying that they, as mere mortals, can’t presume to talk directly to God and must have an intercessor. Again, the whole thing sounds like idolitry to me but this may clear up your confusion.
The reason there aren’t many Messianic Jews is that everybody dislikes them. The Jews disown them for saying Jesus is the Mesiah. The Christians for many years considered them heratics. Look up the Sabbiterians of Transylvania (I don’t know if I spelled that correctly) for a good example.
Report comment to moderator
…so if other religious beliefs want to keep a Christian influence out of schools they can sue in court, intimidate local officials, or run their own schools just as many Christians do.
Report comment to moderator
Apologies for the garbled paragraph I couldn’t see while typing. I’m sure you can figure it out
Report comment to moderator
#73
winterfrost,
God has providentially preserved HIS Word perfect in the Bible via HIS promises. He used HIS servants in HIS time and way.
God preserved from autograph through apograph through translation.
How is this possible?..
“And Jesus looking upon them saith, With men [it is] impossible, but not with God: for with God all things are possible.” (Mr 10:27)
“But whoso looketh into the PERFECT law of liberty, and continueth [therein], he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed.” (Jas 1:25)
Of course, the Bible is infallible. It cannot be otherwise.
Here..download yourself a free one.. Bibleprotector.com
And never doubt the Bible.
Doubt finds its moorings in Hell.
AFTER you become a NEW CREATION in Christ, correct commentary on anything Biblical will begin to become possible for you.
You will begin to see for the first time.
“Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life.” (Joh 8:12)
Then you’ll dump the demonic nonsense.
Report comment to moderator
Wintersfrost or Brownwynskye, how are Wiccans supposed to know what is true? You said that they don’t rely on revalation and they don’t make up truth for themselves so how do they know if they’re right in what they believe? For example, how do they know about polarity of divinities? Most people wouldn’t take that for granted.
I’m afraid I don’t understand, it seems rather dangerous. After all, what happens if you’re wrong and NOT all roads lead to truth? Yikes!
Report comment to moderator
Um… Mytoosense, I agree that the Bible is true but trying to prove that by quoting the Bible saying it’s true is circular reasoning.
The Bible is infallible because it says it’s infallible? I don’t know if that’s very convincing.
Report comment to moderator
Also, calling someone’s deep beliefs “demonic nonesense” isn’t the best way to win them over to your side.
Report comment to moderator
“With this post and thread, we have a little multi-faith branching out”
r.n.
random,
sssshhhhh…don’t tell anyone..but..
Here we have a vast mission field..
“And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent: Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by [that] man whom he hath ordained; [whereof] he hath given assurance unto all [men], in that he hath raised him from the dead.” (Ac 17:30-31)
We all get to go into the land of cyberspace, traversing routers, with gobs of digital goodies, watching with amazement the technology of “1″’s and “0″’s splashing in chips, chips, and a half of chip, over the seas and throughout the lands.
And from our little keyboards in rooms and offices, in colleges and libraries, as we get to save a little on plane and cab fare, we, by the grace of God, get to bring you…(trumpet sounds)…
“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.” (Joh 3:16-17)
Report comment to moderator
ester 4.14..
Welcome to FINAL AUTHORITY!
Yippee!
You like circles? Enjoy..
“All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and [he] to whomsoever the Son will reveal [him].” (Mt 11:27)
Natural logic is a dead end.
It simply takes you coughin’ to the coffin.
Spiritual logic is what the rationalist must encounter.
God’s ways are different..
“For my thoughts [are] not your thoughts, neither [are] your ways my ways, saith the LORD. For [as] the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.” (Isa 55:8-9)
Of course, the rationalist must come GOD’s way, to acquire a “sound mind”…
..by faith in Jesus Christ.
Most bristle at that, due to their fallen, spiritual condition, BUT some wake up.
This is wonderful.
Report comment to moderator
Mytoosense did it ever occur to you that everyone else on this blog is just as convinced they’re right as you and me? Or that dismissing them as wrong right off the bat will only annoy them? I mean, you’re annoying me and I AGREE with you.
Report comment to moderator
I’m sure that this comment will be pulled as soon as it’s read but it doesn’t matter. I don’t expect you to respect my freedom to speech any more than I expect you to respect my freedom of religion.
Have any of you ever even picked up a history book? How did you get through high school?
Your Christian Easter was OUR Ostara LONG before you celebrated that holiday – same time of year and everything. Except the hare and eggs are sacred to Pagan’s because of Ostara. I’ve read the Bible three times – can someone please point me in the direction where it reads of the town’s people hiding the eggs because Jesus is coming? How about a story about a sacred hare? No??? Anyone??? How about the evergreen tree you cut down and drag into your homes at Christmas? Most ministers would agree that Jesus would’ve actually been born in the spring – so do you even know what you’re celebrating? The evergreen tree was brought into early Christian churches to entice pagan’s into Christian beliefs.
And speaking of no doctrine – we most certainly DO have doctrine and texts we live by. The Wiccan Rede, The Eightfold Path of Righteousness and many, many others. For a religion that has in IT’s Bible that thou shall not murder, you people have sliced off thousands in the course of history.
How deluded can one group be. I tell you what, you guys stop holding Easter egg hunts on your church lawns and WE will stop thinking it’s ok to host a pagan event there. Give up your double standards and for goodness sake – READ YOUR HISTORY.
Report comment to moderator
esther414,
“Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits,
and doctrines of devils;” (1Ti 4:1)
Hope that helps.
As for the wiccans, they can become sons and daughters of the King of Kings, KNOW they have eternal life, and know the joy and peace found in Jesus Christ.
Only through the BLOOD..
“Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption [for us].” (Heb 9:12)
Report comment to moderator
eastcoastpagan,
Simply read, “The Two Babylons” by Hislop. It’s online, for free.
You’ll read about the origins of different religious practices.
The Bible is the final authority. After you receive Christ, God will teach you.
The whole “easter” marketing blitz by the business world can be helpful at times.
Why?
There’s great discounts on chocolate at a lot of the bigmarts.
As far as resurrection.
I live everyday raised in Christ..
“If ye then be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth on the right hand of God.” (Col 3:1)
You’re invited.
Why live down, when you can live up.
Report comment to moderator
later..over and out..and ester414, thanks for the dialogue!
Report comment to moderator
#97, God made the world and everything in it. Thus, God made our brains and wants us to use them. If God can’t be defended using HIS OWN TOOLS of logic and reason methinks He isn’t much of a God. The Epistles (especialy Hebrews) are logical arguments.
Perhaps this is why athiests think Christians aren’t smart.
Report comment to moderator
Eastcoastpagan, you’re right about Oestra and Easter. Which is why I don’t celibrate Easter or Christmas. I celibrate Sukkot (Jesus’s birthday) and Passover (his death).
Also, nobody is going to pull your comments. We respect your freedom of speech AND religion like no one else. I think the only problem anyone had was with the church, NOT with the Wiccans.
Report comment to moderator
Most people believe things because they’re true, but MyTooSense seems to be arguing that things are true because she believes them.
This is not an effective way to change anyone’s mind.
OldBaldMan: Those Episcopalians who are more accepting of homosexuality (and it certainly isn’t all of us) have concluded that the prohibition against homosexuality is on the order of the prohibition against wearing mixed fibers or eating shellfish. It was given to set the Hebrews apart from the nations around them, and once that was no longer needed, it became no longer operative.
The few mentions of homosexuality in the New Testament don’t refer to homsexuality per se, they refer to specific kinds of abusive sex.
We do not simply accept “sodomy.” Homosexuals are as obligated as heterosexuals to remain celibate until forming a lifelong monogamous union (I would say marriage, but of course that’s possible for them only in a few places right now.) They’re as obligated as anyone else to remain faithful within that union. But if they do, they have a godly union that the church can bless.
This is a conclusion reached by long and prayerful study and searching. You disagree with it, and that’s fine. You equate it to acceptance of pedophilia or bestiality, and that’s not fine. I take that as an uninformed and uncharitable personal attack.
Report comment to moderator
Eastcoastpagan, do you think you could answer #93?
Report comment to moderator
to #93 ESTHER
One of the best ways to judge if someone has found the right religion for them is to look at their life. Do they have a worldview that allows them to know their place in the world and how to contribute positively. How do they react to challenges in their lives. Are they well adjusted, do the uplift the people around them and make the world a better place for those whose lives they touch.
Discovery of spiritual truth can come from prayer, observation, trial and error, religious experiences. Just as you don’t need every truth told to you about nonspiritual things, with spiritual things you can learn whats right and wrong on your own.
Everyone of every religion is assuming they are following the truth. Some religions have wrote into their holy books or rules that they are right and the only one true way. You ask the what if you are wrong question but that question applies to everyone. What if you are wrong? If you only use the fact that the Bible says its right to know that it is then what would have happened if you had read the Koran first or some other holy book? Other holy books have their prophets/gods/founders/angels/spirits saying the same thing. Jesus did not invent the concept of saying the only way to God is through me. Because there are more Christians in this part of the world most people assume Christianity is true but if you were born in a non-Christian country you likely would have accepted the religion dominate in that country as true.
I came to my beliefs with an open mind. I was raised along with my siblings in a religiously neutral house. My parents did not take us to any church, did not give their opinion of what they believed, they allowed us to discover what was right for each of us, they always allowed us to attend the church or religious function of friends and asked us what we though rather than told us what they thought of that religion. The result is of the six of us one is Catholic, two are Agnostic, two Wiccan, and one is Christian (and her son is follows a combination Wiccan and Christian beliefs) as a family we celebrate religious holidays of all those religions (which makes for a lot of holiday events in the winter time!)
Report comment to moderator
Mytoosense, perhaps it will help you spell my username correctly (which you have consistantly not done) if I tell you it’s a Bible verse with a decimal point instead of a colon.
Report comment to moderator
Winterfrost, #73
Some, particularlyCatholics, include parts of the Apocrypha in their Bibles. Others, Baptist in particular, do not include them, but consider most of them useful. I, for one, think that I & II MacAbees should be in there. But as for translations, as you showed concerning Sarah, all say the same thing. Take, for instance one of my favorite:
1 John 5:11-12 (King James Version)
11And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.
12He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.
1 John 5:11-12 (English Standard Version)
11And this is the testimony, that God gave us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. Whoever has the Son has life; whoever does not have the Son of God does not have life.
1 John 5:11-12 (American Standard Version)
11 And the witness is this, that God gave unto us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.
12 He that hath the Son hath the life; he that hath not the Son of God hath not the life.
1 John 5:11-12 (New International Version)
11And this is the testimony: God has given us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. 12He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life.
1 John 5:11-12 (Holman Christian Standard Bible)
11 And this is the testimony: God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son.
12 The one who has the Son has life. The one who doesn’t have the Son of God does not have life.
They all seem pretty clear to me. As for letting others use the meeting room. It might be useful if these words were posted along the walls.
Report comment to moderator
That’s a good idea, Chas. And then the mosque might rent out part of their building to a Christian group, but post signs in the room with these words from the Koran:
Don’t you see? Your insistence that only Jesus is the way is as irrelevant to those of other religions as would be the Muslim’s insistence to you that you must believe in Allah and Mohammed.
If you want to convince someone that only Jesus is the way, you have to do more than just assert it because “The Bible says … ” Nobody cares what the Bible says except those who already believe it, just as you don’t care what the Koran says.
I’m often amazed at how many Christians think they can prove something to non-Christians by quoting the Bible.
Report comment to moderator
Wintersfrost, thank you very much for answering.
I don’t believe the Bible is true because it says it is (in fact I was rather upset at Mytoosense for saying that) nor am I a Christian merely because most other Americans are.
The reason I believe the Bible is that it is so historically acurate. For example, the Bible states that the Hittites were a powerful and feared nation. In the mid-ninteenth century, historians scoffed at this, saying that the Hittites couldn’t have been more than a small unimportant tribe. Today we know that this is not true. The Hittites WERE very powerful; so powerful in fact, that they defeted the mighty Egyption empire and forced them to sue for peace.
Many times Biblical prophicies are so accurate that people say they were added in later, although there is little evidance for this.
Sorry I didn’t answer sooner, my browser crashed.
Report comment to moderator
MyTooSense #100 & #101
You’re invited.
Why live down, when you can live up.
And what you said about logic is more accurate than many Christians want to admit. It’s not for nothing that the preaching of the cross sounds like foolishness to those who are not being enlightened by the Holy Spirit.
As Paul said:
It’s not’s helpful to disconnect your brain, and believing God’s word does not require you to.
—Debra (formerly DJ)
Report comment to moderator
oops. Too much BOLD.
Report comment to moderator
Conanthelibrarian, that’s what I was trying to tell Mytoosense.
Report comment to moderator
Saying the Gosple of Christ is foolishness to those who don’t believe is not the same as refusing to argue logically and just quoting Scripture when people ask you questions.
Especially when the Scriptures have little to nothing to do with the question
Report comment to moderator
Many people have trouble understanding why Christians believe that Christ is the only way to the Father. Scriptures provide that explanation. When we’re obedient to present the word with charity and honesty, the Holy Spirit is responsible for the convincing.
Report comment to moderator
Conan, I doubt that a Muslim group would rent out their facility. However, I would expect to see those words if I did rent it.
As for the quotes from I John 5, You don’t have to believe them, but you will remember them forever.
Report comment to moderator
“Most people believe things because they’re true, but MyTooSense seems to be arguing that things are true because she believes them.”
steveg #105
“she”? Are you talking to some cyberspacial hologram?
steveg,
Uh-oh..
“And, behold, thou shalt be dumb, and not able to speak, until the day that these things shall be performed, because thou believest not my words, which shall be fulfilled in their season.” (Lu 1:20)
Learn quickly.
Report comment to moderator
“Don’t you see? Your insistence that only Jesus is the way is as irrelevant to those of other religions”
conan…
conan..,
I guess those Jews of old simply didn’t get the irrelevancy..
“For these causes the Jews caught me in the temple, and went about to kill me.” (Ac 26:21)
—-
conan,
Not all listen..
..but some do.
“Howbeit many of them which heard the word believed; and the number of the men was about five thousand.” (Ac 4:4)
..and some start to remember later.
But don’t wait too long.
“..it is time to seek the LORD, till he come and rain righteousness upon you. (Ho 10:12)
Report comment to moderator
steveg,
AFTER you become a NEW CREATION in Christ, Bible commentary will become possible for you.
“Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.” (2Co 5:17)
AFTER a homosexual gets their life right with Jesus Christ, they learn to walk in the Spirit, reckoning dead that old, sinful homosexual lifestyle.
And this is great!
Report comment to moderator
Mytoosense, look, you’re not helping anything. Could you answer SteveG’s point instead of picking on his grammer. Telling people over and over again that they need to be saved will only annoy them and harden them to what you’re saying.
Report comment to moderator
Esther, I’m very close to concluding that you’re a disruptive non-Christian plant, or simply lacking basic wisdom in where and when to admonish a brother or sister in the Lord. And this is where you’ve brought this thread – far from its original intent or useful comparative discourse – to the delight of WMB opponents.
You’d do well to follow a version the 11th commandment in this situation or use another thread to show how you know best.
Report comment to moderator
Romans 10:17 “So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.”
Report comment to moderator
Mytoosense, just because you are a Chirstian doesn’t mean you’re right. What if there was a Muslem who kept posting Qu’ranic verses saying that Islam was the best religion? Would that convince you to become a Muslem too? Put yourself in the shoes of the non-Christians on here and see if your “arguments” hold water. They already believe the Bible is full of mistakes so telling them it says it has no mistakes would (in their minds) only add another mistake to the list. Plus, a lot of these people are skeptical of you because they think Christians are illogical; you aren’t helping this misconception at all.
Report comment to moderator
Mytoosense, just because you are a Chirstian doesn’t mean you’re right. What if there was a Muslem who kept posting Qu’ranic verses saying that Islam was the best religion? Would that convince you to become a Muslem too? Put yourself in the shoes of the non-Christians on here and see if your “arguments” hold water. They already believe the Bible is full of mistakes so telling them it says it has no mistakes would (in their minds) only add another mistake to the list. Plus, a lot of these people are skeptical of you because they think Christians are illogical; you aren’t helping this misconception at all.
Report comment to moderator
Sorry about the duplicate comment.
Louise, FYI it wasn’t me who changed the subject of the thread. I was talking to Wintersfrost about Wikka (which was the subject) and the reason I chided Mytoosense was that he was making all the Christians on wmb look bad by not answering questions and beating the conversion drum to hard. I’m sorry if I was rude but I’m starting to wonder if HE is, say, Random Name or another skeptic in disguise trying to play the part of goofy fundimentalist, it’s that bad.
Report comment to moderator
What is the 11th commandment?
Report comment to moderator
Let it go and trust God to handle it, including Salvation.
Report comment to moderator
Thou shall not say anything judgmental to undermine the standing of a brother or sister in the Lord. (I paraphrased the original stated by RWR for fellow Republicans.)
Report comment to moderator
Is 128 a response to 127? If so, would you mind telling me where you got that as 11th?
