# Lifestyles & Discussion > Peace Through Religion >  My response to Laurence Vance's "Should a Christian support criminalizing prostitution"

## Christian Liberty

Going in the religion section, as I'm primarily directing this at others who acknowledge the authority of scripture (as Vance does.)  For those who dont, I'm not really addressing this at you.

https://reconvenantersassanach.wordp...-its-problems/

This was my response to Vance's article today.

----------


## jmdrake

Here's the result of prostitution being criminal.  The women who get arrested for prostitution get criminal records then they can't get real jobs, cause who's going to hire a criminal, so the resort to more prostitution.

Edit: Just read your article.  So you're seriously going to run with the "rape victims must marry their rapists" argument to argue for the continued criminalization of prostitution?  Seriously?

Here's what you should be looking at.  When Jesus' disciples asked Him if they could call down fire on the Samaritan town that rejected Him, He told them "The Son of Man came not to destroy but to save."  (Luke 9:56)

According to the writer of Hebrews, the most gravest sin one can commit is rejecting Jesus.

_Hebrews 10:28-31  Anyone who rejected the law of Moses died without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. 29 How much more severely do you think someone deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified them, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace? 30 For we know him who said, “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,”[d] and again, “The Lord will judge his people.”[e] 31 It is a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the living God._

I know that I have no power to convict you of your error on this.  But you are in error.  Under the new covenant it is God who is to meet out the death penalty for moral failings and only at the end time.  Blasphemy was a sin punishable by death, so technically Jesus was wrong for telling His disciples that it was wrong for them to want to call down fire on those rejecting Him, and rejecting God is a form of blasphemy, if your belief that the death penalty for moral failings should be in effect were true.  Murder is more than a moral failing.

Finally, the reason Moses gave for Deut. 22:28-29 wasn't so that there would be a reason to punish prostitutes.  Rather it was a way to protect rape victims.  It doesn't make sense in modern times, but it made sense back then because of how women were treated in the ancient world among most cultures.  It was important for a woman to be able to marry because there were few opportunities for women.  And the most important thing a woman could offer her future husband was her virginity.  A rapist of a virgin would have stolen that from her.  So, as punishment, he wasn't allowed to divorce her even if he got tired of her later.  It was a "You broke it, you bought it" rule.  If you will pay attention to the story of Absalom you will see this born out.  Absalom's half brother raped Absalom's sister, then refused to marry her even though she begged him to marry her and "take away my shame."  In modern culture where rapists are sent to prison, her asking him to marry her made no sense.  But in Old Testament times it made perfect sense.  It was the only way she could be made "whole."

----------


## Jamesiv1

> Going in the religion section, as I'm primarily directing this at others who acknowledge the authority of scripture (as Vance does.)  For those who dont, I'm not really addressing this at you.
> 
> https://reconvenantersassanach.wordp...-its-problems/
> 
> This was my response to Vance's article today.


your isolation is showing.

----------


## Sonny Tufts

Are you really willing to have the government enforce these edicts?

If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is of thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers; Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him: But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. Thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the Lord thy God. Deuteronomy 13:6-10.

 And he that blasphemeth the name of the Lord, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name of the Lord, shall be put to death. Leviticus 24:16.

Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day there shall be to you an holy day, a sabbath of rest to the Lord: whosoever doeth work therein shall be put to death. Exodus 35:2.

For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him. Leviticus 20:9.

And the man that committeth adultery with another man’s wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death. Leviticus 20:10.

If someone has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father and mother and will not listen to them when they discipline him, 19 his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his town.  They shall say to the elders, “This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a glutton and a drunkard.”  Then all the men of his town are to stone him to death.  Deuteronomy 21:18-21.

----------


## William Tell

> Going in the religion section, as I'm primarily directing this at others who acknowledge the authority of scripture (as Vance does.)  For those who dont, I'm not really addressing this at you.
> 
> https://reconvenantersassanach.wordp...-its-problems/
> 
> This was my response to Vance's article today.


You really don't understand biblical law. Like, at all. You are projecting modern western church views back on the OT, which allowed concubines and such arrangements. It was a totally different culture. And yet you say you want to enforce OT law.




> if two unmarried people sleep together, the punishment was that they had to get married.


No, it wasn't. The passage you are thinking of is very clear that the girl doesn't have to marry the guy.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Here's the result of prostitution being criminal.  The women who get arrested for prostitution get criminal records then they can't get real jobs, cause who's going to hire a criminal, so the resort to more prostitution.
> 
> Edit: Just read your article.  So you're seriously going to run with the "rape victims must marry their rapists" argument to argue for the continued criminalization of prostitution?  Seriously?
> 
> Here's what you should be looking at.  When Jesus' disciples asked Him if they could call down fire on the Samaritan town that rejected Him, He told them "The Son of Man came not to destroy but to save."  (Luke 9:56)
> 
> According to the writer of Hebrews, the most gravest sin one can commit is rejecting Jesus.
> 
> _Hebrews 10:28-31  Anyone who rejected the law of Moses died without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. 29 How much more severely do you think someone deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified them, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace? 30 For we know him who said, “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,”[d] and again, “The Lord will judge his people.”[e] 31 It is a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the living God._
> ...


I think that if you were correct about the interpretation of that law, I'd be inclined to agree that its equity is also particular to the circumstances.  But I don't think that's what that law was saying.  Earlier in the passage rapists are shown as being killed because "it is like a man who attacks and murders his neighbor."  So I think a better understanding of that passage is that a man who SEDUCES a woman into sex must marry her, while a rapist is killed. See here for further discussion (This one was not written by me) https://reformedtheonomy.wordpress.c...-translations/

As for rejecting Jesus, I understand your point but I don't think that's the way the OT law was intended to work. Personal heart problems were not punishable by the State.  External blasphemy (which is more than personally professing unbelief) is.  As is preaching false gospels to other people.  I know that seems harsh to people today but that's more because of modern norms than anything else.  The Reformers did not think so and even often took it for granted (if you read men like Gillespie and Rutherford you'll know what I'm talking about, not to mention the often twisted matter of Michael Servetus, who absolutely deserved the penalty the Genevan Council gave him)




> Are you really willing to have the government enforce these edicts?
> 
> If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is of thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers; Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him: But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. Thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the Lord thy God. Deuteronomy 13:6-10.
> 
>  And he that blasphemeth the name of the Lord, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name of the Lord, shall be put to death. Leviticus 24:16.
> 
> Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day there shall be to you an holy day, a sabbath of rest to the Lord: whosoever doeth work therein shall be put to death. Exodus 35:2.
> 
> For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him. Leviticus 20:9.
> ...


Yes.  I am.  Because that's what God says, and I care more about what God thinks than other people 



> You really don't understand biblical law. Like, at all. You are projecting your modern church views back on the OT, which allowed concubines and such arrangements. And yet you say you want to enforce OT law.


I don't see how concubinage, whatever we might say about it, is relevant here.  You're talking about a case where a man arranges a marriage (ie. makes a covenant with) more than one woman.  I don't really see Biblical basis to criminalize these, and while I think they go against normative Biblical design, they are irregularly valid once entered into. But prostitution is not that.  Prostitution is a form of fornication or adultery,both of which were criminal offenses.

Perhaps it warrants more discussion how a man who actually takes more than one woman in marriage (a behavior which I think was a sin but not a crime in the OT) should be viewed, but its not relevant to this.




> No, it wasn't. The passage you are thinking of is very clear that the girl doesn't have to marry the guy.


The father could refuse for her yes.  The man is held more responsible in this cases as the leader (so much for the Bible being anti-women, LOL!).  However I believe the text in the clarifying case is "absolutely refuses" to marry her, implying that it was an extreme reaction and probably not supposed to be normative.  I also, again,  don't think this was ever about forcible rape, and I think we have good evidence elsewhere that rapists were to be executed.  

I wasn't necessarily exhaustively listing out exceptions there though.  The normative principle is that if two (unmarried) people had sex they were supposed to get married.  Though the father, as the girl's covenant head, could refuse on her behalf.  I suspect this is an application of the same principle as Numbers 30 (father being able to nullify a woman's vows if she was unmarried.)

At the end of the day though, I'm still not sure how an imperfect man's real covenantal relationship with multiple women is comparable to just seeing a prostitute, but perhaps you could enlighten me there.

----------


## William Tell

I actually didn't say anything here about men having more than one wife. There is at least one figure in the Bible who was mentioned to have a concubine, and it didn't say if he had more than one. My point was just that there were concubines, in addition to wives in the culture. 

I think the fact that you admit she didn't actually have to marry the guy shows that marriage wasn't a one size fits all "punishment" for premarital sex. I am not saying prostitution was condoned, just that I can't think of any specific OT law that would have technically outlawed it in the sense of having a civil or criminal penalty.

You said:



> *Deuteronomy 4 forbids us to add* to or subtract from what he has  revealed, so we must follow all of it except for the ceremonial law,  which the New Testament teaches is no longer binding on Christians as a  complete unit.  Perhaps there could be further discussion on what is an  is not ceremonial, but that is for another post. For those who say it was totally just to punish certain things in the  Old Testament but not now they must explain what has changed.  Surely  it must be something other than the character of God, for that always  remains the same.
> *Should Christians support the criminalization of prostitution?  Yes,  not only because it is a sin but because God has taught that it should  be a crime.*


 So how would criminalizing prostitution not be adding to the OT law? And what would be the modern penalty, from your perspective?

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> Yes. I am. Because that's what God says, and I care more about what God thinks than other people


Then I suggest you change your name to Christian Theocrat, Christian Imam, or some other name suggesting that religious observance will be enforced by death, because the word liberty has nothing to do with such a view.

----------


## jmdrake

> I think that if you were correct about the interpretation of that law, I'd be inclined to agree that its equity is also particular to the circumstances.  But I don't think that's what that law was saying.  Earlier in the passage rapists are shown as being killed because "it is like a man who attacks and murders his neighbor."  So I think a better understanding of that passage is that a man who SEDUCES a woman into sex must marry her, while a rapist is killed. See here for further discussion (This one was not written by me) https://reformedtheonomy.wordpress.c...-translations/


You are *grossly misquoting* Deut 22.  It has nothing to do with seduction.  The man is put to death if he rapes a woman who is engaged to another man.  He is not put to death if he rapes a virgin.  Please read again:

_25 But if out in the country a man happens to meet a young woman pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die. 26 Do nothing to the woman; she has committed no sin deserving death. This case is like that of someone who attacks and murders a neighbor, 27 for the man found the young woman out in the country, and though the betrothed woman screamed, there was no one to rescue her.

28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels[c] of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.
_

If your theology requires you to misquote the Bible in order to support it, then you need to rethink it.  (You really *really* need to rethink it actually.)




> As for rejecting Jesus, I understand your point but I don't think that's the way the OT law was intended to work. Personal heart problems were not punishable by the State.  External blasphemy (which is more than personally professing unbelief) is.  As is preaching false gospels to other people.  I know that seems harsh to people today but that's more because of modern norms than anything else.  The Reformers did not think so and even often took it for granted (if you read men like Gillespie and Rutherford you'll know what I'm talking about, not to mention the often twisted matter of Michael Servetus, who absolutely deserved the penalty the Genevan Council gave him)


What the Samaritans did in Luke 9 what *not* a "personal heart problem."  It was an entire city telling Jesus and His disciples "Get out of our town you are not welcome here."  

Again, please read:

_51 As the time approached for him to be taken up to heaven, Jesus resolutely set out for Jerusalem. 52 And he sent messengers on ahead, who went into a Samaritan village to get things ready for him; 53 but the people there did not welcome him, because he was heading for Jerusalem. 54 When the disciples James and John saw this, they asked, Lord, do you want us to call fire down from heaven to destroy them[b]? 55 But Jesus turned and rebuked them. 56 Then he and his disciples went to another village._

Note that Jesus had already given instruction in this same chapter about what to do if people openly reject Him.

_ 5 If people do not welcome you, leave their town and shake the dust off your feet as a testimony against them._ 

And sure, some "reformers" did the work of Satan by putting Christians who disagreed with them to death.  Your point is?  We are not called as Christians to follow "reformers" any more than we are called to follow "church fathers."  We are called to follow Christ.  If a reformer, or a church father, or anyone else strays from the clear teachings of Christ, we are *not* supposed to look to that person for inspiration.  And the clear teaching of Christ is that He came not to destroy but to save.  The clear teaching of Christ is that if someone rejects Him and His message, the job of the Christian is to "shake the dust off your feet" and move on to the next person.  You're not even supposed to hang around and argue with such a person, let alone put him to death or seek to have the civil authorities put him to death.  You might say "But what about false teachers who are leading others astray?"  Well while you're worried about trying to stop that false teacher, there are 100 other people who haven't heard anything about Jesus that you could be out witnessing to.  

I find it very odd (and somewhat disturbing) that some of the very people that speak the most against "the law" are the biggest legalists.

----------


## fisharmor

> I am not saying prostitution was condoned, just that I can't think of any specific OT law that would have technically outlawed it in the sense of having a civil or criminal penalty.


I am likewise not saying prostitution was condoned, but if there was either a civil or criminal penalty for it, it was ignored in Hosea's case.

The emphasis there is clearly on redeeming the woman, forgiving her.  A theology informed by a Church guided by the Holy Spirit would focus on that, and make that the point of the religion.
A theology informed by a desire to punish and push people around would focus on... the original post.

----------


## Christian Liberty

JM, you're confusing the evangelists role with that of civil authority.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> The second reason is that it offers a way out of the culture war, suggesting the government need not pick a side.


 I don't think it does offer a way out.  You still must pick a side.  Everyone must pick a side (or side_s_, as it's multidimensional).  Government is just one tool, and one quite distant and unchangeable (and thus irrelevant) for most people.  But are you going to shun people who live together?  Are you going to shun dishonest people?  Are you going to live a wholesome virtuous life yourself?  These are the kind of questions that are actually relevant in a culture war, not "what government policy do you support?".




> But back to libertarianism, the major problem with trying to make it work Biblically is that it requires an unbiblical assumption that the New Testament is the only rule of faith for Christians.


 Libertarianism does not require that assumption.  It has nothing to do with that assumption.

----------


## jmdrake

> JM, you're confusing the evangelists role with that of civil authority.


I see that you aren't even going to address the fact that you totally got Deut 22 wrong.  Sad.  Your theology is intellectually deficient, factually wrong, and morally bankrupt.

Edit: Furthermore Jesus never called His followers to be part of any civil authority.  He called them all to be evangelists.  Paul never endorsed Christians being part of any civil authority either.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I actually didn't say anything here about men having more than one wife. There is at least one figure in the Bible who was mentioned to have a concubine, and it didn't say if he had more than one. My point was just that there were concubines, in addition to wives in the culture.


A concubine was still a wife though (albeit one with lesser privleges) which again is not the same as fornication.




> I think the fact that you admit she didn't actually have to marry the guy shows that marriage wasn't a one size fits all "punishment" for premarital sex. I am not saying prostitution was condoned, just that I can't think of any specific OT law that would have technically outlawed it in the sense of having a civil or criminal penalty.
> 
> You said:
>  So how would criminalizing prostitution not be adding to the OT law? And what would be the modern penalty, from your perspective?


It would be criminalized and punished by either the woman having to marry (in a case of fornication) unless her father refused, or death if it was adultery (either party was married to someone else)

----------


## bunklocoempire

What are these "domestic disturbances" that law enforcement respond to all night and all day long?

_"Long term" prostitution arrangements hitting a snag,_ is what this Christian is thinking when I hear the police dispatch, and the slew of domestic disturbances.

The state will go to bat for _that_ form of prostitution all day and all night long -so how exactly does the state focusing on one sin, but ignoring the other sins, make sense to a Christian?

Government "force", isn't a tool a Christian should mess with.   I do know a former prostitute who still struggles with the results of her choices some 25+ years later.  Come to think of it, years ago when we met, she offered some interesting insight into her own police/prostitute relationships that she got to deal with in the S.F. Bay area 1970's - mid 80's.  Turns out police have "needs" too. 

From what I've seen, prostitution is incredibly destructive, even 25+ years after the fact. 

From what I've seen, anything _a Christian wants the state to do_ through force, is some sort of a cruel joke that ultimately backfires on the Christian.

----------


## euphemia

No, Christians should not support the government criminalizing prostitution.  I think the Bible teaches it is wrong, and the Bible teaches infidelity in marriage is wrong.  Please understand that.  But the primary responsibility for the church is to deal with sin in the congregation.  The church doesn't know what to do with a gossip, so I guess it should not be telling government to criminalize anything the church hasn't dealt with in itself.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I don't think it does offer a way out.  You still must pick a side.  Everyone must pick a side (or side_s_, as it's multidimensional).  Government is just one tool, and one quite distant and unchangeable (and thus irrelevant) for most people.  But are you going to shun people who live together?  Are you going to shun dishonest people?  Are you going to live a wholesome virtuous life yourself?  These are the kind of questions that are actually relevant in a culture war, not "what government policy do you support?".


I still think many (though I don't think so much the more radical/ancap ones) do think this way but you have a point.  I think government policy matters too, especially in a world where the government does have a substantial role (which I wish didn't exist.)  




> Libertarianism does not require that assumption.  It has nothing to do with that assumption.


Mormonism is nowhere remotely near my orthodoxy radar but I'm still very curious how you would make any kind of Christian libertarianism work without that assumption.  If you see the OT as authoritative on moral issues, it majorly presents problems for libertarian assumptions.  On the other hand if you're talking the extra mormon books, that wasnt my point 

Though, in fairness, I was mostly addressing Laurence Vance's libertarianism and his arguments, not necessarily those of all others.

----------


## jmdrake

> A concubine was still a wife though (albeit one with lesser privleges) which again is not the same as fornication.


  A concubine was basically a sex slave.  Think Hagar.  And in the Old Testament wives or concubines who were "put away" could legal be married to someone else, no questions asked, no issue of needing an "adultery escape clause" nothing.  Wives you had to give a writ of divorcement.  Concubines you could just put out.

So...the upshot of that is, under the Old Testament law that you seem so hell bent on enforcing a man could "marry" a concubine just by buying her, have her for as long as he wanted (a week, a day, a few hours), then "divorce" her by putting her out.  What would you call that?

----------


## jmdrake

> I still think many (though I don't think so much the more radical/ancap ones) do think this way but you have a point.  I think government policy matters too, especially in a world where the government does have a substantial role (which I wish didn't exist.)  
> 
> 
> 
> Mormonism is nowhere remotely near my orthodoxy radar but I'm still very curious how you would make any kind of Christian libertarianism work without that assumption.  If you see the OT as authoritative on moral issues, it majorly presents problems for libertarian assumptions.  On the other hand if you're talking the extra mormon books, that wasnt my point 
> 
> Though, in fairness, I was mostly addressing Laurence Vance's libertarianism and his arguments, not necessarily those of all others.


I'm still trying to understand how you make Christianity work without understanding that the words of Jesus are superior to your personal mis-interpretations of the words of Moses.  (And you're still not addressing the fact that you got Deuteronomy 22 flat wrong when it came to rape and marriage between the rapist and the victim.)

----------


## tod evans

> A concubine was still a wife though (albeit one with lesser privleges) which again is not the same as fornication.
> 
> 
> 
> It would be criminalized and punished by either the woman having to marry (in a case of fornication) unless her father refused, or death if it was adultery (either party was married to someone else)


Other peoples sexuality sure does seem to cause you lots of stress.

Maybe try focusing only on yourself and your own behavior.

This need to pass judgement on others is really quite disturbing......

----------


## Theocrat

> Other peoples sexuality sure does seem to cause you lots of stress.
> 
> Maybe try focusing only on yourself and your own behavior.
> 
> This need to pass judgement on others is really quite disturbing......


Oh, so it's not okay for Christian Liberty to pass judgment on other people's sexuality, but it's okay for you to do so when it comes to bestiality? Remember this?




> Yup!
> 
> I'm a bigot...
> 
> I'm also a sexist, a racist and a classest depending on who you ask.
> 
> And quite frankly my dear, I don't give a damn........

----------


## presence

> it takes firmness in libertarian principle to make sure to confine one's  pietistic moral crusade to crime (e.g., slavery, statism), and not have  it spill over to what anyone might designate as "vice." Fortunately, we  have the immortal Lysander Spooner, in his life and in his works, to  guide us along the correct path.






> Now, it might seem as if the pietistic emphasis on the individual  might lead to a political individualism, to the belief that the State  may not interfere in each individual's moral choices and actions. In  17th century pietism, it often meant just that. But by the 19th century,  unfortunately, such was not the case. Most pietists took the following  view: Since we can't gauge an individual's morality by his following  rituals or even by his professed adherence to creed, we must watch his  actions and see if he is really moral.
> 
> From there the pietists  concluded that it was everyone's moral duty to his own salvation to see  to it that his fellow men as well as himself are kept out of  temptation's path. That is, it was supposed to be the State's business  to enforce compulsory morality, to create the proper moral climate for  maximizing salvation. In short, instead of an individualist, the pietist  now tended to become a pest, a busybody, a moral watchdog for his  fellow man, and a compulsory moralist using the State to outlaw "vice"  as well as crime.
> 
> The liturgicals, on the other hand, took the  view that morality and salvation were to be achieved by following the  creed and the rituals of their church. The experts on those church  beliefs and practices were, of course, not the State but the priests or  bishops of the church (or, in the case of the few orthodox Calvinists,  the ministers.) The liturgicals, secure in their church teachings and  practices, simply wanted to be left alone to follow the counsel of their  priests; they were not interested in pestering or forcing their fellow  human beings into being saved. And they believed profoundly that  morality was not the business of the State, but only of their own church  mentors.


https://mises.org/library/lysander-s...tarian-pietist


_
VICES ARE NOT CRIMES
Lysander Spooner (1875)
_
I suggest you read the whole thing and meditate upon it

https://mises.org/library/vices-are-not-crimes



> *I*
> 
> Vices are those acts by which a man harms himself or his property.
> _Crimes_ are those acts by which one man harms the person or property of another.
> _Vice_s  are simply the errors which a man makes in his search after his own  happiness. Unlike crimes, they imply no malice toward others, and no  interference with their persons or property.
> 
> * In vices, the very essence of crime — that is, the design to injure the person or property of another — is wanting.*
> 
> It  is a maxim of the law that there can be no crime without a criminal  intent; that is, without the intent to invade the person or property of  another. But no one ever practices a vice with any such criminal intent.  He practices his vice for his own happiness solely, and not from any  malice toward others.
> ...









> This is what every one wants, and has a right to, as a human being.  And though we all make many mistakes, and necessarily must make them,  from the imperfection of our knowledge, yet these mistakes are no  argument against the right; because they all tend to give us the very  knowledge we need, and are in pursuit of, and can get in no other way.
> 
> The object aimed at in the punishment of _crimes_, therefore, is not only wholly different from, but it is directly opposed to, that aimed at in the punishment of _vices.
> _
> The object aimed at in the punishment of _crimes_  is to secure, to each and every man alike, the fullest liberty he  possibly can have — consistently with the equal rights of others — to  pursue his own happiness, under the guidance of his own judgment, and by  the use of his own property. On the other hand, the object aimed at in  the punishment of _vices_ is to _deprive_ every man of his  natural right and liberty to pursue his own happiness under the  guidance of his own judgment and by the use of his own property.








> But if he chooses to go on to what other men call destruction, he must  be permitted to do so. And all that can be said of him, so far as this  life is concerned, is that he made a great mistake in his search after  happiness, and that others will do well to take warning by his fate. *As  to what may be his condition in another life,* that is a theological  question with which the law, in this world, has no more to do than it  has with any other theological question, touching men's condition in a  future life.





Can one make a moral choice if option A is compulsory?
If we can ban prostitution because its immoral, should we also ban corsets?   Where does it end?






> God created man a rational being, conferring on him the dignity of a  person who can initiate and control his own actions. God willed that man  should be 'left in the hand of his own counsel,' so that he might of  his own accord seek his Creator and freely attain his full and blessed  perfection by cleaving to him.


Catechism of the Catholic Church

----------


## presence

Immanuel Kant (1780)
*The Metaphysical Elements of Ethics*






> The notion of duty is in itself already the notion of a constraint of  the free elective will by the law; whether this constraint be an  external one or be self-constraint. The moral imperative, by its  categorical (the unconditional ought) announces this constraint, which  therefore does not apply to all rational beings (for there may also be  holy beings), but applies to men as rational physical beings who are  unholy enough to be seduced by pleasure to the transgression of the  moral law, although they themselves recognize its authority; and when  they do obey it, to obey it unwillingly (with resistance of their  inclination); and it is in this that the constraint properly consists.  [Man, however, as at the same time a moral being, when he considers  himself objectively, which he is qualified to do by his pure practical  reason, (i.e., according to humanity in his own person). finds himself  holy enough to transgress the law only unwillingly; for there is no man  so depraved who in this transgression would not feel a resistance and an  abhorrence of himself, so that he must put a force on himself. It is  impossible to explain the phenomenon that at this parting of the ways  (where the beautiful fable places Hercules between virtue and  sensuality) man shows more propensity to obey inclination than the law.  For, we can only explain what happens by tracing it to a cause according  to physical laws; but then we should not be able to conceive the  elective will as free. Now this mutually opposed self-constraint and the  inevitability of it makes us recognize the incomprehensible property of  freedom.] Now, as man is a free (moral) being, the notion of duty can  contain only self-constraint (by the idea of the law itself), when we  look to the internal determination of the will (the spring), for thus  only is it possible to combine that constraint (even if it were  external) with the freedom of the elective will. The notion of duty then  must be an ethical one.
>  The impulses of nature, then, contain hindrances to the fulfilment of  duty in the mind of man, and resisting forces, some of them powerful;  and he must judge himself able to combat these and to conquer them by  means of reason, not in the future, but in the present, simultaneously  with the thought; he must judge that he can do what the law  unconditionally commands that be ought.   Now the power and resolved  purpose to resist a strong but unjust opponent is called fortitude (_fortitudo_), and when concerned with the opponent of the moral character within us, it is virtue (_virtus, fortitudo moralis_).  Accordingly, general deontology, in that part which brings not  external, but internal, freedom under laws is the doctrine of virtue.    Jurisprudence had to do only with the formal condition of external  freedom (the condition of consistency with itself, if its maxim became a  universal law), that is, with law. Ethics, on the contrary, supplies us  with a matter (an object of the free elective will), an end of pure  reason which is at the same time conceived as an objectively necessary  end, i.e., as duty for all men. For, as the sensible inclinations  mislead us to ends (which are the matter of the elective will) that may  contradict duty, the legislating reason cannot otherwise guard against  their influence than by an opposite moral end, which therefore must be  given a priori independently on inclination.   An end is an object of  the elective will (of a rational being) by the idea of which this will  is determined to an action for the production of this object. Now I may  be forced by others to actions which are directed to an end as means,  but I cannot be forced to have an end; I can only make something an end  to myself. If, however, I am also bound to make something which lies in  the notions of practical reason an end to myself, and therefore besides  the formal determining principle of the elective will (as contained in  law) to have also a material principle, an end which can be opposed to  the end derived from sensible impulses; *then this gives the notion of an  end which is in itself a duty.
> 
> []
> 
> Virtue requires, first of all, Command over Oneself*
> 
>  Emotions and passions are essentially distinct; the former belong to  feeling in so far as this coming before reflection makes it more  difficult or even impossible. Hence emotion is called hasty (_animus praeceps_).  And reason declares through the notion of virtue that a man should  collect himself; but this weakness in the life of one’s understanding,  joined with the strength of a mental excitement, is only a lack of  virtue (_Untugend_), and as it were a weak and childish thing,  which may very well consist with the best will, and has further this one  good thing in it, that this storm soon subsides. A propensity to  emotion (e.g., resentment) is therefore not so closely related to vice  as passion is. Passion, on the other hand, is the sensible appetite  grown into a permanent inclination (e. g., hatred in contrast to  resentment). The calmness with which one indulges it leaves room for  reflection and allows the mind to frame principles thereon for itself;  and thus when the inclination falls upon what contradicts the law, to  brood on it, to allow it to root itself deeply, and thereby to take up  evil (as of set purpose) into one’s maxim; and this is then specifically  evil, that is, it is a true vice.   Virtue, therefore, in so far as it  is based on internal freedom, contains a positive command for man,  namely, that he should bring all his powers and inclinations under his  rule (that of reason); and this is a positive precept of command over  himself which is additional to the prohibition, namely, that he should  not allow himself to be governed by his feelings and inclinations (the  duty of apathy); since, unless reason takes the reins of government into  its own hands, the feelings and inclinations play the master over the  man.


https://www.marxists.org/reference/s...orals/ch01.htm

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> I still think many (though I don't think so much the more radical/ancap ones) do think this way but you have a point.  I think government policy matters too, especially in a world where the government does have a substantial role (which I wish didn't exist.)


True statement 1: Government policy matters.  It matters a lot.  That is true.
True statement 2: You, CL, do not and cannot really affect government policy.  That is also very true.

Put the two statements together = this is something _irrelevant_ to your life.  *Irrelevant* is the perfect word.  If you can't affect it, can't do anything about it, then....... there you have it.




> Mormonism is nowhere remotely near my orthodoxy radar


  He, he, I know!  




> but I'm still very curious how you would make any kind of Christian libertarianism work without that assumption.  If you see the OT as authoritative on moral issues, it majorly presents problems for libertarian assumptions.


 Oh, people are very creative when it comes to reconciling and integrating and apologeticizing.  Sometimes it seems it all amounts to linguistic jiu-jitsu.

Off the top of my head (and this is not my own view, but it just goes to show how easy it is to come up with these things): All these verses where God is commanding seemingly non-libertarian laws and penalties, _to whom_ is he directing the commands, hmm?  Oh, that's right: to Israel!  Did he command that Assyria follow the same legal code?  Greece?  Any other nation?  Nope, nope He did not.

So, to follow God's law and take it seriously and literally, what should we do?  We should have Israel's legal system following Leviticus and Numbers and Deuteronomy to a T.  What should all the other Gentile nations' legal system look like?  God has no comment.  Well, He has lots of comments throughout the Bible, actually, that could be applied.  But the specific legal code He gave Israel was, well, a legal code He gave Israel.  It's for Israel.  Let's not wrest the scriptures and pretend it was anything but what it clearly and literally is: a legal code God gave to Israel.

----------


## tod evans

> Oh, so it's not okay for Christian Liberty to pass judgment on other people's sexuality, but it's okay for you to do so when it comes to bestiality? Remember this?


Of course I remember that post, 'twas only a few days ago I made it.......

That said, have you ever seen me cry for government to do anything to another person because of who or what they screw?

How 'bout, have you ever seen me try to justify government behavior I'd like to see by quoting scripture?

And finally have you seen me ever call for government to kill a person in God's name because of who they screw?

I may be a bigot, or homophobe, or any number of P/C labels but I can assure you that other peoples bed partners that don't directly affect me and mine don't cause me any stress at all...

And........Any "judgement" of another that spews forth from my lips will NEVER condemn someone to hell in the name of God.

[edit]

I've read and reread my post you quoted and can't in any way see how it could be construed as me passing judgement........

Help me out here......

----------


## tod evans

//

----------


## RJB

> Mormonism is nowhere remotely near my orthodoxy radar


Only Orthodoxy is near orthodoxy on my  radar 

(Just stirring the pot)

----------


## jmdrake

> I am likewise not saying prostitution was condoned, but if there was either a civil or criminal penalty for it, it was ignored in Hosea's case.
> 
> The emphasis there is clearly on redeeming the woman, forgiving her.  A theology informed by a Church guided by the Holy Spirit would focus on that, and make that the point of the religion.
> A theology informed by a desire to punish and push people around would focus on... the original post.


You know, I forgot about Hosea.  The fact that God told Hosea to marry a known prostitute shows that either God was telling Hosea to commit adultery or the "Sex = automatic marriage" that Sola_Fide depended on for his "rape = marriage" thesis and Christian Liberty is depending on for his "a prostitute is married to her first client" thesis is a total fallacy.

----------


## jmdrake

> Oh, so it's not okay for Christian Liberty to pass judgment on other people's sexuality, but it's okay for you to do so when it comes to bestiality? Remember this?


Pass judgment as in saying "Ewww" or saying "That's wrong" or "that's a sin" or pass judgment as in saying "Time him and the animal up while I find some large stones?"

Again I point you and Christian Liberty to the Samaritan village.  They were rejecting God in the flesh!  Yet when Jesus was asked to send down fire He declined and said he did not come to destroy but to save.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Only Orthodoxy is near orthodoxy on my  radar 
> 
> (Just stirring the pot)


LOL!  
[QUOTE=helmuth_hubener;6245518]True statement 1: Government policy matters.  It matters a lot.  That is true.
True statement 2: You, CL, do not and cannot really affect government policy.  That is also very true.

Put the two statements together = this is something _irrelevant_ to your life.  *Irrelevant* is the perfect word.  If you can't affect it, can't do anything about it, then....... there you have it.

  He, he, I know!   [/QUOTE}

I'm primarily concerned about this from a theological perspective at the moment.  I don't expect to see the BIblical model implemented in my lifetime, though I believe eventually it will be implemented everywhere.




> Oh, people are very creative when it comes to reconciling and integrating and apologeticizing.  Sometimes it seems it all amounts to linguistic jiu-jitsu.


This is one of my major problems with Christianity these days.  At the risk of being blunt I think Mormonism is a different thing entirely, and expecting a Mormon to interpret scripture "correctly' is kind of like expecting a Muslim to do so in my mind.  Essentially both parties have other works that trump the Bible and you interpret scripture through that lens, so of course you're going to come up with wacky conclusions.  Evangelicalism on the other hand has no such things explicitly but nevertheless has a habit of making scriptures basically say everything but what they actually ay.




> Off the top of my head (and this is not my own view, but it just goes to show how easy it is to come up with these things): All these verses where God is commanding seemingly non-libertarian laws and penalties, _to whom_ is he directing the commands, hmm?  Oh, that's right: to Israel!  Did he command that Assyria follow the same legal code?  Greece?  Any other nation?  Nope, nope He did not.
> 
> So, to follow God's law and take it seriously and literally, what should we do?  We should have Israel's legal system following Leviticus and Numbers and Deuteronomy to a T.  What should all the other Gentile nations' legal system look like?  God has no comment.  Well, He has lots of comments throughout the Bible, actually, that could be applied.  But the specific legal code He gave Israel was, well, a legal code He gave Israel.  It's for Israel.  Let's not wrest the scriptures and pretend it was anything but what it clearly and literally is: a legal code God gave to Israel.


I think philosophically its problematic to say that God really just wants people to follow the non-aggression principle when actually the only legal code he ever gave wasnt nearly compatible with it.  

But the deeper theological problem is really dispensationalism.  Dispensationalism sees Israel as one thing and the church as a completely different thing.  So dispensationalists see little, if any, actual value in the Old Testament and its specific commands. By contrast covenant theology in its purest form sees Israel as the proto-church with its own institutional separation between the ministry of the sword* (State) and ministry of the Word (church) and as such we think all Christian magistrates should rule similarly or the same way.  THere are plenty of prophetic passages that describe the nations doing things like that too.  Though again, the problem is that premillennialists make these things irrelevant to our own situation.

SO yeah, if we saw Israel as the church and the moral law as holistically being the same that would fix a lot of the theological issues here.

*I do not mean to say that THIS state is God's minister of the sword anymore than I would say the Pope is a true pastor, but the institution of the State was created FOR THE PURPOSE OF being a minister of God (Romans 13:4) just as the office of pastor was created to be God's minister in the church.

----------


## Theocrat

> Of course I remember that post, 'twas only a few days ago I made it.......
> 
> That said, have you ever seen me cry for government to do anything to another person because of who or what they screw?
> 
> How 'bout, have you ever seen me try to justify government behavior I'd like to see by quoting scripture?
> 
> And finally have you seen me ever call for government to kill a person in God's name because of who they screw?
> 
> I may be a bigot, or homophobe, or any number of P/C labels but I can assure you that other peoples bed partners that don't directly affect me and mine don't cause me any stress at all...
> ...


My point is that you have a moral declaration about a particular sexual behavior, and that declaration is, in fact, passing judgment upon those who engage in the act (which, in the case I quoted you from, was bestiality).

In fact, everyone passes judgment on sexual behaviors. I'm sure that no one here accepts that rape is a moral sexual behavior. But, hey, if there is no God, and thus, there is no ultimate ethical standard for sexual behavior, so, therefore, humans are nothing more than evolved bags of meat with electricity running through themselves, then some people can't help their sexual preference to rape others. And we can apply that same reasoning to other sexual behaviors. So, then, where is the room to judge *any* sexual behavior, if God hasn't set up some rules for standard sexuality?

Thus, the prerequisite in this whole discussion is marked by one simple question: "By whose standard?"

----------


## Theocrat

> Pass judgment as in saying "Ewww" or saying "That's wrong" or "that's a sin" or pass judgment as in saying "Time him and the animal up while I find some large stones?"
> 
> Again I point you and Christian Liberty to the Samaritan village.  They were rejecting God in the flesh!  Yet when Jesus was asked to send down fire He declined and said he did not come to destroy but to save.


It doesn't matter which of the two tod evans was referring to because both of them are judgments of a sexual act. That was simply my point.

Now, concerning how that relates to this thread, as Christians, we know the Bible teaches that God is sovereign over His creation, which means that He has authority over every aspect of human life. So, when we are discussing public policy about certain behaviors which are public taboos in our society, then our first question to ask is, "What has God said about it?" From there, we use wisdom from the Scriptures to understand how that behavior ought to be dealt with in society by all levels of government (self, family, church, and civil) in order to please God.

----------


## tod evans

> My point is that *you have a moral declaration* about a particular sexual behavior, and that declaration is, in fact, passing judgment upon those who engage in the act (which, in the case I quoted you from, was bestiality).
> 
> In fact, everyone passes judgment on sexual behaviors. I'm sure that no one here accepts that rape is a moral sexual behavior. But, hey, if there is no God, and thus, there is no ultimate ethical standard for sexual behavior, so, therefore, humans are nothing more than evolved bags of meat with electricity running through themselves, then some people can't help their sexual preference to rape others. And we can apply that same reasoning to other sexual behaviors. So, then, where is the room to judge *any* sexual behavior, if God hasn't set up some rules for standard sexuality?
> 
> Thus, the prerequisite in this whole discussion is marked by one simple question: "By whose standard?"


Would you care to point out said "declaration"?

When you originally accused me of "bigotry" all I had done was cut-n-paste an article, the post you drug into this thread from that thread was agreeing with you in that some folks would accuse me of bigotry, racism, sexism and classism...

Now with this post you've taken to attributing a "declaration" to me.........

Sorry dude, what you've tried to pin on me isn't what I wrote, it's what you wrote and then attributed to me.

Why do you want to behave in this manner?

----------


## tod evans

> *It doesn't matter which of the two tod evans was referring to because both of them are judgments of a sexual act.* That was simply my point.
> 
> Now, concerning how that relates to this thread, as Christians, we know the Bible teaches that God is sovereign over His creation, which means that He has authority over every aspect of human life. So, when we are discussing public policy about certain behaviors which are public taboos in our society, then our first question to ask is, "What has God said about it?" From there, we use wisdom from the Scriptures to understand how that behavior ought to be dealt with in society by all levels of government (self, family, church, and civil) in order to please God.


Repeating yourself doesn't lend creedence to your assertions.

[edit]

To link to the thread Theo has pointed to in which I supposedly "passed judgement"........

----------


## Ronin Truth

Only the statist ones. The libertarian ones will probably just say MYOB!

*Ain't Nobody's Business If You Do (pdf)*





> *"7:3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? 7:4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? 7:5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye." -- (King James Bible, Matthew)*

----------


## tod evans

> It doesn't matter which of the two tod evans was referring to because both of them are judgments of a sexual act. That was simply my point.
> 
> Now, concerning how that relates to this thread, as Christians, we know the Bible teaches that God is sovereign over His creation, which means that He has authority over every aspect of human life. *So, when we are discussing public policy about certain behaviors which are public taboos in our society, then our first question to ask is, "What has God said about it?" From there, we use wisdom from the Scriptures to understand how that behavior ought to be dealt with in society by all levels of government (self, family, church, and civil) in order to please God.*


Now how 'bout getting into where your position here fails on its face?

First and foremost though; *You have failed to address the question I keep asking you.*

"We" as Christians are but a small faction of the populace, and even if "we" were an overwhelming majority the fact remains that it is not "our" place to impose "our" interpretation of scripture upon other men either by force of law or by coercion.

Spreading the Word does not in any way involve using force to impose your will.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Now how 'bout getting into where your position here fails on its face?
> 
> First and foremost though; *You have failed to address the question I keep asking you.*
> 
> "We" as Christians are but a small faction of the populace, and even if "we" were an overwhelming majority the fact remains that it is not "our" place to impose "our" interpretation of scripture upon other men either by force of law or by coercion.
> 
> Spreading the Word does not in any way involve using force to impose your will.


That's  quite a conundrum there, if you think about it and place it into perspective with the tyrants we call government.

These points, for example....

1. The fundamental principle underlying the traditional American philosophy is that the Spiritual is supreme--that Man is of Divine origin and his spiritual, or religious, nature is of supreme value and importance compared with things material.

5. This concept of Man's spiritual nature excludes any idea of intrusion by government into this Man-to-Man spiritual relationship. It excludes the anti-moral precept that the end justifies the means and the related idea that the means can be separated from the end when judging them morally. This concept therefore excludes necessarily any idea of attempting to do good by force--for instance, through coercion of Man by Government, whether or not claimed to be for his own good or for the so-called common good or general welfare.

It excludes disbelief in--even doubt as to the existence of--God as the Creator of Man: and therefore excludes all ideas, theories and schools of thought--however ethical and lofty in intentions--which reject affirmative and positive belief in God as Man's Creator.

8. Belief in Man's Divine origin is the foundation of the fundamental American principle which controls his relationship to government: that Man--The Individual--is of supreme dignity and value because of his spiritual nature.


I hocked em from here...saves typing... http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/Am...stick/pr1.html It's a good read.

The ""That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men..." part of the Declaration of Independence is where it gets jiggy because our particular government in its _current_ state is not an example of Man organizing Government to be his tools. It's quite the opposite as it is. What we have going on is a government that acts contradictory to those points. And that's, unfortunately, what Theo seems to be endorsing so far as I can tell.

----------


## Theocrat

> Would you care to point out said "declaration"?
> 
> When you originally accused me of "bigotry" all I had done was cut-n-paste an article, the post you drug into this thread from that thread was agreeing with you in that some folks would accuse me of bigotry, racism, sexism and classism...
> 
> Now with this post you've taken to attributing a "declaration" to me.........
> 
> Sorry dude, what you've tried to pin on me isn't what I wrote, it's what you wrote and then attributed to me.
> 
> Why do you want to behave in this manner?


Okay, maybe I misunderstood you, so let me back up and ask if you have a problem with sexual acts like bestiality.

----------


## tod evans

> Okay, maybe I misunderstood you, so let me back up and ask if you have a problem with sexual acts like bestiality.


Whether or not I find such behavior abhorrent is irrelevant in a discussion that is about government holding practitioners accountable under their laws.

If you or I as Christians want to codify our interpretation of scripture into law, why shouldn't some other religions interpretation of their scripture be codified also?

Using a religious foundation to aid in the vetting of potential law is wise and good but..............If one would codify their religions scripture as law one must accept anothers scriptures as law too.

As for the query you pose........

Any problem I have with bestiality, or homosexuality or any other inter-person/inter-species sex act will never be presented to government or her courts for disposition.

----------


## pcosmar

> Any problem I have with bestiality, or homosexuality or any other inter-person/inter-species sex act will never be presented to government or her courts for disposition.


Yes,,

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Any problem I have with bestiality, or homosexuality or any other inter-person/inter-species sex act will never be presented to government or her courts for disposition.


Surely you've gotta understand this is a quantifiably -- and hugely -- different form of "judgment" that Tod is talking about vs. what CL is proposing, Theocrat.  One consists of:

Thoughts inside Tod's head.