Report comment to moderator
Ah, 129 is the response! Well would you mind telling me where in the Bible that is? I’m thinking it’s not in there.
Report comment to moderator
Everyone says what’s in their heart to say. No one is obligated to read all the comments if they don’t want to. MyTooSense is not making all the Christians on WMB look bad. I’ve enjoyed the scriptural references and they’ve been relevant to what is being said. It’s a conversation, not a syllogism or debate.
Report comment to moderator
Also, Mytoosense is undermining the status of the Christians on wmb by having a one-track conversation that no one is interested in. Read my earliar comments (69-111) and see if they sound like a non-Christian plant.
Report comment to moderator
No one gets to control the conversation here.
Report comment to moderator
Esther, your opinion of M2S is out of place and maybe I was, too, in doubting yout sincerity. I will reread those posts of yours, but still wich you’d be more respectful of other posters. None of us is perfect.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG, am I a non-Christian plant or am I just strange? You may remember me from Grampa Bunning’s fight for his kids. You said my fundamentalist views “explained a lot”. As I note to the rest of you, SteveG and I usually disagree strongly.
Report comment to moderator
Esther – are you having a “one-track conversation that no one is interested in” ?
Report comment to moderator
My post #137 is in response to #132 -
Report comment to moderator
I’m sorry, I couldn’t see 135 until I posted 136.
Louise, I’m very sorry if I was rude. I try very hard to be polite most of the time and if I was mean I don’t know what got into me. My apologies to Mytoosense as well.
Report comment to moderator
Esther, I can relate to that; it’s over. Might you feel like explaining how you identify with your screen name? It needn’t be here, if at all. I learned much from the book of Esther and her decisions.
Report comment to moderator
Debra, I’m not trying to control anything. I see looking back that I was too upset but really, telling people “The reason you don’t understand is that you aren’t a Christian” seems rather out of place doesn’t it? Maybe just a little bit? Maybe?
Report comment to moderator
My screen name is from from a verse in Esther where Mordachi is trying to convince Esther to speak to the king. I have always loved it because he asks “Who knows? Perhaps you were born for such a time as this”
Who knows? Perhaps we were all born for this time. I’ve always loved history and it seems that every action changes the world somehow.
Report comment to moderator
MyTooSense at #118:
“Most people believe things because they’re true, but MyTooSense seems to be arguing that things are true because she believes them.”
steveg #105
“she”? Are you talking to some cyberspacial hologram?
Oops. Sorry, for some reason I thought you were a woman. I must have confused you with someone else. Apologies.
steveg,
Uh-oh..
“And, behold, thou shalt be dumb, and not able to speak, until the day that these things shall be performed, because thou believest not my words, which shall be fulfilled in their season.” (Lu 1:20)
Learn quickly.
It’s not a question of what I believe. It’s a question of whether you’re going to effectively win over unbelievers by an unrelenting barrage of Bible quotes.
I doubt you are.
And from #120:
AFTER you become a NEW CREATION in Christ, Bible commentary will become possible for you.
I am a Christian. You do know that, right?
My argument isn’t with the truth of the Bible. It’s with the evangelistic approach that suggests beating unbelievers in the ears with passages from the Bible will be meaningful to them.
Report comment to moderator
Louise: Thou shall not say anything judgmental to undermine the standing of a brother or sister in the Lord.
You should tell that to Marcia Segelstein!
Report comment to moderator
Esther: SteveG, am I a non-Christian plant or am I just strange? You may remember me from Grampa Bunning’s fight for his kids. You said my fundamentalist views “explained a lot”. As I note to the rest of you, SteveG and I usually disagree strongly.
You were one of the two who argued for taking down the public education system, IIRC. Yes, I disagreed with you completely there, and here I agree with you.
And no, I don’t think you’re a plant. Unfortunately, I don’t think MyTooSense is either.
Report comment to moderator
Although I don’t know that we’ve had enough interaction to know if we “usually” disagree strongly. We’ve had two significant discussions and we’re 50/50 so far.
Report comment to moderator
Because of a nail a shoe was lost
Because of a shoe a horse was lost
Because of a horse a man was lost
Because of a man a battle was lost
Because of a battle a war was lost
Because of a war a nation was lost.
And all for the sake of a ten-penny nail.
If General Edwin Rommal’s tires had been better we would have lost WWII.
Report comment to moderator
146 You’re right SteveG.
I didn’t see your comment until just now. 147 is a continuation of my earliqar post.
Report comment to moderator
146 You’re right SteveG.
I didn’t see your comment until just now. 147 is a continuation of my earliar post.
Report comment to moderator
For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places. Therefore take up the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withsatnd in the evil day, and having done all, to stand firm.
Ephesians 6:12-13.
Report comment to moderator
146 maybe we should find something else to disagree on!
Report comment to moderator
I definitely agree with ESTHER 4.14 and STEVEG that the approach MYTOOSENSE is taking does absolutely the opposite of convince me to accept or even consider what he’s saying.
Reason 1
Using random Bible verses on non-Christian is ineffective because the Bible is only meaningful to those who believe in it. And in fact it makes you appear to not have any understanding of your own beliefs, you don’t use your own words you’re just pulling stuff out of a book.
Reason 2
The condescending tone of the When you become a Christian then you’ll understand routine is ineffective because you are trying to use accepting your way of thinking as a requirement to understand your way of thinking. If a stranger said to you ‘give me all of your money and only then you will understand why you needed to give it to me’, I would imagine you would decline. And you are also assuming that people who are not Christian cannot understand Christianity if that were true then only people who blindly accept the religion would have joined rather than those who were convinced of its truth.
Reason 3
Using circular arguments doesn’t get the conversation anywhere.
The only thing MYTOOSENSE has convinced me of is that he feels superior, that he cant make his own arguments, and that he has no interest in bringing people to Christianity.
And I find it kind of disturbing that everyone starts attacking the Christians who are bringing up very insightful comments and accusing them of not being Christian enough. As if the only way to be a Christian is to beat people over the head with poorly though out conversion tactics. Most of you attackers could learn something from them they are actually willing to ‘talk with’ rather than ‘talk at’ people different than them.
Report comment to moderator
M2S: “AFTER a homosexual gets their life right with Jesus Christ, they learn to walk in the Spirit, reckoning dead that old, sinful homosexual lifestyle.
And this is great!”
Nothing great about it – it’s a perversion of their nature, and if they marry a woman to whom they are not attracted it is hell for both.
Report comment to moderator
MTS is just fine. Everyone has their own style of conversing—even Christians. Sometimes people say things in a way that I think is not edifying, only to have it turn out to be quite helpful to someone else. That’s the nice thing about a blog; you can skip comments that you don’t find edifying or don’t wish to address. And I would imagine that a non-Christian on a Christian blog would find many comments they don’t agree with—or find annoying. That’s okay too. There’s no harm in that either.
Report comment to moderator
Debra, I agree and thank you for your recent comments. One size does not fit all, even most, but can be helpful to someone whether we know it or not. Non-Christians on a Christian blog are bound to be critical and picky. No harm in that either. At least they’re here
Report comment to moderator
Well, MTS has been at it for a while now and so far the only reaction is that the non-Christians are put off by it rather than encouraged to give Christianity new consideration; and even some of the Christians are saying it’s a bad way to go about winning anyone over.
By their fruits shall ye know them, eh? If MTS’s approach only drives those outside further away, and causes even some of those inside to wince and ask for a change, how right can it be?
Report comment to moderator
Esther 4.14,
My apologies for the misprint of your username. I was a bit in a hurry in non-cyberland.
Good catch.
For that, you win an extra piece of chicken at the Easter church buffet next Sunday. Also, pick up some discount chocolate on Monday.
Report comment to moderator
I tend to agree SteveG. In fact the point that maybe MTS’s posts in this thread could be from a NON-Christian — while probably not true — do make some sense. Similar to what Esther said, I’m a Christian and the approach is annoying me. I can’t imagine how the tone of superiority and the poor communication skills (asking someone to believe the things a Book teaches when they, well, DON’T believe that book is the written revelation of God) can speak to a non Christian. Do we see anywhere that the Lord or the apostles used any such approach in reaching the hearts of men?
Report comment to moderator
Well, Juliana, tell us what would not annoy you and how your superior communication skills would be persuasive without quoting Jesus.
Report comment to moderator
spinoza,
Actually, the homosexual has crossed lines that even the fornicator or adulterer has not..a complete violation of even “NATURAL USE”, that which is “AGAINST NATURE”..
“For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. And even as they did not like to retain God in [their] knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;” (Ro 1:26-28)
YET…God is able to redeem.
Why?
“For with God nothing shall be impossible.” (Lu 1:37)
AND once redeemed some have been known to marry..
..and obviously, only in the way God commends…
“So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.” (Eph 5:28)
And this is great also!
God is good!
Report comment to moderator
“How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things! But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report?
So then faith [cometh] by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. (Ro 10:14-17)
Hope that helps.
(Sometimes when a Christian gets mired in an chemical-onlyism evolution class, they start to think that the lost evolve in becoming a NEW CREATION.)
But fear not! God is patient.
Report comment to moderator
wintersfront,
First, your SIN. This is the FACT you must face.
“And he said, That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man. For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness: All these evil things come from within, and defile the man.” (Mr 7:20-23)
And then, the ONLY way for you to be liberated from the penalty and power of sin..through the shed BLOOD of Jesus Christ..
Presently, you are FAR OFF..
“But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were FAR OFF are made nigh by the BLOOD of Christ.” (Eph 2:13)
Receive Him. Then preach HIM among the heathen..
“..I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood:” (Ga 1:16)
And the eternal adventure has begun.
Report comment to moderator
Welcome back Wintersfrost! I need to say that Mytoosense probibly doesn’t mean to offend but doesn’t realize what he’s doing.
Mytoosense, don’t worry, I’m probably the world’s worst speller so I don’t really mind. I did think I mentioned, though, that I cellabrate Passover, not Easter. So I’ll get my fried chicken at the Seder tomorrow.
Report comment to moderator
Now, back to the topic..
Someone mentioned renting in a Qur’anicist owned facility..
How about in King Abdullah City..
http://www.kingabdullahcity.com/en/Home/index.html
Do you think if I applied for some space to open up a Christian Book store, it would fly?
:-O
Report comment to moderator
haha..
anyway..over and out for now..later
Report comment to moderator
Louise, perhaps I sounded arrogant too. Forgive me if I offended you. I don’t want to argue with you — I was just posting my thoughts to add to the thoughts of others.
Report comment to moderator
to #62 MYTOOSENSE
Maybe if I use Wiccan religious texts in the way that you do perhaps you’ll understand how it comes off when you do it.
‘I am the gracious Goddess, who gives the gift of joy unto the heart of man.8 Upon earth, I give the knowledge of the spirit eternal; and beyond death, I give peace, and freedom, and reunion with those who have gone before.9 Nor do I demand sacrifice; for behold, I am the Mother of all living,
and my love is poured out upon the Earth.10′
(Charge of the Goddess)
‘Let my worship be within the heart that rejoicest, for behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals.15 Therefore, let there be beauty and strength, power and compassion, honor and humility, mirth and reverence within you.16′
(Charge of the Goddess)
‘And thou who thinketh to seek for me, know thy seeking and yearning shall avail thee not, unless thou knoweth the mystery;
that if that which thou seekest thou findest not within thee,
thou wilt never find it without thee.17′
(Charge of the Goddess)
Report comment to moderator
And mine was a very snarky comment Juliana. I wasn’t personally offended, although YOU very well could have been. I’m simply grieved when Believers are used against each other by non-believers. That’s what keeps the Old Man dancing.
Report comment to moderator
Goddess worship and pagan ideas like divine feminine are more common than they were 30 years ago. But it still doesn’t make sense for a Christian church to be hosting those kind of events. I wonder if there is a push within the Episcopal church to become more universalist and less specifically Christian, or is this an anomaly.
Report comment to moderator
159, Louise, I doubt anyone here has any problem with quoting the Bible. The problem we have is with 1: IRRELAVINT Scripture quotes, 2: a proud and disdanful attitude (God hates the proud but gives grace to the humble), and 3: an over-fixation on conversion as opposed to listening.
Jesus never used any of these tactics and we probibly shouldn’t either.
Report comment to moderator
#162 is a perfect example.
In order to get Winterfrost to consider Christianity, it might be best first to find out what specifically she doesn’t like or believe about it.
Then you could begin to discuss the reality of sin, or the effectiveness of Christ’s sacrifice, or the justice and mercy of God, or the reliability of the Biblical texts, or whatever the specific reasons might be.
In the course of that you could be candid about your own doubts misgivings, whether nor or in the past. You could seek to find out some things about what attracts her to Wicca, and what her life is like. And all through the dialogue, you could be patient, kind, respectful and gracious.
All that, of course, takes time. Since MyTooSense can’t even be bothered to get WintersFrost’s name right, it’s not really surprising that he thinks tossing off a couple of Bible quotes with a heavy dose of condescension is enough.
WintersFrost, I too will offer an apology on behalf of MyTooSense.
Report comment to moderator
Steve,
Instead of lecturing MyTooSense, lets see you put your suggestions in #170 into practice.
Report comment to moderator
Wintersfrost, it seems to me that Wiccans believe in,
Pantheism,
Mother-goddess (similar to Gia?),
“All roads lead to Rome “, all belief systems will lead to truth if followed carefully,
Truth can be discovered by personal experiance (and probably should).
Am I missing anything important?
Report comment to moderator
Oh yeah, and reincarnation, I’d forgotten that. Anything else?
Report comment to moderator
I kind of want to know where you’re coming from here.
Report comment to moderator
to 172 ESTHER 4.14
Wicca is generally duotheistic (both a Goddess and God) it is also pantheistic or panentheistic depending on what tradition (denomination) the individual follows. It is a very nature based religion, since Goddess and God are within all nature we care a great deal about protecting the environment. Our religious holidays center around cycles of the seasons solstices equinoxes and the halfway points between those, additionally we tend to observe at certain points during the cycles of the moon. We do believe that many roads lead to the divine.
Report comment to moderator
Critics of Christianity and Pagans and Atheists often make a common mistake when they lecture the religious about religion.
They fail to realize that Truth is objective, not subjective. If a religion isn’t real, then it is a waste of time.
Unlike Winter’s Frost, I have no interest in finding a religion that works for me in the subjective. If it isn’t objectively true, then it is false. Telling others it is true is a lie and therefore evil.
I am a Christian for one reason only and that is because it is objectively true. It has nothing to do with me at all. It is about Christ and what he actually did.
If Christ did not actually rise from the dead, then neither will I. And everything he said is therefore false. There is no heaven or hell and the religion is vain and we are of all men most miserable (1 Cor 15). But Christ did rise from the dead and he did prepare a place for believers in heaven. That makes all of the other religions false.
Various religions have overlapping themes and may contain some truth. But if any part of a religion is found to be false, then that implicates the whole.
Plenty of liberal Christian denominations have also lost this sense of objective reality. To them religion is whatever you want it to be. Having abandoned truth they are incapable of ever acknowledging that they are wrong.
Report comment to moderator
#175 Winter’s Frost. How do you know that any of that is true?
Report comment to moderator
to #177 XION
Through direct personal experience.
I felt what we call the Call of the Goddess from a young age and I answered. And like so many other Wiccans I experienced the feeling like I’d come home when I found the religion. Over time through prayer, faith, study, and experience I came to understand Them more and see Them within all things and trust in Them to guide me on my path. My faith in Them along with the teachings of my religion have made me a far better person than I ever would have been on my own. They changed my life, brought me clarity, peace, and the understanding of my place in this world.
If I hadn’t experienced all of that myself just in seeing how Wicca has changed my sister alone would have given me reason to believe. The Goddess and God have taken her life as a crack addicted felon prostitute and transformed her. Her faith in Them, prayer to Them, and following the teachings of our faith has freed her of all of that. She is a now a well adjusted, positive contributor to our community and she did that through the strength and guidance They gave her.
I am absolutely certain of the truth of my religion. It is part of my faith to acknowledge that the way to the divine is not that same for everyone, so I understand that my faith is not for everyone. That’s one reason why we don’t believe in proselytizing. Those who are meant for Wicca will hear the Call of the Goddess and will come home.
Let me ask you the same question “How do you know that any of your religion is true?” You state its objective but if I’m not mistaken you were not hear 2000 years ago.
Report comment to moderator
Hmmm…not sure if non-Christians should be forced to defend their beliefs on a Christian blog. Maybe the other way around, though?
Although this is by far the most fascinating thread I’ve ever read here. Thanks, Wintersfrost and Esther 4.14 and the rest. This may be the first thread I’ve felt hasn’t been a waste of my time!
Report comment to moderator
#93 Esther 4.14
How do they know about polarity of divinities: In the Bible it states God created man in his image,then he created woman. Ok if he had himself to copy from to know what man should look like,act like, think like where did God get the ideas of how woman should look like,act like etc without having a feminine side to copy from? God has a feminine side and it is called Goddess. All plants,animals and people have both male and female. Even within each of us is both male and female hormones. Does that help? How we know this is true? By looking at the world God created. All things,people,plants and animals have male and female versions therefore we know there is male and female creators/nurturers. God created and the Goddess nurtured: to give birth and feed the world’s plants,animals and people.