The other consists of:

Forming enforcement squads, locking people in cages, stealing their money, tearing apart their lives, their careers, and their families, and, most seriously, killing people in cold blood if they too successfully resist being taken.  *The threat of literal death* is always there behind every decree of the State, no matter how stupid and arbitrary (or Godly and Biblical).

So there's a bit of a difference between "comply or cooperate with my judgment or I will murder you" and incurring some disapproval from some guy named Tod.  The second you can live with.  You probably didn't want his approval anyway!  The first you cannot live with.  Literally.

Does this make sense, Theocrat?

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Whether or not I find such behavior abhorrent is irrelevant in a discussion that is about government holding practitioners accountable under their laws.
> 
> If you or I as Christians want to codify our interpretation of scripture into law, why shouldn't some other religions interpretation of their scripture be codified also?
> 
> Using a religious foundation to aid in the vetting of potential law is wise and good but..............If one would codify their religions scripture as law one must accept anothers scriptures as law too.
> 
> As for the query you pose........
> 
> Any problem I have with bestiality, or homosexuality or any other inter-person/inter-species sex act will never be presented to government or her courts for disposition.


*THE WORLD'S MOST DANGEROUS BOOK (essay)*

----------


## Theocrat

> Whether or not I find such behavior abhorrent is irrelevant in a discussion that is about government holding practitioners accountable under their laws.
> 
> If you or I as Christians want to codify our interpretation of scripture into law, why shouldn't some other religions interpretation of their scripture be codified also?
> 
> Using a religious foundation to aid in the vetting of potential law is wise and good but..............If one would codify their religions scripture as law one must accept anothers scriptures as law too.
> 
> As for the query you pose........
> 
> Any problem I have with bestiality, or homosexuality or any other inter-person/inter-species sex act will never be presented to government or her courts for disposition.


If you're a Christian, then you should have a moral problem with bestiality. If you don't, then you need to study the Scriptures to see what God thinks of it. Now, my reason for asking you about bestiality was to simply show that you do pass judgments on sexual behavior, just as Christian Liberty does. There is no neutrality about it.

That brings me to your statement:




> If you or I as Christians want to codify our interpretation of scripture into law, why shouldn't some other religions interpretation of their scripture be codified also? Using a religious foundation to aid in the vetting of potential law is wise and good but..............If one would codify their religions scripture as law one must accept anothers scriptures as law too.


There is no religious neutrality in public policy. The rejection of a Biblical application to public policy is just the adoption of another religious authority, which in our current state of affairs is secular humanism.

Some group of citizens will be judged and sanctioned by the law, based on the religious foundation of those who create laws. That's why homosexuals, for example, are using state and federal legislatures to impose their morality upon Christians (and other groups) through "hate crimes legislation." Once again, that's just a reflection of someone's religious worldview. It's simply inevitable.

But all of this goes back to what I've said before about asking the question, "By whose standard" when discussing public policy and law to govern behaviors which are deemed taboo by society. You may not want sexually immoral acts like bestiality and homosexuality to be presented to the courts for disposition, but homosexuals are taking Christians to court for acting out on their Biblical convictions that don't support homosexual lifestyles. Such instances prove that homosexuals, in this case, are using their religious beliefs to impose their secular humanistic-driven morality on other people, by means of public policy to criminalize Christian thought and behavior.

----------


## Theocrat

> Surely you've gotta understand this is a quantifiably -- and hugely -- different form of "judgment" that Tod is talking about vs. what CL is proposing, Theocrat.  One consists of:
> 
> Thoughts inside Tod's head.
> 
> The other consists of:
> 
> Forming enforcement squads, locking people in cages, stealing their money, tearing apart their lives, their careers, and their families, and, most seriously, killing people in cold blood if they too successfully resist being taken.  *The threat of literal death* is always there behind every decree of the State, no matter how stupid and arbitrary (or Godly and Biblical).
> 
> So there's a bit of a difference between "comply or cooperate with my judgment or I will murder you" and incurring some disapproval from some guy named Tod.  The second you can live with.  You probably didn't want his approval anyway!  The first you cannot live with.  Literally.
> ...


Where did Christian Liberty ever say, "Comply or cooperate with my judgment, or I will murder you," as it pertains to prostitution?

----------


## tod evans

> If you're a Christian, then you should have a moral problem with bestiality. If you don't, then you need to study the Scriptures to see what God thinks of it. Now, my reason for asking you about bestiality was to simply show that you do pass judgments on sexual behavior, just as Christian Liberty does. There is no neutrality about it.
> 
> That brings me to your statement:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no religious neutrality in public policy. The rejection of a Biblical application to public policy is just the adoption of another religious authority, which in our current state of affairs is secular humanism.
> 
> Some group of citizens will be judged and sanctioned by the law, based on the religious foundation of those who create laws. That's why homosexuals, for example, are using state and federal legislatures to impose their morality upon Christians (and other groups) through "hate crimes legislation." Once again, that's just a reflection of someone's religious worldview. It's simply inevitable.
> ...


The solution isn't more laws/government, not now not ever!

Live your life as you see fit and if somebodies behavior offends you then deal with it as you see fit.

I do not see fit to use government to address issues I have, although it's quite likely others will call on government to deal with me...

There is no amount of words or scripture-twisting that will convince me that God want's Christians to petition the money lenders in order to solve moral dilemmas..

It's about time Christians distanced themselves from government.

----------


## Theocrat

> The solution isn't more laws/government, not now not ever!
> 
> Live your life as you see fit and if somebodies behavior offends you then deal with it as you see fit.
> 
> I do not see fit to use government to address issues I have, although it's quite likely others will call on government to deal with me...
> 
> There is no amount of words or scripture-twisting that will convince me that God want's Christians to petition the money lenders in order to solve moral dilemmas..
> 
> It's about time Christians distanced themselves from government.


The bottom line of this discussion is determining whether or not it's good to have laws prohibiting sexual behaviors, in general, and prostitution, in particular. It seems to me that you believe local, state, nor the federal governments should have laws prohibiting sexual behavior. If I'm correct about that, then are you for repealing laws that prohibit sexual acts like rape, child molestation, and bestiality because they have been codified by civil magistrates? I'm just trying to understand where your thinking is on that.

----------


## tod evans

> The bottom line of this discussion is determining whether or not it's good to have laws prohibiting sexual behaviors, in general, and prostitution, in particular. It seems to me that you believe local, state, nor the federal governments should have laws prohibiting sexual behavior. If I'm correct about that, then are you for repealing laws that prohibit sexual acts like rape, child molestation, and bestiality because they have been codified by civil magistrates? I'm just trying to understand where your thinking is on that.


My thinking is that no group of men is qualified to write law that regards sexual behavior, period.

Doesn't matter if the group writing law is Christian or goat-$#@!ers.

The same sentiment applies to laws that prohibit discrimination, for any reason including sexual behavior.

I will absolutely discriminate against whomever I choose for any reason I choose and I will ignore government mandates to the contrary.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Where did Christian Liberty ever say, "Comply or cooperate with my judgment, or I will murder you," as it pertains to prostitution?


He did not say "_I_" will murder you.  He said, though -- in my interpretation, not directly -- that he thinks it would be right and Biblical for the agents of the state to say, "Comply or cooperate with my judgment, or I will murder you."

He said this when he said he thinks the state should make prostitution illegal.  The threat of literal death is always ultimately there behind every decree of the State.  Refusing to cooperate with a law, no matter how "minor", even refusing to pay a parking ticket, leads to an inexorable escalation, legally-speaking.  Ultimately the refusenik may legally be killed if they resist arrest sufficiently successfully.

You are right, Theocrat, that it would be inconsistent to condemn all judgment while making judgments oneself.  But you should and must admit that Tod's person "judgment" is extremely, hugely different than CL's proposed civil judgment.

*Thinking censorious thoughts is quite different than placing handcuffs around wrists or bullets in chests.*

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Surely you've gotta understand this is a quantifiably -- and hugely -- different form of "judgment" that Tod is talking about vs. what CL is proposing, Theocrat.  One consists of:
> So there's a bit of a difference between "comply or cooperate 
> 
> Thoughts inside Tod's head.
> 
> The other consists of:
> 
> Forming enforcement squads, locking people in cages, stealing their money, tearing apart their lives, their careers, and their families, and, most seriously, killing people in cold blood if they too successfully resist being taken. *The threat of literal death* is always there behind every decree of the State, no matter how stupid and arbitrary (or Godly and Biblical).
> with my judgment or I will murder you" and incurring some disapproval from some guy named Tod.  The second you can live with.  You probably didn't want his approval anyway!  The first you cannot live with.  Literally.
> ...





> He did not say "_I_" will murder you.  He said, though -- in my interpretation, not directly -- that he thinks it would be right and Biblical for the agents of the state to say, "Comply or cooperate with my judgment, or I will murder you."
> 
> He said this when he said he thinks the state should make prostitution illegal.  The threat of literal death is always ultimately there behind every decree of the State.  Refusing to cooperate with a law, no matter how "minor", even refusing to pay a parking ticket, leads to an inexorable escalation, legally-speaking.  Ultimately the refusenik may legally be killed if they resist arrest sufficiently successfully.


To be clear, I'm against the use of prisons as punishment.  I'm also against fines being paid TO GOVERNMENT, fines should be paid only to aggreieved parties.  Now...

I'm with you on parking tickets and things like that, I guess ultimately my contention would be that sexual immorality is not minor and actually brings severe covenantal sanctions against a nation, that though it may not technically fit the libertarian definition of aggression that it does wreck lives and also severely offends God.  I know that's not a popular position here, but I'm not advocating wrecking people's lives over minor matter, rather I'm challenging the very definition of minor.

In God's mind (as defined by the scriptures) adultery and homosexuality and even fornication is worse than stealing a candy bar, yet every libertarian would use force against the latter.  So should the former.

----------


## tod evans

> In God's mind (as defined by the scriptures) adultery and homosexuality and even fornication is worse than stealing a candy bar, *yet every libertarian would use force* against the latter.  So should the former.


I'm not a libertarian but I'll ask anyway.......

Are you advocating the use of force by yourself or are you advocating having government agents use force in your stead?

I'm asking about you, not anybody else and not philosophically or figuratively and I'm not asking about your interpretation of scripture, ONLY whether you will "use force" yourself or if in all these various discussions you are asking government to do your bidding...

----------


## tod evans

Well............

Either that's to difficult of a question or I'm on FF's ignore list........

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> I'm primarily concerned about this from a theological perspective at the moment.  I don't expect to see the BIblical model implemented in my lifetime, though I believe eventually it will be implemented everywhere.


 So you're just trying to figure out the right view to have.  To get the correct answer.  It's a puzzle.  Fair enough!




> This is one of my major problems with Christianity these days.  At the risk of being blunt I think Mormonism is a different thing entirely, and expecting a Mormon to interpret scripture "correctly' is kind of like expecting a Muslim to do so in my mind.


 Oh, I know!  Don't worry, you're not going to hurt my feelings.  




> Essentially both parties have other works that trump the Bible and you interpret scripture through that lens, so of course you're going to come up with wacky conclusions.


 We've all got a lens, CL.  We've all got a lens.  What's _your_ lens?




> I think philosophically its problematic to say that God really just wants people to follow the non-aggression principle when actually the only legal code he ever gave wasn't nearly compatible with it.


  Maybe it was closer than you think.




> But the deeper theological problem is really dispensationalism.  
> *Dispensationalism
> ...By contrast covenant theology
> ...proto-church
> ...Christian magistrates
> ...premillennialists*


 So, notice: I gave a very off-the-cuff reconciliation of libertarianism with these passages, and even though it was made up on the spot with very little effort or time taken, and even though since I am a Mormon all my thoughts ought to be full of "wacky conclusions" and easily dismissable, in order to counter it you had to resort to all kinds of technical terms and jargon.  Super inside-baseball.  And even then it was a counter, and not an actual refutation.

I could probably come up with two or three completely different ones, and then if I studied up on other people's thoughts find three or four more still.  And likely you would not be able to refute any of them.  A couple may turn out to be technically irrefutable.

Anyway, that doesn't prove you're wrong about prostitution.  It does demonstrate that I'm right in that there is more than one way to combine "I'm a libertarian" with "I believe in the Bible."

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> rather I'm challenging the very definition of minor.


 If that's the basic crux of your arguments and feelings, I am in agreement with you.  Believe it or not!  Yes, virtue and morality are definitely not minor.  




> In God's mind (as defined by the scriptures) adultery and homosexuality and even fornication is worse than stealing a candy bar


 Again: I'm in total agreement.

So, are you shunning people who participate in or promote homosexuality or fornication?  Are you, personally doing that, CL?

See, there's more than one way to gut a fish.  Widespread societal pressure and disapproval can accomplish the same thing without state involvement.  In fact, it is nearly impossible to envision getting to a place where there _are_ state sanctions on immorality but _aren't_ widespread societal pressures and disapproval.  The one is prerequisite for the other, and if you have the one, the other is redundant and highly ineffective compared to the first.

Theocrat has a point that families, workplaces, etc., are types of "governments" in a way.  There is no moral problem for _these_ "governments" to clamp down on immorality and perversion.  And, as I said above, their actions in doing so will be one hundred thousand times more effective than state legislation.  So, why not focus on that?

Are you?

*Has your family banned fornication?*  Homosexuality?  Would you kick anybody with these behaviors out of your family?  Are you shunning and excommunicating these people?  Kicking them out of your family and inner circle?  Refusing to do business or talk with them?  Making their lives more difficult?

Hmm?

----------


## tod evans

Drudge had this today;

*Geneva to get 'café fellatio' by end of year*

http://www.thelocal.ch/20160623/gene...by-end-of-year

A firm in Geneva plans to open a café where customers can enjoy oral sex while they sip their morning coffee. Not everyone is happy with the idea.

The idea for the sex café has been brewing for several months, Bradley Charvet of the Geneva firm Facegirl told Geneva’s Le Matin newspaper recently.

Modelled on similar establishments in Thailand, the proposed Geneva café would add a new dimension to the sex trade in the city of the protestant reformer Calvin.

Put simply, the business model would see men ordering a coffee and using an iPad to select a prostitute they want to perform oral sex on them. They would then sit at the bar.

“In five or ten minutes, it’s all over,” Charvet explained to Le Matin.

At 60 Swiss francs (€55), with a possible five-franc surplus for a latte macchiato the ‘coffee’ would be the most expensive in Geneva.

It would, however -- in theory at least – be perfectly within the bounds of the law. Prostitution is legal in Switzerland although it is strictly controlled, with sex trade workers required to have valid permits as part of a bid to fight people trafficking.

In cases where two or more prostitutes operate out of the same premises, the establishment has to be registered as a massage parlour. In 2015, 33 of these parlours were shut down in Geneva for not following the rules, according to France’s Le Monde newspaper.

Geneva’s Department for Security and the Economy are now looking at the café plans.

Not everyone is happy with the idea though. Grégoire Théry of France’s anti-prostitution group Mouvement du Nid told French newspaper L'Express the idea for a café serving up oral sex would only benefit the men behind the business.

The business idea would, in effect, legalize pimping, he said.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> If that's the basic crux of your arguments and feelings, I am in agreement with you.  Believe it or not!  Yes, virtue and morality are definitely not minor.  
> 
>  Again: I'm in total agreement.
> 
> So, are you shunning people who participate in or promote homosexuality or fornication?  Are you, personally doing that, CL?
> 
> See, there's more than one way to gut a fish.  Widespread societal pressure and disapproval can accomplish the same thing without state involvement.  In fact, it is nearly impossible to envision getting to a place where there _are_ state sanctions on immorality but _aren't_ widespread societal pressures and disapproval.  The one is prerequisite for the other, and if you have the one, the other is redundant and highly ineffective compared to the first.
> 
> Theocrat has a point that families, workplaces, etc., are types of "governments" in a way.  There is no moral problem for _these_ "governments" to clamp down on immorality and perversion.  And, as I said above, their actions in doing so will be one hundred thousand times more effective than state legislation.  So, why not focus on that?
> ...


I don't want to sepak for my family because they're evangelicals and thus we don't agree much on theology.

But speaking for myself.

The church should only discipline those who are a part of it.  Thus the church, as the church, should not shun homosexuals, fornicators, etc. unless they are identifying as CHristians.  If they are identifying as such we should "not even eat" with them, something that is rarely truly followed.

However, families should discipline their households, and civil governments should discipline their subjects, whether they are believers or not.  So yes, as a head of household I would not allow anyone to engage in homosexual contact, nor would I allow them to work the sabbath, etc.  And yes, if they continually did these things and didn't repent, I would throw them out.

I don't necessarily disagree with you on "focus" especially considering how corrupt most of the nation is right now.  But that doesn't change the fact that civil magistrates have obligations and "libertarianism" really isnt it in the scripture.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Thus the church, as the church, should not shun homosexuals, fornicators, etc. unless they are identifying as Christians.


 Seriously?  Have you run across the phrase "cry repentance" anywhere in your Biblical studies?  Occasional references to "this untoward generation" and fearless, unequivocal condemnation of "abominations"?  When people are bad, the prophets in the Bible seemed to, umm, tell them they were bad.  To their face.  Straight up.  Now that act is not technically shunning, true, but I think most would call it "burning your bridges," after which chummy social relations cease to be.  In today's fragile butterfly environment, harsh criticism is not compatible with friendship or close association.  Thus, same result.  Half a dozen, meet six.




> However, families should discipline their households, and civil governments should discipline their subjects, whether they are believers or not.  So yes, as a head of household I would not allow anyone to engage in homosexual contact, nor would I allow them to work the sabbath, etc.  And yes, if they continually did these things and didn't repent, I would throw them out.


  Cool.  You don't have to wait until you're head of household to be an influence for good, though.  You can be an influence for good in your dorm, in your classes, and everywhere.




> I don't necessarily disagree with you on "focus" especially considering how corrupt most of the nation is right now.


 Just from a practical perspective, you know?  I'm not against philosophy, politics, and such as hobbies.  Obviously!  Here I am!




> But that doesn't change the fact that civil magistrates have obligations and "libertarianism" really isn't in the scripture.


  Well, it _is_ in mine!   *That's one cool thing about being a Mormon!  Theologically, it is highly libertarian.*  And that's not just wishful thinking coming from a libertarian.  There are very deep tie-ins.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Seriously?  Have you run across the phrase "cry repentance" anywhere in your Biblical studies?  Occasional references to "this untoward generation" and fearless, unequivocal condemnation of "abominations"?  When people are bad, the prophets in the Bible seemed to, umm, tell them they were bad.  To their face.  Straight up.  Now that act is not technically shunning, true, but I think most would call it "burning your bridges," after which chummy social relations cease to be.  In today's fragile butterfly environment, harsh criticism is not compatible with friendship or close association.  Thus, same result.  Half a dozen, meet six.


You're talking about different things, but I have in mind 1 Corinthians 5.  The church does not refuse to have relationships with sinners in the world, but it totally cuts off the unrepentant among itself.  I agree on calling the unbelieving to repentance but that's a different issue

And of all people I would think you wouldn't say I'm one that's influenced by our culture.




> Cool.  You don't have to wait until you're head of household to be an influence for good, though.  You can be an influence for good in your dorm, in your classes, and everywhere.


Agreed




> Just from a practical perspective, you know?  I'm not against philosophy, politics, and such as hobbies.  Obviously!  Here I am!


I hear you.



> Well, it _is_ in mine!   *That's one cool thing about being a Mormon!  Theologically, it is highly libertarian.*  And that's not just wishful thinking coming from a libertarian.  There are very deep tie-ins.


lol.  I don't doubt this.  But ultimately this is the point of breakdown. I would contend (though some would disagree) that the mosaic judicials are nowhere abrogated in the NT and thus binding on all nations.  But if you're bringing a whole different book into it, the validity of which I reject, it doesn't really go anywhere

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I'm not a libertarian but I'll ask anyway.......
> 
> Are you advocating the use of force by yourself or are you advocating having government agents use force in your stead?
> 
> I'm asking about you, not anybody else and not philosophically or figuratively and I'm not asking about your interpretation of scripture, ONLY whether you will "use force" yourself or if in all these various discussions you are asking government to do your bidding...


Depends on if I'm a rightful authority or not in the nation in question.

----------


## tod evans

> Depends on if I'm a rightful authority or not in the nation in question.


I'll just take that as a great big NO........

WTF is "rightful authority" in the first place?

Don't ask government to do what you're afraid to do yourself...

Typical though...........Wanting to use the force of government to force others to do as you'd like them to, shame on you!

How about when ol' Habib and his folks get together and through voting get government to force you to do something? 

I've got no say in how you lead your life until you try to make me lead mine in the same vein... Try to learn from others past failures, and their successes too...

----------


## hells_unicorn

Overall that was a well worded response to a dubiously argued point by Laurence Vance. Although I've only had time to read through Lawrence Vance's original post once, his problem is that he is not making distinctions between Judicial laws in the OT that have both Moral-Natural and Moral-Positive connotations, in other words, moral precepts that apply at all times and places (natural) and moral precepts that were applied specific to Israel but carried permanent moral teachings. Your response to him could have gotten a bit more specifically into why he was messing up by conflating principles of general equity with ceremonial laws, but that may have been a waste of time since he is falling into the trap of thinking that Christ's coming wiped out the entire Old Testament from any consideration.

Does Vance identify as a Protestant or a Romanist? Most of Lew Rockwell's writers are Papists and mixing up natural and positive law is a massive problem in Roman theology, but if he's a self-described Protestant, it appears he's been bitten by the Antinomian bug and fixing that mess would be a daunting task.

The one area of disagreement on this that we may hold, depending on how much you are relying on Modern Theonomist thought here, is whether or not you think that the magistrate if required to adhere to the regulative principle or if it is simply charged with maintaining the natural-moral law and promoting general equity in light of the True Religion, the latter naturally being a bit dicey since America systematically renounced the True Religion more than 200 years ago. 

Prostitution should be discouraged civilly via law in the same way that other species of 7th commandment violations that reach a similar level of aggravation, but magistracy in a culture as deformed and depraved as post-Christian America is in a similar situation as the Roman Empire, thus any attempt to enforce biblical law without an eye to practicality of circumstance wherein the positive aspects of judicial law is concerned would be folly. The wisdom of Augustine of Hippo on this point is applicable in this modern context, and if John Calvin were in a societal situation similar to this one, he'd probably come to a similar conclusion.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Overall that was a well worded response to a dubiously argued point by Laurence Vance. Although I've only had time to read through Lawrence Vance's original post once, his problem is that he is not making distinctions between Judicial laws in the OT that have both Moral-Natural and Moral-Positive connotations, in other words, moral precepts that apply at all times and places (natural) and moral precepts that were applied specific to Israel but carried permanent moral teachings. Your response to him could have gotten a bit more specifically into why he was messing up by conflating principles of general equity with ceremonial laws, but that may have been a waste of time since he is falling into the trap of thinking that Christ's coming wiped out the entire Old Testament from any consideration.
> 
> Does Vance identify as a Protestant or a Romanist? Most of Lew Rockwell's writers are Papists and mixing up natural and positive law is a massive problem in Roman theology, but if he's a self-described Protestant, it appears he's been bitten by the Antinomian bug and fixing that mess would be a daunting task.


Vance is a dispensationalist and "fundamental" baptist, which in my mind isn't much better than some of the better Romanists.  These days I only call Presbyterians and other Reformed, Lutherans, and Anglicans "Protestants".... baptists of any stripe are a different breed entirely and while some are faithful Christians, they arent Protestants in any historical sense.  Considering Vance's type he may call himself Protestant or be one of those "i'm a baptist not a Protestant" types.  Not sure.  

Yeah, I think he has the "only the New Testament is applicable" thing at its root.




> The one area of disagreement on this that we may hold, depending on how much you are relying on Modern Theonomist thought here, is whether or not you think that the magistrate if required to adhere to the regulative principle or if it is simply charged with maintaining the natural-moral law and promoting general equity in light of the True Religion, the latter naturally being a bit dicey since America systematically renounced the True Religion more than 200 years ago.


I hold to the regulative principle of civil government in some sense though I do not call myself a reconstructionist.  This was something I wanted to discuss with you at some point.



> Prostitution should be discouraged civilly via law in the same way that other species of 7th commandment violations that reach a similar level of aggravation, but magistracy in a culture as deformed and depraved as post-Christian America is in a similar situation as the Roman Empire, thus any attempt to enforce biblical law without an eye to practicality of circumstance wherein the positive aspects of judicial law is concerned would be folly. The wisdom of Augustine of Hippo on this point is applicable in this modern context, and if John Calvin were in a societal situation similar to this one, he'd probably come to a similar conclusion.


I suspect Calvin would agree with you.  I am more curious (though in bringing this up I don't mean to deny that you would know better than me) whether George Gillespie would considering, though he did hold to the normative principle of civil magistracy (something I'm not in agreement with) he did believe that all of the judicial death penalties were binding in all nations.  That said, I'm not sure that would rule out a (fixed and gradual) transition period.  I havent fully developed a theory here beyond saying that only those who led the nation into sin can possibly be punished ex post facto from 2 Kings 23.  I welcome any thoughts you might have on any of these points.

----------


## hells_unicorn

> Vance is a dispensationalist and "fundamental" baptist, which in my mind isn't much better than some of the better Romanists.  These days I only call Presbyterians and other Reformed, Lutherans, and Anglicans "Protestants".... baptists of any stripe are a different breed entirely and while some are faithful Christians, they arent Protestants in any historical sense.  Considering Vance's type he may call himself Protestant or be one of those "i'm a baptist not a Protestant" types.  Not sure.  
> 
> Yeah, I think he has the "only the New Testament is applicable" thing at its root.


So, basically he's another anti-confessional, independent, apocalyptic Evangelical, there's millions more where that came from. I wonder why Rockwell is employing all of these status quo fools to his ranks, isn't he trying to anti-establishment?




> I hold to the regulative principle of civil government in some sense though I do not call myself a reconstructionist.  This was something I wanted to discuss with you at some point.


I've been rereading some of James Dodson's critiques on both Reconstructionism and also Antinomianism, which is why I asked the question regarding how you treat magistracy. I know you've been transitioning out of a home environment that is not completely friendly to confessional doctrine, so I didn't want to push this issue too hard since most who come to the confessional Reformed position tend to go through a transitional period where they look into Reconstructionist authors.




> I suspect Calvin would agree with you.  I am more curious (though in bringing this up I don't mean to deny that you would know better than me) whether George Gillespie would considering, though he did hold to the normative principle of civil magistracy (something I'm not in agreement with) he did believe that all of the judicial death penalties were binding in all nations.  That said, I'm not sure that would rule out a (fixed and gradual) transition period.  I havent fully developed a theory here beyond saying that only those who led the nation into sin can possibly be punished ex post facto from 2 Kings 23.  I welcome any thoughts you might have on any of these points.


I had this talk with James Dodson at one point and he gave me some literature about Gillespie. As far as I can tell, and I'm not 100% on this, but I am pretty sure he was in agreement with the standard Covenanter stance that the death penalty with regard to breaking the 4th commandment was abrogated, though he did support civil punishments for openly breaking blue laws regarding the Lord's Day.

One thing to keep in mind is that Gillespie was dealing with a very different situation than what constitutes modern thought, the whole rationalism/skepticism thing that came in with the Scottish Freemasons was not an issue at the time, nor were there people openly denying cut and dry stuff regarding natural law such as openly excusing, let alone condoning sodomy and infanticide. Supporting a normative principle of civil magistracy is a matter of practicality, especially when dealing with a magistrate that is ambivalent on the matter of True Religion, which was the case with the Roman Empire prior to the period of persecution. The notion that one begins by purifying the church and then projecting that purity outward with hopes of swaying the surrounding population and then eventually the magistrate is not a retreat to moral toleration, but a practical way of undermining societal corruption without falling into the Circumcellion error of inviting persecution upon the church out of a distorted view of martyrdom.

2 Kings 23 is actually a model for what should occur if a head of state were to be converted and had the necessary influence to cleanse a nation of idolatry and moral depravity, but what you've said here has some degree of bearing with regard to judicial punishment in the cases of less aggravated infractions of the moral law. Capitol crimes specifically spelled out in the Pentateuch could still warrant a death sentence if they are of a proper degree of aggravation specific to their moral connotation, but this doesn't not mean that all cases require the maximum penalty, nor that one starts employing type-based modes of execution like stoning, nor does it necessitate any employment of what could be called cruel and unusual punishment. In the example of prostitution, even the OT recognizes a distinction between simple fornication vs. adultery and employs different judicial penalties, even though both are sins under the 7th commandment.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> So, basically he's another anti-confessional, independent, apocalyptic Evangelical, there's millions more where that came from. I wonder why Rockwell is employing all of these status quo fools to his ranks, isn't he trying to anti-establishment?


LOL!  I think Rockwell is only concerned with the political aspect and not the theologian, Vance is a radical libertarian, ergo Rockwell is pleased.  They don't want the same kind of holistic Reformation we want.  Some of his writers are atheists as well. 







> I've been rereading some of James Dodson's critiques on both Reconstructionism and also Antinomianism, which is why I asked the question regarding how you treat magistracy. I know you've been transitioning out of a home environment that is not completely friendly to confessional doctrine, so I didn't want to push this issue too hard since most who come to the confessional Reformed position tend to go through a transitional period where they look into Reconstructionist authors.


Do any of these happen to be available online?  Because I'd be curious to read what he says about it if they are available.

As for my home environment oh very much yes.  I'm definitely looking to leave the church I'm in right now (In public I'll simply say that its not the best), though I'll likely have the choice between an OPC or a church that is probably as conservative as the WPCUS but quasi-congregational.  I'm leaning towards the latter right now despite very much disliking the form of government, but at any rate i'm likely going to end up in one or the other.  Either way I am going to be leaving the baptistic church I'm in right now before too long and am grateful to God that he's allowed me to do so in a mostly peaceful fashion.







> I had this talk with James Dodson at one point and he gave me some literature about Gillespie. As far as I can tell, and I'm not 100% on this, but I am pretty sure he was in agreement with the standard Covenanter stance that the death penalty with regard to breaking the 4th commandment was abrogated, though he did support civil punishments for openly breaking blue laws regarding the Lord's Day.


Either James is wrong here or Gillespie changed his mind, since I have a direct quote from Wholesome Severity that says otherwise:

2. That judicial law for having two or three witnesses in judgment (Deut. 19:15, Heb. 10:28), is transferred even with an obligation to us Christians, and it concerns all judgment, as well ecclesiastical as civil (Matt. 18:16; 2 Cor. 13:1), and some other particulars might be instanced, in which are pressed and enforced from the judicial law, by some who yet mind not the obligation of it. To conclude therefore this point, though other judicial or forensical laws concerning the punishments of sins against the moral law may, yea, must be allowed of in Christian Republics and Kingdoms; provided always, they are not contrary or contradictory to God’s own judicial laws; yet I fear not to hold with Junius, _De Politiæ Mosis_, that *he who was punishable by death under the judicial law, is punishable by death still; and he who was not punished by death then, is not to be punished by death now. And so much for the first argument from the Law of God.*[/QUOTE]

https://www.naphtali.com/articles/ge...some-severity/

(Type in the phrase "punished by death" and you should find it... that's how I found it since I've referenced this quote a few different times.)






> One thing to keep in mind is that Gillespie was dealing with a very different situation than what constitutes modern thought, the whole rationalism/skepticism thing that came in with the Scottish Freemasons was not an issue at the time, nor were there people openly denying cut and dry stuff regarding natural law such as openly excusing, let alone condoning sodomy and infanticide. Supporting a normative principle of civil magistracy is a matter of practicality, especially when dealing with a magistrate that is ambivalent on the matter of True Religion, which was the case with the Roman Empire prior to the period of persecution. The notion that one begins by purifying the church and then projecting that purity outward with hopes of swaying the surrounding population and then eventually the magistrate is not a retreat to moral toleration, but a practical way of undermining societal corruption without falling into the Circumcellion error of inviting persecution upon the church out of a distorted view of martyrdom.


I understand, and I'm under no illusions that theonomy is going to be instituted tomorrow, though I would certainly love it if God would raise up a leader that had the guts to do so.  But I still believe that's what civil magistrates are ethically bound to.  Maybe that's not practical enough, but I don't think WCF 23.3 in its original form (which I understand doesn't necessarily teach theonomy per say) is particularly "practical" in our current state either, and yet I think you would say civil magistrates are bound to it.  That doesn't mean we be revolutionaries, it means we teach the nation, including the government, all that God commands including his judicial laws.



> 2 Kings 23 is actually a model for what should occur if a head of state were to be converted and had the necessary influence to cleanse a nation of idolatry and moral depravity, but what you've said here has some degree of bearing with regard to judicial punishment in the cases of less aggravated infractions of the moral law. Capitol crimes specifically spelled out in the Pentateuch could still warrant a death sentence if they are of a proper degree of aggravation specific to their moral connotation, but this doesn't not mean that all cases require the maximum penalty,


It seems to me that murder, blasphemy, and spreading of damnable heresies (Deuteronomy 13) all always warrant death penalties from my best reading of the text, but I think its possible that all of the other capital crimes were judicial maximums.  




> nor that one starts employing type-based modes of execution like stoning,


I dont think stoning is required, though I think its possible (I am not certain) that a community enforced method would fall under general equity.  I'm not sure.  




> nor does it necessitate any employment of what could be called cruel and unusual punishment.


I certainly agree, furthermore, "religious right" types that are OK with torture and life imprisonment need to pay attention.



> In the example of prostitution, even the OT recognizes a distinction between simple fornication vs. adultery and employs different judicial penalties, even though both are sins under the 7th commandment.


Yes, I realize this, I believe I mentioned it in the blog I wrote.  Fornicators were required to marry each other, while adulterers were punished by death (though from what I understand the aggreived party could forgo the punishment.)  Any God honoring nation should go back to that, IMO.

----------


## jmdrake

> It doesn't matter which of the two tod evans was referring to because both of them are judgments of a sexual act. That was simply my point.
> 
> Now, concerning how that relates to this thread, as Christians, we know the Bible teaches that God is sovereign over His creation, which means that He has authority over every aspect of human life. So, when we are discussing public policy about certain behaviors which are public taboos in our society, then our first question to ask is, "What has God said about it?" From there, we use wisdom from the Scriptures to understand how that behavior ought to be dealt with in society by all levels of government (self, family, church, and civil) in order to please God.


Asking "What does God say about X" and "Should X be criminalized" are two different things.  What does God say about those who blaspheme the Holy Spirit?  Worst possible sin.  What did Jesus say about the Samaritan village that was actively taking steps in that direction?  Shake the dust off your feet and move on.  You and other theocrats are trying to live under the old testament and the new testament at the same time.  Jesus called that putting new wine in old wineskins.  All you do is ruin both.  Look at the misinterpretation of Deuteronomy 22 by Christian Liberty early in this thread.  He *has* to misinterpret the old testament in order for his cockamamie theory not to seem totally abhorrent.  Rape victims are married to their rapists and if they get married again to someone else they have committed adultery and should be stoned.  That is the logical conclusion of the steps Christian Liberty takes to get to his idea of criminalizing prostitution.  In order to get around that, he changed the clear meaning of Deut 22 from rape of a virgin to seduction of a virgin.  And now that I've busted him on it, he won't reply because he knows he's wrong.

But that is the problem *in general* with the way you, he, and to a *much* lesser extent Sola_Fide, approach the old testament.  You do it without any regards to context or to the later words of Jesus.  Oh you apply the new testament (badly IMO) when there are parts of the OT that you personally don't believe (remember the Sabbath), but if it's something that affects someone else?  The NT doesn't matter.  Again go back to Deuteronomy 22.  It clearly says the "punishment" for a man who rapes a virgin is that he must marry her and cannot divorce her.  It says nothing about killing the man.  It says nothing about putting the man in prison.  And it says nothing about the age of the rape victim.  Would you *really* apply that standard in 2016?  A man rapes a 15 year old girl who is still a virgin and you say "Well God said he has to marry her so I guess they have to get married?"  Really?

----------


## jmdrake

> I don't want to sepak for my family because they're evangelicals and thus we don't agree much on theology.
> 
> But speaking for myself.
> 
> The church should only discipline those who are a part of it.  Thus the church, as the church, should not shun homosexuals, fornicators, etc. unless they are identifying as CHristians.  If they are identifying as such we should "not even eat" with them, something that is rarely truly followed.
> 
> However, families should discipline their households, and civil governments should discipline their subjects, whether they are believers or not.  *So yes, as a head of household I would not allow anyone to engage in homosexual contact, nor would I allow them to work the sabbath, etc.*  And yes, if they continually did these things and didn't repent, I would throw them out.
> 
> I don't necessarily disagree with you on "focus" especially considering how corrupt most of the nation is right now.  But that doesn't change the fact that civil magistrates have obligations and "libertarianism" really isnt it in the scripture.


Cool.  Rule your household as you see fit.  That's what all people should do.  But the Sabbath is *not* Sunday.  It just isn't.  Maybe TER will chime in on this, but the Christian historical record is clear.  Christians did not believe the Sabbath was changed to Sunday.  At some point, TER would say since the apostles but I would say much later, the "Sabbath" and "the Lord's Day" were both kept.  Then for the "official" church the Sabbath was by in large phased out.

So here again we have a problem with applying what you feel is morally right to the larger civil society.  So the government enforce the sanctity of Sabbath especially when most Christians are confused as to which day it is?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Cool.  Rule your household as you see fit.  That's what all people should do.  But the Sabbath is *not* Sunday.  It just isn't.  Maybe TER will chime in on this, but the Christian historical record is clear.  Christians did not believe the Sabbath was changed to Sunday.  At some point, TER would say since the apostles but I would say much later, the "Sabbath" and "the Lord's Day" were both kept.  Then for the "official" church the Sabbath was by in large phased out.
> 
> So here again we have a problem with applying what you feel is morally right to the larger civil society.  So the government enforce the sanctity of Sabbath especially when most Christians are confused as to which day it is?


You're simply wrong about this Jm, and since you're wrong about this, of course you're not going to agree with my position on it. But the Biblical view is that sunday is the Christian Sabbath.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Asking "What does God say about X" and "Should X be criminalized" are two different things.  What does God say about those who blaspheme the Holy Spirit?  Worst possible sin.  What did Jesus say about the Samaritan village that was actively taking steps in that direction?  Shake the dust off your feet and move on.  You and other theocrats are trying to live under the old testament and the new testament at the same time.  Jesus called that putting new wine in old wineskins.  All you do is ruin both.  Look at the misinterpretation of Deuteronomy 22 by Christian Liberty early in this thread.  He *has* to misinterpret the old testament in order for his cockamamie theory not to seem totally abhorrent.  Rape victims are married to their rapists and if they get married again to someone else they have committed adultery and should be stoned.  That is the logical conclusion of the steps Christian Liberty takes to get to his idea of criminalizing prostitution.  In order to get around that, he changed the clear meaning of Deut 22 from rape of a virgin to seduction of a virgin.  And now that I've busted him on it, he won't reply because he knows he's wrong.


I don't "know" any such thing ,but talking to you feels like talking to a secular who starts shouting about how terrible scriptures are because they have never been taught basic hermaneutics in their life.  I don't know where to start.





> But that is the problem *in general* with the way you, he, and to a *much* lesser extent Sola_Fide, approach the old testament.  You do it without any regards to context or to the later words of Jesus.  Oh you apply the new testament (badly IMO) when there are parts of the OT that you personally don't believe (remember the Sabbath), but if it's something that affects someone else?  The NT doesn't matter.  Again go back to Deuteronomy 22.  It clearly says the "punishment" for a man who rapes a virgin is that he must marry her and cannot divorce her.  It says nothing about killing the man.  It says nothing about putting the man in prison.  And it says nothing about the age of the rape victim.  Would you *really* apply that standard in 2016?  A man rapes a 15 year old girl who is still a virgin and you say "Well God said he has to marry her so I guess they have to get married?"  Really?


No I wouldn't say that because that's not actually what scripture teaches.

----------


## pcosmar

I would think many Christians are misled and confused,, if they wish to stand on the side of the accuser.

or they are not Christians, and know nothing of forgiveness.

----------


## Christian Liberty

*sigh* all you people commenting on scripture without understanding the basics of how hermaneutics works.  Oh well..

----------


## jmdrake

> I don't "know" any such thing ,but talking to you feels like talking to a secular who starts shouting about how terrible scriptures are because they have never been taught basic hermaneutics in their life.  I don't know where to start.
> 
> No I wouldn't say that because that's not actually what scripture teaches.


If by hermaneutics you mean "How I can twist scripture from what it actually means to what I need it to mean to support my cockamamie theory" then that is something you need to *unlearn*!  Deuteronomy 22 is not at all about someone who seduces a virgin and then has to marry her.  It's about someone who *rapes* a virgin and then has to marry her.  Again you see this borne out in the story of Absalom.  His half brother raped his sister.  She wanted the half brother to marry her to "take away her shame."  He refused to marry her.  Absalom killed him not over the rape but over the shaming.

----------


## jmdrake

> You're simply wrong about this Jm, and since you're wrong about this, of course you're not going to agree with my position on it. But the Biblical view is that sunday is the Christian Sabbath.


Find one verse in the Bible that actually backs up your view that Sunday is the Sabbath and I will send you $100.  You won't do that because you can't.  You can argue from the Bible that the Sabbath is no longer binding on the Christian.  It's a weak argument but you can do it.  You can argue from the Bible that Sunday is "the Lord's day".  Another weak argument since Jesus called Himself the Lord of the Sabbath, but again you can do it.  But there is no Biblical evidence to prove that Sunday is the Sabbath.  Absolutely none.  Of course if you can use hermanutics to "prove" a lie like Deuteronomy 22 is talking about "seduction" when it's talking about "rape" I guess you can "prove" anything.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Find one verse in the Bible that actually backs up your view that Sunday is the Sabbath and I will send you $100.  You won't do that because you can't.  You can argue from the Bible that the Sabbath is no longer binding on the Christian.  It's a weak argument but you can do it.  You can argue from the Bible that Sunday is "the Lord's day".  Another weak argument since Jesus called Himself the Lord of the Sabbath, but again you can do it.  But there is no Biblical evidence to prove that Sunday is the Sabbath.  Absolutely none.  Of course if you can use hermanutics to "prove" a lie like Deuteronomy 22 is talking about "seduction" when it's talking about "rape" I guess you can "prove" anything.


You can keep your money, but for the sake of argument it depends on how you define "proof."  I believe I can demonstrate from good and necessary consequence that sunday is the Christian sabbath, but if you're looking for a proof text, that I cant give you.

----------


## jmdrake

> You can keep your money, but for the sake of argument it depends on how you define "proof."  I believe I can demonstrate from good and necessary consequence that sunday is the Christian sabbath, but if you're looking for a proof text, that I cant give you.


I'm still waiting for you to explain how rape = seduction in your worldview so I'm not expecting much in the way of logic from you.  But no.  You cannot demonstrate from "good and necessary consequence" that sunday is the Christian Sabbath.  The apostles preached on the *Jewish* Sabbath to Jews on Gentiles on multiple occasions.  They knew which day the Sabbath was and it was not Sunday.

----------


## Christian Liberty

//You can argue from the Bible that Sunday is "the Lord's day". Another weak argument since Jesus called Himself the Lord of the Sabbath, but again you can do it.//

But since Jesus is the Lord of the Sabbath, if Sunday is the Lord's Day, I believe it would logically follow that sunday is the Christian sabbath

----------


## jmdrake

> //You can argue from the Bible that Sunday is "the Lord's day". Another weak argument since Jesus called Himself the Lord of the Sabbath, but again you can do it.//
> 
> But since Jesus is the Lord of the Sabbath, if Sunday is the Lord's Day, I believe it would logically follow that sunday is the Christian sabbath


Except I never said Sunday is the Lord's day and neither does the Bible.  Specifically calling Sunday the Lord's Day came later in church tradition.  That said, it is an indisputable fact that the apostles called the Jewish Sabbath "the Sabbath."  And I actually have a "proof text."  