For those who think we Wiccans need to be converted to your path. I’ve been on that path and found that it didn’t fit. So I found my own path. I started out Christian at age 5. One of the things that encouraged me to find a different path was meeting what my dad called Sunday Christians. What are they? They are the folks who go to church on Sunday and went back to their old ways within the hour of leaving the building. Believe it or not there are Wiccans that do believe in Jesus…and Buddha, Mohammad, along with other prophets. Wicca is no different than the other Christians with all of their different divisions or types of Christianity. What happens if you are wrong? Same thing that happens to Christians when they are wrong… Back track, re-examine, ask questions and begin again. The Bible has inherit errors based on the fact it was written by man, copied and recopied by man, translated by man etc. Going strictly off of these various versions without questioning, verifying for accuracy etc leaves all Christians and their beliefs open to errors. With Wicca we verify,question,pray/spells etc as we go often adding to the discoveries made by others who have gone before us. We create our book by writing of what we find. So did the apostles. They listened,observed,prayed and found answers to write about. In Wicca we may do spells to seek answers. Spells are directed prayers and many are similar in subject to Christian prayers. Note to M2S: preaching is a turn off of the worst kind and is thoroughly not helpful. Note to Esther 4.14 some covens/groups believe in pantheism others do not. Most do go back to pre Christian beliefs when religions were matriarchal instead of patriarchal. At that time in history most belief systems were matriarchal. Gia is another name for earth or mother earth. I read a book not long ago about the history of the Christian church. I found one passage that stated the RCC was the most Pagan of all of the Christian religions. Each new religion is built on the base of the other.
Report comment to moderator
YA’LL MAKE ME VERY VERY GLAD THAT I AM AN ATHEIST.
Report comment to moderator
#178 Thanks for sharing that Winter’s Frost. One major difference then is that your religious experience is entirely subjective. It is all about you. You can be happy about people finding any religion, because truth is what you make it. However, that is not actual truth. It is only true inside your head. You worship the god of your own imagination (see Romans 1).
Some Christians (like TV preachers) have fallen into the same trap, where feelings trump reason. But in reality, Christianity is not subjective. It is an objective historical record. And as CS Lewis observed, there isn’t much attractive about it. Who wants to take up their cross every day? Who wants to know that hell is real?
Christianity is not about us. It is about Christ, both old and new testaments. What it offers is hope and some comfort in knowing the truth. But it would be like knowing your future will be painful. There is comfort in knowing the truth, but it isn’t necessarily pleasant. As Paul said, If it isn’t true, we are of all men most miserable and our faith is worthless (1 Cor 15:13-19)
I have no use for religion. I am a Christian against my will. But I believe it because it is objectively true.
Report comment to moderator
#180 Brownwynskye “Back track, re-examine, ask questions and begin again. The Bible has inherit errors based on the fact it was written by man, copied and recopied by man, translated by man etc.”
A few typos after thousands of years of copying may sound like errors to you, but to me it proves the Bible’s accuracy. The Hebrew bible I have carries the typos forward in the margin, proving they do not threaten the text in the least.
The Bible is like a 3D hologram. If you punch holes in it, you can look right around the hole and get the original meaning. There is no other book in the world that was written over thousands of years by people from all walks of life and has a consistent unfolding coherent plan.
The beginning of the Bible provides hundreds of examples about what Christ would do when he arrived. For example, Abraham is asked to illustrate the sacrifice of his son 2000 priors to God offering his son on the very same hill.
The middle of the Bible provides hundreds of prophecies about when and where and how the Messiah would come and what he would be like.
The end of the Bible fulfills the beginning and middle and explains the end of all things. Christ could not have fudged his birthplace or the manner of his death. And now we see the world turning against Israel and talk of a One World Government and Currency, etc.
The Bible is a historical record, only the history was written before the events occurred.
“I make known the end from the beginning, from ancient times, what is still to come. I say: My purpose will stand, and I will do all that I please.” (Isaiah 46:10)
Report comment to moderator
BRONWYNSKYE seems to think that creating man in His image, God has two arems and legs, etc. This is often how much non-Christians actually seek to comprehend the Bible.
No wonder those who worship creation gods get stuck in their shallow reading of God’s Word and fool themselves into thinking they support their own feelings.
Do all Wiccans disrespect tthe formation of life in a woman’s womb as being dispensable at will? BRONWYNSKYE stated as much on the pro-life thread. Another disappointment in those who feel creation is to be worshipped. Does this mean the divine feminine “goddess” aspect is superior to the male “god?”
Report comment to moderator
It goes back to rejecting God’s Word an embracing sin that is what happen here. By rent space to this group this church has shown they are willing to embrace sin.
Report comment to moderator
The only group that believes The Episcopal Church is still of God is
The Episcopal Church
Report comment to moderator
To say that Anglican Christianity was not founded on the Reformation principle of sola scriptura is to misrepresent the founding of Anglicanism. Look to the founding documents of the Church of England and the American Episcopal Church to see how far the US Episcopal Church has fallen– for example, the 39 Articles of Religion state:
Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation. (article 6)
Once upon a time, Episcopalians believed this. Some still do.
Report comment to moderator
A Christian church should not allow a group that doesn’t believe in the ONE TRUE GOD to use GOD’S HOUSE for meeting purposes.
If the Episcopalian Church doesn’t believe there is only ONE WAY and ONE GOD then it doesn’t matter to me what they do. It’s just a group renting a room to another group.
It must be that those who feel like they had their Episcopalian Church taken away who might be the hardest on what the Episcopalian Church is doing to move farther away from the Word of God. Therefore, whenever something Episcopalian comes up we have to add something new to their list. See what they are doing NOW! UGH!!!
Report comment to moderator
This statement of SteveG’s is NOT biblical:
“We do not simply accept “sodomy.” Homosexuals are as obligated as heterosexuals to remain celibate until forming a lifelong monogamous union (I would say marriage, but of course that’s possible for them only in a few places right now.) They’re as obligated as anyone else to remain faithful within that union. But if they do, they have a godly union that the church can bless.”
This conclusion was reached after studying and prayer? I can believe black is white, but that doesn’t make it so. Keep reading and keep praying.
Report comment to moderator
Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation. (article 6)
the problem hackendorf is when people decide to let culture tell them what is of God and what is not of God.
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer – Steve problem again is God’s Word.
Report comment to moderator
Missing the point is par for the course for some of you I know, but really, this isn’t that complicated.
I fully understand you disagree with acceptance of homosexual unions. I fully understand you disagree with the hermenutical approach that leads some of us to reach that conclusion.
I’m not trying to persuade you to change your minds about that.
All I’m asking is for the small benefit of doubt and grace it would take for you to not assume that the position is just a feel-good giving in to culture.
I guess even that is too much to ask.
Report comment to moderator
the problem hackendorf is when people decide to let culture tell them what is of God and what is not of God.
Pastor Roy– You hit the nail on the head. This is why many of us had to leave the Episcopal Church. But we have formed a new body, the Anglican Church in North America, which is committed to preaching the Gospel, and standing firm for Scripture. There are about 800 congregations and 100,000 people so far, but we are committted to evangelism and planting new churches. What has happened to the Episcopal Church (and, if we are honest, many other mainline groups) is a real tragedy, but also a reminder to us to not compromise on the fundamentals of the faith.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG, why does it matter to you what anyone thinks when you don’t want to persuade them otherwise? You believe in your position and that of your daughter. Isn’t that enough?
Report comment to moderator
To 183 XION
I cant say that I agree with anything you’re saying but it sounds like you have come up with a whole theory that makes sense to you and makes you feel like there’s order in your life.
I’m sure you have discovered some things as true and false for yourself over your lifetime through direct experience without having to have someone tell you. I couldn’t event begin to explain to you some of my experiences and it isn’t necessary to do so. One of my beliefs is that there are many paths to the divine and so I’m sure it’s very possible that you’ll find your way there. I know my path, I embrace it, I know I have found what is right for me. Each individual has to find there own way. From my perspective you are just one traveler on one path up the mountain, who chooses to pretend there are no other paths. That doesn’t prevent me from walking mine and it doesn’t bother me that you don’t believe my path is there, it doesn’t make the path any less real.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG – 194
The Bible is the source, the benefit of doubt doesn’t exist, when the Bible clearly states homosexuality as a sin – taking it the next step…….. it’s the “doubt” part that eludes the homosexual, if not out-right defiance. If one can doubt what the Bible clearly states as sin, the homosexual has deliberately chosen the wrong path – ‘feel-good’ doesn’t have anything to do with it - there is no way to twist Biblical doctrine into sinless homosexuality.
It’s not a matter of culture, it’s all about the Word of GOD and what it states as sin. The one sin which the LORD makes clear will not allow for divorce is sexual sin, fornication/adultery – gossip, stealing, lying won’t allow for a Biblical divorce, but sexual sin ….. fornication/adultery certainly will.
Yes it is “too much to ask” – chiming in and accepting any part of homosexuality, is to ’stamp approval’ that’s what acceptance is. The LORD doesn’t accept it, the Bible makes clear it is sin, so YES, it is “too much to ask” -
Report comment to moderator
To #185 LOUISE
I can’t speak for BROWYNSKYE but I will just say that just like there are many different kinds of Christians with varied belief the same goes for Wiccans.
Having said that, even though many Wiccans have very strong feminist beliefs, not all Wiccans believe abortion is acceptable. I for one cannot reconcile that practice with Wiccas most cardinal religious guideline which is “An ye harm none, to as ye will.” Which is the key phrase in the Wiccan Rede. Harming the unborn as far as I’m concerned is a violation of that and in fact goes very much against our religions focus on the sacredness of all life. Those who choose that action will have to deal with the karma that it would incur.
As far as the question about the divine feminine. There is mainly one tradition (denomination) that considers the Goddess superior, they are Dianic Wiccans and they tend to be very seriously feminists. Most Wiccans of other traditions view the Goddess and God as equal, balancing one another, creating the universe as an act of co-creation, each having characteristics unique but complementary to one another.
Wicca does tend to have a slant towards women empowerment and a great percentage of Wiccans are women, many of whom found the patrical dominance of the Abrahamic religions many were raised in as oppressive. So there is a slight over compensation to the opposite.
Report comment to moderator
To #186 PASTOR ROY
We would prefer to think of it as embracing the words of the Goddess and God.
Our religion doesn’t really have the same concept of sin as you do. We believe in karma, rather than there being a list of no-no’s which have eternal consequences we focus on consequences in this life. We are given the guidance in the Rede “An ye harm none, do as ye will.” This is not a free for all as many Christians read it. The first part Harm None this means you are not to harm yourself or others, harm does not just mean hurt there are many ways you can cause harm physical, psychological, emotional, negligence, spiritual, ect. It is the responsibility of each individual to check themselves and avoid harm as best they can. The second part Do as ye will, doesn’t mean Do what you want. Will, here is meaning your highest ideal, what it is you know is right to do. Doing as you will means thinking things through and doing what you know to be right, it is focusing your thoughts and deeds. Now given these guides we are to walk through life in search for finding balance and contributing to the world in a positive way. Karma is there to teach us when we make decisions that are not the best. Every action brings consequences and through karma we are taught rather than punished for our actions. ultimately when we learn the lessons from our actions we move forward and grow in maturity and spiritually. The Goddess and God are not hear to punish us either in the short term or eternally. They want whats best for us and the more we learn and grow the more we reflect Them as balanced and part of everything.
Report comment to moderator
To 198 VICTORIA
The Bible also says that eating Shrimp and Lobster is a sin. I find it odd why so many Christians ignore most of the Old Testament and pick and choose what they do pay attention to. I don’t see Christians making a big fuss over those that eat non-fish seafood nor to I see them refraining from eating it when the bible clearly says that it is detestable.
There is barely a reference to homosexuality in the New Testament. I thought Christians ignored all the laws and requirements in the Old Testament because they were in a new covenant. Yet Christians seem to be obsessed with homosexuality. Im not sure why other peoples love or sex lives concern you so much but I would think that if Jesus had a big problem with it he would have said a bit more about it.
I would think that Christians would be more encouraging of people being monogamous and I would think they would be pro love. Jesus seemed pretty pro love. But instead you make every attempt to pass judgment on gays, prevent them from having the same rights and protections you do, you make sure their families and children are not raised in homes with married parents. All of that stuff is the opposite of the spirit of what Jesus was about.
Report comment to moderator
Wintersfrost, your arguments are logical and very interesting. Where would be a good place to get more information on Wicca?
Report comment to moderator
WINTERSFROST, just as you advise against many Christians reading as a free-for-all, “An ye harm none, do as ye will,” you would profit by guidance on meshing together the Old and New Testaments to avoid your mistaken reading of dietary laws and God’s ideal for sexual relations. But you are making your argument against Christians’ beliefs, not looking to understand them, so that is understandable.
Report comment to moderator
To 202 PARAH SALIN
I would say if you just want an idea of some of what Wicca is about a Pagan children book called ‘An ordinary girl, a magical child’ by W. Lyon Martin published by http://magicalchildbooks.com would be a good place to start. Even though its written for pagan children it goes over a number of basics and its a beautiful book.
If you’re looking for something a bit more detailed I would suggest ‘To Ride a Silver Broomstick’ by Silver Ravenwolf, or ‘The Complete Idiots guide to Wicca and Witchcraft’ by Denise Zimmermann and Katherine A. Gleason.
Report comment to moderator
To # 203 LOUISE
I actually very much want to understand Louise, it seems very inconsistent to choose to take harsh stances on one or two things from one part of the bible and then to ignore nearly all of the rest. I could understand Christians being opposed to homosexuality if they were opposed to everything else as well. And I often hear some justification as to why its ok to ignore this or that because of all sorts of reasons but it seems like if you’re going to take a stance that the bible is right then shouldn’t all of the bible be right not just what is convenient or popular. If Jesus truly did change the game for humanity and removed the requirement to follow the laws of the old testament then why are Christians so opposed to homosexuality? If Jesus has teachings about why homosexuality is wrong and why treating homosexuals unequally is ok then I would certainly be interested in seeing what he said about that because that would seem counter to everything else he taught.
Report comment to moderator
Louise: SteveG, why does it matter to you what anyone thinks when you don’t want to persuade them otherwise? You believe in your position and that of your daughter. Isn’t that enough?
I don’t have a daughter. Perhaps you’re confused?
What I want to persuade them of is that it’s possible to reach a different conclusion on this question without it meaning an abandonment of Christian fundamentals. Last I looked, rejecting all expressions of same-sex love was not part of any creed or affirmation of faith. I recognize it’s a controversial issue, and I recognize that — for the moment — those of us who have reached that different conclusion are in the minority. But I also know, from having been part of the discussions, that no one’s taking it lightly or proposing to make changes hastily.
Report comment to moderator
The reason you don’t understand this is because you haven’t studied the Bible, if you had you would not have made that statement. The OLD Testament is the LAW, the NEW Testament we are under grace.
7 And I heard a voice saying unto me, Arise, Peter; slay and eat.
8 But I said, Not so, Lord: for nothing common or unclean hath at any time entered into my mouth.
9 But the voice answered me again from heaven, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common. Acts 11
Report comment to moderator
Steveg “proposing to make changes hastily.”
Most likely NOT AT ALL -
Report comment to moderator
To #207 VICTORIA
You’re right I have read the bible but have not studied the bible much, its not my religion so that’s to be expected.
Your answer doesn’t really clear up my questions. Why are only some of the laws treated as relevant but not others are not. Christianity is kind of known for its absolutes so why are the laws regarding food, clothing, menstruation, and things like that ignored but the laws involving homosexuality are fiercely focused on? I read the bible years ago but so my memory is a bit fuzzy but arn’t all of those things covered in the same part of the bible in some cases the same books of the bible?
And I am not asking these questions to attack Christianity, I am genuinely curious. From an outside perspective Christianity seems very inconsistent and some subjects seem disproportionately focused on. Homosexuality is one of those topics that seems out of place for as much of a negative response as it gets. My religion doesn’t have issues with homosexuality so its very foreign to me why a religion would even put so much focus on the love and/or bedroom activities of people when there are things going on in the world that are far worse than people loving each other.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria, that’s a simplistic (and actually inaccurate) answer in 207, because it might fairly be read as saying we ignore what is in the Old Testament. In addition, both Old and New contain both law and grace–the Bible can’t be divided like that.
Winters Frost, the quick answer is that there are different purposes for different laws. The moral law (against killing, against theft and sexual sin, etc.) is summed up as “love your neighbor as yourself,” and it is still in effect. The ceremonial law has to do with sacrifices and such, and is no longer in effect. Many of the Old Testament laws were specific to Israel–what they could eat, what they could make their clothes out of–and they were given either as guidelines for better health, as examples of purity, or as basic laws in the way America has specific laws that other countries might not have. The New Testament specifically does away with the dietary laws (the apostle Peter had a vision about that), and by implication the other civil laws. (Many commentators give three categories, and the specifics escape me just now. This is a “quick” answer, not a theologically specific one.) But the moral laws against homosexuality are still in effect just as much as the moral laws against murder are.