_Acts 13:42
And when the Jews were gone out of the synagogue, the Gentiles besought that these words might be preached to them the next sabbath._

So we know that this was the Jewish Sabbath due to the reference to the synagogue since that's when the Jews went to synagogue.  And note, this would be a perfect time for the apostles to say "Why don't you just come to church with us tomorrow because that's the new Christian Sabbath?"  They didn't, because it wasn't.  And just so there is no confusion, this is what Paul said to the Jews when he preached to them in that same chapter.

_27 For they that dwell at Jerusalem, and their rulers, because they knew him not, nor yet the voices of the prophets which are read every sabbath day, they have fulfilled them in condemning him._

Now, what happened the next Sabbath?

_44 And the next sabbath day came almost the whole city together to hear the word of God._

----------


## Jamesiv1

> *sigh* all you people commenting on scripture without understanding the basics of how hermaneutics *hermeneutics* works.  Oh well..


Please enlighten us (after you learn how to spell it).

----------


## Theocrat

> Asking "What does God say about X" and "Should X be criminalized" are two different things.  What does God say about those who blaspheme the Holy Spirit?  Worst possible sin.  What did Jesus say about the Samaritan village that was actively taking steps in that direction?  Shake the dust off your feet and move on.  You and other theocrats are trying to live under the old testament and the new testament at the same time.  Jesus called that putting new wine in old wineskins.  All you do is ruin both.  Look at the misinterpretation of Deuteronomy 22 by Christian Liberty early in this thread.  He *has* to misinterpret the old testament in order for his cockamamie theory not to seem totally abhorrent.  Rape victims are married to their rapists and if they get married again to someone else they have committed adultery and should be stoned.  That is the logical conclusion of the steps Christian Liberty takes to get to his idea of criminalizing prostitution.  In order to get around that, he changed the clear meaning of Deut 22 from rape of a virgin to seduction of a virgin.  And now that I've busted him on it, he won't reply because he knows he's wrong.
> 
> But that is the problem *in general* with the way you, he, and to a *much* lesser extent Sola_Fide, approach the old testament.  You do it without any regards to context or to the later words of Jesus.  Oh you apply the new testament (badly IMO) when there are parts of the OT that you personally don't believe (remember the Sabbath), but if it's something that affects someone else?  The NT doesn't matter.  Again go back to Deuteronomy 22.  It clearly says the "punishment" for a man who rapes a virgin is that he must marry her and cannot divorce her.  It says nothing about killing the man.  It says nothing about putting the man in prison.  And it says nothing about the age of the rape victim.  Would you *really* apply that standard in 2016?  A man rapes a 15 year old girl who is still a virgin and you say "Well God said he has to marry her so I guess they have to get married?"  Really?


The only way we can answer the question, "Should X be criminalized," is by, first, answering, "What does God say about X?" The two questions go together, when we are discussing what sexual sins should receive civil sanctions. But, of course, it takes wisdom to understand how to apply those sanctions in our modern world, and that can be challenging at times, I admit. But, nonetheless, it still needs to be considered when we're assessing public policy and its relation to sexual taboos.

Another thing to keep in mind is that the page marked "New Testament" in our Bibles is not inspired by God. That fact is very important because when we are talking about continuities and discontinuities between the Old and New Covenants, we need to realize that the Old Testament laws still applied when the New Testament was being written. Thus, the authors' approach to how Old Testament laws would apply to them in their own day would not have been riddled with many of the assumptions that we face today in modern Christianity (with ideas such as the "Two-Kingdoms Approach," "Law vs. Gospel" dichotomies, Dispensationalism, and other concepts which inherently but inadvertently pit the Old Testament against the New Testament). Unfortunately, you, yourself, are guilty of those very approaches to the New Testament, which is why you fail at understanding how the Old Testament applies to us today. 

Remember, "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness..." (2 Timothy 3:16). If sexual acts were condemned with civil penalties in the Old Covenant, then those penalties apply civilly, in some way, in the New Covenant. Otherwise, you would have to say that God made a mistake when He decreed those sexual acts as punishable by civil law under the Old Covenant. But, once again, it takes wisdom to understand how they apply today because the world has changed since the times of the Old Covenant. But the moral indictment against certain sexual behaviors does not change because moral laws are eternal, by nature.

----------


## pcosmar

> The only way we can answer the question, "Should X be criminalized," is by, first, answering, "What does God say about X?"


Why answer it? Why would you seek to criminalize?

Why would you become the accuser?

This is not what we are called to do.



> The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me, Because the LORD has anointed me To bring good news to the afflicted; He has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, *To proclaim liberty to captives And freedom to prisoners*

----------


## Theocrat

> Why answer it? Why would you seek to criminalize?
> 
> Why would you become the accuser?
> 
> This is not what we are called to do.


Because if you want to have a just society, then there needs to be an absolute standard for determining what is just and unjust behavior. Once you have established that, then you can deal with how unjust behavior ought to be punished. Why is that? Because God desires holiness from His creatures, not just internally but also externally, which is why God expects us to put away evil from society as it emerges. And, of course, evil is defined by God's Word, not majority opinion nor by current trends of acceptable behavior.

----------


## pcosmar

> Because if you want to have a just society, then there needs to be an absolute standard for determining what is just and unjust behavior.


I *expect* no such thing in this world.

and history shows that all societies in all the world know the same laws because we are born knowing it.
And humans have filled the earth.. and with lawful society,,, and corruption.

No One Gets Any *Power* in this World except Satan gives it. 
He rules all the kingdoms of this world.. Called "the Prince of this World" by Jesus..

The End of that is coming. But for now.  the theocracy on this world is evil only.

Why would one want to be on the same side as the accuser of the brethren?

----------


## hells_unicorn

> Cool.  Rule your household as you see fit.  That's what all people should do.  But the Sabbath is *not* Sunday.  It just isn't.  Maybe TER will chime in on this, but the Christian historical record is clear.  Christians did not believe the Sabbath was changed to Sunday.  At some point, TER would say since the apostles but I would say much later, the "Sabbath" and "the Lord's Day" were both kept.  Then for the "official" church the Sabbath was by in large phased out.
> 
> So here again we have a problem with applying what you feel is morally right to the larger civil society.  So the government enforce the sanctity of Sabbath especially when most Christians are confused as to which day it is?


The Old Sabbath was kept briefly after Christ's ascension because the temple was still standing, but its intended purpose had ceased and the apostles kept it as an opportunity to preach the Gospel. When God ordained the destruction of the temple by the Roman authorities, he put an end to the Old Sabbath permanently and there is only The Lord's Day. The only people who deny this are a rag-tag group of unbelieving Jews, many of whom have been deteriorating into secular humanism, and a lone cult that formed out of the ashes of the Millerites and their false prophet.

No one is confused on the day that Christians are to worship, and anyone who would like to make it seem as though anyone other than Seventh Day Adventists and Christ-hating Jews are confused on this point would do well to read the following tract again.




> Seventh Day Adventism  Of God or of Satan? and The Perpetual Binding Obligation of the Fourth Commandment Defended
> 
> Seventh Day Adventists hold that it was the Emperor Constantines Edict in the year A.D. 321 which changed the seventh day of the week to the first day to be observed as the Lords Day or the Christian Sabbath. This is quite untrue. Constantine, on becoming a Christian, merely ratified what was the universally established practice from the days of the apostles. Ignatius, in his Epistle writeen in A.D. 107, Justin Martyr in his Apology A.D. 140, Tertuillian (A.D. 160-230) in his Answer, Clement of Alexandria in Book VII, ch. 12, A.D. 168, all clearly state that the first day of the week was observed since the days of the apostles as the Christian Sabbaththe day commemorating the Resurrection of Christ from the dead.
> 
> It hath been the constant practice of all Christs Churches in the whole world ever since the days of the apostles to this day, to assemble for public worship on the Lords Day, as a day set apart thereto by the apostles. Yea, so universal was the judgment and practice that there is no Church, no one writer, or one heretic that I remember to have read of, that can be proved even to have dissented or denied it till of late time. (Baxter on The Divine Appointment of the Lords Day).
> 
> Scriptural Evidences of the Change of Day
> 
> A certain emphasis seems to be placed precisely upon the fact that it was on the first day of the week that He rose. This is true of all the accounts of His rising; Luke, for example, after telling us that Jesus rose on the first day of the week, on coming to add the account of His appearing to His two disciples journeying to Emmaus, throws what almost seems to be a superfluous stress on that also having happened on that very day. It is in Johns account, however, that this emphasis is most noticeable. Now, on the first day of the week, he tells us cometh Mary Magdalene early, to find the tomb empty. And then a little later: When wherefore it was evening on that day, the first day of the week, Jesus showed Himself to His assembled followersAfter this pointedly indicating that it was on the evening of precisely the first day of the week that Jesus showed Himself to His assembled disciples, John proceeds equally sharply to define the time of His next showing of Himself to them as after eight days; that is to say, it was on the first day of the week that His disciples were again within, and Jesus manifested Himself to them. The appearance is strong that our Lord, having crowded the day of His rising with manifestations, disappeared for a whole week to appear again on the first day of the week. George Z. Gray seems justified, therefore, in suggesting that the full effect of our Lords sanction of the first day of the week as the appointed day of His meeting with His disciples can be fitly appreciated only by considering with His manifestations also His disappearancesIs it possible to exaggerate the effect of this blank space of time, in fixing and defining the impressions received through His visitsThere is an appearance at least that the first day of the week was becoming under this direct sanction of the risen Lord the appointed day of Christian assemblies. That the Christians were early driven to separate themselves from the Jews (observer Acts 19:9) and had soon established regular times of assembling themselves together we know from an exhortation to the Hebrews. 1 Corinthians 16:2: Upon the first day of the week let everyone of you lay by Him in store, as God hath prospered him, ect., suggests that their ordinary day of assembly was on the first day of the week. It is clear from a passage in Acts 20:7, that the custom of gathering together to break bread was upon the first day of the week.We learn, from a passing reference in Revelation 1:10 that the designation the Lords Day had already established itself in Christian usageWith such suggestions behind us, we cannot wonder that the Church emerges from the Apostolic age with the first day of the week firmly established as its day of religious observance. Nor can we doubt that apostolic sanction of this establishment of it is involved in this fact(The Foundations of the Sabbath in the Word of God. By Rev. Prof. B.B. Warfield, D.D., L.L.D.).
> ...

----------


## helmuth_hubener

Oh please, Unicorn.  That tract is over-the-top.  Tell me this: exactly how many Adventist children died horrible deaths from rickets between 1870 and 1909?

Could it be.... zero?

When it tosses out a baseless accusation like that to prove how demon-directed and Satanic the murderous prophetess was, slaughtering vast mountains of children with egglessness and stomping over the carcasses, it discredits the entire rest of the tract, showing the author is just not a serious person and not concerned with intellectual honesty.

----------


## erowe1

> baptists of any stripe are a different breed entirely and while some are faithful Christians, they arent Protestants in any historical sense.


I can't speak for other Baptists, but in my case you hit the nail on the head. "Protestant" is not a good label for what I am. 

I'm a Christian. Christianity has been around for 2,000 years. Protestantism has only been around for 500. Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy have each been around about 1,400 or so.

----------


## erowe1

> But since Jesus is the Lord of the Sabbath, if Sunday is the Lord's Day, I believe it would logically follow that sunday is the Christian sabbath[/COLOR]


What kind of ridiculous contorted logic is that?

You might as well say that it logically follows that Sunday is the Christian Monday, or Tuesday, or any other day.

Yes, Sunday is the Lord's Day. Yes, it has been revered as a day of remembering the resurrection since the time of the apostles. Yes, it's true that no Christians since Pentecost have ever been obligated to observe the Sabbath according to the covenant God made with Israel, whether on the 7th day of the week or the 1st. Those who had been raised as Torah observant Israelites continued to observe it as they always had. But when Gentiles came to faith in Jesus, they were no more obligated to observe the Sabbath than they were to get circumcised. However, neither the apostles nor any other Christians whose writings we have from at least the first two centuries of Christianity made an equation like the one you did, that Sunday is the new Sabbath. In fact, they distinguished the two.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I can't speak for other Baptists, but in my case you hit the nail on the head. "Protestant" is not a good label for what I am. 
> 
> I'm a Christian. Christianity has been around for 2,000 years. Protestantism has only been around for 500. Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy have each been around about 1,400 or so.


It of course depends on what you mean by Protestantism.  I obviously believe the apostles taught the same doctrine we do, but in a historical sense you' enot wrong here.



> What kind of ridiculous contorted logic is that?
> 
> You might as well say that it logically follows that Sunday is the Christian Monday, or Tuesday, or any other day.
> 
> Yes, Sunday is the Lord's Day. Yes, it has been revered as a day of remembering the resurrection since the time of the apostles. Yes, it's true that no Christians since Pentecost have ever been obligated to observe the Sabbath according to the covenant God made with Israel, whether on the 7th day of the week or the 1st. Those who had been raised as Torah observant Israelites continued to observe it as they always had. But when Gentiles came to faith in Jesus, they were no more obligated to observe the Sabbath than they were to get circumcised. However, neither the apostles nor any other Christians whose writings we have from at least the first two centuries of Christianity made an equation like the one you did, that Sunday is the new Sabbath. In fact, they distinguished the two.


The reason given for following the sabbath is that God created the earth in six days and rested one, so to say we are not bound by it makes little sense.  I don't believe the sabbath was a ceremonial law but rather a moral one

----------


## erowe1

> The reason given for following the sabbath is that God created the earth in six days and rested one, so to say we are not bound by it makes little sense.  I don't believe the sabbath was a ceremonial law but rather a moral one


The day he rested was the 7th (which is incidentally, also the day Jesus rested immediately before his resurrection). That is a historic fact that will never change. The sabbath law was never just to rest one day out of 7, but to rest on the same day God did, the 7th. If that's not the day you're resting, then you're not observing the sabbath law.

The apostle did treat the sabbath command as not obligatory. But they never suggested that the sabbath day could ever be any other day than the 7th. Nor did they relate it in any way to the Lord's Day.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> The day he rested was the 7th (which is incidentally, also the day Jesus rested immediately before his resurrection). That is a historic fact that will never change. The sabbath law was never just to rest one day out of 7, but to rest on the same day God did, the 7th. If that's not the day you're resting, then you're not observing the sabbath law.
> 
> The apostle did treat the sabbath command as not obligatory. But they never suggested that the sabbath day could ever be any other day than the 7th. Nor did they relate it in any way to the Lord's Day.


//*8* “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.*9* Six days you shall labor, and do all your work,*10* but the seventh day is a Sabbath to theLord your God. On it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, or your daughter, your male servant, or your female servant, or your livestock, or the sojourner who is within your gates.*11* *For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.//

*I believe the good and necessary consequence for observance on the first day of the week is sufficient, but even if not, how in the world does this just go away?  I could understand saying its the seventh day, or that you just have to pick a day, but I can't fathom how you could look at the reason God gave that law and still say we can just totally ignore it.

However, since the sabbath was a day of holy convocation (worship) and the apostles worshipped on the Lord's Day (and also Isaiah 58 refers to the sabbath as "my" [the Lord's] holy day) there's a clear good and necessary consequence that the sabbath should be observed the first day of the week.  Of course if baptists were good with good and necessary consequence, they would also have their whole households baptized.

----------


## Christian Liberty

Also I believe the switch to the first day was in honor of the resurrection (while still keeping the one in seven principle established at creation) so it makes sense that Christ would have rested in the tomb the seventh day.

----------


## erowe1

> //[FONT="]*8* “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.[/FONT][FONT="] [/FONT][FONT="]*9* Six days you shall labor, and do all your work,[/FONT][FONT="] [/FONT][FONT="]*10* but the seventh day is a Sabbath to theLord your God. On it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, or your daughter, your male servant, or your female servant, or your livestock, or the sojourner who is within your gates.[/FONT][FONT="] [/FONT][FONT="]*11* *For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.//
> 
> *I believe the good and necessary consequence for observance on the first day of the week is sufficient, but even if not, how in the world does this just go away?  I could understand saying its the seventh day, or that you just have to pick a day, but I can't fathom how you could look at the reason God gave that law and still say we can just totally ignore it.
> [/FONT]
> However, since the sabbath was a day of holy convocation (worship) and the apostles worshipped on the Lord's Day (and also Isaiah 58 refers to the sabbath as "my" [the Lord's] holy day) there's a clear good and necessary consequence that the sabbath should be observed the first day of the week.  Of course if baptists were good with good and necessary consequence, they would also have their whole households baptized.


According to the very passage you quoted, if you don't observe the Sabbath on the 7th day, then what you're doing is not observing the Sabbath, but something else.

----------


## erowe1

> Also I believe the switch to the first day was in honor of the resurrection (while still keeping the one in seven principle established at creation) so it makes sense that Christ would have rested in the tomb the seventh day.


I agree that early Christian setting apart of the 1st day was primarily in remembrance of the resurrection. But we have absolutely zero evidence that any early Christians (at least throughout the first two centuries) thought of this as a sabbath, and abundant evidence that they distinguished it from the sabbath.

----------


## Christian Liberty

Are you arguing that Christians are bound to a seventh day sabbath or that they arent bound to any sabbath?

----------


## erowe1

> Are you arguing that Christians are bound to a seventh day sabbath or that they arent bound to any sabbath?


First of all, that's a redundant question. The 7th day sabbath is the only sabbath. There is no other one. The very passage you just quoted says that as clearly as can be.

And I am saying Christians are not bound to it.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> I can't speak for other Baptists, but in my case you hit the nail on the head. "Protestant" is not a good label for what I am. 
> 
> I'm a Christian. Christianity has been around for 2,000 years. Protestantism has only been around for 500. Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy have each been around about 1,400 or so.


Orthodoxy dates itself to the day of Pentacost, FWIW. 


ca. 30-33 Holy Spirit descends on the day of Pentecost.34 Apostle Peter founds See of Antioch.35 Name _Christian_ first used in Antioch.

The Great Schism and the birthday of the Roman Catholic Church is 1054, which is not controversial, AFAIK. I've seen it in secular textbooks when I took Western music history classes many, many years ago.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Orthodoxy dates itself to the day of Pentacost, FWIW. 
> 
> 
> ca. 30-33 Holy Spirit descends on the day of Pentecost.34 Apostle Peter founds See of Antioch.35 Name _Christian_ first used in Antioch.
> 
> The Great Schism and the birthday of the Roman Catholic Church is 1054, which is not controversial, AFAIK. I've seen it in secular textbooks when I took Western music history classes many, many years ago.


Of course its controversial, Catholics think its the opposite way around 

But the real point is that the doctrines that Rome and the Orthodox teach today have not existed for 2000 years.  I don't think I'd say 1400 either but it depends on which doctrines you're talking about.  I'd argue that modern Rome started/apostasized with Trent though Rome was corrupt before that.

----------


## erowe1

> Orthodoxy dates itself to the day of Pentacost, FWIW.


I realize that that's the standard propaganda you learn from EO apologists. But there's no historical basis for it that would be recognizable to any objective observer. In order for you to say that, you have to either redefine Eastern Orthodoxy so as to allow it to include churches that fail to exhibit features that today's Eastern Orthodox claim are essential to that denomination, or else you have to make believe things about history that just aren't true.

----------


## TER

> I realize that that's the standard propaganda you learn from EO apologists. But there's no historical basis for it that would be recognizable to any objective observer. In order for you to say that, you have to either redefine Eastern Orthodoxy so as to allow it to include churches that fail to exhibit features that today's Eastern Orthodox claim are essential to that denomination, or else you have to make believe things about history that just aren't true.


Hi erowe,

You said above that the Eastern Orthodox Church has been around for 1400 years or so.  What date, then, would you more specifically state it started?

----------


## erowe1

> Hi erowe,
> 
> You said above that the Eastern Orthodox Church has been around for 1400 years or so.  What date, then, would you more specifically state it started?


Like many historical things, it was a development that didn't have just one single starting point. There were a series of watershed moments that can be debated as to which were more or less significant.

If I have to pick a single event, I would pick either the Qunisext Council in the late 7th century or the Second Council of Nicaea in the 8th century. In the former case, its significance is that it's when the Pentarchy, which is a defining feature of Eastern Orthodox as it has come to be defined since then (parallel to the Pope for Roman Catholics), came about. In the latter case, I would say that, since it's the most recent council that Eastern Orthodox consider to be ecumenical, and so agreement with it must be a sine qua non of Eastern Orthodoxy, and of course it could not have been a sine qua non of Christianity before that time since it hadn't happened yet, and (as we can easily demonstrate) many earlier fathers, even among those who are revered as saints in Eastern Orthodoxy, wouldn't have accepted its dogmas.

Another way I might approach it would be to go back to when a more unified organization out of which both Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy developed and went their separate ways. Looked at this way I would probably pick the tenure of Pope Gregory the Great around AD 600, since he, more than anyone else, moved the papacy toward the pretense of authority over the universal church that is such a defining feature of Roman Catholicism.

----------


## TER

> Like many historical things, it was a development that didn't have just one single starting point. There were a series of watershed moments that can be debated as to which were more or less significant.
> 
> If I have to pick a single event, I would pick either the Qunisext Council in the late 7th century or the Second Council of Nicaea in the 8th century. In the former case, its significance is that it's when the Pentarchy, which is a defining feature of Eastern Orthodox as it has come to be defined since then (parallel to the Pope for Roman Catholics) came about. *In the latter case, I would say that, since it's the most recent council that Eastern Orthodox consider to be ecumenical, and so agreement with it must be a sine qua non of Eastern Orthodoxy, and of course it could not have been a sine qua non of Christianity before that time since it hadn't happened yet, and (as we can easily demonstrate) many earlier fathers, even among those who are revered as saints in Eastern Orthodoxy, wouldn't have accepted its dogmas.*


Thank you for your response.  Before I address the bold above, where did the Church of the first 7 centuries go?

----------


## Christian Liberty

They call it "Presbyterianism"

----------


## TER

> They call it "Presbyterianism"


Wiki is not infallible, but it says on the first sentence that "Presbyterianism is a part of the Reformed tradition within Protestantism which traces its origins to the British Isles". There is a long history before they started.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Wiki is not infallible, but it says on the first sentence that "Presbyterianism is a part of the Reformed tradition within Protestantism which traces its origins to the British Isles". There is a long history before they started.


In its modern form it started after the Reformation yes, but it is Biblical and thus the apostles taught it

----------


## TER

> In its modern form it started after the Reformation yes, but it is Biblical and thus the apostles taught it


The next sentence in Wiki says: "Presbyterian churches derive their name from the presbyterian form of church government, which is governed by representative assemblies of elders."  

This form of Church governance is indeed biblical and the Apostle's taught it.  It was what we find in the early centuries centuries in the Bishops of the early great Christian cities and in the Holy Ecumenical Councils.  This form has extended all the way down in apostolic succession in the Orthodox Church, and has not in the modern Presbyterian Church, which formed after the Reformation.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> The next sentence in Wiki says: "Presbyterian churches derive their name from the presbyterian form of church government, which is governed by representative assemblies of elders."  
> 
> This form of Church governance is indeed biblical and the Apostle's taught it.  It was what we find in the early centuries centuries in the Bishops of the early great Christian cities and in the Holy Ecumenical Councils.  This form has extended all the way down in apostolic succession in the Orthodox Church, and has not in the modern Presbyterian Church, which formed after the Reformation.


What is the basis for your claim that Presbyterians do not practice Presbyterial form?

----------


## erowe1

> Thank you for your response.  Before I address the bold above, where did the Church of the first 7 centuries go?


It never went anywhere. It's still here. It's comprised of everyone with saving faith in Jesus Christ, regardless what denominational organization they may belong to. Those denominations (of which Eastern Orthodoxy is just one) are many and come and go. But there is just one Church.

----------


## erowe1

> This form of Church governance is indeed biblical and the Apostle's taught it.  It was what we find in the early centuries centuries in the Bishops of the early great Christian cities and in the Holy Ecumenical Councils.


Your first sentence is true. Your second is false.

In the age of the apostles, "bishop" and "elder" were just two different words for the same thing. There was no such thing as a bishop of a city. The fact that such things are part of the essence of Eastern Orthodoxy is additional proof that the apostolic Church was not the same thing as it. And the apostles didn't give these bishop/elders the authority to get together in a small group of just a few hundred and claim that their group was a "Holy Ecumenical Council." In truth, there has never been an ecumenical council comprised of anyone other than the apostles themselves (the only Christian leaders ever to have authority over the whole universal Church), only local councils, with some being bigger than others.

----------


## TER

> What is the basis for your claim that Presbyterians do not practice Presbyterial form?


I am not saying that the Presbyterian Church does not practice a Presbyterial form, I am stating that it lacks apostolic succession going back through the centuries to the early Church.

----------


## TER

> It never went anywhere. It's still here. It's comprised of everyone with saving faith in Jesus Christ, regardless what denominational organization they may belong to. Those denominations (of which Eastern Orthodoxy is just one) are many and come and go. But there is just one Church.


So when did they stopped ordaining priests and bishops?

----------


## TER

> Your first sentence is true. Your second is false.
> 
> In the age of the apostles, "bishop" and "elder" were just two different words for the same thing. There was no such thing as a bishop of a city. The fact that such things are part of the essence of Eastern Orthodoxy is additional proof that the apostolic Church was not the same thing as it. And the apostles didn't give these bishop/elders the authority to get together in a small group of just a few hundred and claim that their group was a "Holy Ecumenical Council." In truth, there has never been an ecumenical council comprised of anyone other than the apostles themselves (the only Christian leaders ever to have authority over the whole universal Church), only local councils, with some being bigger than others.


The Apostle's established a Church.  Can you name me some members of this Church in the second century?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I am not objecting that the Presbyterian Church does not practice a Presbyterial form, I am stating that it lacks apostolic succession going back through the centuries to the early Church.


I question the claim that Presbyterians lack apostolic succession.  Certainly Presbyterian pastors have a line of ordination tracing back to the earliest Reformed churches, which would trace back through the older Catholic Church and ultimately through the apostles.  This isn't something I'm an expert on, but Presbyterians don't just ordain people in their local church without the imput of the broader church like baptists and congregationalists sometimes do.

----------


## TER

> I question the claim that Presbyterians lack apostolic succession.  Certainly Presbyterian pastors have a line of ordination tracing back to the earliest Reformed churches, which would trace back through the older Catholic Church and ultimately through the apostles.  This isn't something I'm an expert on, but Presbyterians don't just ordain people in their local church without the imput of the broader church like baptists and congregationalists sometimes do.


When Presbyterianism was created after the Reformation in the British Isles, there existed other ancient cities whose Bishops were from the One, Holy, Catholic Church as called by the First Ecumenical Council, and ordained in a direct line of succession from the Apostles, around a common faith and sacramental unity.  These are the cities of Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, Constantinople, Serbia, Georgia, Russia, Ukraine, Athens, Corinth, Thessalonica, Ephesus, etc etc etc (it was quite widely spread due to the missionary vigor and blood of the Saints.)   Indeed, in the first millenium, it was this same Church which existed in the British Isles.  These local churches claimed to be One Church, spanning nations and different empires, and shared one Holy Eucharist and could trace their sacramental unity back to the early Church via the mystery of holy ordination.  I am simply saying that these Presbyterians you allude to were not in sacramental communion with this ancient Church NOT because of their form of presbyterial church governance, but because of their doctrines which the ancient Church professed to be heretical and impediments to sacramental and spiritual communion and unity.

----------


## erowe1

> I am not saying that the Presbyterian Church does not practice a Presbyterial form, I am stating that it lacks apostolic succession going back through the centuries to the early Church.


In the only sense that any apostolic succession can actually reliably be asserted, all Christians have it. Everyone alive today who believes the Gospel learned it from someone who learned it from someone who learned it from someone, eventually going back to the apostles.

On the other hand, in the sense you mean, that the there is an unbroken chain of bishops ordained by bishops ordained by bishops, going back to bishops who were ordained by the apostles, the problem is not that such a thing doesn't exist. It probably does. And I see no reason to deny that it really does apply to many elders in today's Presbyterian churches. The problem is, it can never be demonstrated. Nobody can ever say that any given bishop has this succession or doesn't. There do not exist reliable lists of these chains of ordination going all the way back to the apostles. Those who claim to have such lists always end up relying on unreliable lists comprised no earlier than the mid-second century, by church historians like Hegesippus, who (provided they weren't being outright dishonest) mistakenly assumed that the models of church leadership of earlier generations had to be the same as what they experienced in their own days, which we can prove not to be the case.

Even in the apostles' own age, churches were starting up all over the world, faster than the apostles and elder/bishops ordained by them could keep up with. The apostles had no requirement that these elder/bishops had to have been ordained by apostles or by a chain of elder/bishops going back to the apostles, in order to be legitimate or to go on to ordain other elder/bishops themselves.

----------


## erowe1

> So when did they stopped ordaining priests and bishops?


Never. That still happens.

Understand, though, that according to the apostolic model what you are calling priests and bishops are just two names for one office. Those words come from transliteration of _presbyteros_ and _episkopos_. But if we translated them instead of transliterating them, they just mean elder and overseer. Another word that the apostles used for that same office was _poimenos_, which means shepherd or pastor.

I don't know of any churches that don't have these offices in some form.

----------


## erowe1

> The Apostle's established a Church.  Can you name me some members of this Church in the second century?


I can't look into their hearts and say who had genuine saving faith, thus belonging to the universal invisible Church that the apostles established. But sure, I can name some people who outwardly aligned themselves with the visible Church. Whether any given one of these people were genuine members of the Church is something only God knows, and I leave it to him to say.

----------


## TER

> In the only sense that any apostolic succession can actually reliably be asserted, all Christians have it. Everyone alive today who believes the Gospel learned it from someone who learned it from someone who learned it from someone, eventually going back to the apostles.
> 
> On the other hand, in the sense you mean, that the there is an unbroken chain of bishops ordained by bishops ordained by bishops, going back to bishops who were ordained by the apostles, the problem is not that such a thing doesn't exist. It probably does. And I see no reason to deny that it really does apply to many elders in today's Presbyterian churches. The problem is, it can never be demonstrated. Nobody can ever say that any given bishop has this succession or doesn't. There do not exist reliable lists of these chains of ordination going all the way back to the apostles. Those who claim to have such lists always end up relying on unreliable lists comprised no earlier than the mid-second century, by church historians like Hegesippus, who (provided they weren't being outright dishonest) mistakenly assumed that the models of church leadership of earlier generations had to be the same as what they experienced in their own days, which we can prove not to be the case.
> 
> Even in the apostles' own age, churches were starting up all over the world, faster than the apostles and elder/bishops ordained by them could keep up with. The apostles had no requirement that these elder/bishops had to have been ordained by apostles or by a chain of elder/bishops going back to the apostles, in order to be legitimate or to go on to ordain other elder/bishops themselves.


Erowe, can you name me a Christian of the second century?

Also, we have discussed before the ancient writings, including the Holy Bible, which demonstrates that God's grace is active in ordination.  Indeed, as Christians, we know it is the Holy Spirit which is transferred, which are explicitly said to happen in writings of the first centuries.

Now, if you can name some the Christians who followed after the Apostle's, then we might be able to learn what Bishop and presbyters and deacon meant to mean to the Christian Church at that early time.

----------


## TER

> I can't look into their hearts and say who had genuine saving faith, thus belonging to the universal invisible Church that the apostles established. But sure, I can name some people who outwardly aligned themselves with the visible Church. Whether any given one of these people were genuine members of the Church is something only God knows, and I leave it to him to say.


Please, name them.  Would you like to discuss St. Ignatius?  I think he says some things which contradicts what you have written above. 

Or St. Ireneaus?  St. Cyril?

Who is the model you look for to what the Church believed and practiced in the second and third centuries?

----------


## erowe1

> Indeed, in the first millenium, it was this same Church which existed in the British Isles.


This is a great example. It was Patrick of Ireland who brought Christianity there, and he ordained elders. But he himself didn't have apostolic succession. His calling to that ministry came (at least as he understood it) directly from Jesus through a spiritual encounter. Contemporary with him, Pope Celestine sent Palladius as an ordained bishop to Ireland, and he found a population that was already Christian, complete with elders, who opposed him and did not want to come under his leadership. Irish Christianity developed from the ministry of Patrick, not Palladius, and it took centuries for Rome to get control over it.

----------


## TER

> This is a great example. It was Patrick of Ireland who brought Christianity there, and he ordained elders. But he himself didn't have apostolic succession. His calling to that ministry came (at least as he understood it) directly from Jesus through a spiritual encounter. Contemporary with him, Pope Celestine sent Palladius as an ordained bishop to Ireland, and he found a population that was already Christian, complete with elders, who opposed him and did not want to come under his leadership. Irish Christianity developed from the ministry of Patrick, not Palladius, and it took centuries for Rome to get control over it.



Actually, St. Patrick was ordained by the Church in Rome which was part of the One Church at that time (there was a Pentarchy of Patriarchates, and Rome was one of them).

----------


## erowe1

> Please, name them.  Would you like to discuss St. Ignatius?  I think he says some things which contradicts what you have written above. 
> 
> Or St. Ireneaus?  St. Cyril?
> 
> Who is the model you look for to what the Church believed and practiced in the second and third centuries?


You say "name them" as if you would expect me to name all of them.

Yes, Ignatius, Irenaeus, and Cyril were professing Christians.

The true model for churches isn't from the second century, but from the first. And historically speaking there is no one single model of second-century Christian churches. Christianity at that time was very diverse, and its churches fit many different models, some conforming more closely to the tradition of the apostles than others.

I should also say that I don't think the apostles set forth a very strict single model of church organization that all churches must follow. Their dictates left room for variation.

But we do know that they didn't ordain any bishops over whole cities. Their own writings show this. And when Ignatius wrote his letters in the early second century, we can see from them that the monarchical bishop model he favored was apparently a relatively new thing that was not very widely accepted, and he had his work cut out for him helping to establish it. It's clear from his tendentiousness that alongside those believers that recognized the city-wide authority of the bishops he endorsed were many others who did not. Incidentally, in his arguing for the special position to be held by the monarchical bishops in Asia Minor that he endorsed, he never once pretended that this model  went back to the apostles. Nor did he appeal to apostolic succession for the bishops whom he endorsed, nor did he claim it for himself.

----------


## erowe1

> Actually, St. Patrick was ordained by the Church in Rome which was part of the One Church at that time (there was a Pentarchy of Patriarchates, and Rome was one of them).


Actually, no, he wasn't. And we have his own writings to consult on that matter.

----------


## TER

> Actually, no, he wasn't. And we have his own writings to consult on that matter.


You can chose your sources, and I can chose mine!  

Let's go back to the second century saints as I think it will help shed light on what Christians mean by 'Apostolic succession' and the ecclesiastical structure of the growing Church in the first centuries.

----------


## erowe1

> You can chose your sources, and I can chose mine!


But do you choose them based on their value in resolving the historical question we're asking, or based on their support for the position you want to support?

Because when it comes to the beliefs Patrick of Ireland, what sources trump the writings of Patrick of Ireland?

----------


## TER

> You say "name them" as if you would expect me to name all of them.
> 
> Yes, Ignatius, Irenaeus, and Cyril were professing Christians.
> 
> The true model for churches isn't from the second century, but from the first. And historically speaking there is no one single model of second-century Christian churches. Christianity at that time was very diverse, and its churches fit many different models, some conforming more closely to the tradition of the apostles than others.
> 
> I should also say that I don't think the apostles set forth a very strict single model of church organization that all churches must follow. Their dictates left room for variation.
> 
> But we do know that they didn't ordain any bishops over whole cities. Their own writings show this. And when Ignatius wrote his letters in the early second century, we can see from them that the monarchical bishop model he favored was apparently a relatively new thing that was not very widely accepted, and he had his work cut out for him helping to establish it. It's clear from his tendentiousness that alongside those believers that recognized the city-wide authority of the bishops he endorsed were many others who did not. Incidentally, in his arguing for the special position to be held by the monarchical bishops in Asia Minor that he endorsed, he never once pretended that this model  went back to the apostles. Nor did he appeal to apostolic succession for the bishops whom he endorsed, nor did he claim it for himself.


Interestingly, there were Bishops over cities by the end of the first century (especially in those missionary ones in far away lands and in the Roman Empire), though it is true that until that time there could be more than one bishop in a city.  We do find, however, by the end of the second century, and going into the third and after, singular Christian Bishops over cities or one geographical area had become widely practiced.  Why do you think that happened?

----------


## TER

> But do you choose them based on their value in resolving the historical question we're asking, or based on their support for the position you want to support?
> 
> Because when it comes to the beliefs Patrick of Ireland, what sources trump the writings of Patrick of Ireland?


Please, quote him then.

----------


## dannno

Does the Bible have an answer for who is supposed to do the prostitutes' laundry? Is the pimp supposed to wash the hoes clothes?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Interestingly, there were Bishops over cities by the end of the first century (especially in those missionary ones in far away lands and in the Roman Empire), though it is true that until that time there could be more than one bishop in a city.  We do find, however, by the end of the second century, and going into the third and after, singular Christian Bishops over cities or one geographical area had become widely practiced.  Why do you think that happened?


Factionalism.

Per Wiki:

//St. Jerome (347–420) "In Epistle Titus", vol. iv, said, "Elder is identical with bishop; and before the urging of the devil gave rise to factionalism in religion, so much that it was being said among the people, 'I am of Paul, I of Apollos, I of Cephas', the churches were governed by a joint council of elders. After it was... decreed throughout the world that one chosen from among the presbyters should be placed over the others."[2] This observation was also made by Chrysostom (349–407) in "Homilia i, in Phil. i, 1" and Theodoret (393–457) in "Interpret ad. Phil. iii", 445.//

----------


## TER

> Factionalism.
> 
> Per Wiki:
> 
> //St. Jerome (347–420) "In Epistle Titus", vol. iv, said, "Elder is identical with bishop; and before the urging of the devil gave rise to factionalism in religion, so much that it was being said among the people, 'I am of Paul, I of Apollos, I of Cephas', the churches were governed by a joint council of elders. After it was... decreed throughout the world that one chosen from among the presbyters should be placed over the others."[2] This observation was also made by Chrysostom (349–407) in "Homilia i, in Phil. i, 1" and Theodoret (393–457) in "Interpret ad. Phil. iii", 445.//


Exactly, which is why the Church developed into one Bishop over a geographical area.  To prevent factionalism and to protect the deposit of the truth, as guardians of the truth, in the communion of the Saints, in the eschaton as the people of God, in the Kingdom of Heaven.  The Church developed its synodical system by the grace of the Holy Spirit.

This was the movement of the Holy Spirit, the work of God, working within the body.  It was the people of God uniting in order and faith and confession, speaking against the current of this sinful age.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Exactly, which is why the Church developed into one Bishop over a geographical area.  To prevent factionalism and to protect the deposit of the truth, as guardians of the truth, in the communion of the Saints, in the eschaton as the people of God, in the Kingdom of Heaven.  The Church developed its synodical system by the grace of the Holy Spirit.
> 
> This was the movement of the Holy Spirit, the work of God, working within the body.  It was the people of God uniting in order and faith and confession, speaking against the current of this sinful age.


I don't believe either the scriptures or the Holy Spirit ever condoned that which is clearly documented as being a switch from the Biblical polity.

----------


## TER

> I don't believe either the *scriptures* or the Holy Spirit ever condoned that which is clearly documented as being a switch from the Biblical polity.


The Scriptures are one long history of switches from not only institutional polity, but from Convenants!

The acts of the Apostle's did not end on the last page of Acts.  But even there, we find the forming of the ecclesiology of the Christian Church, that by the turn of the century, when Apostles still lived, the basic structure (which is still used in the Orhodox Church) is appearing.  Namely, one Bishop per city. 

 And because of this conciliar and synodical structure, the Church has remained united even from the first century, because the Head is Jesus Christ.  Not hidden, or underground, but visibly and outwardly, whose real Saints shed real blood on the earth to witness to the faith of their fathers.

----------


## TER

> I don't believe either the scriptures or the *Holy Spirit* ever condoned that which is clearly documented as being a switch from the Biblical polity.


The Holy Spirit is what intervened in the Council of Jerusalem (the first recorded synod).   Likewise, He has continued to act within the life and experiences of the Church.  Even after the last page of the Book of Acts.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> The Holy Spirit is what intervened in the Council of Jerusalem (the first recorded synod).   Likewise, He has continued to act within the life and experiences of the Church.  Even after the last page of the Book of Acts.


The Council of Jerusalem is recorded as being correct, but the Bereans rightly checked even what the apostles said against the scriptures they have.  Councils may err, have erred (see the "second council of nicea") and should be checked for error.  That doesn't mean they are not subordinate authorities however.

----------


## TER

> The Council of Jerusalem is recorded as being correct, but the Bereans rightly checked even what the apostles said against the scriptures they have.


I don't understand.  Who are the Bereans and what did they check against what?





> Councils may err, have erred ... and should be checked for error.  That doesn't mean they are not subordinate authorities however.


The Church is full of sinners.  Christ did not say that there would not be troubles or difficulties.  In fact, He warned them it would be the case.  That the forces of hell try to destroy the Church, that is a given.  This group of men and women and children called the Church has had to endure through innumerable challenges and pressures and sinful people doing sinful things both within and without.  What distinguishes Her, however, is that She is not overcome, as Christ promised.

Look then and learn where such a Church exists, whose saints span every era, through the rise and fall of Empires and Kingdoms, through glory and subjugation, in basilicas and in chains, through every century going back, and then from _them_, learn the correct doctrines so that you too might be worthy to become a martyr for Christ.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> I don't understand.  Who are the Bereans and what did they check against what?


Acts 17:10-11 The thing they are famous for is that they "searched the scriptures daily, whether those things [presumably the things Paul and Silas were teaching them] were so."  There are even Berean churches (I've been to one) named in honor of these people, because they want to be studying the scriptures daily just as the Bereans did.

----------


## TER

> Acts 17:10-11 The thing they are famous for is that they "searched the scriptures daily, whether those things [presumably the things Paul and Silas were teaching them] were so."  There are even Berean churches (I've been to one) named in honor of these people, because they want to be studying the scriptures daily just as the Bereans did.


Thank you!  

I guess the next questions is, what scriptures were they studying?  As there was no official canon of Scripture for the Jews at that time, I would guess it included the Prophetical books, the Psalms, and the Wisdom books in addition to the Torah.  St. Paul was a Pharisee (who were regarded as the most noble of the Jewish sects, notwithstanding that Christ reprimanded them about hypocrisy), and they held on to the dual authority of the Written Law (the Torah) and the Oral Law (the traditions and teachings and other revered texts from the fathers and holy men before them).  Likewise, within the Christian Church, the Holy Bible is authoritative (the most, it can be argued) as are also the teachings of the Saints and Holy Traditions which followed the time period of the Scriptures and which the believers have held to be God-pleasing, God-inspired and beneficial to the faithful.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> as are also the teachings of the Saints and Holy Traditions which followed the time period of the Scriptures and which the believers have held to be God-pleasing, God-inspired and beneficial to the faithful.


My disagreement with you is not on whether creeds, confessions, councils, church fathers, etc. are authorities in the Christian's life.  Rather the difference is that I hodl that these things are subordinate (non-infallible) authorities while you hold them on par with scripture (unless I'm misunderstanding.)   That's the difference.

----------


## TER

> My disagreement with you is not on whether creeds, confessions, councils, church fathers, etc. are authorities in the Christian's life.  Rather the difference is that I hodl that these things are subordinate (non-infallible) authorities while you hold them on par with scripture (unless I'm misunderstanding.)   That's the difference.


The Holy Scriptures are the ultimate written authority.  But the Holy Spirit, Who is God of God, gives it this authority, just as the Holy Spirit gave the first council in Jerusalem it's authority.   The Scriptures can unfortunately be misinterpreted and mistranslated.  In order to discern the correct interpretation and correct understanding, we must above all pray for the Holy Spirit to enlighten us, and then seek the Church, which St. Paul says, is the pillar and foundation for truth. This is what St. Paul did and what he and the Apostles taught.  It is easy for us to individually misinterpret something (because our framework and knowledge and wisdom is limited to our own personal experience, and we are sinful and imperfect beings), that is why we must seek the community of the faithful and especially the pious and graced amongst them, and seek what their voices say, to learn what the consensus and voice of the Church is.  This is what St. Paul did after his conversion.  Although he was graced by the Holy Spirit and baptized and beheld the risen Lord, he still travelled to Jerusalem to consult with those who were the leaders of the faith, those who were before him, so that he would not preach in vain things he believed which were actually against the witness of the Church and the teaching of the saints.  Though full of zeal and purpose, reborn a Christian true believer, and graced with the Holy Spirit from God on high, he still understood the importance of self-examination and humility and obedience to those before and above him.  We may believe we are inspired by the Holy Spirit, but our own passions and desires can also cloud our thoughts and distance us from truth.  The Spirit of God is the Spirit of Truth and not division.  So, when we believe or interpret something which is different from what the voice of the Church proclaims and has proclaimed, we must be ever cautious lest we are preaching a new gospel and distancing ourselves further from the truth and that holy communion.

There is no religion in Christianity.  There is a way of life, which is as a member of the body of Christ, the Church, which is the communion of united believers around Christ Himself.  Christ said He came to establish His Church, which is to be His Bride in the culmination of this age.  We should then take seriously, as St. Paul did, and as all the holy men and women since the day of Pentecost did, to deny ourselves, humble ourselves, and in faith and trust, enter into this communion, united in mind, spirit, and flesh, as one body partaking in one divine and sacramental love which is the Holy Trinity.  For this is the Kingdom of Heaven, as taught by the Saints, to be united with God.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> The Holy Scriptures are the ultimate written authority.


*God Himself* is the *ultimate* authority.  Right?

I mean, if God came down and said, "You guys got it wrong; this is what I really meant," we'd immediately jump to it and say, "My bad!"  We wouldn't try to explain to Him, "But we can clearly read in Romans chapter....."

_Would we?_  Or would we?






> There is no religion in Christianity.  There is a way of life


 That's what religion is.  That's what the word means, in its true sense.  The root of the word is somehow related to ligament, I believe.  It's the strands and ropes that tie your life together.  

Your habits.  
Your lifestyle. 
Your beliefs.  
Your emotions.  
Your family.    
Your social circle.  
The way you act.  
The way you think.  
Everything about your life.  
Everything of who you are.  
Everything you aspire to be. 
That is your religion.

----------


## TER

> *God Himself* is the *ultimate* authority.  Right?


Yes. That is why I was sure to write down that the Holy Scriputres are the ultimate _written_ authority, and why I explained that it is the Holy Spirit which gives anything in creation authority, including the Scriptures and the Church.




> I mean, if God came down and said, "You guys got it wrong; this is what I really meant," we'd immediately jump to it and say, "My bad!"  We wouldn't try to explain to Him, "But we can clearly read in Romans chapter....."
> 
> _Would we?_  Or would we?


I agree.  Thankfully, God established a Church in which the gates of hell would not overcome so that the wolves in sheep clothing and false prophets might be revealed when they teach things against what the saints before them taught and the holy matrys died confessing.




> That's what religion is.  That's what the word means, in its true sense.  The root of the word is somehow related to ligament, I believe.  It's the strands and ropes that tie your life together.  
> 
> Your habits.  
> Your lifestyle. 
> Your beliefs.  
> Your emotions.  
> Your family.    
> Your social circle.  
> The way you act.  
> ...


If that is the way you understand religion, then I agree, it is similar.

----------


## Christian Liberty

//*God Himself is the ultimate authority. Right?

I mean, if God came down and said, "You guys got it wrong; this is what I really meant," we'd immediately jump to it and say, "My bad!" We wouldn't try to explain to Him, "But we can clearly read in Romans chapter....."

Would we? Or would we?//

Galatians 1:8*

----------


## jonhowe

> Going in the religion section, as I'm primarily directing this at others who acknowledge the authority of scripture (as Vance does.)  For those who dont, I'm not really addressing this at you.
> 
> https://reconvenantersassanach.wordp...-its-problems/
> 
> This was my response to Vance's article today.


If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, 29 then the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the young woman fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he has violated her. He may not divorce her all his days."

So, if a prostitute and a john lost their virginity together but are not "found" (as required in your excerpt from Deuternomy), couldn't they then continue their prostituting and johning indefinitely without an problem? What if the john never "seizes" her and they have sex without any "seizing", does that still count even if they are "found"?

Your silly justification for encouraging the police state is filled with loop holes.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> “If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, 29 then the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the young woman fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he has violated her. He may not divorce her all his days."
> 
> So, if a prostitute and a john lost their virginity together but are not "found" (as required in your excerpt from Deuternomy), couldn't they then continue their prostituting and johning indefinitely without an problem? What if the john never "seizes" her and they have sex without any "seizing", does that still count even if they are "found"?
> 
> Your silly justification for encouraging the police state is filled with loop holes.


To the former, being found means they were caught.

To the latter, the phrasing refers to fornication in that passage.  "seize" is not referring to rape.

I don't support the police state.

----------


## jonhowe

> To the former, being found means they were caught.
> 
> To the latter, the phrasing refers to fornication in that passage.  "seize" is not referring to rape.
> 
> I don't support the police state.


So as long as you arent caught during your 1st sexual encounter, prostitution is ok. So are you actually just calling to outlaw virgin prostitutes?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> So as long as you arent caught during your 1st sexual encounter, prostitution is ok. So are you actually just calling to outlaw virgin prostitutes?


No, you're taking it too literally.  The point is that the only legal categories were "virgin", "widow", "betroathed" and "married."  If you werent any of those you'd be someone who would be legally required to marry.

----------


## jonhowe

> To the former, being found means they were caught.
> 
> To the latter, the phrasing refers to fornication in that passage.  "seize" is not referring to rape.
> 
> I don't support the police state.





> No, you're taking it too literally.  The point is that the only legal categories were "virgin", "widow", "betroathed" and "married."  If you werent any of those you'd be someone who would be legally required to marry.



I'm the one taking the bible too literally? It sounds more like you're just trying to make this passage fit a previously held belief.  You know, like everyone does. Which passage lays out those 4 legal categories, again?

Also, which other passages do i need to feed through your filter to find the true "word of god"?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I'm the one taking the bible too literally? It sounds more like you're just trying to make this passage fit a previously held belief.  You know, like everyone does. Which passage lays out those 4 legal categories, again?
> 
> Also, which other passages do i need to feed through your filter to find the true "word of god"?


Its not a "particular passage" its a hermeneutical principle.  Unfortunately yes, most people do use hermeneutics to basically come up with whatever conclusion they please, however this doesn't make hermeneutic unnecessary.

----------


## TER

> Its not a "particular passage" its a hermeneutical principle.  Unfortunately yes, most people do use hermeneutics to basically come up with whatever conclusion they please, however this doesn't make hermeneutic unnecessary.


CL, which Christian writer ever taught these things you are saying?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> CL, which Christian writer ever taught these things you are saying?


You mean that Deuteronomy 22 isn't saying that prostitution should be legal unless it was the prostitute's first time?  Its not something I've looked for opinions on, but I'd be shocked if you found even one who tried to make that case

----------


## TER

> You mean that Deuteronomy 22 isn't saying that prostitution should be legal unless it was the prostitute's first time?  Its not something I've looked for opinions on, but I'd be shocked if you found even one who tried to make that case


So, none of them, I gather?

----------


## jonhowe

> You mean that Deuteronomy 22 isn't saying that prostitution should be legal unless it was the prostitute's first time?  Its not something I've looked for opinions on, but I'd be shocked if you found even one who tried to make that case


The passage says nothing about prostitution though...

----------


## Christian Liberty

> The passage says nothing about prostitution though...


How on earth does it not?

----------


## Christian Liberty

All prostitution is either fornication or adultery, both of which were crimes (though having different punishments)

----------


## TER

> All prostitution is either fornication or adultery, both of which were crimes (though having different punishments)


And why your fascination?  What have the Saints said regarding prostitution and fornication?

----------


## jonhowe

> How on earth does it not?


You know many virgin prostitutes?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> And why your fascination?  What have the Saints said regarding prostitution and fornication?


I have no idea.

----------


## TER

deleted

----------


## TER

What I said was rude.  Forgive me.  I just mean to say that you are not addressing this topic as a Christian, but more as an Israelite of the Old Testament.  These laws in Deutoronomy do not necessarily apply anymore.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> What I said was rude.  Forgive me.  I just mean to say that you are not addressing this topic as a Christian, but more as an Israelite of the Old Testament.  These laws in Deutoronomy do not necessarily apply anymore.


I didn't see what you wrote, but regardless, I take no personal offense.  

While I believe the ceremonial laws do not apply anymore, I do believe the judicial laws ,to the extent that they punish transgressions on the moral law, are binding on civil magistrates.  That is the basis for my opinion.

Many people believe that the entire Old Testament has been done away with but I don't believe that, rather I believe only the ceremonial laws and the ceremonial aspects of the judicial laws has been done away with.

I'm not "obsessed" with the punishment of prostitutes, nor do I come at this from a perspective of being somehow better.  But much like a Christian society should ban murder (including abortion) and theft, I do not believe a Chrisitan society should tolerate grievous sexual sins or idolatry.

----------


## Theocrat

> What I said was rude.  Forgive me.  I just mean to say that you are not addressing this topic as a Christian, but more as an Israelite of the Old Testament.  These laws in Deutoronomy do not necessarily apply anymore.


TER, I want to point out an assumption that you've made in your statement above. When you accuse CL of "not addressing this topic as a Christian, but more as an Israelite of the Old Testament," you are assuming that Israelites were not Christians under the Old Covenant. But if that were true, then it would mean that no Israelite was connected to the Messiah by faith (which would include church fathers like Abraham, Moses, and David). In effect, you are creating a false dichotomy between the people of God in the Old Testament and the people of God in the New Testament, even though both groups worship the same triune God.

If you want to understand how the laws in the Old Testament apply today, then you have to study them through the eyes of Christ (cf. John 5:45-47), since Christ was the One Who established them with the Father and the Holy Spirit in the Old Covenant. Thus, the ethical principle imbibed in laws such as the ones in Deuteronomy still remain true and relevant for all people today (since Christ has all authority in Heaven and on Earth [cf. Matthew 28:18; 1 Corinthians 15:25-28]). Even the apostle Paul compared New Testament Christians to Old Testament Christians in 1 Corinthians 10:1-4, illustrating that God interacts with His people the same way through covenant blessings and curses.

So, you have no Biblical basis to make contrasts between Christians in the New Testament and Israelites in the Old Testament, as if God's Law had authority over the latter group but not the former. The laws do apply today, but in the greater revelation from Christ in the New Covenant, it takes greater wisdom to understand how they apply today. Once again, all of the laws in the Old Testament have an ethical implication to them, and ethics are eternal since they reflect the character of the triune God. Thus, CL has every right to discern and develop civil laws from laws in the Old Testament. Otherwise, the alternative is appealing to the relative morality of secular humanism (atheism) to frame civil statutes.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Its not a "particular passage" its a hermeneutical principle.  Unfortunately yes, most people do use hermeneutics to basically come up with whatever conclusion they please, however this doesn't make hermeneutic unnecessary.


CL, I think you should ban yourself from using words over three syllables. Before you post, ask yourself: is anyone going to understand this?  Because, as far as I can tell, neither jonhowe nor TER did.

Here's how I would put it:



> I'm the one taking the bible too literally?


 Yes, because you're taking it too literally _in English_, and in 21st Century American modern cultural context. 

The books of the Bible were not written in English. 

They were definitely not written in the 21st century.

They were not written in America. 

And there is essentially nothing modern about them.

So there's your problem. Language only works with shared touch-points.  You wanna understand a book from Mars, maybe you oughta learn something about the Martians.

----------


## jonhowe

> CL, I think you should ban yourself from using words over three syllables. Before you post, ask yourself: is anyone going to understand this?  Because, as far as I can tell, neither jonhowe nor TER did.
> 
> Here's how I would put it:
>  Yes, because you're taking it too literally _in English_, and in 21st Century American modern cultural context. 
> 
> The books of the Bible were not written in English. 
> 
> They were definitely not written in the 21st century.
> 
> ...


Could you explain what meaning is lost in translation here, then?

Is it "virgin"? If so, what is the word in the original language? What are some other alternative translations? Or is there a word in the passage CL has brought forward that actually translates to prostitute?

The quote was provided to me in english. The quote, in english, is being used to justify the police state. I'm working with what I'm given, but I'm open to hearing more.


EDIT: CL is proposing this passage lays out what should be a law.  Here is how I see the elements as set out in this law, so you can show me where I am wrong.

1. If a man meets a virgin...
The 1st factor in the law would be a MAN meeting a virgin. I'm assuming this means the virgin could be man or woman, as it is not specified. However, if a woman meets a virgin (male or female) it does not seem to be covered here. Additionally, if a man meets a person who is NOT a virgin (perhaps they were raped and their rapist escaped, perhaps they are a widow, perhaps they had consensual premarital sex without anyone else's knowledge, who knows) this passage does not seem to apply. I'm not sure how else this line could be interpreted, unless virgin is a mistranslation. CL's claim that everyone was considered either a virgin, betrothed, married, or widowed is quite an optimistic view of the world; I don't think such a time or place ever existed, though, so we need to figure out how this would apply in the REAL world. As an example; I'm not a virgin (or any of the other 3 categories), I assume most prostitutes are not virgins, so how would this apply if I decided one day to go to Amsterdam and legally pay a woman for sex?

2. who is not betrothed...
A virgin who is due to be married is seemingly not covered by this passage, as they would be "betrothed". So would prostitution be legal if a pimp got engaged to a woman and then allowed her to sleep around? Is that a way around the law?

3. and seizes her and lies with her,
I'm going to assume this means "has sex" with her based on CL's claims above. Additionally, in this element it is implied (but notmade clear) that element 1 is referring to female virgins only. Male prostitutes may be in the clear?

4. and they are found...
This seems like a *key* element. What happens if they are not found? If a man meets a virgin and seizes her and lies with her and there's no one around, is it a problem? Does he still have to fork over the schekles? It seems pretty clear that would NOT be the case. Again, I'm open to hearing about any translational issue I may be unaware of his. Perhaps "found" is a mistranslation? Also, what if the situation described occurs exactly as laid out, but only ONE of the parties is found (the other gets away). "they" would not have been found. Is marriage still required? Is the single lady (prostitute) still a "virgin" under CL's categorization system?


5. then the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the young woman fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he has violated her. 
Again this gives further implication that the virgin has to be female. Or maybe it just means that this element of the law only applies to female virgins (or, as CL calls them, prostitutes). Going with CL's idea that this is about prostitution, what if a woman pays a man for sex? Who pays who's father the sheckles?

6. He may not divorce her all his days.
This seems pretty clear.


Not trying to be argumentative; I honestly just don't see how this is about prostitution.

----------


## jmdrake

> Oh please, Unicorn.  That tract is over-the-top.  Tell me this: exactly how many Adventist children died horrible deaths from rickets between 1870 and 1909?
> 
> Could it be.... zero?
> 
> When it tosses out a baseless accusation like that to prove how demon-directed and Satanic the murderous prophetess was, slaughtering vast mountains of children with egglessness and stomping over the carcasses, it discredits the entire rest of the tract, showing the author is just not a serious person and not concerned with intellectual honesty.


Mr. unicorn has no ability to actually reason for himself.

----------


## jmdrake

> TER, I want to point out an assumption that you've made in your statement above. When you accuse CL of "not addressing this topic as a Christian, but more as an Israelite of the Old Testament," you are assuming that Israelites were not Christians under the Old Covenant. But if that were true, then it would mean that no Israelite was connected to the Messiah by faith (which would include church fathers like Abraham, Moses, and David). In effect, you are creating a false dichotomy between the people of God in the Old Testament and the people of God in the New Testament, even though both groups worship the same triune God.


SMH.  Read Hebrews 8 and Jeremiah 31.  What you are failing to realize is that there was an original covenant that predated the "old covenant."  The "old covenant", with the sacrificial system and such, didn't come along until Moses.  Specifically *it didn't come along until the Israelites rejected direct communication with God.*  Go back and read Exodus 20.  God first *spoke* the 10 commandments to Israel.  But they said "Moses.  You speak to us and we will hear.  But don't let God speak to us lest we die."  (Exodus 20:19)  Moses made one of the most profound statements ever.  "Do not fear for God has come to test you and that His fear may be before you so that you may not sin." (Exodus 20:20)  

Now apply what Moses was saying in Exodus 20:20 to what Jeremiah said in Jeremiah 31 starting at verse 31 and the writer of Hebrews 8 said starting at verse 8.  In describing the "new covenant" both the Old Testament and the New Testament describes God "putting the law in their hearts" and "writing them in their minds" and the children of God reaching a point where "None of them shall teach his neighbor and none his brother saying 'Know the Lord', for all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them."

In other words, God was saying that under the new covenant everyone of God's children will ultimately not need to have a "spiritual overseer" and be "taught to know God" or be "forced to obey" God.  Put in their minds?  That means knowing the law.  Written in their hearts?  *That means wanting to keep the law.*  And what makes someone likely to keep the law?  Why knowing the Lawgiver is always present with you.  That is the type of "fear of God" that Moses was wanting the children of Israel to have, which is a fear of disappointing your friend, and knowing that God is always with you so you can't hide the evil that you might want to do.  

Abraham had that kind of relationship with God.  So did Isaac.  So did Jacob.  (Eventually).  Joseph had it.  Moses had it.  All of the children of Israel could have had it.  But they rejected it.  So God said "Let them make me a sanctuary so that I may dwell among them."  That's why God instituted to Old Covenant.  But it was *always* meant to be temporary.  Do Christians feel the need to be circumcised today?  No.  That was a sign of the Old Covenant.  Keeping the Passover and sacrificing a lamb?  Even most Jews don't do that today.  Again, old covenant.  Not worshiping idols, not bearing false witness, honoring your parents etc?  That was the law that predated the Old Covenant and goes all the way back to Eden in principle even though it wasn't written out.  (Cain knew it was wrong to kill Abel even though he had no tables of stone to reference.)  Now it's true that circumcision predates Moses, but it is still Old Covenant because it was only to signify a promise to the descendants of Abraham.  That said, saints that predated Abraham and were not circumcised are still saved anyway.  So the argument that the Old Covenant must still be in force in order for people under the Old Covenant to be saved by faith is fallacious.  Furthermore there were people under the Old Covenant who transcended to the New Covenant and there are people living in the New Testament era who are still bound by the Old Covenant.  In fact I would say that most people have not reached the Hebrews 8 / Jeremiah 31 level of the New Covenant.  That promise is there for you.  But it's a journey you have to commit to.  And it's not easy.  Not because God doesn't do everything needed to make it easy.  But just like the children of Israel, our human inclination is to not want that kind of relationship with God.  After all, with a personal "God is always here" relationship mentality, the children of Israel would have never made a golden calf to worship and engaged in partying and fornication to celebrate it.  We want to do what we want to do.

----------


## jmdrake

> The Old Sabbath was kept briefly after Christ's ascension because the temple was still standing, but its intended purpose had ceased and the apostles kept it as an opportunity to preach the Gospel. When God ordained the destruction of the temple by the Roman authorities, he put an end to the Old Sabbath permanently and there is only The Lord's Day. The only people who deny this are a rag-tag group of unbelieving Jews, many of whom have been deteriorating into secular humanism, and a lone cult that formed out of the ashes of the Millerites and their false prophet.
> 
> No one is confused on the day that Christians are to worship, and anyone who would like to make it seem as though anyone other than Seventh Day Adventists and Christ-hating Jews are confused on this point would do well to read the following tract again.


You know, I'm not sure why Sola_Fide got banned and you haven't been as you violate the forum rules more than anyone.  For the record I haven't, and won't, read any of your stupid tracts.  All that show is that you lack the intelligence to engage in actual theological discourse.  If a Muslim says something I disagree with, I deal with that actual disagreement instead of cutting and pasting some stupid anti-Muslim tract.  I don't even know what sect you are because you haven't had the courage to state it and frankly I don't care.  With regards to your pseudo and infantile "response", you haven't actually refuted anything I said.  I said that it is clear that when the Bible, including the New Testament, talks about the "Sabbath" it is clearly not talking about the first day of the week.  Your admission that the Sabbath was kept after the ascension confirms that.  There are plenty of historical sources that show that early Christians continued to keep the Sabbath (7th day) long after the deaths of all of the apostles.  I was listening to a Sunday keeping pastor on the radio make the statement that this went on until 325 AD.  I don't know if that exact date is correct or not.  But it shows that this is something that has been independently confirmed.

----------


## jmdrake

> The only way we can answer the question, "Should X be criminalized," is by, first, answering, "What does God say about X?" The two questions go together, when we are discussing what sexual sins should receive civil sanctions. But, of course, it takes wisdom to understand how to apply those sanctions in our modern world, and that can be challenging at times, I admit. But, nonetheless, it still needs to be considered when we're assessing public policy and its relation to sexual taboos.


Let's see.  The law of Moses forbade incest.  Abraham was married to his half sister.  Any questions?  Oh I guess Moses should have built a time machine and gone back in time and killed his ancestor cause....well that's the only way your mind can process these things?




> Another thing to keep in mind is that the page marked "New Testament" in our Bibles is not inspired by God.


 I would question the theology of anyone who does not realize that in fulfilling the law and the prophets Jesus fundamentally changed how we relate to God.  The "page mark" isn't Jesus' birth.  It was his death.  When the veil of the temple was rent from top to bottom the sacrificial system ended.  Are you going out, buying a bullock, confessing your sins on its head, slitting its throat and then burning its body?  If not then it's hard for me to take your "There's no difference between the Old and New Testament" claim seriously.  In fact since you don't keep the Sabbath I *really* don't take it seriously.  It's a joke position.




> Remember, "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness..." (2 Timothy 3:16).


Yep.  And included in inspired scripture is Jeremiah 31 and Hebrews 8 which clearly talk about how things are different under the New Covenant.  And the New Covenant is really the original covenant.  Abraham walked and talked with God as a friend.  There's no record of him stoning anyone.  In fact the first time in the Bible where we hear of someone attempting to kill someone for sexual immorality was Judah attempting to burn Tamar for "playing the harlot."  Only she had the evidence to prove that he was her baby daddy.  (Babies as she was having twins).  So Judah said "She is more righteous than I!"  Funny thing is though, he didn't over to burn himself at the stake.  The "law of sin and death", which Paul said Jesus made us free from, was not instituted until after the children of Israel rejected direct communion with God in Exodus 20.  Seriously, all scripture being inspired by God doesn't give you the right to cherry pick and string together Old Testament passages to create your own theology.  Again, read Jeremiah 31 and Hebrews 8 and get back with us.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> Yes.  I am.  Because that's what God says, and I care more about what God thinks than other people


 No you don't. You care more about what _you think_ God thinks.

But why should other people care more about what you think God thinks than what they think God thinks?

If your only "argument" is "_because I say God says so_," then your "argument" really just comes down to "_because I said so_."

In which case, you don't actually have _any_ argument at all (no matter how many assertions you might marshal).

And if that's _not_ your only argument, then you should just get rid of it and go with the other one(s) instead ...

----------


## Occam's Banana

> In God's mind (as defined by the scriptures) adultery and homosexuality and even fornication is worse than stealing a candy bar, yet every libertarian would use force against the latter. *So should [they against] the former.*


If they did, they would not be libertarians***.

Now, you might reply with something like, "Well, they shouldn't be libertarians, then."

To which they might reply with something like, "Well, you shouldn't be Christian, then."

Would you regard this latter assertion to be compelling or decisive?

If not, then why should they regard the former to be so?



*** Libertarians can regard adultery as a breach of contract, which might, if necessary, justify some use of force in making the injured party whole.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> In fact since you don't keep the Sabbath I





> *really don't take it seriously. It's a joke position.*


*

*Theo, just for curiosity, is this claim true or is this just something JM is making up?

There's clearly a difference between old and new.  I don't think anyone disputes that.  Where the differences are I think is what would be disputed.

----------


## jmdrake

> [COLOR=#333333]
> 
> [/B]Theo, just for curiosity, is this claim true or is this just something JM is making up?
> 
> There's clearly a difference between old and new.  I don't think anyone disputes that.  Where the differences are I think is what would be disputed.


Hello CL.  I'm not sure what it is you think I'm making up.    Anyway this is what you should consider.  The Sabbath predates and postdates sin.  It was instituted in the Garden of Eden and, according to Isaiah, it will be kept in the New Earth.  Even your buddy hells_unicorn had to admit that the apostles kept the Sabbath, the 7th day Sabbath which the Jews kept, after the ascension of Christ.  

By contrast, not only were there no penalties for sin in Eden (obviously), the only specified punishment by God for anything before the law of Moses for murder.  And there is no record of any Christian community carrying out Mosaic law penalties for sin or any religious based punishment until Constantine. And the main thing punished?  Heresy.  The New Testament church only disfellowshipped people for immorality.

I'm curious though.  Why do you think I'm making anything up?  I've given Biblical references to support everything I stating.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Hello CL.  I'm not sure what it is you think I'm making up.    Anyway this is what you should consider.  The Sabbath predates and postdates sin.  It was instituted in the Garden of Eden and, according to Isaiah, it will be kept in the New Earth.  Even your buddy hells_unicorn had to admit that the apostles kept the Sabbath, the 7th day Sabbath which the Jews kept, after the ascension of Christ.  
> 
> By contrast, not only were there no penalties for sin in Eden (obviously), the only specified punishment by God for anything before the law of Moses for murder.  And there is no record of any Christian community carrying out Mosaic law penalties for sin or any religious based punishment until Constantine. And the main thing punished?  Heresy.  The New Testament church only disfellowshipped people for immorality.
> 
> I'm curious though.  Why do you think I'm making anything up?  I've given Biblical references to support everything I stating.


I was asking if Theo had ever actually claimed that he doesn't keep the sabbath or if you just made that up.  That was what I was asking about.  Of course you'd say that somebody like HU does NOT keep the sabbath because he (like myself) believes that the sabbath is the first day of the week.

----------


## jmdrake

> I was asking if Theo had ever actually claimed that he doesn't keep the sabbath or if you just made that up.  That was what I was asking about.  Of course you'd say that somebody like HU does NOT keep the sabbath because he (like myself) believes that the sabbath is the first day of the week.


I'm pretty sure that HU does not believe the Sabbath is the first day of the week from what he posted.  But yes, it is clear that HU doesn't keep the Sabbath.  I can't imagine Theo being a Sabbath keeper and keeping quiet in all of the threads where it's been brought up when he's been willing to go on record on far more controversial things like the death penalty for gays.  But anyway, thank you for clarifying what you were saying.

Oh, and just to be clear, here among HU's steaming load of crap is evidence that he doesn't believe what he calls "the Lord's Day" is the Sabbath.

_The Old Sabbath was kept briefly after Christ's ascension because the temple was still standing, but its intended purpose had ceased and the apostles kept it as an opportunity to preach the Gospel. When God ordained the destruction of the temple by the Roman authorities, he put an end to the Old Sabbath permanently and there is only The Lord's Day. The only people who deny this are a rag-tag group of unbelieving Jews, many of whom have been deteriorating into secular humanism, and a lone cult that formed out of the ashes of the Millerites and their false prophet._

And I should have taken more time to reply to his steaming load of crap.  For one thing Seventh Day Adventists are not the only Christians who keep the Sabbath.  In fact the Seventh Day Adventist church got the Sabbath from the Seventh Day Baptist church.  And their are Seventh Day Holiness.  (I met one).  And the World Wide Church of God.  And the Ethiopian Orthodox Church keeps Sabbath and Sunday.  For more see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabbath_in_Christianity

----------


## TER

The reason why the Christian Church founded by Christ and established by the Apostles stopped celebrating the Jewish Sabbath was partly because after the first century, a few communities (of what some call Judaizers) began to place the fellowship of the Sabbath meal of the previous Covenant in the same level, and even above, the Lord's Supper, which always took place on the Lord's Day.  This was similar in vein to the error of St. Peter which needed to be corrected and amended by the council of the Church leaders, as we learn in the Book of Acts.

Biblically (and historically), all the evidence we have demonstrates that the Christians celebrated the communing of the Lord's Body and Blood on the Lord's Day, the Eighth Day, in the worship of the Divine Liturgy.  (The Divine Liturgy as a service has flowered, but the sacredness of the ritual and its position within the week of worship and the life of the baptized Christian, has always been the same).  

This is the celebration and fellowship when the Christians (of all races and former religions!), Jewish and Gentile, came together to worship the Holy Resurrection of the Lord of the Sabbath, Jesus Christ.  This is the fulfillment of time and the Sabbath and the first day of the new creation through Christ. 

This is why you see the Old Covenant Sabbath-keeping practice disappear in the first two centuries (in the very few lands in Palestine which actually kept such a tradition).  This Old Covenant tradition was abandoned by the Christian Church, and this decision was determined _not by a single person_ (and certainly not Emperor Constantine), but by the Holy Spirit and through the will of the catholic and universal Church.  Like a ghost, these Judaizing communities disappeared, and died off and produced no fruit.  Like a branch having fallen and withered away.  This was by the will of God.  For it did not bring communion but division and pride and theological error.  Only the Ethiopian Orthodox can make any sort of claim of maintaining this as an apostolic tradition, but even they acknowledge that it is the Lord's Day which is above every day and the feast of the Holy Eucharist which is the center of the Christian life.  And they certainly don't share many doctrines or traditions with the current reincarnation of Sabbath-keeping believers in Christ which we see today.  In fact, they share much more theologically and ecclesiologically with the Eastern Orthodox Church which predates it.

But what these very few modern Old Covenant Sabbath-keeping Christian communities seek to emulate lent nothing towards the glorious spread of the Christian Faith through the known Empire and past its borders into the rest of the world.  In fact, it disrupted it and created stumbling blocks.  They added nothing to the theological debates to the important Christological questions which were asked through the centuries.  Barely a known Saint can be claimed.  They have no legacy of creating orphanages or hospitals or honorable mention in the history of nations. Like smoke, those splinter and recalcitrant communities disappeared and faded very early in the annals of time.  

Surely, the Church which Christ established would not disappear!  A light on a hill cannot be covered, and Christ's Body is the salt and light of the world!   God surely has not failed!

The Church, which is the pillar and foundation of truth in the world (for it is graced by God Who is above the world), shed away the Old Covenant Sabbath-keeping because the Lord established a New Covenant for _all_ people, Jew and Gentile.   New wine and new wineskins, for not only the circumsized nation of Israel but for the entire human race!  Like in the days of Noah, the old order was supplanted by God and replaced by a new covenant through a baptism of water.  The Church got rid of circumcision and dietary laws and capital punishment and a whole myriad of others things which were considered law and observed by the Jews before Christ came to save the entire world and establish His everlasting and eternal Church, which is the Ark of Salvation.  It was God working in the Church through concilliary voice and sacramental communion and worship, whereby what was old was shed so that the world may be newly baptized in Christ.

I urge those who wish to seek the truth to study history and the writings of the Christians in history.

----------


## hells_unicorn

> I'm pretty sure that HU does not believe the Sabbath is the first day of the week from what he posted.  But yes, it is clear that HU doesn't keep the Sabbath.  I can't imagine Theo being a Sabbath keeper and keeping quiet in all of the threads where it's been brought up when he's been willing to go on record on far more controversial things like the death penalty for gays.  But anyway, thank you for clarifying what you were saying.
> 
> Oh, and just to be clear, here among HU's steaming load of crap is evidence that he doesn't believe what he calls "the Lord's Day" is the Sabbath.
> 
> _The Old Sabbath was kept briefly after Christ's ascension because the temple was still standing, but its intended purpose had ceased and the apostles kept it as an opportunity to preach the Gospel. When God ordained the destruction of the temple by the Roman authorities, he put an end to the Old Sabbath permanently and there is only The Lord's Day. The only people who deny this are a rag-tag group of unbelieving Jews, many of whom have been deteriorating into secular humanism, and a lone cult that formed out of the ashes of the Millerites and their false prophet._
> 
> And I should have taken more time to reply to his steaming load of crap.  For one thing Seventh Day Adventists are not the only Christians who keep the Sabbath.  In fact the Seventh Day Adventist church got the Sabbath from the Seventh Day Baptist church.  And their are Seventh Day Holiness.  (I met one).  And the World Wide Church of God.  And the Ethiopian Orthodox Church keeps Sabbath and Sunday.  For more see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabbath_in_Christianity


You should have taken more time to respond to my "steaming load of crap", because it included a very comprehensive tract debunking the entire Judaizing cult that you continually parade around as being the lone beacon of truth. I absolutely keep The Lord's Day as the Christian Sabbath, that was spelled out specifically in the first post I made on this topic, which included the tract by William Maclean. If I wasn't so severely jet-lagged at a hotel in Kharkiv right now, I'd spend a bit more time wading through this nonsense you've just posted (convenient that you picked out a single paragraph summation I gave in annoyance after you repeatedly refused to even respond to the tract, completely divorcing what I said from context and using the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, which does not give Communion on Saturday), then again, you've already demonstrated that you have the reading comprehension and attention-span of a gnat, so I'll pass and put you back on my ignore list where you belong.

_Edit: Upon looking over some other posts, it's clear to me that you are thoroughly brainwashed and have summarily refused to read contrary evidence when it is provided to you. We're done, keep your cop-outs, and I'll find a better way to spend my time._

----------


## jmdrake

> You should have taken more time to respond to my "steaming load of crap", because it included a very comprehensive tract debunking the entire Judaizing cult that you continually parade around as being the lone beacon of truth.


A) No it didn't liar.

B) I already debunked your steaming pile of crap by pointing out the lie that you were perpetrating that Seventh Day Adventists are the only Christians that keep the Sabbath when Seventh Day Baptists and others were keeping the Sabbath before the Seventh Day Adventist church existed.




> I absolutely keep The Lord's Day as the Christian Sabbath, that was spelled out specifically in the first post I made on this topic, which included the tract by William Maclean.


Another lie.  What you said was "the Old Sabbath" and then talked about "The Lord's Day."  You never identified the "Lord's Day" as the "Christian Sabbath" or any other Sabbath.  Now if you want to pretend that it's the Christian Sabbath and make that claim now okay.  You're wrong but okay.  From your own admission Christians kept what you called "The Old Sabbath" in the New Testament.  And there is no example of Christians in the first few centuries of the Christian churches existence referring to Sunday as "the Sabbath" or "the Christian Sabbath" or using "Sabbath" in connection with Sunday.

Anyway, CL seemed confused because he apparently thought New Testament references to Christians keeping the Sabbath was talking about Sunday.  It wasn't.  It was talking about the same 7th day Sabbath that the Jews kept.  That's the truth.  I know you would rather believe a lie than the truth but it's still the truth.

----------


## hells_unicorn

> Oh please, Unicorn.  That tract is over-the-top.  Tell me this: exactly how many Adventist children died horrible deaths from rickets between 1870 and 1909?
> 
> Could it be.... zero?
> 
> When it tosses out a baseless accusation like that to prove how demon-directed and Satanic the murderous prophetess was, slaughtering vast mountains of children with egglessness and stomping over the carcasses, it discredits the entire rest of the tract, showing the author is just not a serious person and not concerned with intellectual honesty.


There is NOTHING baseless in this tract. It's summed up and includes a list of citations, some of which may be to out-of-print books because it is a bit old, but it is comprehensive enough to exclude Seventh Day Adventism from any pretended orthodoxy or historicity prior to the Millerite cult in 19th century America. Furthermore, I have read several documented cases of children dying because of dietary restrictions similar to what Ellen G. White conjured out of her sickness-induced hallucinations. Actually, we have a couple of confirmed contemporary examples of this occurring in England and Canada within the last couple years, probably because the practitioners were following White's original revelation before it was revised:

https://news.adventist.org/en/all-ne...dventist-diet/
http://www.calgarysun.com/2014/12/15...dventist-faith

It's actually comical to watch these Adventist pastors fall over themselves trying to do damage control and make sure the press knows that their official position is the revised diet (ergo not the original one), though it's also a bit scary because the incompetent media doesn't do its research on the original dietary restrictions that White had in place, which means tragedies like these will continue to happen in isolated cases of Adventist families trying to be more orthodox followers of their departed false prophetess. You would think that in the 21st century we wouldn't see children dying from something so easily prevented as rickets, but false religion does the darndest things, don't ya know? (sarcasm)

If you can't handle a little bit of fire and brimstone because it doesn't gel with your modernist and liberal sensibilities, that's not my problem. We have 2 confirmed deaths of children from dietary commands by a cult leader from the late 19th century happening within the last 5 years, right from the horse's mouth on pro-Adventist sites that took all of 2 minutes for me to track down. You can keep your own arbitrary ideas of intellectual honesty, I'll keep the truth, thank you very much.

----------


## jmdrake

> There is NOTHING baseless in this tract.


You stated that Seventh Day Adventists are the only Christians that keep the Sabbath.  That is a baseless lie and I've proven it and you know it.  Further more it shows that you have the mind of a 7 year old when it comes to debating.  It's called "ad hominem" or "attack the messenger."  You lack the mental capability to deal argue against the truth of the Sabbath so you don't even try.  Instead you lie and continue to falsely claim that it came from Ellen White, when it did not, and you argue against her instead of trying to argue your position.  It's pathetic and further a clear violation of the forum rules.  When you are ready to grow up and actually debate the Sabbath, which is what you pretended to do at first but you really were not doing, I'll be happy to debate you on that.  But I'm not going to get dragged off topic to whatever nonsense argument you want to make.  So child, are you ready to defend your nonsense position, which you already admitted was not true, that the New Testament Sabbath was Sunday?

----------


## Theocrat

> SMH.  Read Hebrews 8 and Jeremiah 31.  What you are failing to realize is that there was an original covenant that predated the "old covenant."  The "old covenant", with the sacrificial system and such, didn't come along until Moses.  Specifically *it didn't come along until the Israelites rejected direct communication with God.*  Go back and read Exodus 20.  God first *spoke* the 10 commandments to Israel.  But they said "Moses.  You speak to us and we will hear.  But don't let God speak to us lest we die."  (Exodus 20:19)  Moses made one of the most profound statements ever.  "Do not fear for God has come to test you and that His fear may be before you so that you may not sin." (Exodus 20:20)  
> 
> Now apply what Moses was saying in Exodus 20:20 to what Jeremiah said in Jeremiah 31 starting at verse 31 and the writer of Hebrews 8 said starting at verse 8.  In describing the "new covenant" both the Old Testament and the New Testament describes God "putting the law in their hearts" and "writing them in their minds" and the children of God reaching a point where "None of them shall teach his neighbor and none his brother saying 'Know the Lord', for all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them."
> 
> In other words, God was saying that under the new covenant everyone of God's children will ultimately not need to have a "spiritual overseer" and be "taught to know God" or be "forced to obey" God.  Put in their minds?  That means knowing the law.  Written in their hearts?  *That means wanting to keep the law.*  And what makes someone likely to keep the law?  Why knowing the Lawgiver is always present with you.  That is the type of "fear of God" that Moses was wanting the children of Israel to have, which is a fear of disappointing your friend, and knowing that God is always with you so you can't hide the evil that you might want to do.  
> 
> Abraham had that kind of relationship with God.  So did Isaac.  So did Jacob.  (Eventually).  Joseph had it.  Moses had it.  All of the children of Israel could have had it.  But they rejected it.  So God said "Let them make me a sanctuary so that I may dwell among them."  That's why God instituted to Old Covenant.  But it was *always* meant to be temporary.  Do Christians feel the need to be circumcised today?  No.  That was a sign of the Old Covenant.  Keeping the Passover and sacrificing a lamb?  Even most Jews don't do that today.  Again, old covenant.  Not worshiping idols, not bearing false witness, honoring your parents etc?  That was the law that predated the Old Covenant and goes all the way back to Eden in principle even though it wasn't written out.  (Cain knew it was wrong to kill Abel even though he had no tables of stone to reference.)  Now it's true that circumcision predates Moses, but it is still Old Covenant because it was only to signify a promise to the descendants of Abraham.  That said, saints that predated Abraham and were not circumcised are still saved anyway.  So the argument that the Old Covenant must still be in force in order for people under the Old Covenant to be saved by faith is fallacious.  Furthermore there were people under the Old Covenant who transcended to the New Covenant and there are people living in the New Testament era who are still bound by the Old Covenant.  In fact I would say that most people have not reached the Hebrews 8 / Jeremiah 31 level of the New Covenant.  That promise is there for you.  But it's a journey you have to commit to.  And it's not easy.  Not because God doesn't do everything needed to make it easy.  But just like the children of Israel, our human inclination is to not want that kind of relationship with God.  After all, with a personal "God is always here" relationship mentality, the children of Israel would have never made a golden calf to worship and engaged in partying and fornication to celebrate it.  We want to do what we want to do.


The misusage of Jeremiah 31 is a common error of Dispensationalism, used to show some sort of disparity between the nature of the Old Covenant and the New Covenant. However, the writer of Hebrews uses Jeremiah 31 to prove his case in Hebrews 8 that what makes the two covenants different is that there is a new priesthood, which is founded in Christ, after the order of Melchizedek.

Thus, what makes the New Covenant different from the Old Covenant has nothing to do with the former being internalized versus the latter being externalized. In fact, in the Old Covenant, there were saints who already had the law "written in their hearts," like King David. Psalm 40:8 says, "I delight to do Thy will, O my God; yea, Thy law is within my heart." We even see God calling upon Old Covenant Christians who had God's law in their hearts, stating, "Hearken unto Me, ye that know righteousness, the people in whose heart is My law; fear ye not the reproach of men, neither be ye afraid of their revilings." [Isaiah 51:7]

So, you're totally wrong that the Old Covenant people are different from the New Covenant people because of some internalization of spiritual life in the people of the former. Both covenants had people with the law written in their hearts and minds. The difference is that under the Old Covenant, there was a separate priesthood (Levites) who had the laws of God and whose job was to explain the law to the people of God. In the New Covenant, there is no longer that kind of priesthood because Christ, being the Word, now imparts His word to all covenant people, without the need of a tribal priesthood, and especially, without daily and yearly sacrifices to atone for sins.

So, once again, there is no difference between Old Covenant Christians and New Covenant Christians. They are both in the Father, through Christ, and in the power of the Holy Spirit. The same laws in the Old Testament can be applied to New Testament Christians, through Christ, because Christ is the One Who not only nailed the Law to cross when He died, but resurrected the Law in His resurrection and ascension. But it takes wisdom.

----------


## TER

Here is what the actual Christians of the first centuries taught regarding keeping the Old Covenant Sabbath, as spoken by Saints spread in far away lands.  


*The Didache*

But every Lord's day . . . gather yourselves together and break bread, and give thanksgiving after having confessed your transgressions, that your sacrifice may be pure. But let no one that is at variance with his fellow come together with you until they be reconciled, that your sacrifice may not be profaned (Didache 14 [A.D. 70]).

*Ignatius of Antioch*

[T]hose who were brought up in the ancient order of things [i.e., Jews] have come to the possession of a new hope, *no longer observing the Sabbath*, but living in the observance of the Lord's day, on which also our life has sprung up again by him and by his death (Letter to the Magnesians 8 [A.D. *110*]).

*The Didascalia*

The apostles further appointed; On the first day of the week let there be service, and the reading of the holy scriptures, and the oblation [sacrifice of the Mass], because on the first day of the week [Sunday] our Lord rose from the place of the dead, and on the first day of the week he arose upon the world, and on the first day of the week he ascended up to heaven, and on the first day of the week he will appear at last with the angels of heaven (Didascalia 2 [A.D. 225]).

*Victorinus*

The sixth day [Friday] is called parasceve, that is to say, the preparation of the kingdom. . . . On this day also, on account of the passion of the Lord Jesus Christ, we make either a station to God or a fast. On the seventh day he rested from all his works, and blessed it, and sanctified it. On the former day we are accustomed to fast rigorously, that on the Lord's Day we may go forth to our bread with giving of thanks. *Let the parasceve become a rigorous fast, lest we should appear to observe any Sabbath with the Jews . . . which Sabbath he [Christ] in his body abolished* (The Creation of the World [A.D. 300]).

*Eusebius*

They [the early saints of the New Testament] did not care about circumcision of the body, neither do we [Christians]. *They did not care about observing Sabbaths, nor do we*. They did not avoid certain kinds of food, neither did they regard the other distinctions which Moses first delivered to their posterity to be observed as symbols;* nor do Christians of the present day do such things* (Church History 1:4:8 [A.D. 325]).