The New Testament makes it clear that the law hasn’t been abolished–Jesus didn’t speak against pedophilia either, as far as we know (not all of His words are recorded, of course), but that doesn’t mean He thought it was OK. That’s actually an argument that gets passed from person to person without much thought; it’s pretty meaningless when you actually think about it, to say that Jesus must have thought something was OK if we don’t have a verse saying it’s not. But the New Testament is explicit against homosexuality; see Romans 1 for just one example.
Report comment to moderator
Oh, and Winters Frost, the Bible never says anything at all that would indicate it’s wrong for anyone to love someone else. The problem is in equating “sex” with “love.” A father loves his ten-year-old daughter, but having sex with her is wrong. Two women can love each other, but they cannot have sex with each other. The Bible is very much in favor of love–but love is wanting what is best for another, not fulfilling illicit lusts with another. Sexual expression is for a man and a woman within a committed, lifelong marriage. Anything else is misuse of sex.
Report comment to moderator
No – - it’s only your opinion. You can spin my post to mean something else, but I was clear. LAW and GRACE aren’t that difficult to understand -
Report comment to moderator
Winterfrost, I will come back and answer your post #209 – if not tonight then tomorrow.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG 206, my mistake and apologies. As soon as I hit post I knew I had confused you with another poster who has a lesbian daughter.
Report comment to moderator
#197 Winter’s Frost “One of my beliefs is that there are many paths to the divine and so I’m sure it’s very possible that you’ll find your way there.”
Well, how do you know? You’re just making stuff up. Faith in anything doesn’t get one to heaven. Someone who has the power to get you there must do it for you.
Have you ever used a map or GPS to find some place that you have never been to before? If you need a map to find some place down the road, how do you think you know your way around the afterlife?
The resurrection is the central point of Christianity. Without it there is no Christianity (1 Cor 15). Only one person in history has ever had the power to raise himself from the dead and make a way to heaven. Only he has the power to get you there.
Do you have the power to raise yourself from the dead? Do you have a map that tells you where heaven is? Do you have the strength to make the journey? On what basis do you deserve to get in?
The point is that people are kidding themselves if they think they understand their way around in the afterlife and have the authority to challenge God. Honestly?
Report comment to moderator
Winter’s Frost, Cheryl D “Victoria, that’s a simplistic (and actually inaccurate) answer in 207, because it might fairly be read as saying we ignore what is in the Old Testament.”
We don’t ignore the Old Testament; it was a temporary teaching tool, a set of illustrations to teach us about Christ (Gal 3:24,25). Once Christ came and fulfilled the law, we are no longer under law but under grace. (Rom 6:14) He who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law. (Rom 13:8)
But the law is still a teaching tool and an illustration. It teaches us about substitutionary sacrifice, Christ’s priesthood, the angel of death passing over, justice, mercy, our inheritance in heaven, etc.
Victoria is right about shrimp. God was teaching them to separate clean and unclean things. No unclean person will enter heaven. But when Christ had come God showed Peter that he has made all people who believe in him clean.
The food was an illustration, just as all of the law was an illustration about what the Messiah would do for us. Once the object of the lesson has arrived, the lesson is no longer needed (except for reference).
Report comment to moderator
Xion, if the law is now needed only for “reference” or an “illustration,” does that mean it’s OK to murder or enter a homosexual union?
No, the law is much more than that. It is the law. It shows us God’s holiness, and what He expects from us. It shows us our inability to be holy on our own, because we will inevitably break it (or break ourselves against it, as my pastor likes to say). It shows us our need for Christ’s sacrifice and, further, for His help to live a holy life. It still shows us God’s standard for holiness. It was not abolished; it was fulfilled.
If “fulfilled” meant we no longer have to live by it, then in the New Testament era we’d have to determine on our own what it means to love God and love our neighbor–and if that love includes a homosexual relationship, then we’re free to have one. But we can’t. Why? Because God’s law says we cannot, and His law has not been abolished.
Report comment to moderator
If “fulfilled” meant we no longer have to live by it, then in the New Testament era we’d have to determine on our own what it means to love God and love our neighbor–and if that love includes a homosexual relationship, then we’re free to have one. But we can’t. Why? Because God’s law says we cannot, and His law has not been abolished.
But we can eat shellfish and wear clothes of mixed fibers and do all kinds of other things that God’s law expressly forbids. Which leads to the confusion WintersFrost expresses over the apparent incoherence of choosing some laws to insist are still in effect and others are not.
So how do you make the distinction, Cheryl?
Report comment to moderator
All I’m asking is for the small benefit of doubt and grace it would take for you to not assume that the position is just a feel-good giving in to culture.
Steve – the problem is God’s Word does not give the small benefit of doubt and grace on these issues.
Report comment to moderator
wintersfrost.
The reason wiccans die is due to the Fall..
“Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:” (Ro 5:12)
All wiccans have spiritually corrupt roots WITHIN.
ANY law CANNOT give life to the wiccan..
“[Is] the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given LIFE, verily righteousness should have been by the law.” (Ga 3:21)
Because wiccans are in a irreparable spiritual condition, the death of the sinless, Lamb of God was essential at Calvary.
God doesn’t “patch-up” the wiccan. He begins on NEW ground.
“But new wine must be put into new bottles; and both are preserved.” (Lu 5:38)
The wiccan must be made a NEW CREATION in Christ.
..brand new LIFE in Christ..HIS life IN YOU via the gift of the Holy Spirit.
“Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, [even] to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.” (Ro 7:4)
Always remember, contradictions are in your head, never the infallible Bible.
Report comment to moderator
“..confusion WintersFrost expresses..”
s.g.
AFTER NEW BIRTH, a “sound mind” will begin for wintersfrost.
A joyful defrosting, with brilliant SON-light, can be expected..
“For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a SOUND MIND.” (2Ti 1:7)
Report comment to moderator
So how do you make the distinction, Cheryl? – SteveG – Sin has not changed only the punishment of it. Sin is shown through God’s Word it has not changed. Sin that is shown before the Law is the same sin that is shown after Law. It has not changed. God’s Word is clear any sexual behavior out side of marriage between a man and a woman is sin. Regardless of love.
The Law was written for the Jewish People, not for the Christian. In order to understand that you would have to read and believe in Paul’s Wriitens. Which you have made clear you do not.
Report comment to moderator
wintersfrost 03.29.10 AT 9:12 PM
To #186 PASTOR ROY
We would prefer to think of it as embracing the words of the Goddess and God
–
this is why this church has problems for letting groups who worship false gods and goddess to use their building.
Report comment to moderator
When Churches reject God’s Word, as being true or that they can use culture to determine, what is of God and what is not. That church is left with no true Word of God, the reason the Word of God is subject. to changing at the will of the culture that church finds it self in.
Report comment to moderator
“For the law of the SPIRIT OF LIFE in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.” (Ro 8:2)
Thus, the bar is raised even HIGHER for the redeemed homosexual or wiccan, as God purifies WITHIN.
The homosexual or wiccan has a new IDENTITY..A CHRISTIAN…a NEW man IN CHRIST.
Thus, God works WITHIN, to deliver from homosexual from the LUSTS and THINKING along those lines. And, of course, homosexual BEHAVIOUR is completely concluded. God does a replacing work with godly and holy thinking, through the SPIRIT.
This is glorious GOOD news!
“(For the weapons of our warfare [are] not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds;) Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity EVERY THOUGHT to the obedience of Christ;” (2Co 10:4-5)
“But we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are CHANGED into the SAME image from glory to glory, [even] as BY the Spirit of the Lord.” (2Co 3:18)
Yes, a God-CHANGED life.
Report comment to moderator
later all..over and out.
Report comment to moderator
mytoosense thank you that was great
Report comment to moderator
#217 Cheryl D. “Xion, if the law is now needed only for “reference” or an “illustration,” does that mean it’s OK to murder or enter a homosexual union?”
Jesus boiled the entire law down to two commandments. Are his word insufficient? Will you add parts of the law back in? The entire book of Galatians and much of Romans is a rebuke of that position.
You are presenting the position of Reformed scholars. I love Reformed scholars, but they aren’t right about everything. We don’t need scholars to tell us how to interpret Galatians or the law. The Bible explains itself.
Report comment to moderator
Steve G., “how do you make the distinction” was already answered, briefly, in 210. I’m not an expert on this issue, but have summarized it as I understand it. But one could also point out that the stipulations against sexual sin (including homosexuality) are reiterated in the New Testament, so on this specific issue it’s clear it’s still in effect.
Report comment to moderator
Xion, no, I’m not presenting the position of “Reformed scholars” (although I do agree with them), but of the Bible and even of common sense. When Jesus is saying that these aspects of the Law are summarized in two points, is He then saying that the specifics of the law are no longer relevant? That is, in the Old Testament “love your neighbor as yourself” included “Do not sleep with her husband,” but now it might not mean that? If we throw out the law, then we can make it up as we go along–as the Episcopalians seem to be doing. If the Law is not in effect anymore, how would you argue against homosexuality or adultery? Just saying that “they’re unloving” is rather squishy, because that will be debated. The other side says it’s unloving to keep “two people who love each other” apart. What makes us right?
The idea that the Old Testament was law and not grace isn’t biblical. Old Testament saints were still justified by faith, though their faith came before the Cross. Salvation has always been only by God’s grace, not by keeping the Law. But before and after the Cross, the Law still gives us God’s standards of holiness. Paul spends an awful lot of time thundering against sin and lawbreaking–a man sleeping with his stepmother, for instance. He surely didn’t see the Law as being irrelevant.
Do you ever hear some point of Christian truth and suddenly truths “click into place” because it makes sense of what you know of Scripture, and the truths you were trying to reconcile did not? Well, I grew up being told that the old man is dead, which made me ask my pastor (with no good answer) when I was 13, “If the old man is dead, does that mean it’s now the new man that is sinning? So does Jesus have to die again for the new man?” I still don’t have a good answer to that question, but I would say that no, Jesus’ death was sufficient, and the “new man” isn’t committing sin. So somehow that dead fella still has some life left in him.
The idea that we aren’t under the law but under grace, and therefore are not to sin (though the law is what tells us what sin IS) was one of those points that didn’t really fit together until I heard what is, yes, the Reformed answer, but more importantly the biblical answer–that Law and Gospel have different functions, but both are still in effect. If the Law is now gone, then we cannot declare anyone (including ourselves) to be sinners. Paul is pretty explicit on this one–it’s the Law that brings conviction of sin and brings us to God. Without the Law, there is no need for the Gospel.
Report comment to moderator
Xion, thank you for clarifying what I was trying to say.
The statement you made below is excellent:
Cheryl D. the answer to Steve question is the fact from Genesis to Revelation, God has no changed what is right and what is wrong. Just look at marriage being between a man and a woman. Genesis started it out. The 10 Commandment spoke of it, Jesus spoke on the issue, and Paul talks about it in many fashion.
Now in order for this church to believe in same sex marriage the following must take place -
Genesis must not be true, you can believe it holds some truth but they can not believe it is 100% true.
The 10 Commandment is for the Jewish people and was just for their culture. It does not address marriage per say. So you can not use it to show marriage between a man and a woman.
Jesus did address marriage but never spoke out against same sex marriage so it is ok with him.
Paul, well, he was impacted by his culture and his dislike for women. So you can disregard his written.
All of these must happen for a Christian to support same sex marriage.
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl D. the answer to Steve question is the fact from Genesis to Revelation, God has noT changed what is right and what is wrong. Just look at marriage being between a man and a woman. Genesis started it out. The 10 Commandment spoke of it, Jesus spoke on the issue, and Paul talks about it in many fashion.
Report comment to moderator
Steve,
I dont think its that difficult of a distinction.
Ceremonial law is easily abolished as it symbolized Christ. His coming was that ultimate sacrifice. The veil torn.
Many of the cultural laws are easy to decipher as well. You had a pre-industrialized campground and nation. No running water, no sewer systems, not the best means of cooking, etc. In essence they were mostly environmental laws to protect against disease and ensuring the health of millions. We still apply most of these laws today on a practical level. We dont eat things that are harmful, and its best not to eat things that arent good for us. We send our waste away from us, etc.
But we are the uNited States, not Israel formed by God directly calling an Abraham. Although, if Israel had our technology, it would probably be not much different.
As to the ten commandments, dont confuse the penalties with the law itself. They didnt have a prison system especially early on, and couldnt be burdened with one. And frankly I think that worked pretty well.
As to us in our daily lives, Christ is still the fulfillment of all of that, and we are still called to live by his example, which is an easy litmus test when we are honest with ourselves.
Report comment to moderator
http://frontpagemag.com/2010/03/30/homeless-in-binghamton/
The Episcopal Diocese of Central New York has sold a church in Binghamton to the Islamic Awareness Center.
“In seling Church of the Good Shepherd’s building to the Muslim group, the (Diocese) was killing two birds with one stone. First, they placed an enormous obstacle in the path of the now-Anglican (Church). Second, they offered a big inter-faith embrace to their Muslim brothers and sisters who needed a property from which to extend the ‘Dawah’ (the invitation to Islam). That’s a good day’s work for a diocese that has been losing church members for the past ten years or more.”
I think we all know things are going to become much worse in this respect before there’s any hope of them getting better. The Episcopal denomination needs a lot of prayer.
Report comment to moderator
The Episcopal denomination needs a lot of prayer.
-
an a strong movement of God drawing them to repent and turn back to Him.
Report comment to moderator
There is a difference between the Old Testament and the New Testament? Both the New and Old Testament are inspired, but we are no longer under the LAW (Old Testament) but GRACE (New Testament) –
Christ came to earth to die for our sins, the Law (Old Testament) was replaced by GRACE, when Christ died on the Cross – It’s by GRACE we are saved through our faith in Jesus Christ who died for our sins on the Cross, when we accept Jesus Christ as our Savior –
8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
9 Not of works, lest any man should boast. Ephesians 2:8-9
For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace. Romans 6:14
- – - – There are groups who say that “we are not under law for our salvation but we are under the law for sanctification” …this isn’t true and it misuses passages from the Bible, and side-steps context.
- – - – Old Testament LAW was replaced, when Jesus died on the Cross at Calvary - No longer were animal sacrifices of blood required to cover sin … Jesus blood on the Cross was the price paid for our sin IF we BELIEVED on Him for our Salvation.
That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. Romans 10:9
Homosexuality is mentioned often in the New Testament –
Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 1 Corinthians 6:9
Likewise, Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities near them, which like them committed sexual sins and engaged in homosexual activities, serve as an example of the punishment of eternal fire. Jude 1:7
26 For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural,
27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.
28 And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper,
29 being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips,
30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents,
31 without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful;
32 and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them. Romans 1
Report comment to moderator
Victoria, since we’re not under law but under grace, the verses you quoted at the end of 237 don’t apply, because they definitely present the law of God. Sorry.
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl -
If you don’t understand, I can’t do much about it. Xion tried to explain it to you, …. he did an excellent job.
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl D. – the verses you quoted at the end of 237 don’t apply–
Why? Those passages are from the New Testament. Paul written was to address sin found inside the New Testament Church
Report comment to moderator
Pastor Roy, I actually do think that the verses quoted were very relevant. The problem is when Christians try to say “We aren’t under the law, but under grace” and then try to show someone that they MUST live by some verse–which is, by definition, citing the law of God.
It’s much, much easier theologically to recognize the ongoing value of the Law than to do that kind of theological twisting. And I fear that the theological twisting has to be downright confusing to unbelievers. So I was pointing out that those who don’t believe in Law cannot cite Law and be theologically consistent. The verses cited were Law, and thus either must (1) be called Law but accepted, (2) be discarded as irrelevant because they’re Law, or (3) somehow be misinterpreted as something other than Law. I prefer option #1; I’d be curious which the non-law crowd would choose.
Report comment to moderator
Pastor Roy, just to be clear, we cannot be justified by the Law, and in fact we cannot keep the Law. But that doesn’t mean the Law is invalid. It’s powerless, meaning it cannot perfect us, but it isn’t invalid. It is, in fact, what condemns us, what shows us our need of Christ, and ultimately what shows us how to live holy lives. (Without the Law telling me not to, I might as well have a male roommate–it might be more “fun.” But the Law of God says, “Thou shalt not,” and as a new creation in Christ, I need to care what God wants.)
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl D. I understand what you are saying and for the most part I agree on the idea about the Law, but the idea that those passages cited were Laws that I do not know if I can agree on that. I saw them in a different light.
Report comment to moderator
There is a different between the 10 Commandments and the Jewish law. As there is a different between the Jewish Law and those passage that were qouted.
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl
Is Saturday your Sabbath?
Do you eat shrimp, or ham – would you consider that a sin, if not, why not?