[T]he day of his [Christ's] light . . . was the day of his resurrection from the dead, which they say, as being the one and only truly holy day and the Lord's day, is better than any number of days as we ordinarily understand them, *and better than the days set apart by the Mosaic Law for feasts, new moons, and Sabbaths, which the Apostle [Paul] teaches are the shadow of days and not days in reality* (Proof of the Gospel 4:16:186 [A.D. 319]).

*Athanasius*

The Sabbath was the end of the first creation, the Lord's day was the beginning of the second, in which he renewed and restored the old in the same way as he prescribed that they should formerly observe the Sabbath as a memorial of the end of the first things, so we honor the Lord's day as being the memorial of the new creation (On Sabbath and Circumcision 3 [A.D. 345]).

*Cyril of Jerusalem*

Fall not away either into the sect of the Samaritans or into Judaism, for Jesus Christ has ransomed you. *Stand aloof from all observance of Sabbaths* and from calling indifferent meats common or unclean (Catechetical Lectures 4:37 [A.D. 350]).

*Council of Laodicea*

*Christians should not Judaize and should not be idle on the Sabbath*, but should work on that day; they should, however, particularly reverence the Lord's Day and, if possible, not work on it, because they were Christians (canon 29 [A.D. 360]).

*John Chrysostom*

When he said, "You shall not kill" . . . he did not add "because murder is a wicked thing." The reason was that conscience had taught this beforehand, and he speaks thus, as to those who know and understand the point. Wherefore when he speaks to us of another commandment, not known to us by the dictate of conscience, he not only prohibits, but adds the reason. When, for instance, he gave commandment concerning the Sabbath — "On the seventh day you shall do no work"— he subjoined also the reason for this cessation. What was this? "Because on the seventh day God rested from all his works which he had begun to make" [Ex. 20:10]. And again: "Because you were a servant in the land of Egypt" [Deut. 21:18]. For what purpose then, I ask, did he add a reason respecting the Sabbath, but did no such thing in regard to murder? Because this commandment was not one of the leading ones. It was not one of those which were accurately defined of our conscience, but a kind of partial and temporary one, and for this reason it was abolished afterward. But those which are necessary and uphold our life are the following: '"You shall not kill... You shall not commit adultery... You shall not steal." On this account he adds no reason in this case, nor enters into any instruction on the matter, but is content with the bare prohibition (Homilies on the Statues 12:9 [A.D. 387]).

You have put on Christ, you have become a member of the Lord and been enrolled in the heavenly city, and you still grovel in the Law [of Moses]? How is it possible for you to obtain the kingdom? *Listen to Paul's words, that the observance of the Law overthrows the gospel, and learn, if you will, how this comes to pass, and tremble, and shun this pitfall. Why do you keep the Sabbath and fast with the Jews?* (Homilies on Galatians 2:17 [A.D. 395]).

*Apostolic Constitutions*

And on the day of our Lord's resurrection, which is the Lord's Day, meet more diligently, sending praise to God that made the universe by Jesus, and sent him to us, and condescended to let him suffer, and raised him from the dead. Otherwise what apology will he make to God who does not assemble on that day . . . in which is performed the reading of the prophets, the preaching of the gospel, the oblation of the sacrifice, the gift of the holy food (Apostolic Constitutions 2:7:60 [A.D. 400]).

----------


## jmdrake

> The misusage of Jeremiah 31 is a common error of Dispensationalism, used to show some sort of disparity between the nature of the Old Covenant and the New Covenant. However, the writer of Hebrews uses Jeremiah 31 to prove his case in Hebrews 8 that what makes the two covenants different is that there is a new priesthood, which is founded in Christ, after the order of Melchizedek.


Questions for you Theocrat.

1) Do you sacrifice a lamb for your sins?  Because under the Old Covenant you were supposed to.

2) Do you think Paul was wrong for saying that Christians didn't need to be physically circumcised?  Because everyone under the Old Covenant was supposed to be circumcised.

3) Do you keep the Passover?  That was a requirement under the Old Covenant?

4) Are you careful to ask any woman you don't know if she's on her period before you shake her hand?  That was a requirement under the Old Covenant.

5) Do you believe that all land must lie fallow every 7 years?  That's a requirement under the Old Covenant.

6) Do you believe that if you bought someone's land in the country, but not in a walled city, that you have to let them or their family buy it back in the year of Jubilee?  That's under the Old Covenant afterall.  (I guess that would go for any home now as nobody today lives in a walled city.)

7) Do you believe that all debts must be forgiven the year of Jubilee?  More Old Covenant.

8) Do you believe that you must let poor people come on your property and glean from your garden?  More Old Covenant.

I could go on and on.  Here's my point.  I'm willing to bet that you aren't really keeping the Old Covenant anyway but you are cherry picking parts that you want to impose on *others*.  Now I could be wrong, but from all of our discussions I'm pretty sure you aren't keeping the parts of the Old Covenant that smack of socialism.

But further, you *totally* missed the point of what I was saying.  It's not that there is a dichotomy between the Old Covenant and the New Covenent.  *There is a dichotomy between the Old Covenant and the ORIGINAL Covenant*!  You bring up Melchizadek.  You realize Melchizadek was not your typical priest right?  The Bible describes him this way:

_This Melchizedek was king of Salem and priest of God Most High. He met Abraham returning from the defeat of the kings and blessed him, and Abraham gave him a tenth of everything. First, the name Melchizedek means “king of righteousness”; then also, “king of Salem” means “king of peace.” Without father or mother, without genealogy, without beginning of days or end of life, resembling the Son of God, he remains a priest forever._

He is described by the writer of Hebrews as a pre-existing eternal being with "no beginning" and "no end" and who "remains a priest forever."  That's far different from the Aaronic priesthood.  They all had genealogies.  They all had beginning and endings.  They were, after all, mere humans.  And note that he only met with Abraham once.  *And he went out to Abraham and not the other way around!*  It was not the subservient relationship between worshiper and priest as established by the law of Moses.  Under the law of Moses it was the duty of the people to seek out the priests.  But Jesus sought us out the same way Melchizadek sought Abraham out.  And Melchizadek wasn't seeking out Abraham for Abraham to confess his sins but rather for Melchizadek to declare Abraham's victory.  That's the same thing Jesus, our high priest, does for us.




> Thus, what makes the New Covenant different from the Old Covenant has nothing to do with the former being internalized versus the latter being externalized. In fact, in the Old Covenant, there were saints who already had the law "written in their hearts," like King David. Psalm 40:8 says, "I delight to do Thy will, O my God; yea, Thy law is within my heart." We even see God calling upon Old Covenant Christians who had God's law in their hearts, stating, "Hearken unto Me, ye that know righteousness, the people in whose heart is My law; fear ye not the reproach of men, neither be ye afraid of their revilings." [Isaiah 51:7]


You just made a conclusory statement that is not supported by the evidence presented.  And again you are missing the point that I made.  God has *always* been ready to write the law in the hearts of men but men keep rejecting having that happen.  Again *the tabernacle system was only set up because the children of Israel openly rejected the idea of God speaking directly to them.  They said "Don't let God speak to us Moses.  Let God speak to you and then you speak to us."*  Certainly there were people before Jesus came that had direct communion with God.  But God had the tabernacle system set up so that he would have at least *some* way to communicate with the rest of His people.  Note that at Jesus death the veil of the temple was torn from top to bottom.  That signified the end of the temple/tabernacle system.  You do understand that right?  That's Christianity 101.





> So, you're totally wrong that the Old Covenant people are different from the New Covenant people because of some internalization of spiritual life in the people of the former.


Another false conclusory statement made by you that also shows you don't even understand what I was saying.  Again *the Israelites as a whole rejected direct communication with God*.  That doesn't mean that everybody did.  But Jesus came to plainly show the way to interact with the father without a human mediator.  Do you now go and confess your sins to a priest on the head of a lamb?  That's the Old Covenant.  Under the New Covenant we are to go directly to the thrown of grace.  I mean you are a Protestant right?  Or did I get that wrong?  




> Both covenants had people with the law written in their hearts and minds. The difference is that under the Old Covenant, there was a separate priesthood (Levites) who had the laws of God and whose job was to explain the law to the people of God. In the New Covenant, there is no longer that kind of priesthood because Christ, being the Word, now imparts His word to all covenant people, without the need of a tribal priesthood, and especially, without daily and yearly sacrifices to atone for sins.


Right.  Well...partially right.  In both covenants there were *some* who had God's law written in their hearts.  Under the New Covenant the entire Christian Church, at least in the beginning, had the law written in their hearts.  The apostles were so into the Holy Spirit that when they found out that the new believers in Samaria did not have the Holy Spirit, they sent Peter and John *to bring the gift of the Holy Spirit to all who were ready to receive it*.  And the entire congregation received the gift of the Holy Spirit except Simon the Sorcerer and that was because his heart was not right as he wanted to use the Holy Spirit for financial gain.  That's not the only time in Acts when an entire body of believers received the Holy Spirit.  Now I defy you to find anything similar in the Old Testament.  God offered that to the entire nation of Israel when He spoke the 10 commandments to them but they rejected Him.  That's why He set up the Old Covenant.  But the New Covenant is merely the extension of the Original Covenant to every believer.  Yet, the problem today, is most people still are not ready for the New Covenant.  So.....we still end up with something of a "priest/parishioner" system even though Peter said we are called to be a nation of priest.  And you know who else was called to be a nation of priests?  The entire 12 tribes of Israel.  It was the rejection of God's voice at Sinai followed by the golden calf apostasy that prevented that from happening.




> So, once again, there is no difference between Old Covenant Christians and New Covenant Christians. They are both in the Father, through Christ, and in the power of the Holy Spirit. The same laws in the Old Testament can be applied to New Testament Christians, through Christ, because Christ is the One Who not only nailed the Law to cross when He died, but resurrected the Law in His resurrection and ascension. But it takes wisdom.


So once again, send me a picture of you confessing your sins on the head of a lamb and then sacrificing the lamb if you really want me to believe that you actually believe what you say you believe.

----------


## TER

The Apostles and their immediate successors ordained bishops, priests, and deacons (by the laying of hands and transference of the Holy Spirit) and this is well attested in the writings of the first centuries.  So, indeed, while all believers are of a holy priesthood, some have been ordained in the service of God for the benefit of the Body with special charismata, and the priesthood of the Old Covenant did indeed continue in the New Covenant, in the order of Melchezedek.  This is unanimously taught by the Christian writers of the first centuries.

----------


## jmdrake

Hello TER.  That's what *some* of the actual Christians of the first centuries taught.  None of the apostles taught that.  (You can read about the apostles keeping the Sabbath in Acts.)  And some first century Christians taught otherwise.  Here's an example:

_Victorinus,  Bishop  of  Pettau  (ca.  A.D.  304),  present-day  Austria, similarly emphasizes the same function of the Sabbath fast when he writes: “On the seventh day... we are accustomed to fast rigorously that on the Lord’s day we may go forth to our bread with giving thanks.”  The sadness and hunger  which  Christians  experienced  even  more  severely  on  the  Sabbath, because their fasting had already started on Friday, were designed there-fore to predispose the Christians to enter more eagerly and joyfully into the observance  of  Sunday  and  on  the  other  hand,  as  stated  by  Victorinus,  to avoid “appearing to observe the Sabbath with the Jews, of which the Lord of the Sabbath Himself, the Christ, says by His prophets that His soul hateth.”_

There are more.  This entire book is worth reading.  http://www.friendsofsabbath.org/Furt...As/sab2sun.pdf  And it documents how, starting in Rome, Christians began to try to distinguish themselves from Jews because of persecution of Jews and one of the main identifying marks of being Jewish was keeping the Sabbath.

Anyway, what do you think of the broader discussion regarding the New Covenant versus the Old Covenant?  Do you believe it makes sense under the New Covenant to say "We're going to keep every bit of the Old Covenant *except* the Sabbath?"  And I'm not exactly sure what these non-Sabbatarian Old Covenanters are keeping and none will actually say.    (Other than stoning gays and adulterers).





> Here is what the actual Christians of the first centuries taught regarding keeping the Old Covenant Sabbath, as spoken by Saints spread in far away lands.  
> 
> 
> *The Didache*
> 
> But every Lord's day . . . gather yourselves together and break bread, and give thanksgiving after having confessed your transgressions, that your sacrifice may be pure. But let no one that is at variance with his fellow come together with you until they be reconciled, that your sacrifice may not be profaned (Didache 14 [A.D. 70]).
> 
> *Ignatius of Antioch*
> 
> ...

----------


## jmdrake

> The Apostles and their immediate successors ordained bishops, priests, and deacons (by the laying of hands and transference of the Holy Spirit) and this is well attested in the writings of the first centuries.  So, indeed, while all believers are of a holy priesthood, some have been ordained in the service of God for the benefit of the Body with special charismata, and the priesthood of the Old Covenant did indeed continue in the New Covenant, in the order of Melchezedek.  This is unanimously taught by the Christian writers of the first centuries.


There is no mention of earthly priests anywhere in the New Testament but rather a heavenly priest and a priesthood of believers.  There is no mention of the sacrement of confessional in the New Testament either.  Rather Jesus taught us to pray "Our Father who art in heaven.....forgive us our sins as we forgive those who sin against us."

----------


## TER

> Hello TER.  That's what *some* of the actual Christians of the first centuries taught.  None of the apostles taught that.  (You can read about the apostles keeping the Sabbath in Acts.)  And some first century Christians taught otherwise.  Here's an example:
> 
> _Victorinus,  Bishop  of  Pettau  (ca.  A.D.  304),  present-day  Austria, similarly emphasizes the same function of the Sabbath fast when he writes: “On the seventh day... we are accustomed to fast rigorously that on the Lord’s day we may go forth to our bread with giving thanks.”  The sadness and hunger  which  Christians  experienced  even  more  severely  on  the  Sabbath, because their fasting had already started on Friday, were designed there-fore to predispose the Christians to enter more eagerly and joyfully into the observance  of  Sunday  and  on  the  other  hand,  as  stated  by  Victorinus,  to avoid “appearing to observe the Sabbath with the Jews, of which the Lord of the Sabbath Himself, the Christ, says by His prophets that His soul hateth.”_
> 
> There are more.  This entire book is worth reading.  http://www.friendsofsabbath.org/Furt...As/sab2sun.pdf  And it documents how, starting in Rome, Christians began to try to distinguish themselves from Jews because of persecution of Jews and one of the main identifying marks of being Jewish was keeping the Sabbath.


Hi jmdrake.  The quote you have above by St. Victorinus was from the beginning of the fourth century and he clearly explains that the Christians fasted on Saturdays (Sabbath), but not like the Jews or with the Jews as if observing the Old Covenant Sabbath (which by then had been completely abandoned by the Christian Church), but rather in anticipation to partake of the Holy Eucharist.  The quote is actually listed amongst the ones I provided above.

Also, the quotes I listed are not just what 'some' of the Christians taught. It is what was believed and practiced by the Christians spread far and wide and according to the teachings handed down.  That is why these writings still exist, and have been faithfully passed down and are still remembered today, and also why these men are considered to be Saints of God!  Not because they taught new innovations (otherwise they would not have been regarded as defenders of the apostolic faith), but because they expressed the orthodox and catholic faith which was practiced and believed everywhere.  Some of the quotes come from such monumental and foundation Christian sources as the Didache and the Apostolic Constitutions.  To claim that these are 'some' (as if to imply that there were many other Christians who taught differently) is anachronistic and historically inaccurate.  In fact, it is unanimous by the end of the first century when Jerusalem fell and while Apostles still lived, that the Old Covenant Sabbath-keeping had been discarded (save for a few Judaizing sects) just as many many other Old Covenant laws and practices were discarded.  So, I question the use of the word 'some' in your post.  Yes, these are of course some quotes.  Do you have any other quotes in that same era which counter these teachings?  If not, why do we so easily relegate them to be some kind of minority view when in fact all the evidence we have demonstrates it to be catholic view spread far and wide?




> Anyway, what do you think of the broader discussion regarding the New Covenant versus the Old Covenant?  Do you believe it makes sense under the New Covenant to say "We're going to keep every bit of the Old Covenant *except* the Sabbath?"  And I'm not exactly sure what these non-Sabbatarian Old Covenanters are keeping and none will actually say.    (Other than stoning gays and adulterers).


I honestly don't understand the argument being made by some who arbitrarily pick and chose outside the common mind and witness of the historical Church what should be followed and what should not be followed.  It seems like a very Protestant thing to do, and I don't mean that as an insult, but simply as an observation.  I believe this has to do with the degradation in ecclesiology which is found in many modern Christian communities, which in turn creates confusion and divisions and innovations according to the whims of the day, lacking a firm foundation in the witness and teachings of the fathers before us who have already run the race and held firm to the faith handed down to them.  It is for this reason the Apostles developed an ecclesiological structure in the church with shepherds and ministers of the sacraments to service the baptized faithful, and why by the end of the first century we find the same structure which has remained until this day within the Eastern Orthodox Church.  This is not an accident, but the work of the Holy Spirit within the life of the Church.  Within this ecclesiology, we find that it is by holy consensus and in sacred synod (as first described in the Book of Acts with regard to the Council in Jerusalem), that the Holy Spirit might act within the Body and guide it and the truth be revealed.  Whether it be in abandoning circumcision or the Sabbath, it is through the divine-human organism of the Church (in the image of the Son Who is Divine-human, which is why it is called His Body) whereby such discussions and debates can be made and the grace of God can act, for the benefit of the members and their mission as instructed by the Lord to baptize the nations.

----------


## RJB

> Hi jmdrake.  The quote you have above by St. Victorious was from the beginning of the fourth century and he clearly explains that the Christians fasted on Saturdays (Sabbath), but not like the Jews or with the Jews as if observing the Old Covenant Sabbath (which by then had been completely abandoned by the Christian Church), but rather in anticipation to partake of the Holy Eucharist.


Wow.  That is exactly as we do, 'til this very day!

----------


## TER

> There is no mention of earthly priests anywhere in the New Testament but rather a heavenly priest and a priesthood of believers.  There is no mention of the sacrement of confessional in the New Testament either.  Rather Jesus taught us to pray "Our Father who art in heaven.....forgive us our sins as we forgive those who sin against us."


The word in the Scriptures is translated in English as presbyters, which is where the word 'priest' comes from.  It is the same holy ordained office.  Aside from all three offices of the clergy being mentioned in the New Testament, I defer you to St. Clement and St. Ignatius' writings if you want first century sources which come from direct disciples of the Holy Apostles. 

Christ gave the Apostles (by blowing in their face and transferring this special gift of the Holy Spirit) the grace to forgive and unbind sins in heaven and earth.  He gave them also the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven.  These holy charismata were not given to all, but to those with whom He gave it to.  This holy charism is transferred by holy ordination and the earliest Christians did in fact confess their sins to the elders (the Bishops) and the presbyters (who served under the Bishops) to find forgiveness of their sins.  These same ordained men also performed Holy Unction by anointing the sick with Holy Oil.  These also baptized the faithful and administered the Holy Eucharist to the baptized members.

Now, the actual prayers and structure of these sacraments may have liturgically flowered in time, just as the particular ecclesiological landscape did as the Church rapidly grew and came out of the catacombs, but the foundation and basis for them go back to the Apostles and the early Church and this is indisputable when one honestly looks at the historical writings and the evidence we have.  This was universally understood by all Christians and it is only until relatively recently (since the Later Reformers) that believers in Christ make the claim that you are making.

----------


## jmdrake

> Hi jmdrake.  The quote you have above by St. Victorious was from the beginning of the fourth century and he clearly explains that the Christians fasted on Saturdays (Sabbath), but not like the Jews or with the Jews as if observing the Old Covenant Sabbath (which by then had been completely abandoned by the Christian Church), but rather in anticipation to partake of the Holy Eucharist.


It was not completely abandoned but you are free to believe that.  And the Sabbath was clearly kept by the apostles in the New Testament.  Please read:

http://www.ethiopianorthodox.org/eng...n/worship.html
_Other feast days include one for each of the twelve Apostles. The martyrs, St. George, St. Stephen and St. John the Baptist are also commemorated. Other important holy days are those in commemoration of St. Michael and St. Mary and of the grate religious reformer, the Emperor Zar’a Ya’iqob. No less than thirty-three holy days are devoted to St. Mary. An indication of the special veneration attached to the Blessed Virgin in Ethiopia. A feature of feast days in the Ethiopian Church is that many of them are commemorated monthly and not only annually. As in the rest of the Christian world Sunday is observed as a day of rest. In former times Saturday, the Biblical Sabbath, was also observed. On holy days believers are expected to refrain form heavy labor and manual tasks, such as farming, forging metal and weaving. Various transactions are permitted, however. On these days ot os customary to carry out charitable and philanthropic acts, to visit the sick or those in prison and to arrange reconciliation between those who have quarreled. Sundays and other holy days are also occasions of social events, weddings, dancing and sport._





> Also, the quotes I listed are not just what 'some' of the Christians taught. It is what was believed and practiced by the Christians spread far and wide and according to the teachings handed down.  That is why these writings still exist, and have been faithfully passed down and are still remembered today, and also why these men are considered to be Saints of God!  Not because they taught new innovations (otherwise they would not have been regarded as defenders of the apostolic faith), but because they expressed the orthodox and catholic faith which was practiced and believed everywhere.  Some of the quotes come from such monumental and foundation Christian sources as the Didache and the Apostolic Constitutions.  To claim that these are 'some' (as if to imply that there were many other Christians who taught differently) is anachronistic and historically inaccurate.  In fact, it is unanimous by the end of the first century when Jerusalem fell and while Apostles still lived, that the Old Covenant Sabbath-keeping had been discarded (save for a few Judaizing sects) just as many many other Old Covenant laws and practices were discarded.  So, I question the use of the word 'some' in your post.  Yes, these are of course some quotes.  Do you have any other quotes in that same era which counter these teachings?  If not, why do we so easily relegate them to be some kind of minority view when in fact all the evidence we have demonstrates it to be catholic view spread far and wide?


You can question my use of the word "some" all you want, but you aren't the final authority on what the early Christians said or wrote.  Over the years I have multiple times found direct contradictions between what you claimed all of the Church Fathers said and what was documented even with sources that you generally agree with.  You've interpreted the quote I just gave you in this thread differently than I have.  That's your right to do that.  It's also my right to believe your interpretation is wrong (and I do believe that).  Also I can point directly to verses in the Bible showing the apostles observing the seventh day Sabbath not just with Jews but also with Gentiles.  Going to the Synagogue on Sabbath to preach to Jews could be explained away as "When else are you going to preach to Jews?"  But to specifically preach to Gentiles on the Sabbath?  That would have been a perfect time to say "Why wait until next Sabbath when we can preach to you tomorrow?"  But that's not what the apostles did.




> I honestly don't understand the argument being made by some who arbitrarily pick and chose outside the common mind and witness of the historical Church what should be followed and what should not be followed.  It seems like a very Protestant thing to do, and I don't mean that as an insult, but simply as an observation.  I believe this has to do with the degradation in ecclesiology which is found in many modern Christian communities, which in turn creates confusion and divisions and innovations according to the whims of the day, lacking a firm foundation in the witness and teachings of the fathers before us who have already run the race and held firm to the faith handed down to them.  It is for this reason the Apostles developed an ecclesiological structure in the church with shepherds and ministers of the sacraments to service the baptized faithful, and why by the end of the first century we find the same structure which has remained until this day within the Eastern Orthodox Church.  This is not an accident, but the work of the Holy Spirit within the life of the Church.  Within this ecclesiology, we find that it is by holy consensus and in sacred synod (as first described in the Book of Acts with regard to the Council in Jerusalem), that the Holy Spirit might act within the Body and guide it and the truth be revealed.  Whether it be in abandoning circumcision or the Sabbath, it is through the divine-human organism of the Church (in the image of the Son Who is Divine-human, which is why it is called His Body) whereby such discussions and debates can be made and the grace of God can act, for the benefit of the members and their mission as instructed by the Lord to baptize the nations.


Fair enough.

----------


## jmdrake

> The word in the Scriptures is translated in English as presbyters, which is where the word 'priest' comes from.


Yeah.  I've heard to make that argument before.  And yet when I see the word priest actually used in the New Testament it is never used in the way you are using it.  We've had this particular discussion multiple time actually.




> It is the same holy ordained office.  Aside from all three offices of the clergy being mentioned in the New Testament, I defer you to St. Clement and St. Ignatius' writings if you want first century sources which come from direct disciples of the Holy Apostles. 
> 
> Christ gave the Apostles (by blowing in their face and transferring this special gift of the Holy Spirit) the grace to forgive and unbind sins in heaven and earth.  He gave them also the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven.  These holy charismata were not given to all, but to those with whom He gave it to.  This holy charism is transferred by holy ordination and the earliest Christians did in fact confess their sins to the elders (the Bishops) and the presbyters (who served under the Bishops) to find forgiveness of their sins.  These same ordained men also performed Holy Unction by anointing the sick with Holy Oil.  These also baptized the faithful and administered the Holy Eucharist to the baptized members.


Not a single record of a confessional in the New Testament.  Imagine that?  It does say "Confess your faults one to another."  Based on your argument it should have said "Confess your faults to the priests/presbyters."  It doesn't.




> Now, the actual prayers and structure of these sacraments may have liturgically flowered in time, just as the particular ecclesiological landscape did as the Church rapidly grew and came out of the catacombs, but the foundation and basis for them go back to the Apostles and the early Church and this is indisputable when one honestly looks at the historical writings and the evidence we have.  This was universally understood by all Christians and it is only until relatively recently (since the Later Reformers) that believers in Christ make the claim that you are making.


So you say.  But I have found over time that your interpretation of the church fathers is just as fallible as what you say the Reformers interpretation of the Bible is.  What I know is this.  1 John 1:9 makes it clear that "If we confess our sins He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness."  Why didn't John go further and say "If we confess our sins to the priests/presbyters He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness."

And furthermore, since the apostles went around laying hands and transferring the Holy Spirit such that the entire body of believers were experiencing miracles (like an entire congregation speaking in tongues) why is that not happening in the Orthodox Church today?  I refer you to the same passages in Jeremiah 31 and Hebrews 8 that I pointed Theocrat to.

_7 For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another. 8 But God found fault with the people and said[b]:

“The days are coming, declares the Lord,
    when I will make a new covenant
with the people of Israel
    and with the people of Judah.
9 
It will not be like the covenant
    I made with their ancestors
when I took them by the hand
    to lead them out of Egypt,
because they did not remain faithful to my covenant,
    and I turned away from them,
declares the Lord.
10 
This is the covenant I will establish with the people of Israel
    after that time, declares the Lord.
I will put my laws in their minds
    and write them on their hearts.
I will be their God,
    and they will be my people.
11 
No longer will they teach their neighbor,
    or say to one another, ‘Know the Lord,’
because they will all know me,
    from the least of them to the greatest.
12 
For I will forgive their wickedness
    and will remember their sins no more.”[c]

13 By calling this covenant “new,” he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear._

The idea of Christians continuously needing priests to interpret the Bible for them directly goes against Hebrews 8.  And that's the chapter talking about our High Priest Jesus.  That's the perfect time for the writer of Hebrews to point out that continuing of the Old Convenant priesthood that you are asserting.  But he does not.  Why do you think that is?

----------


## TER

> It was not completely abandoned but you are free to believe that.  And the Sabbath was clearly kept by the apostles in the New Testament.  Please read:
> 
> http://www.ethiopianorthodox.org/eng...n/worship.html
> _Other feast days include one for each of the twelve Apostles. The martyrs, St. George, St. Stephen and St. John the Baptist are also commemorated. Other important holy days are those in commemoration of St. Michael and St. Mary and of the grate religious reformer, the Emperor Zar’a Ya’iqob. No less than thirty-three holy days are devoted to St. Mary. An indication of the special veneration attached to the Blessed Virgin in Ethiopia. A feature of feast days in the Ethiopian Church is that many of them are commemorated monthly and not only annually. As in the rest of the Christian world Sunday is observed as a day of rest. In former times Saturday, the Biblical Sabbath, was also observed. On holy days believers are expected to refrain form heavy labor and manual tasks, such as farming, forging metal and weaving. Various transactions are permitted, however. On these days ot os customary to carry out charitable and philanthropic acts, to visit the sick or those in prison and to arrange reconciliation between those who have quarreled. Sundays and other holy days are also occasions of social events, weddings, dancing and sport._


The Apostles also practiced circumsicion until it threatened the peace of the Church and it was abandoned.  The Apostles also practiced the diety restrictions of the Mosaic Law until it was revealed that they no longer mattered.  The Apostles practiced the Sabbath until it became a stumbling block and cause for scandal.  You see, the Apostles understood through the Holy Spirit that a New Covenant was established by Christ, and that it was within the Body of Christ whereby God would reveal His good will and pleasure and right order, no longer in the symbols of the old, but in the realization of the new made manifest through Christ's Resurrection and Ascension and the Holy Day of Pentecost.  It was the Apostles who initiated by the grace of God the abandonment of the Old Covenant Sabbath-keeping just as they did with the other Mosaic Laws.  Was it specifically written in Acts?  No, it wasn't.  But the Book of Acts is not the summation of the work of the Apostles and the Holy Spirit in the life of the Church but merely the first steps.

The Ethiopian Orthodox Church has certain traditions which are contrary to the older Eastern Orthodox Church, but even that said, they share much more with the Eastern Orthodox Church than they do with Seventh Day Adventism, so it is peculiar that you are using them as a source of proof.  For example with regards to the holy days commemorating the Holy Virgin and the various Saints and other ecclesiological and theological distinctions.  They also practice infant baptism through immersion and believe in the literal Presence of Christ's Body and Blood in the Holy Eucharist.  Thus, in many ways, they share in the apostolic traditions of the Orthodox Church.

However, when the Church there was fully established, the older Eastern Orthodox Church had already abandoned Old Covenant Sabbath keeping, so this Judaizing aspect was an innovation compared to the Mother Church and likely because of the long history of Jewish presence and influence in Ethiopia at that time (present from the days of King Solomon).  But in time, this Semetic type of Sabbath observance had been discarded, just later then the catholic Church which had spread through many nations.  But even when they practiced Semetic type Sabbath observance, it was in the light of Christ and in anticipation for the Lord's Day which was the center of the sacramental Christian life.  Similarly, the Ethiopian Orthodox Church practices circumsicion, yet they claim not for religious purposes, but rather traditional purposes.  Thus, again, they honor the tradition but do not make it a law.

I must here add an important distinction in what I am saying.  That Christians should honor the Sabbath Day is without question.  Indeed, still to this day in Greece, Saturday is called "Sabbato".  To this day, the Eastern Orthodox Church has Saturday as a day commemorating all who have died and rest in the Lord.  This is all on account of tradition, and not on account of maintaining any Old Covenant law.

Thus while the Sabbath Day is honored, what is not observed is the Old Covenant Sabbath-keeping, which Christ Himself broke(!), much to the revilement of the Jewish religious authorities.  The Old Covenant Sabbath-keeping (according to the Mosaic Law) was a temporary injunction (as taught clearly by Tertullian and other early Christian writers) and served its purpose until Christ came to establish a New Covenant and His eternal Church.  The Ethiopian Orthodox Church had for a certain time held it as a law as did some Judaizing sects which tried to keep such a tradition going past the turn of the first century, but these are the rare exceptions and outliers and only serve to more clearly speak to how the Old Covenant Sabbath-keeping had become a discarded relic of the past by the great majority of Christians in the world outside these small Judaizing pockets.  Indeed, these were the same Judaizing sects which once insisted on its adherents being circumsized even after the Church through Holy Council of the Apostles abandoned such a requirement.  It wasn't very long until any trace of such Old Covenant Sabbath-keeping fringe sects disappeared from the pages of history only to be reinvented in these later times.




> You can question my use of the word "some" all you want, but you aren't the final authority on what the early Christians said or wrote.  Over the years I have multiple times found direct contradictions between what you claimed all of the Church Fathers said and what was documented even with sources that you generally agree with.  You've interpreted the quote I just gave you in this thread differently than I have.  That's your right to do that.  It's also my right to believe your interpretation is wrong (and I do believe that).  Also I can point directly to verses in the Bible showing the apostles observing the seventh day Sabbath not just with Jews but also with Gentiles.  Going to the Synagogue on Sabbath to preach to Jews could be explained away as "When else are you going to preach to Jews?"  But to specifically preach to Gentiles on the Sabbath?  That would have been a perfect time to say "Why wait until next Sabbath when we can preach to you tomorrow?"  But that's not what the apostles did.


As I explained above, the Book of Acts shows the first baby steps of the Church, and even in those first few steps we find monumental and radical changes inspired by the Holy Spirit, even within the very practices and traditions of the Holy Apostles (for example, the dietary restrictions and circumsicion).  These sprung from revelations given by God and by the experience of the baptized members of the body. Such growth and maturation did not end on the last page of the Book of Acts, nor with the Apostles, but rather continued and has continued through the centuries until our current time, according to the challenges and difficulties which beset the body of believers.  

However, these changes were done according to the good order and God-pleasing way which Christ established through His Apostles and those they chose to continue to lead the Church, which is by holy council of the leaders of the Church, for where two or three are gathered, Christ is present.  Thus while St. Peter had his great vision of the sheet and the animals upon them which were against the dietary restrictions, it still had to be decided by a Council of the leaders of the Church and not by one man (or woman) what the teaching of the Church is, for this is the mechanism by which God has established that His Church would be the pillar and foundation for the truth.

----------


## TER

> Yeah.  I've heard to make that argument before.  And yet when I see the word priest actually used in the New Testament it is never used in the way you are using it.  We've had this particular discussion multiple time actually.


I know, and you still unfortunately don't seem to get it.  That is why I keep urging you to read the writings of the Christians of the early Church and become more informed.  If you made the effort to read the writings of first century Saints outside of the New Testament, I think you might understand better.  Or, you might take the approach which some have in which they consider themselves to have a better understanding of the Christian faith and the teachings of the Apostles than first century Saints who were chosen by the Apostles themselves!  But maybe that is why you do not invest the time to read their writings?  Because as an honest and reasonable person who cannot easily ignore their special witness, I think you may be afraid to see what they actually taught since it may be very different from what you have been indoctrinated with growing up.




> Not a single record of a confessional in the New Testament.  Imagine that?  It does say "Confess your faults one to another."  Based on your argument it should have said "Confess your faults to the priests/presbyters."  It doesn't.


We are to confess our sins to one another, because that brings reconciliation and love and peace, which are the goals of the Christian life.  That does not mean, however, that we have the power to bind and unbind sins or that we have the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven as the Apostles did.




> So you say.  But I have found over time that your interpretation of the church fathers is just as fallible as what you say the Reformers interpretation of the Bible is.  What I know is this.  1 John 1:9 makes it clear that "If we confess our sins He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness."  Why didn't John go further and say "If we confess our sins to the priests/presbyters He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness."


We don't need a priest to find forgiveness from God if we confess with a truly repentant heart.  God can forgive whomever He wills and however He wills.  With that said, He has also established a priesthood to serve the body in this process, for pastoral and sacramental (read: therapeutic) purpose.  A person who confesses to a priest but is not truly repentant, then their sins still remain.  A person who truly confesses to a priest with true repentance, can feel assured and at peace that their sin is actually forgiven.  This is what God has instituted through this holy sacrament - peace and reassurance, as well the Holy Spirit working within the ordained priest to offer pastoral guidance and care for the future.




> And furthermore, since the apostles went around laying hands and transferring the Holy Spirit such that the entire body of believers were experiencing miracles (like an entire congregation speaking in tongues) why is that not happening in the Orthodox Church today?


 there have been more miracles within the Orthodox Church these past 2000 years than there have been posts in this entire website, and even much greater ones than an entire congregation speaking in tongues.  This is something my mere words cannot prove to you, it is something you would have to seek out for yourself in order to believe.  As St. Philip said to St. Nathanial: Come and see.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Thus while the Sabbath Day is honored, what is not observed is the Old Covenant Sabbath-keeping, which Christ Himself broke


Reading this, I'm immediately curious how  common this sort of thing is in the Eastern Orthodox Church.  Especially since HU seems to have some respect for them as a institution.  Its one thing to say the sabbath rules changed AFTER Christ died, but to say hat Christ himself broke it has some pretty heretical implications.  Christ was still under the Old Covenant until his death.

----------


## TER

> Reading this, I'm immediately curious how  common this sort of thing is in the Eastern Orthodox Church.  Especially since HU seems to have some respect for them as a institution.  Its one thing to say the sabbath rules changed AFTER Christ died, but to say hat Christ himself broke it has some pretty heretical implications.  Christ was still under the Old Covenant until his death.


If you read the Scriptures, you will see that Christ did many miracles on the Sabbath, for which He drew the ire of the Jewish religious teachers of the Law because He was breaking the Sabbath.  

So too, we learn how the Apostles broke the Sabbath by plucking and eating heads of grain which was unlawful to do.  If Christ and the Apostles were under the old Law, He, as their Teacher, would have reprimanded them.  But Christ did not berate them for breaking the Sabbath or dissuade them from doing such a thing because the Sabbath lost its utility on account of the Incarnation of the Word of God.  Christ replied to the Pharisees (who made accusations of heresy on account of this): "But I say unto you, That in this place is one greater than the temple" (Matthew 12:6), and therefore those who abide in Him are no longer under the old Law.  _Thus, it wasn't His death which abolished the old Law, but rather His Incarnation._

 Christ revealed that indeed all the law and prophets are condensed into two commandments.  In fact, there is barely a mention made by Christ in the whole of the New Testament where He tells His disciples to follow the Fourth Commandemnt of the Old Covenant.  In fact, I don't think there is any at all.  If the New Testament shows anything, it is Christ doing healings and miracles on the Sabbath over and over again and breaking it according to Jewish Law, just as He broke _many_ of the Mosiac Laws by touching the dead, eating with known sinners, not following the proscribed washing rituals, etc, etc.

For these reasons and other ones, Christ and His students were considered heretics and law breakers while He walked the earth.  But neither Christ nor those whom He chose were under the old Law, but rather under the new Law which He came to reveal, whereby mercy is held above sacrifice, and love above legalism.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> If you read the Scriptures, you will see that Christ did many miracles on the Sabbath, for which He drew the ire of the Jewish religious teachers of the Law because He was breaking the Sabbath.  
> 
> So too, we learn how the Apostles broke the Sabbath by plucking and eating heads of grain which was unlawful to do.  If Christ and the Apostles were under the old Law, He, as their Teacher, would have reprimanded them.  But Christ did not berate them for breaking the Sabbath or dissuade them from doing such a thing because the Sabbath lost its utility on account of the Incarnation of the Word of God.  Christ replied to the Pharisees (who made accusations of heresy on account of this): "But I say unto you, That in this place is one greater than the temple" (Matthew 12:6), and therefore those who abide in Him are no longer under the old Law.  _Thus, it wasn't His death which abolished the old Law, but rather His Incarnation._
> 
>  Christ revealed that indeed all the law and prophets are condensed into two commandments.  In fact, there is barely a mention made by Christ in the whole of the New Testament where He tells His disciples to follow the Fourth Commandemnt of the Old Covenant.  In fact, I don't think there is any at all.  If the New Testament shows anything, it is Christ doing healings and miracles on the Sabbath over and over again and breaking it according to Jewish Law, just as He broke _many_ of the Mosiac Laws by touching the dead, eating with known sinners, not following the proscribed washing rituals, etc, etc.
> 
> For these reasons and other ones, Christ and His students were considered heretics and law breakers while He walked the earth.  But neither Christ nor those whom He chose were under the old Law, but rather under the new Law which He came to reveal, whereby mercy is held above sacrifice, and love above legalism.


You're missing the point, and making the same foolish mistakes as modern evangelicals do.  Christ didn't break ANY of the Old Testament laws.  What he did break were pharisaical misinterpretations and legalisms.

----------


## TER

> You're missing the point, and making the same foolish mistakes as modern evangelicals do.  Christ didn't break ANY of the Old Testament laws.  What he did break were pharisaical misinterpretations and legalisms.


We disagree.  I am okay with that.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> We disagree.  I am okay with that.


This is extremely problematic though.  If Christ did break the OT law, that would undermine his claim to be a Messiah.  You're basically saying the laws God inspired Moses to write down were flawed.  Think about that.

Its one thing if you want to say the sabbath doesn't apply now, if you want to put it with things like food regulations and sacrifices.  I don't accept that, I think that's a serious error, but it wouldn't be outright heretical.  But to say Jesus actually broke the sabbath is effectively to call him a sinner.

----------


## TER

> This is extremely problematic though.  If Christ did break the OT law, that would undermine his claim to be a Messiah.  You're basically saying the laws God inspired Moses to write down were flawed.  Think about that.


The laws God instituted in the Old Covenant were what was needed for the Old Covenant, before the Light of the world came into the world.  Christ is above the Law of the Old Covenant and was not held to them.  To say He was is extremely problematic, considering He broke them and taught His disciples to do the same (as they no longer applied).  Neither are those who have faith in Him under the Old Law, which is why the Apostles broke the Sabbath and why Christ had every authority to do so as well.  Christ told His disciples to follow commandments while He still walked the earth that were completely against the Mosaic Law, such as against divorce, eye for an eye, and others.  To say that Christ was held under some temporary Old Covenant laws is what indeed is missing the point.  The Sabbath was made for man, for a time, and not for the God-Man, Who has the authority to change or abolish the law.  Christ breaking the Sabbath does not make Him a sinner, just as it wasn't a sin to break the other Mosaic laws which Christ abolished when He was incarnate.

What is 'legalistic' is to call Christ a sinner because He broke laws which had ended with His advent, which is what the Pharasees did when they accused Him of being a lawbreaking sinner for not following them.

----------


## William Tell

I thought it was agreed among Christians that Jesus kept the whole law. Sin is the transgression of the law, Jesus was without sin. Certainly there is lots of debate about what changed with after his death and resurrection. But the idea that he did not follow some OT commandments, including one of the 10 is new to me.

----------


## jmdrake

> I must here add an important distinction in what I am saying. That Christians should honor the Sabbath Day is without question. Indeed, still to this day in Greece, Saturday is called "Sabbato". To this day, the Eastern Orthodox Church has Saturday as a day commemorating all who have died and rest in the Lord. This is all on account of tradition, and not on account of maintaining any Old Covenant law.
> 
> Thus while the Sabbath Day is honored, what is not observed is the Old Covenant Sabbath-keeping, which Christ Himself broke(!), much to the revilement of the Jewish religious authorities. The Old Covenant Sabbath-keeping (according to the Mosaic Law) was a temporary injunction (as taught clearly by Tertullian and other early Christian writers) and served its purpose until Christ came to establish a New Covenant and His eternal Church. The Ethiopian Orthodox Church had for a certain time held it as a law as did some Judaizing sects which tried to keep such a tradition going past the turn of the first century, but these are the rare exceptions and outliers and only serve to more clearly speak to how the Old Covenant Sabbath-keeping had become a discarded relic of the past by the great majority of Christians in the world outside these small Judaizing pockets. Indeed, these were the same Judaizing sects which once insisted on its adherents being circumsized even after the Church through Holy Council of the Apostles abandoned such a requirement. It wasn't very long until any trace of such Old Covenant Sabbath-keeping fringe sects disappeared from the pages of history only to be reinvented in these later times.


Actually saying that Jesus broke the Sabbath is a clear mis-interpretation of scripture.  Jesus said "It is lawful to do good on the Sabbath."  And to prove His point, he pointed out that the Pharisees would get their own ox of the ditch on the Sabbath.  What Jesus was breaking was not the Sabbath, but the false traditions that the Pharisees piled up on the Sabbath.  That's why Jesus said "In vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrine the traditions of men."

That said, I'm glad that we at least seem to agree that early Christians did not believe that the Sabbath was somehow Sunday.  And that's the point I was trying to get across to ChristianLiberty.  And it's a very important point.  Over the centuries at times some church/state organizations have tried to enforce keeping Sunday holy the same way that civil laws under Moses attempted to force the keeping of Sabbath holy.  The idea goes "The Sabbath is now Sunday.  Under the Old Covenant people were punished for not keeping the Sabbath.  Thus people should be punished for not keeping Sunday."  I have no qualms with whether your or anyone else keeps Sabbath.  I would never attempt to force my beliefs on anyone else.  (I'm not a theocrat or a theonomist.)  I have concerns, though, that others might one day seek to force their beliefs on me.  And...to some extent....that's already happening.  (Christians being put out of business for not baking gay wedding cakes for instance.)

----------


## jmdrake

> I thought it was agreed among Christians that Jesus kept the whole law. Sin is the transgression of the law, Jesus was without sin. Certainly there is lots of debate about what changed with after his death and resurrection. But the idea that he did not follow some OT commandments, including one of the 10 is new to me.


_You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to William Tell again._

^This.  Jesus clearly said, and proved by pointing to the examples of the Pharisees getting their ox out of a ditch on Sabbath, "it is lawful to do good on Sabbath."  The "Jesus broke the law" argument is a slippery slope if there ever was one.

----------


## TER

> I thought it was agreed among Christians that Jesus kept the whole law. Sin is the transgression of the law, Jesus was without sin. Certainly there is lots of debate about what changed with after his death and resurrection. But the idea that he did not follow some OT commandments, including one of the 10 is new to me.


Did not Christ teach His Apostles commandments which were against the Old Law?

----------


## TER

> _You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to William Tell again._
> 
> ^This.  Jesus clearly said, and proved by pointing to the examples of the Pharisees getting their ox out of a ditch on Sabbath, "it is lawful to do good on Sabbath."  The "Jesus broke the law" argument is a slippery slope if there ever was one.


Is Christ under the Mosaic Law?

----------


## William Tell

> Did not Christ teach His Apostles commandments which were against the Old Law?


No. 

Could you give some specific chapter and verse examples?

----------


## jmdrake

> Is Christ under the Mosaic Law?


Christ *inspired* the Mosaic law.  Now let's be specific about the 10 commandments.

1) Is it okay to worship false gods?
2) Is it okay to create and worship images?
3) Is it okay to use God's name in vain?
We'll skip 4.
5) Is it okay to dishonor your parents?
6) Is it okay to murder?
7) Is it okay to commit adultery?
8) Is it okay to steal?
9) Is it okay to commit perjury?
10) Is it okay to covet?

This is what Jesus Himself said about the law.

Matthew 5
_17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled._

Now we can (I think) all agree that the sacrificial system has been fulfilled.  There is no need for burnt offerings or blood to be splattered on the mercy seat.  Have the 10 commandments been "fulfilled" so that they are no longer necessary?  I think we can all agree that the answer to that, at least for 9 of them, is no.  It's still wrong to curse your parents, sleep with another man's wife, steal, pray to idols, take God's name in vain etc.  The only question people seem to have is about commandment #4.  But that one predated the law of Moses.  It was created in Eden.  And the Sabbath, according to Isaiah, will be kept in the New Earth.  Marriage was also created in Eden, but marriage will not happen in heaven.  Anyway, I look forward to meeting you in heaven and we can both participate when "it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the Lord."  Isaiah 66:23.

----------


## TER

> No. 
> 
> Could you give some specific chapter and verse examples?


I listed some above, namely having to do with dietary restrictions, divorce, eye for an eye, adultery, hating one's enemy.  I believe Matthew 5 has these.  Also, why would Christ defend His disciples for breaking the Sabbath instead of reprimanding them if what they did was still (according to you) a sin?

----------


## TER

> Christ *inspired* the Mosaic law.  Now let's be specific about the 10 commandments.
> 
> 1) Is it okay to worship false gods?
> 2) Is it okay to create and worship images?
> 3) Is it okay to use God's name in vain?
> We'll skip 4.
> 5) Is it okay to dishonor your parents?
> 6) Is it okay to murder?
> 7) Is it okay to commit adultery?
> ...


The question was whether Christ is under the Mosaic Law.  Is He?  I ask because I am getting the sense that some people think He was.

----------


## jmdrake

> The question was whether Christ is under the Mosaic Law.  Is He?  I ask because I am getting the sense that some people think He was.


The Bible teaches that Jesus in His mission as our Messiah was under the law.  After all Hebrews say Jesus was "In all points tempted as we are yet without sin."  If "sin is the transgression of the law" and Jesus wasn't under the law then Jesus couldn't have been tempted to sin so then the writer of Hebrews was wrong when he declared Jesus was "in all points tempted as we are yet without sin."

----------


## TER

> The Bible teaches that Jesus in His mission as our Messiah was under the law.  After all Hebrews say Jesus was "In all points tempted as we are yet without sin."  If "sin is the transgression of the law" and Jesus wasn't under the law then Jesus couldn't have been tempted to sin so then the writer of Hebrews was wrong when he declared Jesus was "in all points tempted as we are yet without sin."


I don't follow.  Do you believe Jesus assumed fallen human nature and that He needed to follow the Mosaic Law in order to be without sin?  Do we have to follow the Mosaic Law now in order to be without sin? Could the Mosaic Law save us, or anyone for that matter?  I know your answers for the second two questions, but they are intricately linked to the first one (which is why I added them).

----------


## jmdrake

> I listed some above, namely having to do with dietary restrictions, divorce, eye for an eye, adultery, hating one's enemy.  I believe Matthew 5 has these.  Also, why would Christ defend His disciples for breaking the Sabbath instead of reprimanding them if what they did was still (according to you) a sin?


Strengthening the law is not the same as teaching against it.

Moses *permitted* men to give their wives a writ of divorcement.  Moses did not *command* that.  So Jesus strengthened the command against divorcement.

The only "dietary restriction" Jesus addressed was eating with unwashed hands which was not in the law of Moses but was in the tradition of the elders.  (More evidence, by the way, against statements you've made in the past regarding the value of tradition).

Moses *permitted* an "eye for an eye" but that was never a requirement.  A victim of a crime was always free to grant mercy.

Hating one's enemy comes naturally.  By commanding love towards one's enemies Jesus was again strengthening, not weakening, the law.

That's why Jesus ultimately said "Unless your righteousness *exceeds* the Pharisees you will in no wise enter into the kingdom of heaven."

Also there is no record of Jesus' disciples breaking the Sabbath.  The Pharisees *accused* them of breaking the Sabbath.  You understand the difference right?  Let's look at the context:

_ Matthew 12King James Version (KJV)

12 At that time Jesus went on the sabbath day through the corn; and his disciples were an hungred, and began to pluck the ears of corn and to eat.

2 But when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto him, Behold, thy disciples do that which is not lawful to do upon the sabbath day.

3 But he said unto them, Have ye not read what David did, when he was an hungred, and they that were with him;

4 How he entered into the house of God, and did eat the shewbread, which was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them which were with him, but only for the priests?

5 Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are blameless?

6 But I say unto you, That in this place is one greater than the temple.

7 But if ye had known what this meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless._

So Jesus compared what the disciples were doing to what the priests did in the temple on Sabbath.  The priests were not guilty of doing what was necessary to fill their physical needs on the Sabbath.  And David was not guilty for getting shewbread for himself and his men to fulfill a physical need.  

Tell me this.  Do you understand why God instituted the Sabbath in the first place in Eden and why He reminded the children of Israel of it in the 10 commandments?  Do you think it was to make their lives worse or better?

----------


## TER

So, the disciples did not break the Sabbath when they picked the corn and ate them even though the Mosaic Law spoke against doing such a thing?

----------


## jmdrake

> I don't follow.  Do you believe Jesus assumed fallen human nature and that He needed to follow the Mosaic Law in order to be without sin?  Do we have to follow the Mosaic Law now in order to be without sin? Could the Mosaic Law save us, or anyone for that matter?  I know your answers for the second two questions, but they are intricately linked to the first one (which is why I added them).


I don't know why you're having trouble following what seems quite clear.  This has nothing to do with fallen nature.  Adam didn't have a fallen nature.  Adam was tempted to sin and he sinned.  Jesus was tempted to sin and He did not sin.  Sin is the transgression of the law, according to the Bible.  If everything Jesus did was by definition not sin, regardless of whether or not it transgressed the law, then Jesus wasn't actually tempted.  When Satan asked Jesus to "bow down and worship me and I'll give you the entire world", Jesus could have said "Sure Satan.  I'll play along.  It doesn't matter anyway cause I'm Jesus."  Instead Jesus rebuked Satan with scripture.

----------


## jmdrake

> So, the disciples did not break the Sabbath when they picked the corn and ate them?


According to Jesus they didn't.  Not unless you think Jesus was wrong when He said the priests did not break the Sabbath when they cooked the shewbread and did other temple duties on Sabbath.

----------


## William Tell

> I listed some above, namely having to do with dietary restrictions, divorce, eye for an eye, adultery, hating one's enemy.


 You didn't list or quote any verses. I don't recall Jesus discussing Mosaic dietary instructions at all, and what he said about hating one's enemy is in no way contrary to the OT. he did mention the other things, but I don't recall him teaching his disciples anything against any of those OT things. That's why I'm asking for verses, so I can see where you are coming from.




> I believe Matthew 5 has these.


 OK, I just read Matthew 5 again. I don't see anything there that makes me change my opinion or understand yours.




> Also, why would Christ defend His disciples for breaking the Sabbath instead of reprimanding them *if what they did was still* (according to you) a sin?


 My understanding is it was never a sin to eat grain on the Sabbath. I assume that's the incident you are referring to. Besides, he compared his disciples actions to priests performing duties on the Sabbath, he didn't say it didn't matter.

----------


## TER

> According to Jesus they didn't.  Not unless you think Jesus was wrong when He said the priests did not break the Sabbath when they cooked the shewbread and did other temple duties on Sabbath.


I would never say Christ was wrong on anything.  

Was it not against the Sabbath Law to *pick* grain and eat it?

----------


## TER

> You didn't list or quote any verses. I don't recall Jesus discussing Mosaic dietary instructions at all


So who revealed to St. Peter that what was once considered forbidden food is not acceptable?  Do you believe we are still under the Mosaic dietary restrictions?  If not, Who is the reason we are not?




> and what he said about hating one's enemy is in no way contrary to the OT. he did mention the other things, but I don't recall him teaching his disciples anything against any of those OT things. That's why I'm asking for verses, so I can see where you are coming from.


The entire chapter of Matthew 5 is Christ establishing the new law to be over the old law.




> OK, I just read Matthew 5 again. I don't see anything there that makes me change my opinion or understand yours.


Ok.  Would Christ find it acceptable to stone to death a person committed of adultery?  Do you think it would be lawful to do so?




> My understanding is it was never a sin to eat grain on the Sabbath. I assume that's the incident you are referring to. Besides, he compared his disciples actions to priests performing duties on the Sabbath, he didn't say it didn't matter.


It was unlawful to pick fruit or grain off the tree on the Sabbath according to the Mosaic Law.

----------


## TER

> I don't know why you're having trouble following what seems quite clear.  This has nothing to do with fallen nature.  Adam didn't have a fallen nature.  Adam was tempted to sin and he sinned.  Jesus was tempted to sin and He did not sin.  Sin is the transgression of the law, according to the Bible.  If everything Jesus did was by definition not sin, regardless of whether or not it transgressed the law, then Jesus wasn't actually tempted.  When Satan asked Jesus to "bow down and worship me and I'll give you the entire world", Jesus could have said "Sure Satan.  I'll play along.  It doesn't matter anyway cause I'm Jesus."  Instead Jesus rebuked Satan with scripture.


It has everything to do with fallen nature.

Do you believe that Adam fell from grace and that human nature become corruptable and inclined to sin (read: fallen) after his disobedience?

----------


## jmdrake

> I would never say Christ was wrong on anything.


I know.  




> Was it not against the Sabbath Law to *pick* grain and eat it?


Nope.  This was not a "harvest" as in "We've got to pick all of this grain and get it into the barns before it rains."  What the disciples were doing was gleaning.  Okay.  I've been a Sabbath keeper my entire life.  And ofter I've gone on hikes with my family on or church friends Sabbath.  Because my parents both grew up in the country, and even when we lived in the city we vacationed in the country, I've always known about blackberries and huckleberries and hickory nuts.  I've never thought twice about picking some blackberries or wild raspberries (I missed most of those this year dang it) and eating them on Sabbath.  That's no more "work" than it is to pick them up off the table and put them on my plate.  Now would I go *harvest* berries, wild or domestic, on Sabbath?  If I did I would think that was Sabbath breaking.

Understand what God did when He instituted the Sabbath and  ultimately put it into the 10 commandments.  He gave everybody a day off down to the lowly manservant and maidservant.  What a great and loving God that is!  We have God, not man, to thank for the weekend.  And you know what?  I'm not mad at you all that worship on Sunday.  That's why we have *two* days off!  Hey, everybody's worried about Muslims coming to America but I say bring on the three day weekend!

The Pharisees turned around with their tradition and made the weekend a chore.  If you were starving and passing by a wild blackberry patch you couldn't pick a single berry because that would be "Sabbath breaking."  God never said that.  Point to me anywhere in the Old Testament where God said that.  But the Pharisees said that.  Worse if you wanted to walk more than a "Sabbath Day's journey" you had to have a servant go ahead of you and leave a prepared meal and each "Sabbath day's journey interval."  Okay, good for you maybe, but extra work for the servant.  It was a bunch of silliness.  And these same Pharisees who didn't want the disciples gleaning on Sabbath and couldn't stand the idea of Jesus healing on the Sabbath *were plotting on the Sabbath to kill Jesus!*  The whole point of the Sabbath, from the Garden of Eden on, was to set aside time for communion with God.  And yet the Pharisees were using it as a time to plot to kill the Son of God.  Okay...they didn't know who Jesus was.  But why did they think it was right to plot to kill *anybody* on the Sabbath?  And why take their word on what is and is not lawful to do on Sabbath?

----------


## TER

> I know.  
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.  This was not a "harvest" as in "We've got to pick all of this grain and get it into the barns before it rains."  What the disciples were doing was gleaning.  Okay.  I've been a Sabbath keeper my entire life.  And ofter I've gone on hikes with my family on or church friends Sabbath.  Because my parents both grew up in the country, and even when we lived in the city we vacationed in the country, I've always known about blackberries and huckleberries and hickory nuts.  I've never thought twice about picking some blackberries or wild raspberries (I missed most of those this year dang it) and eating them on Sabbath.  That's no more "work" than it is to pick them up off the table and put them on my plate.  Now would I go *harvest* berries, wild or domestic, on Sabbath?  If I did I would think that was Sabbath breaking.
> 
> Understand what God did when He instituted the Sabbath and  ultimately put it into the 10 commandments.  He gave everybody a day off down to the lowly manservant and maidservant.  What a great and loving God that is!  We have God, not man, to thank for the weekend.  And you know what?  I'm not mad at you all that worship on Sunday.  That's why we have *two* days off!  Hey, everybody's worried about Muslims coming to America but I say bring on the three day weekend!
> 
> The Pharisees turned around with their tradition and made the weekend a chore.  If you were starving and passing by a wild blackberry patch you couldn't pick a single berry because that would be "Sabbath breaking."  God never said that.  Point to me anywhere in the Old Testament where God said that.  But the Pharisees said that.  Worse if you wanted to walk more than a "Sabbath Day's journey" you had to have a servant go ahead of you and leave a prepared meal and each "Sabbath day's journey interval."  Okay, good for you maybe, but extra work for the servant.  It was a bunch of silliness.  And these same Pharisees who didn't want the disciples gleaning on Sabbath and couldn't stand the idea of Jesus healing on the Sabbath *were plotting on the Sabbath to kill Jesus!*  The whole point of the Sabbath, from the Garden of Eden on, was to set aside time for communion with God.  And yet the Pharisees were using it as a time to plot to kill the Son of God.  Okay...they didn't know who Jesus was.  But why did they think it was right to plot to kill *anybody* on the Sabbath?  And why take their word on what is and is not lawful to do on Sabbath?


I appreciate what you have written above.  Do you believe a Christian must be circumsized and eat under the dietary laws of the Old Covenant?  If not, why?

Also, do you think it is unlawful to extinguish a fire or kindle a fire on the Sabbath?

----------


## TER

> I appreciate what you have written above.  Do you believe a Christian must be circumsized and eat under the dietary laws of the Old Covenant?  If not, why?
> 
> Also, do you think it is unlawful to extinguish a fire or kindle a fire on the Sabbath?


Jmdrake, I'm not sure if you are busy and for that reason you haven't had time yet to respond (it is Monday after all!).  I just want to make sure that you did not take offense to what I asked above and are upset with me.  Regarding the first part of my questions, I am sure you do not believe circumsicion is necessary, and the same goes with the dietary laws, as you take the Scriptures very seriously. I am trying to establish a point with regards to the importance of the Church and the workings of the Holy Spirit within the Church in matters of faith and Christian living.  With regards to the second part, I am trying to understand how it is that you observe the Sabbath (i.e., if there is a formalized system or code with the SDA) as I am not familiar with it and I am unsure if it is more an honoring of the day (through prayer, fasting and recollection of God) rather than a law akin to what those under the Old Covenant followed.  Again, forgive me if you took offense, I am simply trying to understand your position better.  I do enjoy debating you and William as well.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Hey, everybody's worried about Muslims coming to America but I say bring on the three day weekend!


Ummm..... _short-sighted!!_

----------


## TER

Someone whom I very much respect sent me this comment:

"I suspect people honor God in their own ways. I think what's important, is that they love God enough to try to please Him."

I wish to thank this person for reminding me this and wish to add that although we people honor God in different ways, all are loved by Him and He will judge us according to the love we have for Him and all His children, not what theological facts we know or texts which we have read and studied.  I do not wish to give the impression that one must believe in an _exact_ way in order to find mercy and salvation.  Of course, I believe Orthodoxy to be the fullness of the Christian Faith and the surest way to the Kingdom (otherwise I would change to that which is, as I need all the help I can get being the habitual sinner I am!), but I would never put limits on God's mercy and love.

----------


## jmdrake

> I appreciate what you have written above.  Do you believe a Christian must be circumsized and eat under the dietary laws of the Old Covenant?  If not, why?
> 
> Also, do you think it is unlawful to extinguish a fire or kindle a fire on the Sabbath?





> Jmdrake, I'm not sure if you are busy and for that reason you haven't had time yet to respond (it is Monday after all!).  I just want to make sure that you did not take offense to what I asked above and are upset with me.  Regarding the first part of my questions, I am sure you do not believe circumsicion is necessary, and the same goes with the dietary laws, as you take the Scriptures very seriously. I am trying to establish a point with regards to the importance of the Church and the workings of the Holy Spirit within the Church in matters of faith and Christian living.  With regards to the second part, I am trying to understand how it is that you observe the Sabbath (i.e., if there is a formalized system or code with the SDA) as I am not familiar with it and I am unsure if it is more an honoring of the day (through prayer, fasting and recollection of God) rather than a law akin to what those under the Old Covenant followed.  Again, forgive me if you took offense, I am simply trying to understand your position better.  I do enjoy debating you and William as well.


No offense taken.  It was a busy Monday but I have thought about the questions.  I tried to respond yesterday but they cut off the wifi at the library and when I got hope I got sleepy.  Here are my responses.

Okay, the easy one.  Circumcision.  Paul made it abundantly clear that he didn't feel that circumcision was necessary for Christians as we have the "circumcision of the heart."  The church at Jerusalem ultimately agree.  Peter had the dream about the clean and unclean animals and interpreted that as meaning he shouldn't make a difference between circumcised and uncircumcised people.  Circumcision was only instituted to Abraham and his descendants, and note that while Moses' father in law was a priest of Yaweh for the Midianites, he apparently didn't practice circumcision otherwise Zipporah wouldn't have been resentful for having to circumcise Moses' sons.  (Note that the Midianites were descendants of Abraham as well but apparently they had abandoned the practice but God still seemed to be with Jethro at least.)  So for all of those reasons I think it's pretty clear that Christians don't have to be circumcised.

Dietary restrictions.  Originally in Eden man just ate fruits, veggies, nuts, etc.  After being kicked out of Eden green herbs were added.  After the flood man was told he could eat animals.  While it doesn't say "clean" animals, Noah was told to take 7 of each clean animal into the ark as opposed to just two (male and female) of the unclean.  That seems to suggest the clean were the only ones they could eat.  If Noah at the male or female horse, that would have been it for horses for example.  

When we get to Moses we get the full range of dietary laws.  It wasn't just clean and unclean meat.  Man was told not to eat animal fat or consume the blood of the animals.  Guess what modern science tells us about animal fat?  That it's not good for you.  (And yes I know the paleos disagree.)  Here is the promise God gave when He gave Moses the health laws. 

_Exodus 15:26  And said, If thou wilt diligently hearken to the voice of the Lord thy God, and wilt do that which is right in his sight, and wilt give ear to his commandments, and keep all his statutes, I will put none of these diseases upon thee, which I have brought upon the Egyptians: for I am the Lord that healeth thee._

And note these were not just about diet.  Moses gave strict instruction, for example, for how to handle human excrement.  Soldiers were told when the go out to battle they were to take a small shovel with them so they could go outside the camp, dig a hole, relieve themselves and bury it.  I've gone backpacking and done just that.  Jews did not suffer the Black Plague and other diseases that swept through Europe during the dark ages largely because they religiously followed the sanitation laws laid out by Moses.

Back to diet.  When Jesus talked about "What goes in does not defile you but what goes out" He was dealing with the accusation against the disciples that they didn't wash their hands before eating.  At the Jerusalem conference about circumcision the conference said the new believers didn't need to be circumcised but that they should abstain from "fornication, things strangled and things offered to idols."  It would seem to be an odd result to say "Eating pork is okay as long as it's been prepared in a kosher manner."   

All that said, and this is my *personal* belief, I think the the principle of eating healthy is the most important thing to keep in mind on diet.  I want to claim the promise Exodus 15:26.  That verse doesn't say I'll go to hell if I eat some bacon.  (I was dating a girl a year ago or so who ordered a pizza with some bacon and I ate some rather than saying "Sorry but I don't eat that."  It was alright.  I personally prefer beef bacon though.)  Also, if I abstain from pork and shellfish but become obese because I eat all the cakes, pies and other sweets I can get my hands on....well that's not healthy.  Adventists generally live longer than the overall population because we follow better health practices than most people.  But I have met people who eat much healthier than most Adventists and some occasionally will eat "unclean" foods.

On kindling or extinguishing a fire on Sabbath...that was never an issue for me.  Again my family is avid campers and we often made fires on Sabbath.  That said, lighting a match is far less work than starting a fire from scratch like they had to do thousands of years ago.  I watch some of those "man versus nature" reality TV shows and I don't know if I'd ever get a fire bow working.  Yeah, I think what happened when the people gathering sticks got stoned in Exodus was pretty extreme.  But I'm generally against stoning.  There are some things in the Bible I do not understand and I will have to ask God someday.  But from the principle of the Sabbath, rather than the letter of it, I believe it's a time to take a break and meditate and get things right with God.  You say you guys fast on Saturday to be prepared for Sunday?  Well that sounds like meditation to me.  And no.  I'm not a "perfect" Sabbath keeper.  I'm not a "perfect" anything.  I think if I'm worried about perfection then I'm missing the point of grace.  I believe God gives us the Sabbath, principles of health, principles of assembling for worship etc not to burden us down but because He loves us and wants us to find real happiness.

----------


## jmdrake

> Ummm..... _short-sighted!!_


LOL.  I hope you realize (and I'm not trying to pull a Donald Trump) that I was being sarcastic WRT Muslims and the "three day weekend."  That said, as I Christian I wonder if we are Christians are looking at the Muslim refugee crisis all wrong.  Our first and foremost duty as Christians is to spread the gospel to people who haven't heard it right?  Well in some countries it is *very* dangerous to spread the gospel.  But with large Muslim populations on the move they are going, in some cases, to countries where it is 100% legal to preach the gospel.  So....why be afraid?  Do we as Christians no longer believe in the power of the gospel to transform lives?  And yes, not every Muslim will accept the gospel and some who don't accept it may end up carrying out some terrorist act.  But again, what is the *primary* duty of Christians?  To save our own skin or to spread the gospel?  Jesus said "He who would save his own life will lose it.  But he who would give his life for My sake will find it."  Something to consider.

----------


## jmdrake

> there have been more miracles within the Orthodox Church these past 2000 years than there have been posts in this entire website, and even much greater ones than an entire congregation speaking in tongues.  This is something my mere words cannot prove to you, it is something you would have to seek out for yourself in order to believe.  As St. Philip said to St. Nathanial: Come and see.


I just wanted to respond to this part.  I wasn't meaning that there aren't modern day miracles.  I've seen some in my own life including prophetic dreams.  (I dreamed one of my sons got hit by a car and a few months later that almost happened and the way it happened was almost exactly as I dreamed it.)  But I haven't personally seen anything on the scale of what was happening in Acts and if you've personally witnessed that in your own local congregation I missed you taking about it.  That said if I'm ever in your city I'd be happy to go to church with you.  Seventh-Day Adventists are not like Jehovah's Witnesses were they refuse to go to other people's services.  I would only ask that you return the favor and attend and Adventist service with me as well.  So far I've been to a Jewish service, a Catholic/Protestant wedding (it was on a farm), more Baptist, Pentecostal, AME etc services than I can count, a Lutheran service (I was dating a Lutheran) and I've been to a Shinto shrine in Japan.  (I think they were having a wedding if I recall but I was mostly making a tourist visit).

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Seventh-Day Adventists are not like Jehovah's Witnesses were they refuse to go to other people's services.


I think some of the Reformed had rules like this to varying degrees as well, considering in strict reformed crowds occasional hearing can be a controversial topic.  I don't think its exclusively a Jehovahs' Witnesses thing

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> LOL.  I hope you realize that I was being sarcastic WRT Muslims and the "three day weekend."


 I did know you were joking, and my comment was meant to be light-hearted as well.

But to follow your turn towards the more serious: When considering political policy, I believe it makes sense to consider what is best for the country implementing the policy.  So, when making policy for America, one should consider: "What would be best for Americans?  What would make life better for Americans?"




> And yes, not every Muslim will accept the gospel and some who don't accept it may end up carrying out some terrorist act. But again, what is the primary duty of Christians? To save our own skin or to spread the gospel? Jesus said "He who would save his own life will lose it. But he who would give his life for My sake will find it." Something to consider.


 I don't want to lose my country in the hopes of (cross your fingers!) later finding it via miraculous intervention.

While this might be very noble, to sacrifice the well-being of one's self and one's country for the sake of (possibly, theoretically) helping to save souls, I would refer you to the above as to why it does not make good policy.  A good policy for a country should not sacrifice the interests of that country.  Sacrifice may be noble.  But the goal of political policy should not be to lose one's country, to sacrifice one's country.  The goal of a country's politicians should not be to disregard, toss in the garbage, and sell-out the interests of the citizens of that country.

*America* should be run for the good of *Americans*, not for the (possible, theoretical, maybe) spiritual benefit of the other 10 billion people in the world.

Besides which, I do not think your plan would work, noble as it is.  Islam is, at this time, more fertile, more militant, more devout, and all-around more vigorous.  Invite the Islamic world to the West, they are not going to Westernize -- you are going to Islamitize.  Your great-grand-daughters will be Muslim.  Better get used to it.

----------


## jmdrake

And which kingdom are Christians members of first and foremost?  World War I almost stopped when French, German and British Christians put aside their "countries interests" (or rather what they were *told* was their countries interests) and put their common Christianity ahead of all on the "Christmas true."  A couple of soldiers on each side singing "Silent Night" and all of a sudden nobody on the front lines wanted to kill each other.  Both sides had to replace all of the soldiers on each side with fresh "the state is supreme" soldiers to get the fighting started up again.

I'm not sure whether our immigration policy is the best.  I'm not sure whether Trump's wall is really the best for America.  (Ron Paul seems to think it might be used to "keep American capital in" when the SHTF.)  Yes we are being told what is "best" by politicians.  Do you trust them?  I don't.  Do I trust the power of the gospel?  I most certainly do.  The only reason we even have this refugee crisis is because of meddling of our government in the affairs of other nations.  That said, I can see the hand of God's providence in what is happening.  As the Christian population was first forced to flee Iraq to Syria and is now being force to flee Syria to somewhere else, and as these Christians are not being allowed in the U.S. (Obama sucks) or Israel (so much for Israel being the friend of Christians) they are having to settle in other Muslim countries.  Well...they're taking the gospel with them.  As I think about it....it a bizarre way God is making lemonade out of lemons.

Now back to immigration to this country.  I don't have a dog in that fight.  I don't trust either side.  But Hillary seems poised to win.  She will most certainly let more Muslims in.  Maybe that's part of God's plan.  Christians should be prepared the evangelize this new population regardless.  Instead we're spending most of our energy trying to fight against what may be inevitable.




> I did know you were joking, and my comment was meant to be light-hearted as well.
> 
> But to follow your turn towards the more serious: When considering political policy, I believe it makes sense to consider what is best for the country implementing the policy.  So, when making policy for America, one should consider: "What would be best for Americans?  What would make life better for Americans?"
> 
>  While this might be very noble, to sacrifice the well-being of one's self and one's country for the sake of (possibly, theoretically) helping to save souls, I would refer you to the above as to why it does not make good policy.  A good policy for a country should not sacrifice the interests of that country.  Sacrifice may be noble.  But the goal of political policy should not be to sacrifice one's country.  The goal of a country's politicians should not be to disregard, toss in the garbage, and sell-out the interests of the citizens of that country.
> 
> *America* should be run for the good of *Americans*, not for the (possible, theoretical, maybe) spiritual benefit of the other 10 billion people in the world.
> 
> I don't want to lose my country in the hopes of (cross your fingers!) later finding it via miraculous intervention.
> ...

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Maybe that's part of God's plan.  Christians should be prepared the evangelize this new population regardless.


Hey, I appreciate the positive attitude!  Just don't go too far and become fatalistic.  _Real_-istic, that's our happy middle-ground.

The Book of Mormon's in Arabic.  We're set.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> This was my response to Vance's article today.


True Liberty is established by God's Law. The Natural Law. This is the primary foundation for moral code which establishes the fundamental principles of Individual Liberty and subsequently proper human relations. And Liberty's fundamental principles must be accepted together with it's foundation for moral code (Natural Law - God's Law) if one expects to make any claim of rights to its benefit. 

I didn't read Vance's piece. But you may be confusing someone incorrectly speaking in Liberty (as they understand it) to be a libertarian when they actually aren't a libertarian in the most fundamental way. No true libertarian would reject the Natural Law because it's individual Liberty's primary foundation for moral code. That foundation is the primary support for Individual Liberty's fundamental principles. It's what guides proper Man-to-Man/Man-to-Government relations.

Now the libertines will openly reject it. And they'll absolutely continue to speak in Liberty (unfortunately, they send the wrong message of Liberty, though) regardless of whether their anti-moral philosophies are patently contrary to it's primary foundation for moral code. But they aren't libertarians even if they think they are. Libertine is not libertarian.

----------


## jmdrake

> Hey, I appreciate the positive attitude!  Just don't go too far and become fatalistic.  _Real_-istic, that's our happy middle-ground.
> 
> The Book of Mormon's in Arabic.  We're set.


LOL.  Say what you want about Mormons but they take their missionary stuff seriously.  What do you call two white guys in shirt and tie on bikes in a black neighborhood?  Mormon missionaries.    Jehovah Witnesses will be knocking on your door with the Watchtowers.  SDAs used to go ingathering.  (Asking for money for foreign missions) but that's usually supported by member donations these days.  You might find SDA college students going door to door selling books.

Anyway, I don't think I'm being fatalistic.  I believe I'm being *faith*alistic.  I honestly believe God is lining things up for the final gospel push.  If so...that's a good thing in my book.

----------


## hells_unicorn

> I think some of the Reformed had rules like this to varying degrees as well, considering in strict reformed crowds occasional hearing can be a controversial topic.  I don't think its exclusively a Jehovahs' Witnesses thing


Economic interaction is not prohibited under occasional hearing unless it violates the light of nature (ex. catering to openly blasphemous or lascivious occasions). The Reformed will build a house for a couple of sodomites, but they won't attend what they call a wedding or participate in a political system that openly condones their behavior.

Occasional hearing was primarily about keeping members of the congregation from being swept away by corrupting theological influences. Most of the early controversies that eventually caused the split between the "Old Light" and "New Light" churches in the 19th century had to do with women attending Methodist bible studies.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Economic interaction is not prohibited under occasional hearing unless it violates the light of nature (ex. catering to openly blasphemous or lascivious occasions). The Reformed will build a house for a couple of sodomites, but they won't attend what they call a wedding or participate in a political system that openly condones their behavior.
> 
> Occasional hearing was primarily about keeping members of the congregation from being swept away by corrupting theological influences. Most of the early controversies that eventually caused the split between the "Old Light" and "New Light" churches in the 19th century had to do with women attending Methodist bible studies.


JMDrake was talking about attending other people's church services, which is what I was addressing.

----------


## CPUd

Not a religious person, but I like reading some of the theological discussions here.  I think I would pay money to see some of the folks in this thread get witnessed to by someone outside their denomination, because I know there would be some questions...

----------


## TER

> Not a religious person, but I like reading some of the theological discussions here.  I think I would pay money to see some of the folks in this thread get witnessed to by someone outside their denomination, because I know there would be some questions...


Like what?

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Not a religious person, but I like reading some of the theological discussions here.  I think I would pay money to see some of the folks in this thread get witnessed to by someone outside their denomination, because I know there would be some questions...


This may sound under-educated, but I've never really understood the concept of denominations. I mean, there's only 1 true Gospel. Right?

----------


## TER

> This may sound under-educated, but I've never really understood the concept of denominations. I mean, there's only 1 true Gospel. Right?


There is 1 true Gospel, but there are many different interpretations which are wrong and distorts the Gospel.

----------


## CPUd

> Like what?


It would depend.  Like what would a Seventh Day Adventist say to a Jehovah's Witness who comes to their door?

----------


## TER

> It would depend.  Like what would a Seventh Day Adventist say to a Jehovah's Witness who comes to their door?


I'm sure there could be a very interesting discussion!  

What denomination are you, if you don't mind me asking?

----------


## Natural Citizen

> There is 1 true Gospel, but there are millions of different interpretations which are wrong and distorts the Gospel.


Well. I don't want to go off topic but it seems to me that it's more akin to tailoring the Gospel to conform to one's worldly/political/social ideologies and lifestyles/indulgences. That's really the way I see it. 

But thanks, man. I appreciate your response. I was just thinking out loud, I suppose.

----------


## CPUd

> This may sound under-educated, but I've never really understood the concept of denominations. I mean, there's only 1 true Gospel. Right?


I've always seen denominations as different Protestant groups, but not sure if something like LDS is considered a different church altogether (I'm guessing it depends on who you ask).  I knew someone from out of town who was Assembly of God, he came to visit, but on Sunday, there was no Assembly of God church nearby.  So we literally drove around looking for a church to go to that day, he didn't want to go to the Methodist or Presbyterian, but we finally settled on Church of the Nazarene.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> I've always seen denominations as different Protestant groups, but not sure if something like LDS is considered a different church altogether (I'm guessing it depends on who you ask).  I knew someone from out of town who was Assembly of God, he came to visit, but on Sunday, there was no Assembly of God church nearby.  So we literally drove around looking for a church to go to that day, he didn't want to go to the Methodist or Presbyterian, but we finally settled on Church of the Nazarene.


Yeah, that's what I've been looking for. An Assembly of/in God. None around here that I know of, though.

----------


## CPUd

> I'm sure there could be a very interesting discussion!  
> 
> What denomination are you, if you don't mind me asking?


I'm not really religious, but I'm surrounded by Baptists.

----------


## TER

> Well. I don't want to go off topic but it seems to me that it's more akin to tailoring the Gospel to conform to one's worldly/political/social ideologies and lifestyles/indulgences. That's really the way I see it. 
> 
> But thanks, man. I appreciate your response. I was just thinking out loud, I suppose.


You're exactly right.  People have tailored it to conform to their own individual standards, instead of as a community or Church, (as it was done and meant to be done.). Christianity is about being members of a body, in mystical union through the waters of baptism, and in love and faith.  Individualism and its child, moral relativism, have dynamically changed how Christians believe they are saved, which is not solely as an individual, but as a community, a Church, a Bride, in communion and encompassing the whole of the elect in the oneness of God's Light and Glory.  The neologism of the phrase "personal relationship with Christ" is new to the lexicon of the wold's languages, found only in the past few centuries.  Yes, of course, our relationship with Christ is personal, because He is a person and we are persons, and any relationship between us would be personal by definition.  It was already understood that our relationship with Christ is the most personal relationship a human can have with anyone.

What has happened however in the past few centuries, is that this has overshadowed and diminished the importance of our relationship with one another, as members of the same body, as one organism, made alive by Christ.  

But this is veering off topic and I am happy to continue this on another thread or by PM.

----------


## TER

> I'm not really religious, but I'm surrounded by Baptists.


Do you have any questions regarding other denominations of Christians?  Have you sought out to learn about the varying Christian confessions?

----------


## jmdrake

> I think some of the Reformed had rules like this to varying degrees as well, considering in strict reformed crowds occasional hearing can be a controversial topic.  I don't think its exclusively a Jehovahs' Witnesses thing


Hmmm...interesting.  Context?  I can see this happening during the persecution phase of the Reformation as it might be wise not to hang around people who might want to kill you if you do or say the wrong thing.  But Jesus and the apostles did visit the temple and various synagogues hoping to find potential converts.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> I think I would pay money to see some of the folks in this thread get witnessed to by someone outside their denomination, because I know there would be some questions...


 As for me, I actually go out of my way to get witnessed to, preached at, and otherwise exposed to various other religious groups and views.

Even within one's own group, there are always different interesting perspectives and theological pontifications to consider.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> LOL.  Say what you want about Mormons but they take their missionary stuff seriously.  What do you call two white guys in shirt and tie on bikes in a black neighborhood?  Mormon missionaries.


 Maybe Kirby salesmen!  But yeah, 99% chance.




> Jehovah Witnesses will be knocking on your door with the Watchtowers.  SDAs used to go ingathering.  (Asking for money for foreign missions) but that's usually supported by member donations these days.  You might find SDA college students going door to door selling books.


 The Baptists left door hanger packets for our neighborhood recently, but the interesting thing is, they skipped our door!  And not just ours, they only left them on maybe 60% of the doors.  How did they decide whom they wanted to invite and whom they'd rather stayed home?  I don't know!  Inspiration?  Tell-tale clues from the house?  Notes from past canvassers' experiences?




> Anyway, I don't think I'm being fatalistic.  I believe I'm being *faith*alistic.


  I like it!  If you came up with that, it's very clever.  You could base a sermon on it.

----------


## hells_unicorn

> Not a religious person, but I like reading some of the theological discussions here.  I think I would pay money to see some of the folks in this thread get witnessed to by someone outside their denomination, because I know there would be some questions...


Sorry I didn't get video of the last round I had with the local Jehova's Witnesses, you would have found it quite amusing. The sad thing about said organization and other inventions of 19th century "Murican" theology is that they send these poor, under-informed saps out to try and rope in less informed saps to feed their donation coffers, while their elders/leaders usually go on speaking tours and mind the cash that comes rolling in. The only time they ever call in the big guns (the people who know the actual secrets of their organization) is when dealing with somebody that causes the door-to-door proselytizer to start asking the wrong questions.




> It would depend.  Like what would a Seventh Day Adventist say to a Jehovah's Witness who comes to their door?


What would actually be said would be something along the lines of "Why have you rejected the person and deity of Christ, the Holy Trinity, and insist on cleaving to the Roman/Pagan practice of worship on Sunday?". For the record, the Seven Day Adventists would be right on the first two points, and woefully wrong on the third.

Personally, I'd find it more interesting if the Seventh Day Adventist would get super hardcore on the Jehovah Witness and say something like "Why did you clowns decide to swallow all of this nonsense that a your founder Charles Russell and his underling Joseph Rutherford taught when they were just nobody bible students (Russell was a defrocked Baptist who was guilty of committing perjury in a civil libel case in Ontario against a Baptist who had written about his exploits by claiming he could translate Greek yet was unable to decipher a single word from a Greek New Testament passage provided to him while testifying), us Seventh Day Adventists had an actual prophetess who had visions!". Naturally the Jehovah's Witness could counter that these "visions" were a consequence of mental health issues and that many of Ellen G. White's "prophecies" were subject to revision, and then the Seventh Day Adventist could try and go in for the kill by referencing the litany of failed end of the world prophecies associated with the Watchtower Society.

If nothing else, it would be entertaining.




> I'm not really religious, but I'm surrounded by Baptists.


My condolences, there is a lot of them in my neck of the woods too, along with Mennonites. Thankfully the Mennonites tend to keep to themselves and are actually pretty good to work with when it comes to economic exchanges, but we get the occasional Baptist to our doorstep, largely to try and turn my family from our wicked ways of baptizing our children as it had been done for the entire history of the Christian Faith prior to the 16th century.




> JMDrake was talking about attending other people's church services, which is what I was addressing.


Okay, gotcha. I'm not paying attention to anything that he's saying for the foreseeable future, talking to a proverbial wall gets a bit tiresome after a while. But you are correct, I don't attend the worship services of other churches. The closest that I've gotten to doing that was visiting an Orthodox monastery in Kharkiv, Ukraine and agreeing to alter my attire before entering. I was there as an observer/tourist, not a part of the order, but my girlfriend did observe the worship practices and veneration that go along with being a communicate member. Her and I are still negotiating her transition into the Presbyterian faith, which will happen prior to any official engagement, but I am admittedly far more diplomatic with the Lutherans and Eastern Orthodox than most other groups, largely due to the smaller degree of separation involved relative to other groups.

One thing I will grant Drake, despite my massive problems with his church, is that they haven't completely thrown out the gospel, though it has been distorted and loaded up with so much legalistic rubbish that it's all but impossible to find.

----------


## jmdrake

> Maybe Kirby salesmen!  But yeah, 99% chance.


LOL.  We bought a Kirby years ago from a door to door salesman.  That think was far to big to carry on a bike.  




> The Baptists left door hanger packets for our neighborhood recently, but the interesting thing is, they skipped our door!  And not just ours, they only left them on maybe 60% of the doors.  How did they decide whom they wanted to invite and whom they'd rather stayed home?  I don't know!  Inspiration?  Tell-tale clues from the house?  Notes from past canvassers' experiences?


Hmmmm....I wonder if they were short on door hanger and decided to go for a "random sample" approach instead of just going door to door until they ran out?  Anyway I prefer door hangers to knocking on door and having to *gasp* talk to somebody!  But then again going door to door for Ron Paul was fun.  (Not religion but a kind of evangelism just the same.)  I hate making phone calls.  I think the group your with when doing any kind of canvassing (religious or political) makes all the difference and my Ron Paul canvasing buddies were a blast!




> I like it!  If you came up with that, it's very clever.  You could base a sermon on it.


Thanks!  And yeah I did just come up with that.  I've never preached a sermon though I've been asked to.  I really don't feel worthy.  I don't mind teaching a Bible class.  I like the interaction.  But just standing up for half an hour and talking?  Maybe someday.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Okay, gotcha. I'm not paying attention to anything that he's saying for the foreseeable future, talking to a proverbial wall gets a bit tiresome after a while. But you are correct, I don't attend the worship services of other churches. The closest that I've gotten to doing that was visiting an Orthodox monastery in Kharkiv, Ukraine and agreeing to alter my attire before entering. I was there as an observer/tourist, not a part of the order, but my girlfriend did observe the worship practices and veneration that go along with being a communicate member. Her and I are still negotiating her transition into the Presbyterian faith, which will happen prior to any official engagement, but I am admittedly far more diplomatic with the Lutherans and *Eastern Orthodox* than most other groups, largely due to the smaller degree of separation involved relative to other groups.