Do you follow all the laws of the Old Testament? if not why not?
Are many of the laws in the OT applicable after Christ died on the cross? even to Jews as well as Gentiles, if so, how did that happen? – was Christ’s death on the cross the all time payment for our sins if we Believe in HIM and follow HIM?
The blood sacrifices covered sin in the OT, however Christ’s blood cleanses us, there is a difference between covering and cleansing.
If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 1 John 1:9
Report comment to moderator
I only read this about once a day, so I am a bit behind in the discussion. This is kind of a side issue, but the argument about Christmas and Easter and their alleged pagan origins really bothers me.
1) Much of this argument is indeed from the book The Two Babylons, which is poorly researched and contains alot of misinformation.
2) The English word “Easter” may well have pagan origins (this is disputed by linguists and is by no means certain), but this only impacts the name given the Feast in the English language. Most other languages, from Koine Greek to the modern Romance languages simply call the Feast “Pascha” or Passover. To the early Church, the celebration was simply the Christian Passover. Period.
3) The Early Christians believed (I don’t defend this belief, but it explains the Dec 25th date of celebrating Christ’s birth) that prophets were martyred on the day of their concetpion. The Western Church believed that Christ was crucified on March 25th, and by their logic, he was conceived on that same date. This belief was well-established before the Saturnalia celebrations took root in the City of Rome. Now, working on the assumption of a “perfect” 40 week pregnancy, you can see why hte Nativity of our Lord was celebrated on December 25th,. Paganism had nothing to do with it. (the Eastern Church set the crucifixion at April 6th, and January 6th is still the time when many Eastern Christians exchange gifts)
There is a great article about this in Touchstone magazine, http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=16-10-012-v
Report comment to moderator
#230 Cheryl D “When Jesus is saying that these aspects of the Law are summarized in two points, is He then saying that the specifics of the law are no longer relevant?”
Every Word that proceeds out of the mouth of God is relevant, but not without context. As you said in #217 “It shows us God’s holiness, and what He expects from us. It shows us our inability to be holy on our own…” In other words, it is a teaching tool that gives us insight into God’s nature and plan and our own depravity and need for salvation. Romans and Galatians make this point.
However in #210 you explain a taxonomy which divides the law into moral, ceremonial, dietary, civil and so on. You cite as your authority commentators, which hold to the Reformed position.
And so, it becomes an academic exercise of sifting through and putting commandments into the proper categories and then declaring by consensus which ones Christians should keep and which should be discarded. But the Bible makes no such distinctions and scholars have no authority to declare what is in or out.
Paul screams at the Galatians throughout his letter, “Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.” (Gal 5:3) The issue here was circumcision, but Paul could have picked any of the 613 commandments. “For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.” (Gal 5:3)
The Judaizers in Galatia thought that circumcision fulfilled some holiness or cutting one’s flesh somehow pleased God. Not inherently aside from obedience. Circumcision was merely a reminder that the promised Messiah, the holy Seed, would be of the lineage of Abraham. (Gal 3:16) Once the promised offspring arrived there is no more need of a reminder.
The Catholic church makes the same error with the bread and wine, declaring it holy and the actual body and blood of Christ like cannibals. Since Christ was standing right there when he said “Do this in remembrance of me, it was obviously symbolic”. It is the remembrance of Christ and what he did for us that is holy. It is an illustration. God provides thousands of illustrations throughout the Bible. He is the mighty Counselor and Teacher. Illustrations help us remember.
You say this truth has “clicked into place” for you. But Christian truth is not subjective as you know. Paul chastised the Galatian church every way to Sunday after having been freed from the law that they kept going back to find this or that rule to reapply and place themselves back under the bondage of legalism.
There is not a jot or a tittle of the law that Jesus did not fulfill. So then which parts do you find unsatisfactory that you would like to give him a hand with? If you choose to keep any part of the law, no matter how you categorize it, then Christ’s fulfilling of it becomes worthless to you and you must keep it all. Can Paul be any clearer?
I hope that doesn’t sound condescending. I tremendously respect your opinion and views here. Galatians is a pinnacle work that launched the Reformation. Yet I think the church sometimes fails to grasp how great Christ’s Grace actually is and what liberty it bestows.
“Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.”
God Bless!
Report comment to moderator
Xion – Yet I think the church sometimes fails to grasp how great Christ’s Grace actually is and what liberty it bestows.
–
I agree but I believe it has a deeper issue the lack of undertand of God’s Word.
Report comment to moderator
Xion, I have a bit of a problem with the three-part division of the Law myself (which is why I’ve neither studied it nor gone into detail in it on this thread), but what is very, very clear from Scripture is that part of the Law is no longer in effect (not eating shrimp, for instance), but that other parts are (not murdering, for instance). So the three-part division may or may not be precisely accurate, but clearly there is an answer to this dilemma somewhere, and that is the best answer I’ve seen (though a little sketchy on biblical proof, and thus I won’t personally “defend” it). Some of the law clearly applied only to Israel (national laws); some has clearly been done away with. But “Thou shalt not murder” is still in effect.
Biblically, how can you say that homosexuality is a sin, if we’re no longer “under the Law” at all? I have an answer for that one, and have given it, imperfect as the answer may be–but those of you who are fighting that the Law is no longer applicable have not (at least not so far on this thread).
Without the law, there is no sin. So where does the Christian, or the unbeliever, stand in relation to the Law? Listen, I’m dealing with deep questions in snatches of time (I need to be working), and not necessarily answering them well. But I have never seen a satisfactory answer to the question from those of you who are saying the Law is no longer in effect, and I’ve asked it several times on this thread. So let me ask it again: How can we say what is sin and what isn’t, giving as my example homosexuality, if we throw out the Law? The Law doesn’t justify, but surely it is more than an “illustration” or we pretty much have to become postmodernists, saying “as long as we love each other it’s OK, but you can decide for yourself what love means.” I know that is not what you’re saying–but I honestly don’t see any other valid alternative, if we throw out the Law and (inevitably) decide for ourselves what “love” means. That’s what many churches have done, and we resist them–but on what grounds if not the Law?
Report comment to moderator
Re: “being under the law”
I think you all are right to point out that there are problems with making a distinction between “ceremonial” and “moral” laws, mostly because the Scripture itself doesn’t explicitly make this distinction.
But maybe the problem is the function of the law.
The law doesn’t save us. Doing good works doesn’t save us, but doing good works is the fruit in the life of a saved person. For example, Paul condemns homosexuality in Romans and I Corinthians, noting that this behavior, like others he lists are antagonistic to the Kingdom of God. Some might refer to this as a “moral law” but I think that term may cause more problems than it is worth. We might be safer just to call it Biblical ethics, or something like that.
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl, why haven’t you studied it?
Report comment to moderator
Biblically, how can you say that homosexuality is a sin, if we’re no longer “under the Law” at all? Gensis.
Report comment to moderator
The law doesn’t save us. Doing good works doesn’t save us, but doing good works is the fruit in the life of a saved person. For example, Paul condemns homosexuality in Romans and I Corinthians, noting that this behavior, like others he lists are antagonistic to the Kingdom of God. Some might refer to this as a “moral law” but I think that term may cause more problems than it is worth. We might be safer just to call it Biblical ethics, or something like that.
–
why can we not just call in sin.
Report comment to moderator
<blockquote Cheryl
YOU WRITE: …. "So let me ask it again: How can we say what is sin and what isn’t, giving as my example homosexuality, if we throw out the Law?”
I don’t know how much more explicit than the passages below:
Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals,
1 Corinthians 6:9
Likewise, Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities near them, which like them committed sexual sins and engaged in homosexual activities, serve as an example of the punishment of eternal fire. Jude 1:7
Both of these passaages make it clear that homosexuality is sin, it is punishable by:
1 Corinthians 6:9 “will not inherit the kingdom of God”
Jude 1:7 “punishment of eternal fire.”
Report comment to moderator
Victoria an it was not part of the Jewish Law.
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl I think I may see the discrepancy.
You ask how we can know that murder or homosexuality is sin unless the Mosaic law tells us.
These are both called out as sin before Moses and after Moses. The NT calls them sin. We don’t need Moses to tell us. Although, if God hated something thousands of years ago we know he hates it now, since he does not change. We are bound by civil law and our conscience and our knowledge of scripture, but we are not bound by Moses.
Once again, Galatians gives tremendous insight into the temporary nature of the law. Read Gal chapters 3,4,5 several times and see if it does not click. Look at Gal 3:19. The law was always intended to be temporary until Christ arrived and fulfilled it. If you want to still follow Moses, Paul is yelling at you.
Paul explains that many things were in effect prior to the law and afterward. God’s promise to Abraham by faith wasn’t affected by the law. Murder was wrong before and it is still wrong after. Same for sexual sins.
The Mosaic law is extremely peculiar. It was obviously never intended as a civic model. It is full of bizarre rituals which have no meaning outside an understanding of Christ’s fulfillment as outlined in the book of Hebrews. What could be more peculiar than circumcision? And the blood of a spotless lamb and scape goats and jubilee and unleavened bread and holy underwear and phylacteries and so on.
The only people Jesus yelled at were those who kept all of the law but missed the whole point. Paul is yelling about the same thing in Galatians. Jesus said they didn’t understand scripture because the object of the lesson was standing right there in front of them and they missed Him.
So then … Yes, murder is sin and has always been so since Cain and Abel. The Mosaic law incorporated some of these sins into its statutes. But the Mosaic law was always just a temporary set of peculiar illustrations to teach us about the spotless Lamb of God who would die in our place so that the angel of death would pass over us and we would reach the Promised Land.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria, if it’s sin, that means it’s against the law of God, right? My question isn’t whether it is sin, but how people can say the law of God is no longer in effect, but breaking it is sin. It has to be one or the other. Either we are accountable to the law, and we sin if we break it; or we are no longer under the law, and we can break it without sinning.
As to why I haven’t studied the theory of the law having three parts, I’m not sure why I need to have studied every theological viewpoint I’ve ever encountered. I am basically familiar with it, but no, I haven’t studied it in depth. It isn’t at the top of my priority list.
Report comment to moderator
The LORD gave the old covenant for the Jews. If one wanted to convert to Judaism they would then be under the Old Covenant. The Jew and Gentile is under the New Covenant after Christ died on the cross. It was all new, and it is called “The Church” – the body of Christ – HE sent the Holy Spirit to guide each one of us who are in that body.
That doesn’t mean the 10 Commandments no longer exist – you can see clearly that they are still in force by reading the New Testament – but that doesn’t mean the Levitical laws, given to the Jews are in force today, even though the homosexuals and their supporters have tried to twist the LAW and GRACE in such a way as to support their sin.
Report comment to moderator
Xion, quick answer and then I’ll read the rest of your post: I deliberately didn’t say “Mosaic Law.” The law given before Moses was still part of the law.
OK, reading the rest of your post, I don’t see anything to add except perhaps my original question: Would you, then, say that homosexuality is a sin because marriage predates the law of Moses (that it is, in other words, a sin by implication rather than because of a specific law forbidding it)? I really don’t mean to focus on this one issue, but I think an answer that doesn’t deal with the unbelievers’ question “why no to homosexuality, yes to shellfish” is an incomplete answer.
And BTW, I highly respect you, and I hope that comes through. I’m not arguing with “you,” I’m arguing with the idea that we can speak of sin apart from the law. According to Scripture (I can think of two passages off the top of my head), we can’t. (Sin comes by the law, and Paul’s discussion about covetousness and the law.) And I will indeed go back and read Galatians later. For now, I took a phone call while I was working, so I took a break. Now I need to get back to work–I have a project that needs to be mostly wrapped up by the end of the week.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria, thank you for your straight answer in 258. I probably don’t have anything more to add beyond what I said in 259, and work does beckon.
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl,
YOU WRITE:… “As to why I haven’t studied the theory of the law having three parts, I’m not sure why I need to have studied every theological viewpoint I’ve ever encountered.”
Why would you consider it “theory”, why not study the Scriptures that surround this area and learn for yourelf. It’s not as you call it a “theological viewpoint” it’s there in black and white. Sodom, and Gomorrah with all the sin, including homosexuality is recorded in Genesis – that was before Levitical Law.
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl – It seems we posted at the same time.
Report comment to moderator
#257 Cheryl D – I notice that you are saying “law of God”. We are talking about the “law of Moses”.
Every sin ever mentioned in the Bible is still the breaking of the “law of God”. I break those every day and sometimes several times a minute, say when a beautiful woman (not my wife) walks by and I forget where I am for a second or when I despise others in my heart or when I am proud or self-righteous and so on.
But what am I to do about it? If I were under the Mosaic law I would place my sin on an animal and have it die in my place. But none of that is necessary any more because …
“Unlike the other high priests, he does not need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people. He sacrificed for their sins once for all when he offered himself.” Heb 7:27
Report comment to moderator
The law given before Moses was still part of the law. – Cheryl D. what law was given before Moses?
Report comment to moderator
God laid out the foundation of what Marriage is to look like before He ever gave Moses the 10 Commandment or the Law.
Report comment to moderator
Why is homosexuality sin?
Well, the easy answer is because God says so way back in Sodom and it is still a sin way forward with Paul. But that doesn’t really answer the question.
A more fundamental question is why is there male and female and what is their intended purpose and relationship? I believe Ephesians 5 answers these questions best. It starts in vs 21, but I will skip down to the heart of the matter.
All intimacy apart from marriage is sin, because marriage is a peculiar illustration of the closeness and joy God desires to have with his people.
Throughout the prophets God often referred to Israel as his wife. When Israel worshiped idols, God called it adultery and harlotry. It broke his heart.
As usual people naturally make everything about themselves. They accuse God of being prudish about sex or some sort of sin hunter that is an enemy of fun and freedom. As usual, people are wrong about God.
Marriage is not really about us. Marriage is an illustration of God’s relationship with his people. Adultery and homosexuality are a perversion of God’s intended purpose for men and women. It distorts the illustration that is meant to teach us about Him.
As a father, I’ve learned about God as my Father and myself as his child. As a husband I’ve learned about God’s intended relationship with me and how frustrating I must be to him. Sexual sins are a slap in God’s face and an assault on his divine order. It ruins the lesson he is trying to teach us.
Homosexuality is not wrong because God is a prude. Homosexuality is wrong because it is like urinating on his divine plan for one’s life.
Report comment to moderator
Xion the idea of adultery and harlotry for worshiped idols, was in place before God gave the Jewish people the Law.
The idea of marriage was in place before the Law.
The idea of listen to God and Obeing Him an the result of that obedience was shown before the law.
Report comment to moderator
After reading the flurry of responses it seems like there is a great deal of disagreement on the whole law/grace old/new testament arguments. While I do appreciate all of your answers I have to say that if anything I’m more confused on what the official position of Christianity is. It all seems really inconsistent and far more complicated that it probably should be.
Report comment to moderator
wintersfrost – 269
Did you read the post #237 that I wrote to you? What part of that don’t you understand
Report comment to moderator
#269 Winter’s Frost.
If you are looking for an official position of “Christianity” on hermeneutics and biblical interpretation you are looking for the wrong thing, especially on an open blog.
The Bible is actually crystal clear on its meaning and everything you need to understand the Bible is contained in the Bible itself.
Where Christians differ is their level of understanding, but there is nothing wrong with that. Iron sharpens iron. Learning is a process. Actual Christians don’t differ on any of the fundamentals. However, we like to dig deeper which causes lots of discussion. It’s actually a beautiful thing.
You may notice that through our back and forth we are converging not diverging. What else would you expect as finite minds who love the truth grapple with an infinite God?
If you want to understand the Bible, read the Bible. You don’t need anyone else to explain it to you. You may not get it right the first time or the 1000th time, but those who seek will find.
Report comment to moderator
Xion, I’m strongly agreed with your thoughts on marriage–they’re in accord with one of the last books I edited and the True Woman conference I just attended (and my author was one of the speakers there), so I’ve actually “looked at” these concepts in depth lately.
Oh, and you may have been talking specifically about the Mosaic law, but I was talking about the Law/Gospel distinction, which is not limited to the Mosaic law. We may have been more or less saying the same thing (?), but coming at it from different angles.
Victoria, post 261–ah, I see where the confusion lies. I probably wasn’t clear enough. The “theory” that I haven’t taken time to study in depth is the concept that Old Testament Law can be divided into three parts (civil, ceremonial, and moral, or something like that) and only the moral law is still in effect today. It makes some sense, but it isn’t ever stated in Scripture, and since the laws aren’t actually ever subdivided that way, it leads to discussion about which parts are still in effect today–but then, if the laws aren’t subdivided that way, it still leads to discussion about what is applicable today, huh? Anyway, I haven’t really looked at the concept in depth, and can’t say whether I agree with it. I can only say it does sort of make sense to me, and Peter’s vision of the sheet full of animals would fit in with the theory–but whether there is overall strong Scripture support for it, I simply can’t say, so I won’t “defend” the idea. I brought it up only as one way to solve the theological issues, not to say it is for sure the correct answer.
Report comment to moderator
P.S. Xion, from post 266: “All intimacy apart from marriage is sin . . .” Some of my women friends and I have discussed through the years that to men, the word “intimacy” usually means only “sexual intimacy,” but to a woman it means being close to someone. I can, therefore, have a very intimate chat with a close friend–but I am more likely to describe it that way to a woman than to a man, because she’ll hear the word the way I meant it, but he won’t. (In fact, my little brother once said well then, women just shouldn’t use the word for a meaning other than sex, because it’s so easily misunderstood. I said no, it’s a very good word–we simply hear it differently. If anything, men should “add” the wider meaning, not women subtract, because wives want the wider meaning of intimacy from their husbands.) I just think that’s an interesting male/female difference.
Report comment to moderator
No Cheryl, that isn’t the problem, it’s not a theory as well.
You made a comment not to long ago “theology seems more of a guy thing than a woman’s thing, for the most part” – perhaps it is for you, but it has much more importance for me, and for many other women as well.
The laws regarding what one eats is answered in Acts 10, New Testament –
Peter is living in the age of grace, it makes no difference whether we eat meat or not. Peter is STILL living by the the Mosaic system and not eating what is ceremonially unclean. The LORD is teaching Peter that he is no longer under the Mosaic system and is free to eat anything, Under grace you can eat meat or not eat meat, or anything else
Report comment to moderator
Xion
YOU WROTE:… “If you want to understand the Bible, read the Bible. You don’t need anyone else to explain it to you. You may not get it right the first time or the 1000th time, but those who seek will find.”
I believe that people can understand the Bible, but it’s much easier if they learn and understand from those who have studied.
We can all help others to understand, IF they want to listen.
Report comment to moderator
“You made a comment not to long ago “theology seems more of a guy thing than a woman’s thing, for the most part” – perhaps it is for you, but it has much more importance for me, and for many other women as well.”
In that very thread, I also said that I personally love theology. In fact, I took three theology classes with one of the hardest professors at my Bible college. In one of those classes, the class was fully 80% male (the college was 60% male). But theology was, and is, important to me, and he was an excellent teacher, so I took him for every class I could. I love it that theology is discussed a lot at my church in small groups. I have a guy friend with whom I have talked on the phone for hours about theology (and he tells me he rarely finds a woman who’s interested in–or knowledgeable about–theology). So I was definitely not “making excuses” for myself in that thread–I was agreeing with another poster that most women aren’t all that interested in theology (though she and I were both saying that WE are).
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl – I disagree with your saying:
–“theology seems more of a guy thing than a woman’s thing, for the most part”–
Maybe it’s the women I’ve known and the churches I’ve attended and been associated with, …. I don’t find men to be more interested in DOCTRINE than women.
Report comment to moderator
That should have read:
“I don’t find men to be more interested in DOCTRINE/THEOLOGY than women.”
Report comment to moderator
Well, Victoria, I’m glad you haven’t found that. I admit that most of my life experience was as a Baptist, and that’s mostly where I found that. I haven’t found it nearly so true in the PCA, where I’m a member now–men and women both willingly, eagerly discuss theology in the PCA. Regardless, you and I are in agreement that theology is profitable for both men and women.
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl,
I don’t think having a line-up of churches, pitting Baptist against PCA, or any other is fruitful – however you have made the comments you state in #279, in the past. I have attended Baptist churches, and Bible studies, that would also mean Evangelical Bible Churches and different Presbyterian churches including orthodox,…. I don’t agree with you regarding PCA churches, it simply isn’t true in my experience. It has been glaring on occasion that an attitude of elitism prevails, and is not warranted or true…… which is also not becoming, especially in the body of Christ.
Report comment to moderator
#272 Cheryl D “Oh, and you may have been talking specifically about the Mosaic law, but I was talking about the Law/Gospel distinction, which is not limited to the Mosaic law. We may have been more or less saying the same thing (?), but coming at it from different angles.”
Yes, I see that now, but the law/gospel distinction as in Galatians for example IS referring to the Mosaic Law. When one discusses sin in general, that is a far wider scope, incorporating sins of the heart, etc. For example, Jesus said, “You have heard that is was said … but I say…” Here he is making a distinction between the Mosaic law and sin in general. All sin breaks God’s law.
#273 Yes, you are right. Women and men think differently about intimacy. As a man, the definition is pretty simple.
Report comment to moderator
As a baby, I feel it’s high time someone told Victoria, to calm down and stop ripping on people for not believing EXACTLY AS SHE BELIEVES. I am trying to nap. I do not wish to be cranky during playtime.
Report comment to moderator
I wonder if A Baby used to be A Monkey, eep, eep!
Report comment to moderator
burp, burp….. LOL
Report comment to moderator
Victoria, the fact that I was raised Baptist and left it after doing theological study–but still have mostly Baptists in my family, and among my friends–is part of my life story. I don’t know whether it’s relevant that Baptist women don’t talk about theology much. It IS relevant that PCA women do. You’re definitely right that an attitude of elitism is wrong. I would hope that isn’t found at my church. I know that it isn’t found among my church leaders; they are indeed humble men, very open about the fact that they are sinners and that they owe everything to God’s grace. Being under their ministry is an honor.
Report comment to moderator
I don’t know what Baptist church you were connected with, but I’ve been involved with enough to know that isn’t even close to being true, they talk about theology a great deal, the Word of GOD is most important. That would include those who are doctors and professionals in service, and also on the mission field, and those who are leaders within the women’s Biblical studies, and those who attend. As far as PCA, or Presbyterian’s be they any part of, including orthodox most certainly don’t come close to understanding doctrine, unless they can quote Calvin. To a theologian or Biblical scholar that has little value – the reason is; it is only through the Word of God, and the HOLY Spirit that we learn….. Calvin was only a man, and a man who many don’t respect because of his unrepentant behavior.
The interesting part of all this is the Presbyterian stance and dependence on Calvinism, which doesn’t mean much when someone quotes Calvin or his doctrine rather than the Bible. The annoyance and ignorance of Calvin has been building for some time. The Reformed churches have not taken the steps necessary to distance themselves from a man who doesn’t represent the church with compassion for those who don’t believe as they do, or to repent of his deeds.
Let’s take Paul as an example: Saul/Paul mistreated, and terrorized the Christians during Christ’s ministry, and after HIS death and resurrection – he most certainly wasn’t a Christian. However, when Saul/Paul was struck down on the Damascus road, he saw the light, the real light, the one and only light of the world. Saul/Paul came to know Christ in a real way, he was repentant, he followed Christ. Paul was probably the greatest preacher of all time, he was used of GOD in a mighty way. Paul was humble, he knew he was only a man saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ his Savior.
Now we come to those who about 475 or so years ago believed in Christ and took the worlds stage, one nailed his on the door of a castle, the other turned the Christian world to the Trinity. Both these men had a real impact on the Church.
The problem with one of them was, he wanted ‘justice’ and that meant that if you didn’t believe in infant baptism or the Trinity you were to be punished, and that could mean death by a variety of ways. The other man, being frustrated by the Jews not accepting Christ as the Messiah was so angry at the Jews that he wrote a very nasty, hateful book that inspired many in his homeland to hate the Jews as much as he did. Even to the point of telling his countrymen to burn their synagogues and the Holy books. This man was highly esteemed by a leader who exterminated 6 million Jews. The man who began a good work, but hated the Jews never repented to anyone’s knowledge. All this happened, but was shoved away, only to be re-opened as a sinful time in history that should have been, but still hasn’t to this day been dealt with. The church has suffered.
Churches cannot follow the unrepentant past and expect that somehow it will go away, it hasn’t and will not until we as Believers see it as it was, and how it has smeared and marred the church.
This is GOD’S Church it belongs to HIM, HE sent HIS Son to redeem us, we need to repent, not for what others have done, but admit that what they did was sinful and hateful, that we don’t agree with it. We can’t possibly know what happened the minutes before their final breath, but we can denounce the sin that has led to much pain, not just for the Jews and those who don’t accept the doctrine of Jesus Christ and the Trinity but for covering the sin.
What REVIVAL could come from such a repentant admission within in our churches. This doesn’t mean that these men didn’t start out right, they did, it’s what happened at the end of their lives.
Let’s now look at the seven churches in Revelation. There is only ONE which the LORD finds worthy. Where do we fit in, which church do you and I belong to?
The world watches, we need to come alive for Christ.
Report comment to moderator
VICTORIA,
you have rightly pointed out that Calvin and Luther were both sinners. So are you and I.
It is impossible to generalize so much about denominations. Can’t we admit that there are Bible believing Lutherans, Presbyterians and Baptists, but also liberal or otherwise apostate Lutherans Presbyterians and Baptists?
Calvin had a system for interpreting Scripture. So did Luther. So do you. So do I. None of us truly and purely represent “only the Word”. We all come to the text with some presuppositions. We all hold certain opinions on matters that Bible believing Christians have real disagreement about– (eg., end times, to name a prominent area of dispute).
I have enjoyed this conversation, but I think we need to have a dose of reality about all the various denominations. Many of httehem do great work, but all of them have problems of one sort or another. My “tribe”, after all, started when the King of England wanted a divorce. I live in a glass house, I can’t throw any rocks.
Report comment to moderator
I agree with Victoria. There are holy people and unholy people in all religions. God will use those whom he chooses, in his way, for his purpose.
I see this age of pedifilia and godess worship as aberrations of a christianity, focused too much on sexuality. These spiritual aberrations will fade, and all churches will be renewed.
Our small, Episcopal church is seeing a renewal, using the Benedictine Rule of Life. This tradition would serve the whole Episcopal denomination and the whole body of Christ well.
Report comment to moderator
Zion, thanks so much for your explanations. Though I agree with you and was tempted to jump in, I am glad I waited for you to write. You did much better than I would have.
Report comment to moderator
Dont bother Hackendorf, you wont get anywhere with Victoria when it comes to Calvin and Luther. Her admitted lack of knowledge of their repentance is not justification for being the one to judge them.
It’s also a blessed thing to know that our salvation is not dependent upon the ignorance of our individual sins, but that Christ saves us despite what we get wrong in life. If our salvation was dependent upon perfect knowledge, none of us would be going.
Further, the PCA is not a one trick pony. Where as Calvin is respected along with the rest of the reformers and modern theologians like Piper, Packer, Lewis, Edwards, etc, none of them take prescedence over the Bible. They are not in the book of church order, nor are they in any confession of faith or catechism.
They are not placed upon some false pedastal. There is not a delibrate attempt to ignore their personal sins. It is simply a non-issue, not an under rug sweeping. The PCA is much more busy these days discussing the things that matter, like where to plant a church in an inner city or what new ministry we can offer to our neighborhood. Passing away is the elitist nature one may have experienced (although I’ve experienced it at a church or two, but not locally), and the reason it is passing away is because of the things that even Luther and Calvin represented long ago…Reformation.
If you do not believe me and think that the PCA is still stuck in some elitist rut, then please take the time to listen to my black pastor and several of his sermons at http://redeemerjackson.com/
Report comment to moderator
Thorn,
I think your point is well taken. My parents have joined a great, thriving EPC congregation. Everytime I visit, I am struck by the godliness, the warmth, and spirit-filled preaching, teaching and worship I find there. In fact, now that I think about it, I don’t believe I have ever heard the name “Calvin” spoken when I have visited there… maybe a mention of RC Sproul now and again
I grew up in a Southern Baptist Church. I am grateful for the grounding they gave me in the Word of God. I continue to be grateful for their ministry.
My own small Anglican fellowship has invited in PCA church planters to help us plan our church plants and this relationship has been fruitful. I thank God for it.
I think it is healthy to honor other parts of the Body for what they are doing right.
Report comment to moderator
There has never been any so called “knowledge” of any “repentance” on either of the part. It’s handy to make such a statement,but there is no knowledge of any repentance.
The reason this comes up so often is the constant comparing of churches which do preach the Gospel, where people, both men and women take doctrine and theology very serious, and study.
There are sevem churches in Revelation which are spoken of, chapters 1-3. Only one of these churches has followed the LORD and has kept their first love – the other six have fallen short, and one of them is in very deep trouble. Have you studied these churches? – have you taken the time to see if perhaps there is a problem which will never go away until its been considered and admitted openly?
Report comment to moderator
Calvin and Luther both had some very good ideas and both have had some very bad ideas.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria I believe we are living in the time frame of the last church.
Report comment to moderator
“Calvin and Luther both had some very good ideas and both have had some very bad ideas.”
I am amazed at how many Christians can’t see this. One the one hand they either reject everything someone says, or, on the other end they embrace everything uncritically. We need to “eat the cherries and spit out the pits.” Test the spirits…
Report comment to moderator
Pastor Roy
There are seven churches – that is a picture of today’s churches, only one has kept the first love, the rest have gone astray, and one of those is very sinful – This is a part of Scripture which isn’t studied too often – it’s very revealing when one takes each church at a time and looks at it objectively.
Who are the seven churches, and how do we as Believers fit into this picture? Which church are some of us part of?
It’s almost Resurrection Sunday – today is a special doay to consider – our LORD and Savior who died for our sins –
GOD help us!
Report comment to moderator
Victoria – the seven churches are real churches and also a time frame of churches.
I have never heard them as being described the way you are.
Report comment to moderator
hackendorf it goes back to how churches view other church.
As a Pentecostal Preacher I look at things in the world different the you would. Does it make your view or my view right or wrong., No not as long as our views are based on God’s Word.
Report comment to moderator
Pastor Roy,
Are the seven churches a mirror of today?
Report comment to moderator
Victoria 03.31.10 AT 1:50 PM
Pastor Roy,
Are the seven churches a mirror of today?
–
Most studies I have looked at takes the idea the each of the church had dural purposes. One that they were real churches with real issues but also the churches were example of times frames of church histroy. An that the last church is view as the time frame we are living in.
Report comment to moderator
“There has never been any so called “knowledge” of any “repentance” on either of the part. It’s handy to make such a statement,but there is no knowledge of any repentance.”
? Both men repeatedly claimed Christ as their Lord and Savior, and as the only means of salvation. They having claimed His grace, even you have mentioned that one is not under the Law. So they are no more, no less sinners than you and saved all the same.
Or have you written it down on a piece of paper that you are repentant, stuck it in a time capsle, so that someone 500 years from now can judge you based on that? Such a concept has no merit, nor should it any way affect the truth.
“There are sevem churches in Revelation which are spoken of, chapters 1-3. Only one of these churches has followed the LORD and has kept their first love – the other six have fallen short, and one of them is in very deep trouble. Have you studied these churches? – have you taken the time to see if perhaps there is a problem which will never go away until its been considered and admitted openly?”
If you expect that to end on this earth, you are mistaken. We will always be sinners, and our churches subject to such sin and imperfection, until Christ returns. However, what we do learn from the examples in Revelation is what that goal is, the pitfalls associated, and how to move forward. Every church on this earth struggles in some aspect as did most of those early churches. And every Bible believing church contains individuals that ultimatley make up the bride of Christ, and the coming restoration of perfection there in for the church.
“The reason this comes up so often”
The reason it come sup so often, as far as Calvin and Luther’s sins, are because you bring them up. Attacking the men, rather than discussing the concepts of their theological arguements, does nothing to further even your desire to be like the church perfected. We do not neglect the wisdom of Solomon, despite not knowing whether he was repentant unto God or not.
Report comment to moderator
Pastor Roy
“An that the last church is view as the time frame we are living in.”
Not all churches represent that of the Laodicean church -
Report comment to moderator
Thorn,
I don’t believe in Eternal Security – believing in Christ as Savior doesn’t give us a license to sin, however Luther believed you could do it boldly, even a thousand times a day. As Luther wrote:
The Bible has something very different to say about sin:
Martin Luther obviously didn’t read this passage, or IGNORED IT, but instead of understanding the “way to escape” sin, he was telling them to “sin boldly” – that is radically wrong, and sinful.
Report comment to moderator
Because men have started out, seemingly following the LORD Jesus Christ, doesn’t mean they have a free pass and license to change their course towards the end of their life, hating Jews, taking responsibility for the murder of another human being who doesn’t believe in the Trinity or infant baptism.
Jesus didn’t preach what these two preached and taught, for that reason, why follow them? Because they were the so called Reformers – one has to ask how reformed where their words and deeds?
We shall know them by their fruit where was the fruit? -
Report comment to moderator
Victoria 03.31.10 AT 2:25 PM
Pastor Roy
“An that the last church is view as the time frame we are living in.”
Not all churches represent that of the Laodicean church –
–
the Christian Community as a whole is having a great fallen away.
Report comment to moderator
part of the problem in understand Luthern and other is understand their thinking of their time in relationship to our thinking of our times.
Report comment to moderator
I don’t agree with that thought at all.
Jesus made it clear that we were not to hate, Jesus didn’t tell anyone they could have another killed because they didn’t believe in Christ as Messiah…….. all this 1500 years before Luther and Calvin were born –
When we stand before GOD, do you think that the times one lives in will hold water to excuse anyone from sin? Will homosexuals be allowed a free pass because so many accept this sin as OK now? If you believe that “relationship to our thinking of our times” is an excuse for them, then it will be an excuse for those who are living in this day and age as well, that includes abortion. Try using this as an excuse before the LORD!