I've noticed that closeness to the Orthodox seems like a Steelite distinctive (among Presbyterians) as most of the other Presbyterians I know, whether they be non-covenanters or just non-steelite covenanters, tend to have an extremely negative view of the EOC, most of which think they're comparable to Rome.  And even with Lutherans most covenanters that I know through facebook prefer to identify with Reformed Baptists over Lutherans.  I know you don't necessarily know all the people I know, but do you happen to know why this is?  Why Steelites seem to have a positive view of the Orthodox while most other Presbyterians and even most other covenanters seem to have a very negative view?

I'm not currently persuaded to be quite as strict with occasional hearing as you guys are, but I understand why you do it.  If I werent in the position I'm currently in as I've mentioned previously I don't think I could bring myself to attend a church that uses grape juice instead of wine for the Lord's Supper, and even as it is I don't partake with my family or the rest of the congregation because I believe its disrespectful.  Though there are a blessed few exceptions, for the most part I'm really frustrated with the anti-paedobaptism crowd along similar lines as you.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Not a religious person, but I like reading some of the theological discussions here.  I think I would pay money to see some of the folks in this thread get witnessed to by someone outside their denomination, because I know there would be some questions...


Its happened, a good friend of mine became Roman Catholic and is still trying to convert me (that ain't happening).  That said in most cases the outright cultists are way too stupid to actually be able to have a good exegetical conversation, most of the good conversations along these lines are with intelligent RCs.

----------


## hells_unicorn

> I've noticed that closeness to the Orthodox seems like a Steelite distinctive (among Presbyterians) as most of the other Presbyterians I know, whether they be non-covenanters or just non-steelite covenanters, tend to have an extremely negative view of the EOC, most of which think they're comparable to Rome.  And even with Lutherans most covenanters that I know through facebook prefer to identify with Reformed Baptists over Lutherans.  I know you don't necessarily know all the people I know, but do you happen to know why this is?  Why Steelites seem to have a positive view of the Orthodox while most other Presbyterians and even most other covenanters seem to have a very negative view?
> 
> I'm not currently persuaded to be quite as strict with occasional hearing as you guys are, but I understand why you do it.  If I werent in the position I'm currently in as I've mentioned previously I don't think I could bring myself to attend a church that uses grape juice instead of wine for the Lord's Supper, and even as it is I don't partake with my family or the rest of the congregation because I believe its disrespectful.  Though there are a blessed few exceptions, for the most part I'm really frustrated with the anti-paedobaptism crowd along similar lines as you.


The division between Steelites and the rest of the Presbyterian groups in present day America is centered around how originalist one is in interpreting the original covenants of Scotland, Ireland and England. I'm going out a bit on a limb regarding this point, but I would argue that Steelites are the Presbyterian Church frozen in time, we're still looking at the church through the lens that the earliest adherents of both the 1st and 2nd Reformations saw it, which is the reason why we have a strict standard for such things as eschatology that disqualifies Pre-Millennialism in either the variants of Dispensationalism or Chiliasm, as well as Futurist and Preterist strains within Amillennial and Postmillennial schools. There are 19th century writers that are in line with Steelite thought, but they are the ones holding fast to earlier standards and dissenting with the newer fellowship taking root between Presbyterians and various Independent groups.

Lutherans and Eastern Orthodox were historically allies of the Reformed Churches, particularly when it came to dealing with Roman suppression. Relations between Protestantism and Eastern Orthodoxy soured soon after Mohammedan idolaters murdered Patriarch Cyril Lucaris, in much the same way that the Formula of Concord strained relations between the Reformed and Lutheranism, but in terms of overall proximity via doctrine, these two churches are more in line with an originalist view of the Reformed Faith than any strain of Baptist thought even within the London Baptist Confession, which I would argue like Savoy, is simply a plagiarized reworking of the Westminster Confession where certain positions were corrupted to fit individual fancies. Steelites view Reformed Baptists and Savoy Congregationalists as backslidden Anglicans, ergo it is a matter of openly resisting the reforms of the church, rather than simply failing to reform which would apply to the Anglican Church and the Lutherans, or not being subject to the reformation that took place in the west as is so with Eastern Orthodoxy.

To be clear, I don't attend Lutheran or Eastern Orthodox worship. I've been in Ukraine for about 2 weeks now (it's really late over here but I'm having some serious insomnia) and I've conducted all of my Lord's Day worship in private in my hotel room. But when having dialogues with these groups, as well as with conservative Anglicans, there is far more fundamental common ground than with the other groups you've cited. Naturally I do talk to other Presbyterians, but the conversations are very different because I'm dealing with people who claim to be following the confessions of our church yet violate them on several points, often for reasons of American patriotism which I find to be wholly asinine. You could chalk my generally conciliar tendencies with the Eastern Orthodox as being influenced by James Dodson's style on the matter, as well as my own personal relationships, but objectively speaking, whenever American Presbyterians conflate Eastern Orthodoxy with Roman Catholicism, they come off as complete fools who have no idea what they are talking about to me.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> The division between Steelites and the rest of the Presbyterian groups in present day America is centered around how originalist one is in interpreting the original covenants of Scotland, Ireland and England. I'm going out a bit on a limb regarding this point, but I would argue that Steelites are the Presbyterian Church frozen in time, we're still looking at the church through the lens that the earliest adherents of both the 1st and 2nd Reformations saw it, which is the reason why we have a strict standard for such things as eschatology that disqualifies Pre-Millennialism in either the variants of Dispensationalism or Chiliasm, as well as Futurist and Preterist strains within Amillennial and Postmillennial schools. There are 19th century writers that are in line with Steelite thought, but they are the ones holding fast to earlier standards and dissenting with the newer fellowship taking root between Presbyterians and various Independent groups.
> 
> Lutherans and Eastern Orthodox were historically allies of the Reformed Churches, particularly when it came to dealing with Roman suppression. Relations between Protestantism and Eastern Orthodoxy soured soon after Mohammedan idolaters murdered Patriarch Cyril Lucaris, in much the same way that the Formula of Concord strained relations between the Reformed and Lutheranism, but in terms of overall proximity via doctrine, these two churches are more in line with an originalist view of the Reformed Faith than any strain of Baptist thought even within the London Baptist Confession, which I would argue like Savoy, is simply a plagiarized reworking of the Westminster Confession where certain positions were corrupted to fit individual fancies. Steelites view Reformed Baptists and Savoy Congregationalists as backslidden Anglicans, ergo it is a matter of openly resisting the reforms of the church, rather than simply failing to reform which would apply to the Anglican Church and the Lutherans, or not being subject to the reformation that took place in the west as is so with Eastern Orthodoxy.
> 
> To be clear, I don't attend Lutheran or Eastern Orthodox worship. I've been in Ukraine for about 2 weeks now (it's really late over here but I'm having some serious insomnia) and I've conducted all of my Lord's Day worship in private in my hotel room. But when having dialogues with these groups, as well as with conservative Anglicans, there is far more fundamental common ground than with the other groups you've cited. Naturally I do talk to other Presbyterians, but the conversations are very different because I'm dealing with people who claim to be following the confessions of our church yet violate them on several points, often for reasons of American patriotism which I find to be wholly asinine. You could chalk my generally conciliar tendencies with the Eastern Orthodox as being influenced by James Dodson's style on the matter, as well as my own personal relationships, but objectively speaking, whenever American Presbyterians conflate Eastern Orthodoxy with Roman Catholicism, they come off as complete fools who have no idea what they are talking about to me.


Could you explain what the deal is with American Presbyterians letting patriotism getting in the way of confessional adherence?  Are you referring to the 1788 revisions in the OPC and PCA?

Does James Dodson happen to have any sermons or writings that discuss the eastern orthodox?  Could you send me one if he has one?  I'm curious.

----------


## TER

> Its happened, a good friend of mine became Roman Catholic and is still trying to convert me (that ain't happening).  That said in most cases the outright cultists are way too stupid to actually be able to have a good exegetical conversation, most of the good conversations along these lines are with intelligent RCs.


Out of curiosity, was your friend a Protestant Christian prior to becoming Roman Catholic?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Out of curiosity, was your friend a Protestant Christian prior to becoming Roman Catholic?


Yep, Reformed Baptist, with some weird Federal Vision leanings (I think he was transitioning when I met him.)

----------


## TER

> Yep, Reformed Baptist, with some weird Federal Vision leanings (I think he was transitioning when I met him.)


That's a big jump!  His family is Reformed Baptist?  If so, I am sure that must have took a lot of courage.

----------


## hells_unicorn

> Could you explain what the deal is with American Presbyterians letting patriotism getting in the way of confessional adherence?  Are you referring to the 1788 revisions in the OPC and PCA?
> 
> Does James Dodson happen to have any sermons or writings that discuss the eastern orthodox?  Could you send me one if he has one?  I'm curious.


Yes, that is exactly what is in view. Covenanters in America supported the American Revolution, and no one within the Steelite Party has ever asserted that America was mistaken in seceding from Britain as the British Crown had become derelict in its function as a Godly sword-bearer as noted in Romans 13. However, the U.S. Constitution was not supported by several key parties both in Anglican and Presbyterian circles following the revolution, and Steelites generally hold to that position. The 1788 American revisions, in the view of David Steel, Robert Lusk and the rest of the signatories to the Reformed Presbytery corresponding to them, were invalid both with regards to scripture and procedure. A land changing magistrates does not equal a license for local congregations in said land going jollily along changing legitimately formulated confessions of faith because "Murica". What was done was equal in gravity to a synod unilaterally changing key components of the Nicene or Chalcedonian creeds without even consulting with a General Assembly, though in those cases even a General Assembly would be invalid since those councils were ecumenical.

Most of what I know regarding James Dodson's stances on Eastern Orthodoxy come from individual conversations I've had with him, but I am confident that I am accurately laying out his position on the matter, namely that the Church of England, Lutheranism and Eastern Orthodoxy hold a schismatic disconnect with the Reformed Churches, whereas Roman Catholicism and Anabaptist offshoots (Reformed Baptists are included in the latter category, though similarities in soteriology are noted when they apply) are regarded as heretical churches. The only thing I have as far as sermons go by James Dodson that would count as a critique of Eastern Orthodoxy on a doctrinal level would be his sermon on the regulative principle of worship, which forbids imagery in the midst of prayer. However, this is something that applies equally to Anglicanism and Lutheranism, albeit in different respects.

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/jw92ny54x...18%29.mp3?dl=0

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Yes, that is exactly what is in view. Covenanters in America supported the American Revolution, and no one within the Steelite Party has ever asserted that America was mistaken in seceding from Britain as the British Crown had become derelict in its function as a Godly sword-bearer as noted in Romans 13. However, the U.S. Constitution was not supported by several key parties both in Anglican and Presbyterian circles following the revolution, and Steelites generally hold to that position. The 1788 American revisions, in the view of David Steel, Robert Lusk and the rest of the signatories to the Reformed Presbytery corresponding to them, were invalid both with regards to scripture and procedure. A land changing magistrates does not equal a license for local congregations in said land going jollily along changing legitimately formulated confessions of faith because "Murica". What was done was equal in gravity to a synod unilaterally changing key components of the Nicene or Chalcedonian creeds without even consulting with a General Assembly, though in those cases even a General Assembly would be invalid since those councils were ecumenical.


I'm confused as to how this is comparable, given that the WCF, as much respect as I have for it, is not an ecunemical council.  its a great document but still a sectarian one, while the entire true church has confessed Nicea for 1700 years.  I mean, Lutherans and EOs don't accept the authority of Westminster either.... I'm not sure how changing one or two points is worse than differing on way more.

That said I'm very uncomfortable with the 1788 revisions.  I happen to agree with some of them (though I respect why you'd disagree with me here, I think the papacy as eschatological AntiChrist is very improbably now, though it would have been a very difficult thing for a Protestant to avoid believing at the time) but the reasoning behind the change to WCF 23.3 I can't abide.  I admit I'm not 100% sure exactly how those who truly love Christ but are schismatic should be handled by the magistrate, but the 1788 opens the floodgates to plenty more than that, not to mention being politically motivated.  I'm really not comfortable with that one.  So yeah.  I'm pretty much in agreement with you here.






> Most of what I know regarding James Dodson's stances on Eastern Orthodoxy come from individual conversations I've had with him, but I am confident that I am accurately laying out his position on the matter,


To be clear, I never doubted this, I was curious to see if he'd addressed it but I didn't doubt that you were correct.



> namely that the Church of England, Lutheranism and Eastern Orthodoxy hold a schismatic disconnect with the Reformed Churches, whereas Roman Catholicism and Anabaptist offshoots (Reformed Baptists are included in the latter category, though similarities in soteriology are noted when they apply)


Reformed Baptists irritate me to a great degree, especially having a family full of "Reformed" (really more just Calvinistic) baptists.  I think the Memorialist view of the supper is horrible, administration with grape juice is sacriligious, and refusal to baptize infants is certainly a significant issue. I'm somebody who would criticize the OPC for serving them communion.  With that said, I really don't get this.  I know you noted soteriology in passing but I don't see how that can just be in passing, other than Christology proper doctrine of justification seems to be the most central thing.  And that alone would seem to put a huge disconnect between them and Rome.  Personally I think of groups like Calvinistic Baptists as heterodox rather than heretical, as frustrating as they are and as shallow as they can be sometimes I think they have the essence of the gospel intact, whereas Rome really doesn't.  

I'd be more likely to put Arminian Baptists or Pentecostals with Rome though.
[QUOTE]



> are regarded as heretical churches. The only thing I have as far as sermons go by James Dodson that would count as a critique of Eastern Orthodoxy on a doctrinal level would be his sermon on the regulative principle of worship, which forbids imagery in the midst of prayer. However, this is something that applies equally to Anglicanism and Lutheranism, albeit in different respects.[
> 
> https://www.dropbox.com/sh/jw92ny54x...18%29.mp3?dl=0


Thank you.

----------


## TER

The Westminister Confession was definitely not a Holy Ecumenical Council.  The Second Council of Nicea (787 AD) most certainly was, occuring long before the Great Schism, and it upheld the use of icons and images as being orthodox and according to the faith handed down in the Church everywhere.  The truth is, every confession which can trace itself down via apostolic succession to the first century and ordination to the Apostles, incorporate images in their homes and temples (i.e places of prayer), including the communities which split from the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church many centuries earlier, such as the Oriental Orthodox (in North Africa, India, and the Far East).  The Oriental Orthodox Churches split away in the fourth century, and they were not involved in any Holy Ecumenical Council Church since then, yet they also hold that icons are part of the deposit of the faith handed down by the Apostles.  That alone is great proof that the use of images were allowed and used as a remembrance of God going back to the early Church. 

 This makes sense since we worship a Father in Heaven Who was come and revealed His Face in His Son, Jesus Christ.  God is with us, and has sat with us and shared our hunger and thirst and suffering.   He is not some mysterious supernatural force, but rather, a Person, Whose image we were made in the image of.  God's ontology is one of personhood, and we ourselves are truly persons through our relationship with the Holy Trinity.  No longer named as YHWH, but known better as the Father, Who is in Heaven, Holy is His Name.  Christ revealed that this Father in Heaven loves us and cares for us, and that the Son was sent to restore our broken nature which kept us from our Father.  Our salvation is in Christ, Who destroys the power of death through His Holy Resurrection.  He came not as a mere pillar of light, or a cloud, but as a true human, with a name Jesus, and a face and voice and hands and feet which were driven through with nails.  Christ is an ikon of the Father, as St. Paul says, and we worship Him as God of God incarnated in the flesh, just as the Prophets foretold.  He has overcome the world and destroyed the power of Satan over men's souls, and has given hope to mankind.  Not in a mysterious, unrecognizable and hidden way, but through the image of the cross, through the image of a death of a son in the arms of His mother.  So too through the image of the man of wonders and feeder of crowds and the man who raised Lazarus from the dead.  Through the images also of the king riding humbly on a donkey, the quiet lamb being sent to slaughter, and the suffering servant.  Through the image of the risen Christ ascending in the air towards Heaven escorted by angels, to sit at the right hand of the Father. 

So too, with a face which He has now and for always will, with marks in His hands and feet and a stab wound in His side.  God is no longer unseen and far away, and unrecognizable, but rather with us, as one of us, and has made His ikon known to us in the God-man Jesus Christ.  The Apostles and the Church after them understood that we use images and symbols as aids to our Christian lives, not as the goal of our Christian lives.  That is why the Seventh Ecumencial Council in the eighth century was convened to express that accurate Christian teaching since Islamic influences started to infiltrate a region of the Church in the East resulting in the heresy of iconoclasm.  And again, it was already decided long before that, as evidenced by the archeological evidence we have and the fact that the Oriental Orthodox Churches have always maintained this doctrinal belief and practice since before separating themselves from the early Church.

The real question as pertains to this thread would then be: why would James Dobson be more authorative than such a great cloud of witnesses tracing back through the centuries to the early Church?

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Reformed Baptists irritate me to a great degree...


They irritate you based on what?





> I think the Memorialist view of the supper is horrible, administration with grape juice is sacriligious.


You think this based on what? 

My family all happen to be Baptists. They'd say the same think about your views. 


Do you have any proof that Jesus served fermented grape juice at the supper? Or that He even drank it? He refused wine mingled with myrrh when He tasted it as He hung on the cross for crying out loud. If the Israelites were forbiddin to eat fermented bread at Passover, why do you think He would want them to drink fermented grape juice? If the blood of a lamb without sin wasn't permitted to be symbolized by corrupted fermented juice, then, why would the blood of Christ be permitted to be symbolized in such a way?  Leaven (fermented) is symbolic of sin in the Bible. And given that we only take unleavened bread at communion, why would we take fermented grape juice and contradict the symbolism? There are two kinds of wine. Fermented and unfermented. Is there not?





> refusal to baptize infants is certainly a significant issue.


With infant water baptism, why would you do that? Specifically, please. Why?

----------


## RJB

> Do you have any proof that Jesus served fermented grape juice at the supper?


Talk to any Jewish person about what they drink at Passover.  Second in ancient times without canning or refrigeration, any grape juice left over from the harvest would either be vinegar or wine depending on the vessel that was used for storing/fermenting.







> Or that He even drank it?


  At the Wedding at Cana: I have never heard of guests threatening to leave a party for lack of grape juice.  



> He refused wine mingled with myrrh when He tasted it as He hung on the cross for crying out loud.


He hadn't fulfilled the prophesy yet.



> If the Israelites were forbiddin to eat fermented bread at Passover, why do you think He would want them to drink fermented grape juice?


People didn't add yeast to grapes like they did to bread in olden times.  Yeast is naturally on the grapes. 




> And given that we only take unleavened bread at communion,


That's a Roman Catholic innovation.




> There are two kinds of wine. Fermented and unfermented. Is there not?


Without a refrigerator, canning or artificial preservatives, it is wine or vinegar.  I'm a bit of a primitologist.  I love trying to replicate ancient life.  Fermentation was a way to keep food edible and nutritious for long periods of time.  During times  with lack of fruit, wine really hits the spot with all of it's natural nutrients.    




> Print
>   Email  Discuss (25)
> Question:
> 
> Why is it permitted to drink wine on Passover when it is fermented with yeast? Isn't yeast forbidden on Passover?
> 
> Answer:
> 
> Of the hundreds of species of yeast, the Passover prohibition only applies to yeast which is a product of one of the following five grains: wheat, barley, oat, spelt, or rye. Yeast which is the product of grapes, or its sugars, is not considered chametz (leavened food).  http://www.chabad.org/holidays/passo...with-yeast.htm

----------


## TER

When the lambs were being slaughtered for the Passover meal, Christ, the Lamb of God, was hanging on the cross.

The Mystical Supper (aka the Last Supper) was held on the Preparation Day for the Passover as stated in St. John's Gospel.  The synoptic Gospels call it the First Day of Unleavened Bread because that was the name it was called during that period (the first day in preparing for the feast).  St. John used the more exact term of Preparation Day in his later written Gospel likely to stop any confusion which later baptized believers had regarding when the meal occurred.  When one studies the rest of the accounts of what happened in the Gospels (such as the trial, the crucifixion, etc), it becomes clear that the Mystical Supper was not a Passover meal.  It held some elements found in the Seder and some in a chabûrah (fellowship meal), but it was neither of those.  It was a new meal, for the new covenant He was establishing, based upon His life-giving Body and Blood.  Read more here: http://www.orthodoxwitness.org/was-t...passover-meal/

As for what type of bread Christ used and what type of drink for the Mystical Supper, there is no question it was artos (leavened bread) and wine.

That said, God is not limited to what elements are used in the Holy Eucharist, such that in the days of persecution (for example in the Soviet gulags), other elements were used since wine was not available.  God can turn grape juice to His Blood if that is His will. But that being said, there is a good order which Christ has established, a structure and form which He has instituted, thus when leavened bread and wine are available, these should be used according to the tradition and teachings of the Church.

----------


## hells_unicorn

> I'm confused as to how this is comparable, given that the WCF, as much respect as I have for it, is not an ecunemical council.  its a great document but still a sectarian one, while the entire true church has confessed Nicea for 1700 years.  I mean, Lutherans and EOs don't accept the authority of Westminster either.... I'm not sure how changing one or two points is worse than differing on way more.


I didn't say that the WCF was an ecumenical council, it's a General Assembly, though it technically was an international one rather than a national one since it encompassed 3 kingdoms instead of just 1. You cannot overrule a legitimately executed national or international general assembly with a synod, it's a fundamental distortion of the Presbyterian mode of church governance. But even if a full national assembly of American Presbyterian churches from every colony agreed to the 1788 revisions, knowing what I know today, I would have joined any dissenting party on the matter and have gone into schism with the broader American Presbytery. The utter theological carnage that has taken place in the PCUSA is undeniable, and even the more conservative dissenting parties that didn't follow it down the proverbial rabbit-hole in the early 20th century are also degenerating, albeit at a slower rate. Binding your church's doctrines to a renegade magistrate that pioneered the idea of not confessing a national faith is a road to disaster, and it's not unique to America if you take a look at how the government of The Netherlands has impacted the majority of Reformed congregations there.




> That said I'm very uncomfortable with the 1788 revisions.  I happen to agree with some of them (though I respect why you'd disagree with me here, I think the papacy as eschatological AntiChrist is very improbably now, though it would have been a very difficult thing for a Protestant to avoid believing at the time) but the reasoning behind the change to WCF 23.3 I can't abide.  I admit I'm not 100% sure exactly how those who truly love Christ but are schismatic should be handled by the magistrate, but the 1788 opens the floodgates to plenty more than that, not to mention being politically motivated.  I'm really not comfortable with that one.  So yeah.  I'm pretty much in agreement with you here.


I'd argue the exact opposite, now more so than the immediate aftermath of World War II, the Papacy has had its hands in just about every political institution in western Christendom, its tactics have simply become much more subtle. When I see so-called conservatives in the GOP putting a Jesuit in the office of Congressional Chaplin and when I see so-called evangelical apologists like William Lane Craig reviving Molinism to a generation of theologically impoverished fundamentalists grasping for a champion, I see more red than a bull charging a Matador.

As to how the magistrate should handle schismatics, that is something that I'm not as clear cut on as my words on other topics may suggest, the Jansenist See of Utrecht was tolerated by the Dutch Reformed, and I don't see a problem with taking a relaxed approach to a church that has confessed an fully orthodox Augustinian understanding of soteriology even if they are still cleaving to Roman liturgical innovation and Prelate Ecclesiastical errors. Having a magistrate that takes a completely neutral stance on the matter of somebody like Servetus trying to destroy the Christian religion and overthrow any sense of cultural cohesion in a nation is something that's a bit more simple to address with a heavier hand.




> To be clear, I never doubted this, I was curious to see if he'd addressed it but I didn't doubt that you were correct.


I have admit that although James Dodson has been actively promoting the Steelite position for a couple decades, he's only been actively publishing sermons for a couple years, primarily because he was waiting for a valid Presbytery to form to bring ecclesiastical legitimacy to his calling. As such, he probably hasn't had ample time to delve into many of these specific issues in an official sermon capacity. He doesn't make a regular practice of singling out the Lutherans or the Eastern Orthodox unless it is on a specific issue in a Confession/Catechism study, and since there are fewer areas where this divergence occurs compared to Rome and the Baptists, it doesn't come up as often. However, there are a few specific studies on the WCF where this stuff came up, I just can't recall specifically which one since it was several years ago and they weren't being recorded for publication at the time. Each section is subject to a 90 minute seminar lecture with occasional Q&A.




> Reformed Baptists irritate me to a great degree, especially having a family full of "Reformed" (really more just Calvinistic) baptists.  I think the Memorialist view of the supper is horrible, administration with grape juice is sacriligious, and refusal to baptize infants is certainly a significant issue. I'm somebody who would criticize the OPC for serving them communion.  With that said, I really don't get this.  I know you noted soteriology in passing but I don't see how that can just be in passing, other than Christology proper doctrine of justification seems to be the most central thing.  And that alone would seem to put a huge disconnect between them and Rome.  Personally I think of groups like Calvinistic Baptists as heterodox rather than heretical, as frustrating as they are and as shallow as they can be sometimes I think they have the essence of the gospel intact, whereas Rome really doesn't.  
> 
> I'd be more likely to put Arminian Baptists or Pentecostals with Rome though.


I am going to concur with TER on a point that he made on another post with regard to the issue of communion elements. If there is a situation where leavened bread and wine are being purposefully denied to believers (which can happen in times of severe persecution), I wouldn't fully call using unleavened bread or some other bread product as a substitute, the same goes with the cup, although sharing a cup of grape juice would be problematic because of communicable diseases. What is sacrilegious about what Temperance Churches are doing is that they are openly calling God's will and judgment into question, along with Christ's words in the New Testament, by asserting that they know better than God as to what is moral or immoral, the same goes with Seventh Day Adventist dietary restrictions outside of worship, or the Roman Church forcing EOC churches in Sicily to use unleavened bread immediately following the Great Schism. William Sprague's sermon "The Danger Of Being Over Wise" was a very proper condemnation of such nonsense.

There is something to be said for acknowledging degrees of divergence, so I wouldn't object to the heterodox label of Calvinistic Baptists, but I do see a greater disconnect between Reformed/Presbyterian doctrine and what they teach vs. the Lutherans. Furthermore, there are some exceptions within the general Roman congregation where Augustinian soteriology still exists in a sufficiently orthodox form to say that there are those within Rome that may be saved, but they don't really count for much when dealing with the ecclesiastical body of Rome as they are either marginalized or, in many cases, even is schism with Rome.

----------


## hells_unicorn

> The real question as pertains to this thread would then be: why would James Dobson be more authorative than such a great cloud of witnesses tracing back through the centuries to the early Church?


Nobody has asserted that James Dodson is any more authoritative than any past defender of the faith, be they ancient or more recent in time period. However, I know what I know about early church history because of his classes on the subject, and I live in an area where theologians and pastoral authorities are not sufficiently orthodox to accurately teach the faith. Furthermore, if you're going to pull apostolic succession on me, James Dodson is a fully orthodox and now legitimately elected successor of the line of Scottish preachers going back to John Knox. The Church of Scotland and England legitimately elected Knox to the office of priest, and both England and Scotland were Christianized and granted Ecclesiastical bodies prior to the Great Schism.

I don't mean to be openly combative here, but unless you are going to argue that when Rome broke union with Constantinople that every single congregation in Western Europe simultaneously lost all of their ecclesiastical rights (including ones that subsequently broke communion with Rome on comparable grounds to Constantinople), I'm going to have to ask you to abide by your own standards and not interfere in the internal affairs of my nation's church (autocephaly). When the time comes, our leaders will confer on these issues, until then I would argue that your time would be better spent dealing with the issues pertaining to Eastern Christendom, namely its ongoing issues with Islam and remnants of communism, and likewise leave me to deal with the rabid secular humanism and rationalism that is eating Western Christendom alive.

Thank you for your consideration.

----------


## Natural Citizen

Jesus said: And no man putteth new wine into old bottles: else the new wine doth burst the bottles, and the wine is spilled, and the bottles will be marred: but new wine must be put into new bottles. Mark 2:22

Actually, the NIV calles bottles wineskins. Whatever, though. Same thing. I prefer the KJV. 

Now, you mentioned Jewish people. So I suppose  Haggai 1:11 is relative. " I called for drought upon the corn and the new wine."

 If the wine were in the bottles, the drought would have no effect on it. So it is a given that "New Wine" is grapes that are growing. Unfermented grapes.

Seems like The Lord's Word is more appropriately represented in its literal context from Him rather than the arbitrary actions and whims of self-rightous men.





> Talk to any Jewish person about what they drink at Passover.  Second in ancient times without canning or refrigeration, any grape juice left over from the harvest would either be vinegar or wine depending on the vessel that was used for storing/fermenting.
> 
> 
> 
> 
>    At the Wedding at Cana: I have never heard of guests threatening to leave a party for lack of grape juice.  
> He hadn't fulfilled the prophesy yet.
> 
> People didn't add yeast to grapes like they did to bread in olden times.  Yeast is naturally on the grapes. 
> ...

----------


## Natural Citizen

I forgot to touch on your logic there in terms of Cana, RJB. Seems like a lot of Christians try to use this (turning water into wine) to advocate for their liberty to drink wine, yet they arbitrarily ignore that it is patently proven in many areas of the Bible that there are two kinds of wine. Fermented and unfermented. I only provided one there but there are several. The Old Testament proves so consistently and throughout. Priests were even forbidden to drink wine under the penalty of death. (Num.6:2-3, Lev.10:9-10, 1Pet.2:9, Rev.5:10, Titus 1:7)

----------


## Suzanimal

> Jesus said: And no man putteth new wine into old bottles: else the new wine doth burst the bottles, and the wine is spilled, and the bottles will be marred: but new wine must be put into new bottles. Mark 2:22
> 
> Actually, the NIV calles *bottles wineskins. Whatever, though. Same thing.* I prefer the KJV. 
> 
> Now, you mentioned Jewish people. So I suppose  Haggai 1:11 is relative. " I called for drought upon the corn and the new wine."
> 
>  If the wine were in the bottles, the drought would have no effect on it. So it is a given that "New Wine" is grapes that are growing. Unfermented grapes.
> 
> Seems like The Lord's Word is more appropriately represented in its literal context from Him rather than the arbitrary actions and whims of self-rightous men.


Nope. Wineskins aren't bottles and they got stretched out as the wine fermented.

Matthew 9:17

17Neither do men pour new wine into old wineskins. If they do, the skins will burst, the wine will spill, and the wineskins will be ruined. Instead, they pour new wine into new wineskins, and both are preserved.”


I disagree with you, NC. It was fermented wine.




> Did Jesus Drink?
> 
> Jesus apparently drank enough wine that he was accused of drinking to excess. In his own words he proclaimed, "The Son of Man has come eating and drinking; and you say, ‘Behold, a glutton and a drunkard’" (Luke 7:34). So Jesus was accused of being a drunk.
> 
> The Greek word translated as "drunkard" in the above passage is oinopotes, which means a winebibber, one who drinks much wine. In fact, the first part of the word comes from the Greek word for wine, oinos, which occurs several times in the New Testament.
> 
> Some claim that Jesus drank grape juice or must (unfermented wine). But then why accuse him of being a drunkard? Other scriptural passages where oinos is found clearly indicate that, indeed, fermented wine, not grape juice, is being discussed.
> 
> For example, consider "Neither is new wine put into old wineskins; if it is, the skins burst, and the wine is spilled, and the skins are destroyed; but new wine is put into fresh wineskins, and so both are preserved" (Matt. 9:17; see also Mark 2:22, Luke 5:37-38). The old skins burst because the wine contains yeast—the catalyst of fermentation—which causes expansion.
> ...


http://www.catholic.com/magazine/articles/got-wine

And here...




> ...
> 
> I am not going to discuss here which of the above positions is correct. However, I do want to discuss one passage of Scripture that infuses the debate over alcohol with great passion. It is the subject of Christ and his relation to alcohol while here on earth. Most specifically, I want to ask the question of whether Christ, during the miracle at the Wedding of Cana in John 2, turned the water into wine, unfermented grape juice, or something else. Here is the text:
> 
> John 2:1-11
> On the third day there was a wedding at Cana in Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there. 2 Jesus also was invited to the wedding with his disciples. 3 When the wine ran out, the mother of Jesus said to him, “They have no wine.” 4 And Jesus said to her, “Woman, what does this have to do with me? My hour has not yet come.” 5 His mother said to the servants, “Do whatever he tells you.” 6 Now there were six stone water jars there for the Jewish rites of purification, each holding twenty or thirty gallons. 7 Jesus said to the servants, “Fill the jars with water.” And they filled them up to the brim. 8 And he said to them, “Now draw some out and take it to the master of the feast.” So they took it. 9 When the master of the feast tasted the water now become wine, and did not know where it came from (though the servants who had drawn the water knew), the master of the feast called the bridegroom 10 and said to him, “Everyone serves the good wine first, and when people have drunk freely, then the poor wine. But you have kept the good wine until now.” 11 This, the first of his signs, Jesus did at Cana in Galilee, and manifested his glory. And his disciples believed in him.
> 
> This question raised by this passage does indeed contribute a great deal to the overall debate. For if Christ turned the water into an alcoholic beverage, then his participation in the issue certainly does not bode well for those who preach that the biblical position requires Christians to abstain from alcohol altogether. He would have been serving as a bartender, if you will, at a celebration where abuse of alcohol certainly may have taken place. More than that, there is no reason to doubt that he himself would have drunk this wine.
> 
> ...


http://credohouse.org/blog/did-jesus...or-grape-juice

----------


## William Tell

> Talk to any Jewish person about what they drink at Passover.  Second in ancient times without canning or refrigeration, any grape juice left over from the harvest would either be vinegar or wine depending on the vessel that was used for storing/fermenting. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>    At the Wedding at Cana: I have never heard of guests threatening to leave a party for lack of grape juice.  
> He hadn't fulfilled the prophesy yet.
> 
> People didn't add yeast to grapes like they did to bread in olden times.  Yeast is naturally on the grapes. 
> ...


You are correct. grape juice only exists for a couple of weeks out of the year. As soon as you press the grapes it is turning more into wine by the second. If Jesus was against alcohol then communion could only be held basically once per year. 




> Matthew 11:
> 
> 18 For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, He hath a devil.
> 19 The  Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold a man  gluttonous, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners. But  wisdom is justified of her children.

----------


## Natural Citizen

Ha. But how can He call upon a drought on corn and new wine if wine is already contained? You see? Here, new _wine_ clearly refers to the fruit on the vine. Unfermented fruit.

My point is, Suz, that there are clearly two different kinds of wine referenced in the Bible. Fermented and unfermented. Both are called wine. unfermented juice is called wine just as fermented juice is called wine. And this is almost always ignored. Largely to justify, in the Lord's name, arbitrary/worldly whims. Context is how we separate them.

I don't really care if peope drink wine. I'm just saying that there are two different kinds of wine referenced in the Bible. But for some reason we only ever see the fermented wine placed into perspective. I think it's dishonest when Christians do that. That's all. Main reason is because it is a vehicle to alter perception of scripture/God's word in arbitrary ways to others who simply don't know this.

----------


## RJB

> You are correct. grape juice only exists for a couple of weeks out of the year. As soon as you press the grapes it is turning more into wine by the second. If Jesus was against alcohol then communion could only be held basically once per year.


Quit being "self righteous!" Lol

----------


## hells_unicorn

> Jesus said: And no man putteth new wine into old bottles: else the new wine doth burst the bottles, and the wine is spilled, and the bottles will be marred: but new wine must be put into new bottles. Mark 2:22


The word used for wine in this passage is the Greek term Oinos, which can mean any kind of wine other than Shekar, a form of liquor made from dates and barley. There is no reason to infer that this passage is exclusively talking about grapes specifically for immediate consumption and not for fermentation. Likewise, what RJB has stated about Jewish practice at the time is a valid Light of Nature argument on this issue, and using sola scriptura as a ruse to privately reinterpret this passage to mean that we all must use grape juice in communion as the Temperance crowd pontificates will get you nowhere.




> Actually, the NIV calles bottles wineskins. Whatever, though. Same thing. I prefer the KJV.


You don't say, me too. I tend to prefer translations that have an actual national church sanction, don't contort the meaning of the original Masoretic Text in order to suit modern prejudices, and were not created for the purpose of turning a collection of bible salesmen into millionaires between book sales and copyright claims.




> Now, you mentioned Jewish people. So I suppose  Haggai 1:11 is relative. " I called for drought upon the corn and the new wine."


This passage has no significance on the matter of what is to be consumed either during Passover or The Lord's Supper, and the word used here is Tirosh, which specifies unfermented grape juice. Nobody is arguing that the Hebrews never drank grape juice, only that grapes were likewise designated for fermentation and that there is nothing in the original Greek or Hebrew that suggests that fermented wine is evil, is never to be consumed, and is disqualified from use in worship, which is exactly the mode of argument that the Temperance movement used, probably because they had no scholars to explain to them that when the King James Version says "New Wine", it isn't always Tirosh/unfermented grape juice.




> If the wine were in the bottles, the drought would have no effect on it. So it is a given that "New Wine" is grapes that are growing. Unfermented grapes.


Wine gets consumed and needs to be replenished, again, "new wine" does not imply grapes to be consumed in a juice form prior to fermentation unless you want it to imply that. If nothing else, this passage indicates that using grapes for wine was such a standard practice that the word wine was used interchangeably with the fruit that was used to make it. 




> Seems like The Lord's Word is more appropriately represented in its literal context from Him rather than the arbitrary actions and whims of self-rightous men.


Indeed, which is exactly the reason why the original Reformed Presbytery, the Lutheran Church, the Anglican Church, and even the Roman Catholic Church rejected the self-righteous crusades of the Temperance Movement, a movement that paved the way for alcohol prohibition in America and the blessing of organized crime. I'm glad we're on the same page on this part.

----------


## William Tell

> If the wine were in the bottles, the drought would have no effect on it. So it is a given that "New Wine" is grapes that are growing. Unfermented grapes.


If new wine = unfermented, then how do you explain this verse?




> *Acts 2:* 12 And they were all amazed, and were in doubt, saying one to another, What meaneth this?
> 
> 13 Others mocking said, These men are full of new wine.
> 
> 14 But  Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and said unto  them, Ye men of Judaea, and all ye that dwell at Jerusalem, be this  known unto you, and hearken to my words:
> 
> 15 For these are not drunken, as ye suppose, seeing it is but the third hour of the day.

----------


## Natural Citizen

One time in the NT the Greek word is used to signify both, Hells_Unicorn. Once.

----------


## Suzanimal

> Jesus said: And no man putteth new wine into old bottles: else the new wine doth burst the bottles, and the wine is spilled, and the bottles will be marred: but new wine must be put into new bottles. Mark 2:22
> 
> Actually, the NIV calles bottles wineskins. Whatever, though. Same thing. I prefer the KJV. 
> 
> Now, you mentioned Jewish people. So I suppose  Haggai 1:11 is relative. " I called for drought upon the corn and the new wine."
> 
>  If the wine were in the bottles, the drought would have no effect on it. So it is a given that "New Wine" is grapes that are growing. Unfermented grapes.
> 
> Seems like The Lord's Word is more appropriately represented in its literal context from Him rather than the arbitrary actions and whims of self-rightous men.





> The word used for wine in this passage is the Greek term Oinos, which can mean any kind of wine other than Shekar, a form of liquor made from dates and barley. There is no reason to infer that this passage is exclusively talking about grapes specifically for immediate consumption and not for fermentation. Likewise, what RJB has stated about Jewish practice at the time is a valid Light of Nature argument on this issue, and using sola scriptura as a ruse to privately reinterpret this passage to mean that we all must use grape juice in communion as the Temperance crowd pontificates will get you nowhere.
> 
> 
> 
> You don't say, me too. I tend to prefer translations that have an actual national church sanction, don't contort the meaning of the original Masoretic Text in order to suit modern prejudices, and were not created for the purpose of turning a collection of bible salesmen into millionaires between book sales and copyright claims.
> 
> 
> 
> This passage has no significance on the matter of what is to be consumed either during Passover or The Lord's Supper, and the word used here is Tirosh, which specifies unfermented grape juice. Nobody is arguing that the Hebrews never drank grape juice, only that grapes were likewise designated for fermentation and that there is nothing in the original Greek or Hebrew that suggests that fermented wine is evil, is never to be consumed, and is disqualified from use in worship, which is exactly the mode of argument that the Temperance movement used, probably because they had no scholars to explain to them that when the King James Version says "New Wine", it isn't always Tirosh/unfermented grape juice.
> ...


Exactly. Thank you.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> If new wine = unfermented, then how do you explain this verse?


You're missing the whole point of sharing those two scriptures in post #261 the way that I did. I'm not really making an argument about the wineskins. Although it could likely be done. I'm not, though. I shared that scripture in relation to the latter scripture to demonstrate the difference.

----------


## William Tell

> John the Baptist took a Nazirite vow and abstained from alcohol. But  Christ did not. He explicitly says that he came eating and drinking.  Because of this, others accused him of being a drunkard.


Here's the passage about Nazirites:



> *Numbers 6King James Version (KJV)* 6 And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying,
> 2 Speak  unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When either man or  woman shall separate themselves to vow a vow of a Nazarite, to separate  themselves unto the Lord:
> 3 He  shall separate himself from wine and strong drink, and shall drink no  vinegar of wine, or vinegar of strong drink, neither shall he drink any  liquor of grapes, nor eat moist grapes, or dried.
> 4 All the days of his separation shall he eat nothing that is made of the vine tree, from the kernels even to the husk.


 Nazirites couldn't even eat moist grapes or raisins, or Welch's grape juice.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Exactly. Thank you.


No it's not. Theres no "exactly" nothin. He's speaking completely arbitrarily. He's presenting what he thinks as opposed to the Lords direct Word.

Fruit on the vine was specifically called new wine. _God_ said that. Doesn't matter what Hells_Unicorn has to say about it. He's not bigger than God.

If God calls unfermented grapes wine, then, By God, it's wine.

----------


## hells_unicorn

> One time in the NT the Greek word is used to signify both, Hells_Unicorn. Once.


Wrong, it's used once in the New Testament interchangeably with Shekar, aka the liquor made from dates and barley. All of the other references save maybe the ones quoting/paraphrasing the Haggai passage (or another OT passage using Tirosh) can refer to either grape juice or fermented wine. Fermented wine and liquor are not the same thing, it takes a lot more of the former to become drunk, and the latter is more regularly associated with intentional drunkenness.




> No it's not. He's speaking completely arbitrarily. He's presenting wha the thinks as opposed to the Lords direct Word.


Nope, this is about 1,800 years of established church history, not counting the Old Testament. Prior to the 19th century, nobody within Christendom interpreted scripture the way the Temperance Movement did, hence why there was no Temperance Movement prior to the 19th century. People who speak arbitrarily are people who read scripture by themselves or in small groups with no consideration of church history, that's not my bag.

----------


## William Tell

> You're missing the whole point of sharing those two scriptures in post #261 the way that I did. I'm not really making an argument about the wineskins. Although it could likely be done. I'm not, though. I shared that scripture in relation to the latter scripture to demonstrate the difference.


Well, my point is that I don't see any evidence that suggests any of the wine mentioned is non alcoholic. New wine could clearly be alcoholic based on the passage I shared, old wine is by definition alcoholic.

----------


## Suzanimal

> No it's not. Theres no "exactly" nothin. He's speaking completely arbitrarily. He's presenting what he thinks as opposed to the Lords direct Word.
> 
> Fruit on the vine was specifically called new wine. _God_ said that. Doesn't matter what Hells_Unicorn has to say about it. He's not bigger than God.
> 
> If God calls unfermented grapes wine, then, By God, it's wine.


I disagree. I'm gonna have to go with HU on this one.

----------


## Natural Citizen

Ah, whatever. Y'all are killing me here. I don't want to make an enemy of you all. Believe what you want. I'm just saying that I disagree with that thing about every time wine is mentioned, it has to be mentioned in context with the fermented variant. 

There are clearly references to both varieties in the Bible.

----------


## hells_unicorn

> No it's not. Theres no "exactly" nothin. He's speaking completely arbitrarily. He's presenting what he thinks as opposed to the Lords direct Word.
> 
> Fruit on the vine was specifically called new wine. _God_ said that. Doesn't matter what Hells_Unicorn has to say about it. He's not bigger than God.
> 
> If God calls unfermented grapes wine, then, By God, it's wine.