Report comment to moderator
“If you are a preacher of grace, then preach a true and not a fictitious grace; if grace is true, you must bear a true and not a fictitious sin. God does not save people who are only fictitious sinners. Be a sinner and sin boldly, but believe and rejoice in Christ even more boldly…. as long as we are here [in this world] we have to sin…. No sin will separate us from the Lamb, even though we commit fornication and murder a thousand times a day.”
Letter to Melanchthon, August 1,1521 Luther’s Works, vol. 48
I took this as, His way of say that if you sins God will forgive you.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria you know my view on sin and God’s Word so I will not even answer your last groups of questions
Report comment to moderator
So as long as one is a Believer he will be forgiven for fornication and murder a thousand times a day?
Roy, why would Luther have said this? – it’s a license to sin, it’s called ETERNAL SECURITY, which I don’t believe – anyone who could do these things is not a Believer, and could a Believing so called theologian say such a thing and be a true Believer?
Think about it!
Report comment to moderator
Pastor Roy 309
Why not? You made a statement: ““part of the problem in understand Luthern and other is understand their thinking of their time in relationship to our thinking of our times.”
Since you made the statement why can’t you answer the questions in #307?
Report comment to moderator
Roy, why would Luther have said this? – it’s a license to sin, it’s called ETERNAL SECURITY, which I don’t believe – anyone who could do these things is not a Believer, and could a Believing so called theologian say such a thing and be a true Believer?
Think about it!
–
first off I would have to see the whole sermon or written to put it into the contexts. To make sound decision on this issue. I also know that many of Luthern comments have been taken out of context or missunderstood due to the time frame he was teaching in.
Report comment to moderator
because you know my views on those question.
Report comment to moderator
“I don’t believe in Eternal Security – believing in Christ as Savior doesn’t give us a license to sin”
Do you still sin, Victoria?
You never did answer that question the last time you kept deflecting to these comments.
Report comment to moderator
“Martin Luther obviously didn’t read this passage, or IGNORED IT, but instead of understanding the “way to escape” sin, he was telling them to “sin boldly” – that is radically wrong, and sinful.”
Have you ever heard the hymn “How Sweet and Aweful is the Place”?
Maybe not, it is now “How Sweeet and Awesome is the Place?”
The original writing though used “aweful” as it once meant “full of awe” not “bad” as it does today.
My point is two fold. 1. Your over emphasis on the word “boldly” is twisting Luther’s point and 2. It more than likely isnt the best english translation from old german.
His point is simply that Grace is real and thus so is our sin. Which was probably addressing exactly what Pastor Roy mentions, and that we are to take our sin seriously, but that we dont have to wallow in it cause of the grace of God has freed us from the bondage of sin and the Law.
At least be consistant. If Grace has come to replace the law as you point out in Post #237, then Luther is spot on here as he agrees with you.
Report comment to moderator
Thorn,
Yes, I remember the last time you asked the question, and I also remember the accusation, I have posted it below:
As in the last time you accused me of being guilty of what Luther had written – I am innocent of such charges, if they were true, I should be divorced, and in prison as well. If these sort of sins can be taken as thoughts, it would still be a picture of someone who is not a Believer, who would not rely on the LORD to deliver them as HE has promised to do.
This above is Eternal Security, it is something which those who believe it, depend on since they want to live as they please.
Report comment to moderator
There is no “spot on” but an excuse for someone who hated the Jews and made a mockery of forgivness.
Report comment to moderator
OK, we all believe in Salvation through Jesus Christ, that. The issue is which way are we looking at this Salvation. If you believe eternal salvation you are looking at it through the eyes of Grace and at the finished project. Now if you believe someone could walk away from his Salvation (I did not use the term lose ones Salvaiton, because we can not lose it, we can give it up) We are looking at Salvation through man’s freewill and that view is one of liven now and heading towards the finished projcet.
So both views are looking at the same thing Salvation but from different direction.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria,
That is sad to hear. Please see Matthew Ch 5: 21-28.
Lust and Hatred are fornication/adultry and murder and subject to the same judgement. I’m pretty sure you are no different than the rest of mankind when it comes to that. Please correct me if I’m wrong.
Report comment to moderator
Ephesians doesn’t line up with Eternal Security!
1 Be ye therefore followers of God, as dear children;
2 And walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us, and hath given himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweetsmelling savour.
3 But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not be once named among you, as becometh saints;
4
Neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor jesting, which are not convenient: but rather giving of thanks.
5 For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.
6
Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience.
7 Be not ye therefore partakers with them.
8 For ye were sometimes darkness, but now are ye light in the Lord: walk as children of light:. Ephesians 5
Report comment to moderator
“This above is Eternal Security, it is something which those who believe it, depend on since they want to live as they please.”
And that is a straw man arguement.
Considering I believe in it, and dont go on living as I please. I war against the sin that still exists in my life. So does every other person who believes in eternal security.
I can live according to Christ, because I am eternally set free from the bondage of the law and sin. Grace is sufficient. There is no reason to go on sinning so that it may increase. It is perfect grace, poured out perfectly.
Report comment to moderator
So you dont lust or hate ever Victoria?
Report comment to moderator
Thorn – 219
Are you reading what you wrote in conection to me and my sin – read what you wrote and I re-posted in #216, it’s a nasty accusation against me, which has no foundation:
You posted that last year – The passage of Scripture you are using doesn’t match what you accused me of, nor is it applicable. It’s your pride Thorn that’s the problem. You can’t accuse me of fornication and murder, you don’t know my heart. We all sin, but unless you know something about me that I don’t know, don’t accuse me.
Report comment to moderator
left right left right
Report comment to moderator
No straw man at all, it’s Ephesians spoken by Paul to Believers.
This should help you understand the definition of “straw man” –
Pauls statements in Ephesians stand, they are straight forward, and clear -
Report comment to moderator
Don’t forget..
..”once faith, always saved”
Enjoy!..
http://www.faithalone.org/journal/index.html
All the saved are in the everlasting kingdom, but not all are promised an abundant entrance.
“Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall: For so an entrance shall be ministered unto you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.” (2Pe 1:10-11)
“If any man’s work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.” (1Co 3:15)
Inheritance is different from eternal security.
Hebrews, in the main, concerns the inheritance.
Inheritance and rewards and crowns and “Well done..” are conditional.
Read, “The Reign of the Servant Kings” by Dillow for an intro.
(Maybe Dan Corner’s 800 page insecurity treaty will be affected..not sure.)
As foreknown, predestinated, chosen, saved, sealed, risen and ascended and seated in Christ, I’ll pray today for those eternally secure ones that are feeling eternally insecure.
Rejoice! God is able.
Report comment to moderator
I’m so glad this topic has never been touched before.
haha
I’ll be back to check on results..over and out..later.
Report comment to moderator
#318 Pastor Roy,
Your comment gets to the heart of the matter. I have read the debate on this subject many times over the past year and a half. I think your succinct paragraph describes the matter very well. While I am not a Calvinist or Lutheran, I have read some of their writing and found them useful or inspirational. And anything that I do not view as Biblical, I do not regard.
Thanks for the comment.
–Debra (formerly DJ)
Report comment to moderator
Report comment to moderator
In regards to Luther:
1. I am not a Lutheran, but, Victoria, you are taking him out of context here.
2. Luther actually did not teach eternal security, unlike Calvin, he did in fact believe that a true believer could, through apostasy, reject Christ and be eternally lost. (note, in my experience, many mature believers believe and teach eternal security, and they are not using it as an excuse to sin. Think of Jonathan Edwards, Billy Graham, Whitfield, Spurgeon and Moody. All taught eternal security. All good men. We might disagree, as did Wesley, the Pentecostals, the Roman Catholics, the Lutherans and many others… good people on both sides of this argument.
3. Luther often used a bombastic, exaggerated way of speaking. Here, through the sarcastic use of hyperbole, he is making the point that we are not saved by good works, but by faith alone. Indeed, there were some Anabaptist teachers (should the Baptists repent???— these are some of their spritual ancestors messing up here!)who taught antinomianism, that our behavior didn’t matter, was no reflection on our true spiritual state— Luther fought these false teachers
4. “Luther never meant that a habitual adulterer, murderer, liar, could be justified by faith alone. Otherwise he would not have opposed Karlstadt, Agricola and other easy-believers of his time”’ (Gerstner, JH, Rome Not Home in Justification by Faith Alone, Soli Deo Gloria, 1995, p. 176).
Martin Luther was not an antinomian! Those who malign him in this way are simply being dishonest.
Interestingly, the Apostle Paul was also accused of antinomianism. “What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?” (Romans 6:1). Paul preached salvation by grace through faith, apart from human works. His enemies alleged that Paul was teaching that since salvation is by grace, it doesn’t really matter whether a person repents or keeps on living in sin. Tactics haven’t changed much over the past two thousand years.
5. Finally, modern day, Bible believing Lutherans (such as the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod) do not teach this. They stand for righteousness. It is unfair to imply otherwise about them.
Report comment to moderator
You have made a bundle of excuses for Luther, his words speak louder than all your excuses.
How would you characterize all the ugly statements Martin Luther made against the Jews? Can you make excuses for that too?
Report comment to moderator
No, Luther’s words against the Jews are inexcusable, and horrible.
But as for the rest, it is not true that Luther actually advocated sin, and you are being very unfair to the man there. HIs words must be taken in the context of his style, his overall line of thought. No serious scholar of any denomination would agree with your take on Luther. This should at least give you pause to dig deeper into his work and consider his thought, both the good and the ugly. Look, I am no apologist for Luther, I diverge from his thinking on many points, I just think it is important to be accurate in reprenting the whole picture of the man and his teaching.
Does a person have to be perfect in order to have valid insights?
If so, none of us have a right to claim insight.
Report comment to moderator
There is no excuse for Martin Luther’s statements about Jewish people. He was wrong in reflecting the evil prejudice of the day and culture and I believe was weakened under Satan’s influence.
Hackendorf 331 is precisely correct.
Report comment to moderator
Here is Luther’s view on the Commandments of God as found in his Larger Catechism:
Thus we have the Ten Commandments, a compend of divine doctrine, as to what we are to do in order that our whole life may be pleasing to God, and the true fountain and channel from and in which everything must arise and flow that is to be a good work, so that outside of the Ten Commandments no work or thing can be good or pleasing to God, however great or precious it be in the eyes of the world.
I am of opinion indeed, that here one will find his hands full, [and will have enough] to do to observe these, namely, meekness, patience, and love towards enemies, chastity, kindness, etc., and what such virtues imply.
For it will be a long time before they will produce a doctrine or estates equal to the Ten Commandments, because they are so high that no one can attain to them by human power; and whoever does attain to them is a heavenly, angelic man far above all holiness of the world. Only occupy yourself with them, and try your best, apply all power and ability and you will find so much to do that you will neither seek nor esteem any other work or holiness.
Therefore I have said that this, too, should be presented to and inculcated upon the young, that they may learn and remember it, in order to see what is to urge and compel us to keep these Ten Commandments.
Now, there is comprehended in these words (as said before) both an angry word of threatening and a friendly promise to terrify and warn us, and, moreover to induce and encourage us to receive and highly esteem His Word as a matter of divine earnestness, because He Himself declares how much He is concerned about it, and how rigidly He will enforce it, namely, that He will horribly and terribly punish all who despise and transgress His commandments; and again, how richly He will reward, bless, and do all good to those who hold them in high esteem, and gladly do and live according to them. Thus He demands that all our works proceed from a heart which fears and regards God alone, and from such fear avoids everything that is contrary to His will, lest it should move Him to wrath; and, on the other hand, also trusts in Him alone, and from love to Him does all He wishes, because he speaks to us as friendly as a father, and offers us all grace and every good.
Just this is also the meaning and true interpretation of the first and chief commandment, from which all the others must flow and proceed, so that this word: Thou shalt have no other gods before Me, in its simplest meaning states nothing else than this demand: Thou shalt fear, love, and trust in Me as thine only true God. For where there is a heart thus disposed towards God, the same has fulfilled this and all the other commandments. On the other hand, whoever fears and loves anything else in heaven and upon earth will keep neither this nor any. Thus the entire scriptures have everywhere preached and inculcated this commandment, aiming always at these two things: fear of God and trust in Him. And especially the prophet David throughout the Psalms, as when he says [Ps. 147,11]: The Lord taketh pleasure in them that fear Him, in those that hope in His mercy. As if the entire commandment were explained by one verse, as much as to say: The Lord taketh pleasure in those who have no other gods.
Thus the First Commandment is to shine and impart its splendor to all the others. Therefore you must let this declaration run through all the commandments, like a hoop in a wreath, joining the end to the beginning and holding them all together, that it be continually repeated and not forgotten; as, namely, in the Second Commandment, that we fear God and do not take His name in vain for cursing, lying, deceiving, and other modes of leading men astray, or rascality, but make proper and good use of it by calling upon Him in prayer, praise, and thanksgiving, derived from love and trust according to the First Commandment. In like manner such fear, love, and trust is to urge and force us not to despise His Word, but gladly to learn, hear, and esteem it holy, and honor it.
Thus continuing through all the following commandments towards our neighbor likewise, everything is to proceed by virtue of the First Commandment, to wit, that we honor father and mother, masters, and all in authority and be subject and obedient to them, not on their own account, but for God’s sake. For you are not to regard or fear father or mother, or from love of them do or omit anything. But see to that which God would have you do, and what He will quite surely demand of you; if you omit that, you have an angry Judge, but in the contrary case a gracious Father.
Report comment to moderator
You are avoiding my larger point, that no serious scholar belives that Luther was antinomian. My point still stands.
Yes, in regards to the Jews, we all agree Luther was horrible.
And yes, Hitler’s antisemitism took advantage of European antisemtism, which was widespread among both professing Christians and nonbelievers alike.
However, Hitler was no Lutheran! No Christian! He advocated the return of pre-Christian teutonic paganism, he was obsessed with the occult. True Lutherans (indeed true Christians) harbored Jews, protected Jews and resisted Hitler (Ten Boom, Bonhoeffer, many others).
The sad fact is that antisemitism was all to common in Luther’s day. I do not excuse it or condne it. But modern day Lutherans reject it.
Look, the Southern Baptist Convention was largely founded to defend the right to own black slaves. Racism against blacks is as bad as racism against Jews. Should modern Southern Baptists be held guilty for the sins of people they never met from past centuries?
The fathers have sinnned, should the children’s teeth be set on edge? (Jer 29:31)
Report comment to moderator
That isn’t the point – There is a very big difference here, Martin Luther along with John Calvin are put on a pedestal as leaders, Reformers, the racism in this country is not the point.
We were talking about the Reformers.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria,
No, the point is very valid. If the anti-biblical racism of some of the key founders of the Lutheran and Reformed Churches somehow invalidate the entirety of their teaching and indeed the validity of the Churches they helped establish, then according to that line of thought, by analogy,the same logic should apply to the SBC. How are the two situations different?
Luther and Calvin are sinners. I know no Lutheran or Calvinist (especially Calvinists
) who would deny it. Indeed, I believe the major Lutheran denominations have publicly and vigorously repudiated Luther’s antisemitism, witness the following from the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada:
The Lutheran communion of faith is linked by name and heritage to the memory of Martin Luther, teacher and reformer. Honoring his name in our own, we recall his bold stand for truth, his earthy and sublime words of wisdom, and above all his witness to God’s saving Word. Luther proclaimed a gospel for people as they really are, as we ourselves are, bidding us to trust a grace sufficient to reach our deepest shame and address the most tragic truths of our time.
In that spirit of truth-telling, we who bear his name and heritage must acknowledge with pain the anti-Judaic diatribes contained in Luther’s later writings. We reject this violent invective as did many of his companions in the sixteenth century, and we are moved to deep and abiding sorrow at its tragic effects on later generations of Jews. In concert with other Lutherans represented in the Lutheran World Federation, we particularly deplore the appropriation of Luther’s words by anti-Semites as part of their teaching of hatred toward the Jews and Judaism in our own day.
Grieving the complicity of our own tradition within this history of hatred, we affirm our fervent wish to live our faith in Jesus Christ in love and full respect for the Jewish people. Anti-Semitism is an affront to the Gospel, a contradiction of its central teaching, and a violation of our hope and calling. We pledge this church to oppose the deadly working of such bigotry in our own circles and in the society around us. Finally, we pray that greater understanding and cooperation may continually grow between Lutheran Christians and the Jewish Community in Canada.
What more would you have them say or do?
Report comment to moderator
Victoria (340),
Well, I have no real argument with you about naming denominations, I suppose the need to name them comes from our collective disobedience to be one in Christ, as per his High Priestly Prayer in John 17.
On the other hand, your standard seems to be that the name is polluted for lack of perfection. I share your revulsion at the things you mention. But I also know that since all of us are sinners, that no human system of theology (all our systems are human, the most dangerous ones are the ones who claim to be based only on the Bible, because they fail to acknowledge that they too have a very human point of view, a human interpretation of God’s Word) is immune from the effects of sin.
My own Church’s name, “Anglican,” is merely the Latin form of England, the place where we got our start. But England too is full of sinners; I am not sure if “Anglican” is less holy than “Lutheran” as a name. Elizabethe burned Catholics and others for their doctrinal disagreements with my Church. Maybe by openly admitting the sins of our spiritual ancestors, we gain an opportunity to teach about sin, and to remind everyone that none of us, indeed none of our denominations, not any of them, are unharmed by the sad heritage of the lying gardener and drunken sailor of Genesis.
If not, we should immediately take works of that adulterer and murderer David out of our Bibles. Certainly his behavior was not savory either…
Report comment to moderator
hackendorf
Your comments aren’t a good excuse for using the labels “Calvinist” and “Lutheran” – you can poo poo the idea, bring up the Latin form of England, but it’s a lame excuse.
If the church of these so called Reformers want to really label themselves by Christ, then we might see a big difference – if not, then it is “Calvinists” and “Lutherans” tha is far more important to them than being labeled a Christian Believer.
The new idea which is very popular now – “the new Calvinist” – again – it’s all about Calvin –
Paul didn’t want them to label themselves according to him, do you remember that? – it should stand as an EXAMPLE, but alas it’s ignored.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria (342),
How do you know that being Lutheran or Calvinist is more important to these brothers and sisters than being labelled as Christian believers? How do you know what is in their heart?
The Lutherans and Calvinists (the latter call themselves Reformed, not “Calvinist” in most cases) would insist that they are Christians first and Lutherans (or Presbyterians, or whatever, second).
I myself am a Christian first. No question. My archbishop, Emmanuel Kolini has said “I have far more in common with a believing Baptist than a liberal, apostate Anglican”. To that I say Amen and Amen. I recently was travelling through Maine, and rather than attend a liberal Anglican (Episcopal) Church on Sunday, I took my family to a Church of God near our motel. I was blessed by the experience and grateful to meet a fine group of believers in that place.
I imagine we have both met Christians who value their denomination (or their lack of a denomination !) as a badge of pride. But I know many more who keep such things in a more-or-less healthy perpective.
How can you paint all Lutheran Christians or Reformed Christians with such a broad brush as this? Can’t we have a doctrinal disagreement (I am speaking here of secondary disagreements, not fundamental basics of the faith) without trying to say our brothers who disagree are less Christian than we are?
God help us if we can’t.
Report comment to moderator
He cried out to GOD and repented, haven’t you read that in the Word of GOD? – if you had, why would you try and use this as some sort of defense for Calvin and Luther?
If they called themselves Christian Believers rather than Calvinist, that would change their label – and yes they do say they are Christians, but the label is used more often than not. What’s in a mans heart, he speaks through his mouth.
I have NOT found that to be true,(bold) very much the contrary, in fact “The New Calvinists” as they liked to be called now, are very proud of there newer name. Lots of articles, etc., describing who they are and how they follow Calvin.
Their earlier life justifies the end? which is nothing short of hatred and murder – The strange aspect of this is; there is no known apology or repentance of either one of these mens act – yet, there they sit upon the pedestal which man has created.
Report comment to moderator
Hackendorf,
The example of King David is used by lots of Lutherans and Calvinist – when if they knew all the expressions of sorrw and repentance Kind David made regarding his sins, they wouldn’t try that one – that’s a sorry excuse to use and justify either Luther or Calvin.
Report comment to moderator
The Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod seems to be at least under the impression that Luther repented his former opinions of Jews. And they now endorse what they see as his view at the end of his life:
http://www.lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=2166
Report comment to moderator
What of the many Lutheran and Reformed believers who have given their lives as martyrs for Christ?
What of the Christians of Lutheran or Reformed persuasion who tirelessly worked to spread the Gospel of Jesus as missionaries?
How can you malign these precious saints? Are they less Christian than you or I?
Report comment to moderator
Debra,
Where is Martin Luther’s last sermon, have you read it? If so, I would like the link that he somehow repented through a sermon. What date did Luther give this sermon?
“Luther’s final attitude twoard the Jewish people” isn’t an apology for the book Luther wrote.
Report comment to moderator
Hackendorf, you’re using anything you can find to condone and justify Martin Luther and the pedestal he’s been set upon.
The more you try and mix and match, the worse it looks – that’s the problem many see, the slick way in which these subjects are addressed by those who call themselves Calvinists or Lutherans. Anyone can call themselves by those labels, but don’t be surprised that people find it very strange that Christ isn’t the label -
Report comment to moderator
#348 Victoria, the volume and page for the quote is listed above and the site may have more information. I haven’t read it and I don’t have a copy, but I know that you spend a lot of time studying, so I’m sure you can find the information if you’re interested.
Report comment to moderator
There is an extensive study of Luther’s anti-semitism, including a discussion of his last sermon, at
http://www.ntrmin.org/Luther%20and%20the%20Jews%20(Web).htm#c1
Report comment to moderator
Victoria, a challenge to you: Many times the last few weeks on this blog you have spoken of how much it bothers you when someone holds a grudge. Yet you seem to hold a “grudge” against your Reformed and Lutheran brothers and sisters because of things others said or did centuries ago (some of them interpreted incorrectly, like the “sin boldly” comment). Are you willing to give up this grudge, since you so heartily dislike grudges in others? Please pray about it, sister.
Report comment to moderator
Debra – 350
I won’t look for something which you state as proof, but have no link for, you’ve done this before, putting something up on the blog and then say:
“you can find the information of you’re interested”
You don’t have proof Debra, it’s just that simple, if you did, you would give the LINK, and copy paste the parts that would prove your point – LOL
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl, don’t bother with that angle, it isn’t applicable -
Report comment to moderator
Hackledorf – 351
If you have proof, then copy paste the exact words of the Sermon, give the date of which it was given to prove your point. I don’t go searching to prove your’s or anyone else’s claims – that’s your responsibility, their your claims.
Report comment to moderator
Actually, it is not clear to me that Paul was critical of labels per se, as much as division itself. Some claim to be named only by Christ, but this can simply be a badge of superiority to other brothers. This is equally divisive, equally condemned by Paul the “I am of Christ” party is just one more divisive group, not an ideal held up by Paul in First Corinthians as I read it.
The need to have a superior name is, I think a form of legalism, worse than any Lutheran or Calvinist I have encountered.
Why so much concern about a name, why not concern about the actions of the group, the hearts of those in the group, the fruit of their endeavors? Who really cares abou the name? It seems to me that groups obsessed by names are ofen the most arrogant, separatist groups of all, denying the Christianity of any one who disagress with them, or anyone not baptized by them in many cases, which feeds directly into Paul’s argument. A name means little, guarantees less. Even those who use the name of Christ. Indeed, I think that is the crux of Paul’s argument.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria 351
Wasn’t trying to prove anything. Thought you were interested in reading about the issue. Nothing more.
Again, Luther’s sin doesn’t concern me. I agree it was horrible. But all sin is horrible. I don’t see his sin as any different than mine or yours. Further, I don’t know what was in his heart. I have every reason to believe he was a believer, a sinner saved by grace. I do believe his sin was covered by the blood of Jesus, as is yours and mine.
Report comment to moderator
You don’t have proof Debra, it’s just that simple, if you did, you would give the LINK, and copy paste the parts that would prove your point – LOL
My only point was that the Lutherans themselves seem to think that there was a change of heart. That is in my quote (if you can read). Whether or not he actually DID, I don’t claim to know. You’re the one who says you do all the hours of research. You’re the one who claims to know that he never changed. I have nothing to prove. LOL
Report comment to moderator
I think you’re on a witchhunt, Victoria. And some of Luther’s quotes make it only too easy. So I’ll leave you to the hunt.
Have a pleasant evening.
Report comment to moderator
Hackendorf,
Your comments in the last two posts, provide the reason why many look at these two Reformers, and wonder why anyone would use their label – maybe you just can’t see it.
No apologies, only excuses by those who follow behind. Hitler was very devoted to Luther’s beliefs, ….. what a shame that people can’t or will not label themselves only, as Christian Believers, study the Word of GOD, instead of creating labels with such sinful pasts, with no apologies from either.
I would offer this suggestion to all who label themselves this way:
Don’t bother coming after those who have stood in the pulpits and been found guilty of adultery and other sexual sins, which most have repented of – Don’t make remarks against the Pope of Rome because he hasn’t done what most believe would be right regarding the children, who have been molested.
The same words can be used against all those who hold to your beliefs, and add that there is no proof of what is in the others hearts, etc., ….. that doesn’t sound good, but it’s only fair.
Report comment to moderator
“Think that there was a change of heart.”? – that’s not proof and it certainly makes no point.
Report comment to moderator
“The same words can be used against all those who hold to your beliefs”–huh? And this isn’t a “grudge”? I am not accountable for John Calvin’s sins, and I certainly am not accountable for Martin Luther’s. I have enough of my own, thank you very much, and don’t need to have my beliefs questioned because of the sins of any other people who have ever held similar beliefs. If you don’t like Reformed doctrine or Lutheran doctrine, fine, argue against them from Scripture. But don’t argue that all those who hold to these beliefs are in sin because of the sins men from earlier centuries may have committed. That’s a ridiculous grudge, and a completely different issue from whether these doctrines are biblically accurate.
Report comment to moderator
Oh good, the conservative Christians have turned from attacking the Wiccans to attacking the liberal Christians and now to attacking each other. What a great witness for non-Christians reading this.
Sometimes I am embarrassed to admit I’m a Christian.
Report comment to moderator
This thread sure jumped the track.
Report comment to moderator
There are many edifying and encouraging comments on this thread for those who are open to “see” them.
“For all the Prophets and the law prophesied until John,
and if you are willing to accept it, he is Elijah who is to come.
HE WHO HAS EARS TO HEAR, LET HIM HEAR.
But to what shall I compare this generation? It is like children sitting in the marketplaces and calling to their playmates.
Matthew 11:13-16.
Report comment to moderator
#363
steveg,
Very smooth. Very smooth. Especially the “attack” technique.
——
Don’t “attack” the Word of God by defending anti-Biblical teachings.
“Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt MINDs, reprobate concerning the faith. But they shall proceed no further: for their folly shall be manifest unto all [men], as theirs also was.” (2Ti 3:8-9)
Through the Holy Spirit, one can have a “right mind”..
And they come to Jesus, and see him that was possessed with the devil, and had the legion, sitting, and clothed, and in his RIGHT MIND: and they were afraid. (Mr 5:15)
Report comment to moderator
In context:
Report comment to moderator
Louise, I was making an observation, but you’re right about the value of many of the posts.
Report comment to moderator
you know the sad part about this debate is neither side are willing to look at the strenght of both sides.
Report comment to moderator
Yes, Hope, and I agreed w/you, not a personal criticism.
Pastor Roy, I considered that in my post #365 which has probably gotten lost in the unfortunate tangent this thread has taken.
Report comment to moderator
Pastor Roy — 369
•“you know the sad part about this debate is neither side are willing to look at the strenght of both sides.” •
That is not correct, I have studied this for a long time, and prayed about it as well – it’s not a matter of strength, it’s integrity and high moral principles, which are missing.
There are some wonderful strong Christian Believers in the Reformed Church, they are my brothers and sisters in Christ, there is no question about it. But that doesn’t mean I agree with the labels they use, because those labels are a stark reminder of the men whom they honor. I don’t agree with the honor bestowed on either one of them, for all the reasons I have mentioned before.
King David sinned, and he came before GOD and repented of his sin. There is a big difference between a repentant sinner and one who to anyone’s knowledge has never repented, but gloated about what they believe, and accomplished. Perhaps both in the moments or hours before death repented, we will never know. That however, is no reason to honor them as they are honored today.
Christ is the ROCK, he is the one to be honored, HIS Word is the last Word, the only Word to be taken as fact. We’ve put trust in man instead of the LORD. Commentaries are a wonderful source, but they should never take the place of the Bible. When a commentary/commentary’s/books becomes the life-blood, when it is used as a doctrinal source rather than the Bible, it becomes a problem. This can be denied, but it can be proven that the Reformed Church’s and others who place these two on a high place have studied their works, and some to the near exclusion of the Bible.
HIS Name above all others should only be used to label us as Believers. We are HIS, HE bought us with HIS own blood on the cross, a sinless sacrifice for our sins. As Believers we owe HIM all that we have, nothing constitutes sharing HIS glory, or our identification with anyone else.
I am the LORD: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images. Isaiah 42:8
Report comment to moderator
Victoria, just curious: Do you subscribe to Christian Universalism, such as the Tentmaker ministry promotes? I don’t know a lot about it, but some of your comments made me think of that.
Report comment to moderator
Louise – It seems that they are so busy with wanting to make their case that they do not see the other person point,
Report comment to moderator
There is a big difference between a repentant sinner and one who to anyone’s knowledge has never repented, but gloated about what they believe, and accomplished.
–
How do you know that Luthern did not repent? How do you know that qoute was not taken out of context by those who want to discredit Luthern ideas?
Report comment to moderator
Louise – 373
“Victoria, just curious: Do you subscribe to Christian Universalism, such as the Tentmaker ministry promotes? I don’t know a lot about it, but some of your comments made me think of that.”
That’s absurd – if you have read many of my posts you would know that I don’t –
You “don’t know a lot about it” but yet my coments made you “think of that”? – WHICH ONES, please give thread and post numbers.
Report comment to moderator
Pastor Roy – 374
I’ve already covered your question in post #371 – read it over again.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria, the posts where you decry labels except for Christian. Just a passing thought, that’s all – not a judgment.
Report comment to moderator
Your answer above does not define “Christian Universalism”. Maybe you should look at the definition before you ask someone else this question.
Report comment to moderator
You didn’t ask me for a definition. The matter is closed.
Report comment to moderator
I did not need to ask you for a definition, I already know what it is –
As I stated earlier, “Maybe you should look at the definition before you ask someone else this question.” If you knew what “Christian Universalim” stands for, if you had even an inkling as to their core beliefs, it would be very strange that you would ask such an absurd question.
Report comment to moderator
Folks,
I am “clocking out” of this particular thread. My sense is that it is not very fruitful to continue. Indeed, if I have contributed to acrimony in this discussion, I apologize.
I believe very strongly that Bible believing Christians should focus on the fundamentals of the faith, and allow for grace and latitude on non-essential matters, which Melancthon, a Lutheran by the way, called adiaphora, things indifferent.
Modes of baptism, eschatology, church government, and yes, shocking as it may seem, the names and labels we use, to me, at least, are clearly adiaphora. They don’t matter. Indeed, as I guess our thread here indicated, they can be distractions. Without meaning to, I got pulled into that myself, and I regret that.
Victoria, it is seems to matter to you, and I don’t think I am likely to change that. I wish you nothing but God’s blessing as you continue your studies.
In essentials, unity; in non-essentials liberty; in all things charity!
Report comment to moderator
Hackendorf, my clock is beyond up on this thread, yet I want you to know that I appreciated very much the value of your comments. I couldn’t agree more with your closing post and hope to read more of you elsewhere!
Report comment to moderator
Hackendorf, I wish for you the same, as you study the Scriptures.
God bless you
Report comment to moderator
As sincerity goes, the words speak for themselves.
Report comment to moderator
Hope the labeling discussion works out.
Sincerely,
MTS, S.B.B.D.*, P.O.T.H.C.**
* saint, brother, believer, disciple
** Partaker of the Heavenly Calling
“Having therefore these promises, dearly beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God.” (2Co 7:1)
Report comment to moderator
The decline of the Episcopalian church is neither new, nor contained to a handful of heretical folks daring to challenge the accepted status quo. What is fully accepted and supported by the church leadership alone should be more than enough for real God-loving Christians in the church to realize the fight is lost and abandon ship. If you are 1 against the rest, chances are you have become the ship ‘rat’, best to leave before staying shipwrecks your own faith.
Here’s a link to an article from almost 3 years ago that gives a good idea of just how far the Episcopalian church has fallen from its traditional stances and doctrinal beliefs.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003751274_redding17m.html
Report comment to moderator
Yeah I kinda checked out of the conversation after a while the fussing back and forth became a bit much.
I appreciate the comments by everyone who attempted to answer some of my questions.
Bright Blessings!
Report comment to moderator
WintersFrost: There used to be a good number of intelligent, friendly and thoughtful people posting here, some Christian and some not. Over the past year or two they seem to have mostly drifted away and left this bunch to carry on.
Report comment to moderator
So what am I? Chump change?
haha
Report comment to moderator
“If ye be reproached for the name of Christ, happy [are ye]; for the spirit of glory and of God resteth upon you: on their part he is evil spoken of, but on your part he is glorified.” (1Pe 4:14)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jsV8NzIP5lI
Report comment to moderator
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U_Xdk4PujOE
Report comment to moderator
You too, HUH….. LOL
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDmag.com's Community section to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!