I'm not going to make much more of an issue about this since you are calling this conversation quits, but I am not speaking of my own accord here, I have an official Biblical Hebrew to English guide in my personal library that I regularly peruse as my pastor holds weekly Hebrew classes that I occasionally attend (he's a bit of a trip away so I can't do it every week). What I am saying is that the people of ancient Israel who wrote the original Old Testament texts are far more trustworthy than 19th century American theology, so when I seek a guide in making sure that I'm understanding the Old Testament properly, I refer to the former and not the latter. Likewise, if I am unclear about a New Testament passage, there is Greek texts of the original written books of the New Testament that have been maintained by the historic church for me to cross reference. Add to this an unbroken chain of concurrent views with these original definitions throughout church history, and you have not one individual speaking of his own accord, but an official subordinate doctrine.

The King James Version is my go-to source for the infallible Word of God as I am an English speaker, but any translation comes with varying degrees of challenges since the confusion of tongues following the Tower of Babel has made perfect communication between the nations impossible save a miraculous outpouring of the Holy Spirit, which is not an ordinary occurrence. When in doubt, I consult the original languages, and if the matter is still not clear, I tend to err on the side of legitimate church authority. The only time I go against official church authority is when there is a clear divergence between what the church is stating and what scripture plainly reveals, and this is not one of those cases, at least not where the historic church and its modern adherents on this issue are concerned. I'm sure that the Baptists would beg to differ with me on this, but hey, that's why I'm not nor will I ever be a Baptist.

----------


## RJB

...

----------


## RJB

> Seems like The Lord's Word is more appropriately represented in its literal context from Him rather than the arbitrary actions and *whims of self-rightous* men.





> I forgot to touch on your logic there in terms of Cana, RJB. Seems like a lot of Christians try to use this (turning water into wine) to advocate for their liberty to drink wine,)


I notice you call us self-righteous and call traditions several millennia old whims.  Then you ironically bring up the "liberty to drink wine" when the discussion was about it's use in the Sacraments and in Jewish Passover tradition.  The discussion was also whether Jesus drank fermented wine or was a teetotaler.  Yet you failed to respond to my answers to your points  (I even posted a cool graph):
1. To your assertion that Israelites couldn't drink wine at Passover, I pointed out that they did and still do today.
2.  They didn't have the technology to keep grape juice sterilized from late summer until Passover the following spring-- so any wine consumed at Passover was most definitely wine.  If Jesus drank "wine" at Passover, it was fermented unless they were importing grapes from Argentina and Chile back then.
3.  The one time he refused wine was on the cross was because the prophecy wasn't fulfilled yet.
4.  It would be self-righteous for the modern Church to abandon wine used in sacraments when it was ordered by God himself in both the Old and New Testaments and followed (literally) religiously by both Jewish and Christian followers from antiquity until today.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Sorry I didn't get video of the last round I had with the local Jehova's Witnesses, you would have found it quite amusing. The sad thing about said organization and other inventions of 19th century "Murican" theology is that they send these poor, under-informed saps out to try and rope in less informed saps to feed their donation coffers, while their elders/leaders usually go on speaking tours and mind the cash that comes rolling in. The only time they ever call in the big guns (the people who know the actual secrets of their organization) is when dealing with somebody that causes the door-to-door proselytizer to start asking the wrong questions.
> 
> 
> 
> What would actually be said would be something along the lines of *"Why have you rejected the person and deity of Christ, the Holy Trinity, and insist on cleaving to the Roman/Pagan practice of worship on Sunday?". For the record, the Seven Day Adventists would be right on the first two points, and woefully wrong on the third.
> *
> Personally, I'd find it more interesting if the Seventh Day Adventist would get super hardcore on the Jehovah Witness and say something like "Why did you clowns decide to swallow all of this nonsense that a your founder Charles Russell and his underling Joseph Rutherford taught when they were just nobody bible students (Russell was a defrocked Baptist who was guilty of committing perjury in a civil libel case in Ontario against a Baptist who had written about his exploits by claiming he could translate Greek yet was unable to decipher a single word from a Greek New Testament passage provided to him while testifying), us Seventh Day Adventists had an actual prophetess who had visions!". Naturally the Jehovah's Witness could counter that these "visions" were a consequence of mental health issues and that many of Ellen G. White's "prophecies" were subject to revision, and then the Seventh Day Adventist could try and go in for the kill by referencing the litany of failed end of the world prophecies associated with the Watchtower Society.
> 
> If nothing else, it would be entertaining.
> ...


When did this happen? Despite being Filioquists, The Roman Catholics accept the divinity of Jesus last I checked. Papa Frank has said some very VERY silly things, but he's just a bishop and doesn't have the authority to change Church dogma alone, AFAIK. Lirturgy/Mass on Sunday is traditional and SOP in the East as well. Orthodox monastaries celebrate liturgy daily.

----------


## TER

> Nobody has asserted that James Dodson is any more authoritative than any past defender of the faith, be they ancient or more recent in time period. However, I know what I know about early church history because of his classes on the subject, and I live in an area where theologians and pastoral authorities are not sufficiently orthodox to accurately teach the faith. Furthermore, if you're going to pull apostolic succession on me, James Dodson is a fully orthodox and now legitimately elected successor of the line of Scottish preachers going back to John Knox. The Church of Scotland and England legitimately elected Knox to the office of priest, and both England and Scotland were Christianized and granted Ecclesiastical bodies prior to the Great Schism.
> 
> I don't mean to be openly combative here, but unless you are going to argue that when Rome broke union with Constantinople that every single congregation in Western Europe simultaneously lost all of their ecclesiastical rights (including ones that subsequently broke communion with Rome on comparable grounds to Constantinople), I'm going to have to ask you to abide by your own standards and not interfere in the internal affairs of my nation's church (autocephaly). When the time comes, our leaders will confer on these issues, until then I would argue that your time would be better spent dealing with the issues pertaining to Eastern Christendom, namely its ongoing issues with Islam and remnants of communism, and likewise leave me to deal with the rabid secular humanism and rationalism that is eating Western Christendom alive.
> 
> Thank you for your consideration.


The apostolic line you are referring to broke much earlier than John Knox, HU. The denial of the Seventh Ecumencial Council, which was indeed a Holy Ecumencial Council and occurred almost 800 years before John Knox, alone demonstrates that.  We will have to agree to disagree with regards to your community's claim of apostolicity, both in terms of succession and doctrinal teachings.  And this is not merely me saying it, but any Orthodox Christian would say the same thing, whether now or 600 years ago. 

I don't wish to be contentious with you, but I will not hide the facts when called out.   You didn't say that James Dobson is more authorative to the great cloud of witnesses who came before him, but you certainly imply it when you take his teachings in the subject over great Saints from the past.  Have you considered that perhaps the courses you have taken under him are in fact not 'fully orthodox', especially when they go against orthodox teachings of the earlier Church?  In addition, if he is criticizing Eastern Orthodoxy (which you brought up in the first place), then he is not minding his own internal affairs and is inviting criticism on his own personal teachings which go against the earlier Church.

  As for your claim of autocephaly, where was that pronounced, by whom, and when?  I admit I don't know much of the history of your community, and am willing to be educated.  If you are going to make the claim that because England and Scotland were once under the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church that defacto they can claim apostolic authority, then why can't the same be said of any division of Presbyterian, or Episcopalian, or Nestorian or Arian?  Apostolicity is more than succession through ordination.  It is also just as importantly through sacramental communion and adhering to the faith as handed down not by John Knox or James Dobson, but of the unified Body of Christ through all centuries.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I didn't say that the WCF was an ecumenical council, it's a General Assembly, though it technically was an international one rather than a national one since it encompassed 3 kingdoms instead of just 1. You cannot overrule a legitimately executed national or international general assembly with a synod, it's a fundamental distortion of the Presbyterian mode of church governance. But even if a full national assembly of American Presbyterian churches from every colony agreed to the 1788 revisions, knowing what I know today, I would have joined any dissenting party on the matter and have gone into schism with the broader American Presbytery. The utter theological carnage that has taken place in the PCUSA is undeniable, and even the more conservative dissenting parties that didn't follow it down the proverbial rabbit-hole in the early 20th century are also degenerating, albeit at a slower rate. Binding your church's doctrines to a renegade magistrate that pioneered the idea of not confessing a national faith is a road to disaster, and it's not unique to America if you take a look at how the government of The Netherlands has impacted the majority of Reformed congregations there.


I don't blame you though its not all PCUSA.  The OPC I attended while at school was far from ideal, but it was certainly much closer to where you're at than where the PCUSA is at.  Even still, the OPC is not nearly as strong as it could be, and I don't doubt that things like this are related.



> I'd argue the exact opposite, now more so than the immediate aftermath of World War II, the Papacy has had its hands in just about every political institution in western Christendom, its tactics have simply become much more subtle. When I see so-called conservatives in the GOP putting a Jesuit in the office of Congressional Chaplin and when I see so-called evangelical apologists like William Lane Craig reviving Molinism to a generation of theologically impoverished fundamentalists grasping for a champion, I see more red than a bull charging a Matador.


I guess my point is that I see the Papal See as more of a joke now than the most pressing of threats.  It still has a lot of deceived people yes, but those people are mostly spineless, fluffy liberals, and the main way the papacy does ill by these people is by leaving them utterly undisciplined.  The papacy isn't burning Bible believing Christians at the stake anymore.

That said, eschatology is a third tier issue in my mind, ESPECIALLY when it comes to other postmillennialists.  While I'm big on not compromising on truth, I think there are some things its OK to disagree on, and I'd put most non-dispensational eschatological positions in that category (and ESPECIALLY other varieties of postmillennialism)




> As to how the magistrate should handle schismatics, that is something that I'm not as clear cut on as my words on other topics may suggest, the Jansenist See of Utrecht was tolerated by the Dutch Reformed, and I don't see a problem with taking a relaxed approach to a church that has confessed an fully orthodox Augustinian understanding of soteriology even if they are still cleaving to Roman liturgical innovation and Prelate Ecclesiastical errors. Having a magistrate that takes a completely neutral stance on the matter of somebody like Servetus trying to destroy the Christian religion and overthrow any sense of cultural cohesion in a nation is something that's a bit more simple to address with a heavier hand.


Agreed, and I'm not even saying the magistrate should be neutral among Christian groups, but its a lot harder to deal with, and I'm not always as sure how to deal with it.  Its easy (and just) to kill Servetus, its not as easy to decide how to deal with Calvinistic Baptists or Jansenists who are in severe error but yet are truly seeking to honor the same God we are.






> I have admit that although James Dodson has been actively promoting the Steelite position for a couple decades, he's only been actively publishing sermons for a couple years, primarily because he was waiting for a valid Presbytery to form to bring ecclesiastical legitimacy to his calling. As such, he probably hasn't had ample time to delve into many of these specific issues in an official sermon capacity. He doesn't make a regular practice of singling out the Lutherans or the Eastern Orthodox unless it is on a specific issue in a Confession/Catechism study, and since there are fewer areas where this divergence occurs compared to Rome and the Baptists, it doesn't come up as often. However, there are a few specific studies on the WCF where this stuff came up, I just can't recall specifically which one since it was several years ago and they weren't being recorded for publication at the time. Each section is subject to a 90 minute seminar lecture with occasional Q&A.


I'm disappointed that it wasn't recorded, but oh well 




> I am going to concur with TER on a point that he made on another post with regard to the issue of communion elements. If there is a situation where leavened bread and wine are being purposefully denied to believers (which can happen in times of severe persecution), I wouldn't fully call using unleavened bread or some other bread product as a substitute, the same goes with the cup,


Currently where I'm at I'll take wine in an individual cup but I think the church is sinning by doing it that way.  I think its wrong but because the elements itself are still intact, I don't think the individual who takes it is responsible.  That said I did discuss this with Brian Schwertley on the phone once and he said he wouldn't partake without a common cup though he told me "he would have felt differently at my age" and he didn't really expand further since the issue I originally called him about was how to properly confront a PCA elder who was justifying fudging the elements due to alcoholics (something you rightly address later in your post).  

I respect those who wont but currently I kind of feel like I have to pick my battles, and due to the reasons you discuss below, wine is a battle I'm going to fight.  If you're using grape juice in an ordinary situation it means you don't really care about what Christ prescribed to begin with, and that's something I won't go along with.



> although sharing a cup of grape juice would be problematic because of communicable diseases. What is sacrilegious about what Temperance Churches are doing is that they are openly calling God's will and judgment into question, along with Christ's words in the New Testament, by asserting that they know better than God as to what is moral or immoral, the same goes with Seventh Day Adventist dietary restrictions outside of worship, or the Roman Church forcing EOC churches in Sicily to use unleavened bread immediately following the Great Schism. William Sprague's sermon "The Danger Of Being Over Wise" was a very proper condemnation of such nonsense.


i'm not as dogmatic on the bread mostly because I've seen good arguments used for both, whereas with wine and grape juice there are only good arguments for wine, and those who use grape juice really are caring more about their emotions than the Word of God.  I know this, and thus I can't partake of it.  Lacking a common cup I think is wrong but seems much less purposeful (the over-wise issue doesn't really exist there as much) so I'm not AS bothered by it... I'd view that as a third tier issue right now but I could see myself viewing it as a second if most Presbyterian churches were actually practicing it.... currently I'm focusing on the battle for wine because I think its more important.

As a side question along these lines, what's your opinion on weekly administration of the sacrament?  Most of the churches you'd respect EXCEPT for the other covenanter churches do weekly, and I've never heard of any patristics advocating otherwise (if you know of any I'd very much like to see it) but most covenanters today seem to not like weekly, though I know of a minority who do.  What do you think?




> There is something to be said for acknowledging degrees of divergence, so I wouldn't object to the heterodox label of Calvinistic Baptists, but I do see a greater disconnect between Reformed/Presbyterian doctrine and what they teach vs. the Lutherans.


I'd agree with this but I have a harder time saying that about the Eastern Orthodox.  I mean, I agree that denial of baptism to infants is a great sin, but is it the greatest of all sins?  Calvinist Baptists might have a picture of "Jesus" on the wall but they wouldnt bow to it, Orthodox will actually bow down to it and they have an "ecunemical council" saying that if you won't you're a heretic.  as much as I think denial of paedobaptism is more serious than the OPC currently treats it as (let alone the PCA) I don't see how it could be more serious than that, and that's not even beginning to comment on the fact that the Orthodox still don't really have a clear statement on faith alone one way or another.  I'm more inclined to agree with you on the Lutherans and Reformed [reformed leaning] Anglicans than I am on the Orthodox, though admittedly my knowledge of the Orthodox is MOSTLY limited to EOs on this forum.




> Furthermore, there are some exceptions within the general Roman congregation where Augustinian soteriology still exists in a sufficiently orthodox form to say that there are those within Rome that may be saved, but they don't really count for much when dealing with the ecclesiastical body of Rome as they are either marginalized or, in many cases, even is schism with Rome.


I'd agree, the difference is that because of congregationalism each baptist church really has to be dealt with separately (though they share some common errors) while Rome is a singular unit and the church as a whole is apostate even if particular subgroups within it aren't.  So I guess the way I'd look at it is that Calvinistic Baptists are part of the visible church (despite serious error that I think is sufficient to warrant some type of discipline) while Arminian Baptists are not part of the visible church, though some may be part of the invisible church.  By contrast with Rome I kind of have to see them all as technically outside the visible church as long as they're a part of that institution,  though among them an Augustinian is very likely to be part of the invisible church while a Jesuit is much less likely to be so (if there's indeed any possibility at all.)

What do you think, am I off here?  I welcome correction on any of these points.




> Nobody has asserted that James Dodson is any more authoritative than any past defender of the faith, be they ancient or more recent in time period. However, I know what I know about early church history because of his classes on the subject, and I live in an area where theologians and pastoral authorities are not sufficiently orthodox to accurately teach the faith. Furthermore, if you're going to pull apostolic succession on me, James Dodson is a fully orthodox and now legitimately elected successor of the line of Scottish preachers going back to John Knox. The Church of Scotland and England legitimately elected Knox to the office of priest, and both England and Scotland were Christianized and granted Ecclesiastical bodies prior to the Great Schism.
> 
> I don't mean to be openly combative here, but unless you are going to argue that when Rome broke union with Constantinople that every single congregation in Western Europe simultaneously lost all of their ecclesiastical rights (including ones that subsequently broke communion with Rome on comparable grounds to Constantinople), I'm going to have to ask you to abide by your own standards and not interfere in the internal affairs of my nation's church (autocephaly). When the time comes, our leaders will confer on these issues, until then I would argue that your time would be better spent dealing with the issues pertaining to Eastern Christendom, namely its ongoing issues with Islam and remnants of communism, and likewise leave me to deal with the rabid secular humanism and rationalism that is eating Western Christendom alive.
> 
> Thank you for your consideration.


I Have little logical to say about this except to laugh at the fact that TER said Dobson, a man who is clearly a baffoon   Dobson's a general evangelical TER, I doubt he'd understand "history' if you took a book and smacked him in the head with it

----------


## TER

Wrong, CL.  Again, you fail to see the nuance.  The Seventh Ecumencial Council did not label those who do not venerate images of Christ as being heretics.  What they call out to be heretics are those _within the Church_ who are iconoclastic and make the same false accusations you are making against the baptized believers as being idolaters and worshiping images, when in fact the faithful do not worship images.  I am not sure how many times it must be repeated to you before you stop making such accusations.  There is a difference between venerating something considered holy, and worshipping it.  Unfortunatley, the Islamic influences upon parts of the Church bordering the Islamic lands created this iconoclasm when for centuries dating back to the early Church it was never a problem, likely because the believers back then were more spiritually mature to understand the difference and were not corrupted by Islamic iconoclasm creeping into the faith.

As for Dobson, I know very little about him or what he teaches, but if it is true what your are saying, then I can't understand why anyone would chose him to be a teacher of the faith.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Dobson's a general evangelical TER, I doubt he'd understand "history' if you took a book and smacked him in the head with it


Well, that wasn't a very polite thing to say.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> I doubt he'd understand "history' if you took a book and smacked him in the head with it


o_O Who _would_ understand "history" if you took a book and smacked him in the head with it?

----------


## hells_unicorn

> As for Dobson, I know very little about him or what he teaches, but if it is true what your are saying, then I can't understand why anyone would chose him to be a teacher of the faith.


Not to split hairs here, but I just want to make clear that when I mention the name James Dodson, I am not talking about the founder of Focus on the Family, whose name is James Dobson (there's a "b" in the latter's name). These are 2 different people, James Dodson (with a second "d"), whom I generally refer to as Jim since his eldest son's name is also James, is a local Presbyterian elder in my locale, he doesn't have nearly the level of money or influence as James Dobson the Mainline Evangelical Conservative. I'll put this into a simple format as to avoid further confusion:

James Dobson - American Evangelical, founder of Focus on the Family
James/Jim Dodson - Presbyterian minister, affiliate of Still Waters Revival Books Publishing House, Steelite dissenter

----------


## TER

> Not to split hairs here, but I just want to make clear that when I mention the name James Dodson, I am not talking about the founder of Focus on the Family, whose name is James Dobson (there's a "b" in the latter's name). These are 2 different people, James Dodson (with a second "d"), whom I generally refer to as Jim since his eldest son's name is also James, is a local Presbyterian elder in my locale, he doesn't have nearly the level of money or influence as James Dobson the Mainline Evangelical Conservative. I'll put this into a simple format as to avoid further confusion:
> 
> James Dobson - American Evangelical, founder of Focus on the Family
> James/Jim Dodson - Presbyterian minister, affiliate of Still Waters Revival Books Publishing House, Steelite dissenter


Thank you for the clarification.  I have never heard of either of them before.  My point above applies to both of them.  Do either have more authority than a Ecumencial Council?

----------


## hells_unicorn

> When did this happen? Despite being Filioquists, The Roman Catholics accept the divinity of Jesus last I checked. Papa Frank has said some very VERY silly things, but he's just a bishop and doesn't have the authority to change Church dogma alone, AFAIK. Lirturgy/Mass on Sunday is traditional and SOP in the East as well. Orthodox monastaries celebrate liturgy daily.


The Roman Catholic Church has never officially denied The Holy Trinity or the Person and Deity of Christ, the hypothetical conversation between the 7th Day Adventist and the Jehovah's Witness has the Adventist accusing the Jehovah Witness of denying these two things (they do, if you ever discuss these subjects with a Jehovah's Witness, they will tell you that Rome developed the Holy Trinity as a counterfeit version of Christianity during the reign of Constantine), whereas the Jehovah's Witnesses still worship on Sunday, something that Adventists believe was invented by Rome during the reign of Constantine.

One bizarre aspect of both these sectarian groups, which have their roots in Independent Baptist and Revivalist Churches, is that they both come to these opinions based on conspiracy theories about the early church councils. Both churches have essentially revived ancient heresies, the Jehovah's Witnesses reviving Arianism, whereas the Adventists are essentially proponents of classical Chiliasm with a side order of Judaizing legalism. You can defeat almost every argument that an Adventist makes for their innovative practices simply by opening up Galatians, the Jehovah's Witnesses are somewhat harder to convince with scripture since they have their own official translation which purposefully rewords much of the Gospel of John and a few other key NT passages to erase any trace of Trinitarian language.

----------


## hells_unicorn

> Thank you for the clarification.  I have never heard of either of them before.  My point above applies to both of them.  Do either have more authority than a Ecumencial Council?


James Dobson (Focus on the Family) is not really on my radar because he's wrong on way too many things, but to answer your question, he doesn't have any standing in Presbyterian circles, or in any other Magistrate Reformed body, so he wouldn't be in a position to challenge any official church decisions, he doesn't really believe in binding authority outside of individual congregations as far as I know. Any commonality that he has with the Ecumenical Councils is probably accidental.

James Dodson (Still Waters/Steelite) is not speaking on his own accord, he's speaking in accordance with the doctrines of the entire Reformed Faith in its 1st and 2nd Reformation forms, so we're talking an international dissenting party at the very least with some legitimate standing even prior to the official reformed period. There is only one Ecumenical Council that is under contention with the Presbyterian Church contra the EOC, and that is 2nd Nicaea. all of the other ones are considered both valid and binding. However, I would argue that there is a legitimate issue to be raised between whether 2nd Nicaea is valid since it was not confirmed by a subsequent council, and also that even if it can be legitimately argued that the EOC veneration of icons doesn't meet the threshold of 2nd degree idolatry (I'm open to the possibility), there is still the matter of it bearing a heavy similarity to abrogated Temple Worship practices in the Old Testament. I think it is entirely accurate that the EOC practice regarding images was present as early as the 2nd century and likely came about based on Old Testament practices, just as Pascha and other holy days comparable to the Old Testament holy days were from a similar influence. The question is whether these practices were universal prior to 2nd Nicaea, whether it was right for the church government to bind every congregation to the practice, and if they are in harmony with the Gospel and the Pauline Epistles regarding the transition from the Old Testament administration to the New.

What we have here in the case of James Dodson (Still Waters/Steelite) is a dissenting party on a matter concerning the universal church, and I do believe he and they are/were on the right side of this issue, though I am not going to speculate as to what this means for the salvation of Christians in either church body. However, existing schisms has made calling another Ecumenical council virtually impossible, and I do believe that this eventuality was pre-ordained by God and hinted at in Revelation. I'm not an Islamic iconoclast following the fallen star from heaven who was given the key to the bottomless pit (Sergius/Bahira, Mohammed's mentor), I'm not one to call for military action to force compliance from other churches (especially outside of my nation'), but I have heavy reservations about condoning or submitting myself to a questionable doctrine, which is where I stand on the issue of icons and veneration.

----------


## TER

> James Dobson (Focus on the Family) is not really on my radar because he's wrong on way too many things, but to answer your question, he doesn't have any standing in Presbyterian circles, or in any other Magistrate Reformed body, so he wouldn't be in a position to challenge any official church decisions, he doesn't really believe in binding authority outside of individual congregations as far as I know. Any commonality that he has with the Ecumenical Councils is probably accidental.
> 
> James Dodson (Still Waters/Steelite) is not speaking on his own accord, he's speaking in accordance with the doctrines of the entire Reformed Faith in its 1st and 2nd Reformation forms, so we're talking an international dissenting party at the very least with some legitimate standing even prior to the official reformed period. There is only one Ecumenical Council that is under contention with the Presbyterian Church contra the EOC, and that is 2nd Nicaea. all of the other ones are considered both valid and binding. However, I would argue that there is a legitimate issue to be raised between whether 2nd Nicaea is valid since it was not confirmed by a subsequent council, and also that even if it can be legitimately argued that the EOC veneration of icons doesn't meet the threshold of 2nd degree idolatry (I'm open to the possibility), there is still the matter of it bearing a heavy similarity to abrogated Temple Worship practices in the Old Testament. I think it is entirely accurate that the EOC practice regarding images was present as early as the 2nd century and likely came about based on Old Testament practices, just as Pascha and other holy days comparable to the Old Testament holy days were from a similar influence. The question is whether these practices were universal prior to 2nd Nicaea, whether it was right for the church government to bind every congregation to the practice, and if they are in harmony with the Gospel and the Pauline Epistles regarding the transition from the Old Testament administration to the New.
> 
> What we have here in the case of James Dodson (Still Waters/Steelite) is a dissenting party on a matter concerning the universal church, and I do believe he and they are/were on the right side of this issue, though I am not going to speculate as to what this means for the salvation of Christians in either church body. However, existing schisms has made calling another Ecumenical council virtually impossible, and I do believe that this eventuality was pre-ordained by God and hinted at in Revelation. I'm not an Islamic iconoclast following the fallen star from heaven who was given the key to the bottomless pit (Sergius/Bahira, Mohammed's mentor), I'm not one to call for military action to force compliance from other churches (especially outside of my nation'), but I have heavy reservations about condoning or submitting myself to a questionable doctrine, which is where I stand on the issue of icons and veneration.


Where again has autocephaly been granted to your community?  You made such a claim before but I cannot find it online. 

Also, if your community accepts the first Six Ecumencial Councils, are they taken wholesome or piecemeal?

The Second Council of Nicea was ordained by God 800 years prior to the Reformation and was universally accepted in all places, including the Orthodox Churches that were in Scotland and England at that time.  Do you believe that the entire Church fell into heresy simply because you _think_ icons and veneration are questionable?  You admit that the use of images come from as early as the second century (and every archeological find which is discovered keep proving this fact). So if the practice comes from so early a time period, the tradition was universally held _long_ before the Reformation, it has been theologically justified and vetted by great and holy saints of the Church since the early Church, and finally a Holy Ecumencial Council was convened to proclaim the orthodox faith _out of necessity_ (on account of the creeping heretical iconoclasm brought in by Islamic influences), what more does a faithful Christian need?  Since when do our modern sensibilities and personal feelings trump the ancient and enduring witness of the Church?  That sounds like a typical Protestant approach to Church history, foreign to the obedience and faith taught by the Fathers of the Holy Ecumencial Councils.  When your girlfriend venerates an icon, is she worshiping the icon?  Have you asked her?  When the rabbis prior to Christ and since His advent kiss and venerate the scrolls of the Torah, are they worshiping the scroll?  Have you asked them?  If they say no and you accept it, why is it so difficult to accept what the Orthodox Christian is doing and with what intent?  

As for the few connections between 'Old Testament Temple worship' which you have stated in the past and seem to use as a sticking point, you must remember that Christianity and Christian worship practices did not sprung up from thin air.  Rather, it was the natural liturgical flowering whose foundations came from the Old Covenant and by which the Apostles and their successors transfigured and 'baptized' for the spiritual benefit of the members in Christ.  Some things were indeed cast aside as having no further use or even being a cause for stumbling.  Some things were kept as being beneficial and worthy towards the glorification and worship of God.   Every Holy Father of every Holy Ecumenical Council which you claim to uphold worshiped as the Orthodox Church worships today, using the same liturgical structure and traditions and adhering to the faith handed down.  Iconoclasm is _not_ a tradition of the Church but rather the heretical innovation which the Church had to defeat and did long before the Reformers arrived on the scene to legitimately go against Papal abuses, of which the use of images had nothing to do with.

----------


## Suzanimal

> Ah, whatever. Y'all are killing me here. *I don't want to make an enemy of you all.* Believe what you want. I'm just saying that I disagree with that thing about every time wine is mentioned, it has to be mentioned in context with the fermented variant. 
> 
> There are clearly references to both varieties in the Bible.


Just because I disagree with you on this doesn't mean I consider you an enemy, lol. I typically stay out of PTR but when I saw wine being questioned, I had to chime in.

----------


## tod evans

I will not take communion with grape juice.

Furthermore I'm one of _those_ people who drinks from the communal chalice and not from the plastic BS that's all the rage...

----------


## Suzanimal

> I will not take communion with grape juice.
> 
> Furthermore I'm one of _those_ people who drinks from the communal chalice and not from the plastic BS that's all the rage...


I'm Catholic and went to a Baptist church once when I dated a preachers son and they passed around shots of grape juice and plates of Hosts. O_o I drink out of the communal chalice (the only way it's offered) but I have the priest put the host in my hand - it feels awkward having a priest stick the host in my mouth.

The only time I passed on the wine was when I was pregnant and that was only because it made me feel sick. My mom trained us to get used to the taste of wine before our first communion so we wouldn't throw up the body and blood of Christ (it happens) - she made such a big deal out of it, I was always afraid. She also told us not to chew up Jesus so I suck on it until it dissolves - honestly, I'm not sure which is worse.

----------


## TER

> I will not take communion with grape juice.
> 
> Furthermore I'm one of _those_ people who drinks from the communal chalice and not from the plastic BS that's all the rage...


Once I read how a Roman Catholic parish was transitioning to gluten free wafers because of concerns of allergies.  Now, if we truly believe that the elements become the Body and Blood of Christ, why in the world would we be concerned about gluten allergies?  Or communicable diseases for that matter?  There is not one single case of people getting sick or contracting an illness from sharing of the communal cup.  In fact, the priest must consume all of the Holy Eucharist after all the other faithful have communed.  Priests are not getting illnesses at a higher rate than the average person.  In fact, during the Divine Liturgy on the Holy Thursday service which occurs once a year, a chalice of the Holy Eucharist is kept as an emergency reserve in cases of life threatening illness.  This is used for the year ahead until the following Holy Thursday.  The priest must consume whatever is left over during the service of the following year's Holy Thursday's service. After being kept open on the altar and servicing it to the parishes most ill members of the year, the Eucharist is as fresh as new, as if the first day it was consecrated, and no priest has ever gotten sick from partaking it.  These are just a snapshot of the workings of God within the sacraments of the Church.

----------


## Suzanimal

> Once I read how a Roman Catholic parish was transitioning to gluten free wafers because of concerns of allergies.  Now, if we truly believe that the elements become the Body and Blood of Christ, why in the world would we be concerned about gluten allergies?  Or communicable diseases for that matter?  There is not one single case of people getting sick or contracting an illness from sharing of the communal cup.  *In fact, the priest must consume all of the Holy Eucharist after all the other faithful have communed.  Priests are not getting illnesses at a higher rate than the average person*   The Holy Eucharist which comes from the Holy Thursday service and is the emergency sacrament in cases of life threatening illness for the following year stays fresh like it was produced that day.  The priest must consume whatever is left over during the service of the following year's Holy Thursday's service. After being kept open on the altar and servicing it to the parishes most ill members of the year, the Eucharist is as fresh as new and no priest has ever gotten sick from partaking it.  These are just a snapshot of the workings of God within the sacraments of the Church.


That's true. Good point.

I never understood how some Protestant faiths talk about taking the Bible literally but they don't celebrate the Eucharist with wine - or even regularly. I just don't get it.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Just because I disagree with you on this doesn't mean I consider you an enemy, lol. I typically stay out of PTR but when I saw wine being questioned, I had to chime in.



Yeah, I know, Suz. You know how I do, though. I pop my mouth off everywhere around here. Mainly that obtuse spew about those horrible, irritating Baptists is what plucked me. 

But...just for giggles, and in pure context alone, if He said that He was bringing a drought to the corn and the "new wine"....which some friends say, oh, well, that just means there's a manufacturing process that must be considered, so that's surely what He meant, then, why didn't He say that He was bringing drought to the bread instead of corn in the same sentence with new wine? Hm? There's a manufacturing process for corn, too. But yet he said corn. Non processed corn. On the stalk. So, then, why does new wine have to take on a worldly meaning and not corn?

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> That's true. Good point.
> 
> I never understood how some Protestant faiths talk about taking the Bible literally but they don't celebrate the Eucharist with wine - or even regularly. I just don't get it.


In my experience, they don't believe in transubstantiation and the bread and wine(grape juice for most of them :P ) are just symbolic. (even though the gospel account of the Last Supper plainly and directly contradict this :P ) This is the biggest reason (AFAIK) why Protestants have open communion while Orthodox/Catholic communion is closed.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> I will not take communion with grape juice.
> 
> Furthermore I'm one of _those_ people who drinks from the communal chalice and not from the plastic BS that's all the rage...


Ha. Hey, tod. Fancy meeting you here, brother.

When I went to Catholic School, we used to go to Mass on Wed around 3rd period. They gave communion with wine in a chalice.

----------


## jmdrake

> It would depend.  Like what would a Seventh Day Adventist say to a Jehovah's Witness who comes to their door?


Me?  I'm typically not in the mood to engage in a religious debate with someone who came knocking on my door interrupting me from something I probably would rather be doing.  But I try to follow "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."  So I politely take the track and after I go inside chuck it.  Sometimes out of boredom I've read it.  (It's not like I think I will spontaneously combust from reading something I disagree with.)  I usually find something I agree with mixed in with something I disagree with.  For example, one tract was "How was Jesus a prophet like Moses."  Well sure, Jesus prophesied, but He was more than a prophet.  He was and is prophecy itself.  There was a Jehovah's Witness family down the street from me when I grew up.  We played together a lot and got into mischief together.  Once the three of us (my older brother) tried to make moonshine together.  (Like I said.  We got into mischief together).  Thankfully we forgot where we buried the stuff or it likely would have killed us all.  And we never spent time debating religion.  We were just kids having fun.  I'm not sure where I'm going with this.  Just remembering.  I think if there was a Catholic kid or Orthodox kid or fill-in-the-blank kid it would have been the same.  Just hanging out, building go carts and racing them, having snow ball fights, talking about girls, riding bikes, exploring patches of woods inside the city (Nashville is like that) and just being kids.  Hmmmmm....I remember something Jesus said about "except as ye become as little children ye will in no wise enter into the kingdom of heaven."  I wonder if seeing people as people is part of that?

----------


## jmdrake

> The Roman Catholic Church has never officially denied The Holy Trinity or the Person and Deity of Christ, the hypothetical conversation between the 7th Day Adventist and the Jehovah's Witness has the Adventist accusing the Jehovah Witness of denying these two things (they do, if you ever discuss these subjects with a Jehovah's Witness, they will tell you that Rome developed the Holy Trinity as a counterfeit version of Christianity during the reign of Constantine), whereas the Jehovah's Witnesses still worship on Sunday, something that Adventists believe was invented by Rome during the reign of Constantine.


Ummmmm....no.  Read "From Sabbath to Sunday" by Samuel Bacchiochi.  (I posted a link earlier in this thread).  It lays out the position of the SDA church which is that prior to Constantine some Christian communities, most notably Rome, began observing Sunday as a way to differentiate between themselves and the persecuted Jews.  Constantine passed the first law requiring Sunday observance throughout the empire.




> One bizarre aspect of both these sectarian groups, which have their roots in Independent Baptist and Revivalist Churches, is that they both come to these opinions based on conspiracy theories about the early church councils. Both churches have essentially revived ancient heresies, the Jehovah's Witnesses reviving Arianism, whereas the Adventists are essentially proponents of classical Chiliasm with a side order of Judaizing legalism. You can defeat almost every argument that an Adventist makes for their innovative practices simply by opening up Galatians, the Jehovah's Witnesses are somewhat harder to convince with scripture since they have their own official translation which purposefully rewords much of the Gospel of John and a few other key NT passages to erase any trace of Trinitarian language.


You know what I find laughable?  You're accusing Adventists of "legalism" while ignoring the true legalism in this thread.  Legalism is when you are trying to impose law *on others*.  Choosing for yourself to keep Sabbath (or Sunday for that matter if that's what you believe) is not legalism.  It's not legalism to say adultery is wrong.  It's legalism to say that adulterers should be stoned.

I had to look up Chiliasm.  I'm more familiar with the term "millennialism."  So I take it you don't believe in the millenium at all?  What do you do with Revelation 20:1-6?  Just ignore it?  (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage...36&version=ESV)

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Wrong, CL.  Again, you fail to see the nuance.  The Seventh Ecumencial Council did not label those who do not venerate images of Christ as being heretics.  What they call out to be heretics are those _within the Church_ who are iconoclastic


So we're still heretics because we believe it is wrong to venerate images.



> and make the same false accusations you are making against the baptized believers as being idolaters and worshiping images, when in fact the faithful do not worship images.


I wouldn't say you're conscientiously worshipping them.  I do think you're committing second degree idoaltry, and that you're giving honor to them that only belongs to God.  I am not making a judgment on your spiritual standing.




> As for Dobson, I know very little about him or what he teaches, but if it is true what your are saying, then I can't understand why anyone would chose him to be a teacher of the faith.


Because they're baptists 





> I will not take communion with grape juice.


Neither will I.  Its disrespectful.  I dissent.




> Furthermore I'm one of _those_ people who drinks from the communal chalice and not from the plastic BS that's all the rage...


I'll tolerate Presbyterian churches who screw this up for reasons discussed earlier, but I agree with you here as well.  The cup Jesus used was singular, the one that ought to be used by the church ought also to be singular. 

That's true. Good point.




> I never understood how some Protestant faiths talk about taking the Bible literally but they don't celebrate the Eucharist with wine - or even regularly. I just don't get it.





> 





> 


"Pure" literalism is untenable, the Bible is meant to be taken as literally as the authors intended it, something dispenationalists do regularly.

That said things like wine instead of grape juice and some type of real presence seem very clear to me, and I think the NT supports weekly observance as well, though on the latter point most covenanters don't agree with me, hence my curiosity on what HU thought about it.  i don't agree with pretty much any way that evangelicals and fundamentalists handle this issue, though I can't condone the mass either.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> You know what I find laughable? You're accusing Adventists of "legalism" while ignoring the true legalism in this thread. Legalism is when you are trying to impose law *on others*


No, legalism is when you say certain works have to be performed in order to be justified

----------


## TER

> So we're still heretics because we believe it is wrong to venerate images.


You would have to be an unrepentant Orthodox Christian in order for me to call you a heretic. Your belief is indeed heretical as defined by a Holy Ecumencial Council, but you yourself are not a heretic since you are not a baptized member of the Orthodox Church. 




> I wouldn't say you're conscientiously worshipping them.  I do think you're committing second degree idoaltry, and that you're giving honor to them that only belongs to God.  I am not making a judgment on your spiritual standing.


I understand you cannot see the difference between worship and veneration. I leave it up to God to convince you.  In the meanwhile, make sure you don't kiss your mother on the cheek when you see her, lest you commit idolatry according to your heterodox standards.

----------


## jmdrake

> No, legalism is when you say certain works have to be performed in order to be justified


The "work" that Jesus said Christians are to do is to believe.  Seventh Day Adventists do not teach that one has to keep the Sabbath in order to be justified.  Never have and never will.  That said, legalism is seeking to force your definition of the law on others.  That's why the Pharisees were legalized.  It wasn't that they were seeking justification.  They believed they were justified by being descendants of Abraham.  They were seeking to condemn others.  I know that's a hard pill to swallow but you are walking in the steps of the Pharisees.

Edit: Let's quit pretending that we can make up our own definition of words.  Here's the dictionary definition of legalism.  Note that it says nothing about justification.

_
Definition of legalism

    1   :  strict, literal, or excessive conformity to the law or to a religious or moral code <the institutionalized legalism that restricts free choice>

    2   :  a legal term or rule_

----------


## Natural Citizen

I'm of the view that Legal and Lawful are two entirely different phenomena. The latter being adherent to and a product of the Natural Law (God's Law) and the former being Man's twisted whims on how he wants morality to be defined in accordance with his wordly principles. The former is most often the consequence or application of an anti-moral Man-over-God philosophy by anti-moral men. There are very few  legalities that are based on the primary foundation for moral code (God's Law. The Natural Law) these days.

I'll tell you, boys, the second you start attaching "ism" to something, it turns way more complicated than it has to be. And for what? I mean, really. For what? To stimulate agreement or disagreement in different religious factions?

End of the day, the core difference in what is lawful and what is legal remains the same.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> You would have to be an unrepentant Orthodox Christian in order for me to call you a heretic. Your belief is indeed heretical as defined by a Holy Ecumencial Council, but you yourself are not a heretic since you are not a baptized member of the Orthodox Church. 
> 
> 
> 
> I understand you cannot see the difference between worship and veneration. I leave it up to God to convince you.  In the meanwhile, make sure you don't kiss your mother on the cheek when you see her, lest you commit idolatry according to your heterodox standards.


That's a very different issue.  I wouldn't kiss my mom on the cheek as part of a worship liturgy, nor would I kiss a picture or statue of her, period.  




> The "work" that Jesus said Christians are to do is to believe.  Seventh Day Adventists do not teach that one has to keep the Sabbath in order to be justified.  Never have and never will.


I wasn't throwing that at you, just in general


> .  
> 
>   That said, legalism is seeking to force your definition of the law on others.  That's why the Pharisees were legalized.  It wasn't that they were seeking justification.  They believed they were justified by being descendants of Abraham.  They were seeking to condemn others.  I know that's a hard pill to swallow but you are walking in the steps of the Pharisees.


No I'm not.  I don't believe I'm justified based on my lineage.




> Edit: Let's quit pretending that we can make up our own definition of words.  Here's the dictionary definition of legalism.  Note that it says nothing about justification.
> 
> _
> Definition of legalism
> 
>     1   :  strict, literal, or excessive conformity to the law or to a religious or moral code <the institutionalized legalism that restricts free choice>
> 
>     2   :  a legal term or rule_


That's not a very good theological definition.  Or at least if that's the case, its a meaningless insult.

----------


## RJB

> I understand you cannot see the difference between worship and veneration.


  I somewhat understand his objections.  I feel a bit of discomfort myself.  As a man from a mid-western state, my father and I never hug.  We love each other, but we're just not huggy people.  Some of the old world sentiment that I see at a lot of Orthodox Churches, hugging and kissing on cheeks is a bit much for me. This same display directed at the icons and saints behind them can be baffling.  For the Orthodox, the saints who wrote scriptures, and other early writings are very much alive.  It is no difference than a husband kissing the picture of his departed wife or talking to her tombstone.  It's not worship of saints, but rather that we are merely aware that we worship with those who have gone before us.

However, most churches have 1500 years of separation between them and the Church Fathers.   To them, the ancient Church isn't just dead, it's almost forgotten.  St. Ignatius of Antioch, St. Paul, and others are as distant as Zeus.  For the Orthodox, they are remembered as family who died in Christ  only recently.

In the Orthodox Liturgy the separation of Heaven and Earth is gone.  We stand with the cloud of witnesses, with Jesus as the "Lamb standing as if slain," from Revelation.  The Liturgy is timeless from it's beginning 2000 years ago, to present, and to the future.




> I leave it up to God to convince you.


 That's why I stay out of these these days.  His wisdom is far grater than mine

----------


## jmdrake

> No I'm not.  I don't believe I'm justified based on my lineage.


You believe you are justified by your election.  Same song different sheet of music.  The point is that both you and the Pharisees believe/believed they were the "chosen people" for justification.  And both you and the Pharisees are/were trying to impose your vision of law on others.




> That's not a very good theological definition.  Or at least if that's the case, its a meaningless insult.


 What's insulting about it?  That's an odd reaction.  And if you have a theological dictionary that you would like to quote from then please post it.  But you can't just make up meanings for words to suit the argument you are trying to make.

----------


## TER

> That's a very different issue.  I wouldn't kiss my mom on the cheek as part of a worship liturgy, nor would I kiss a picture or statue of her, period.


If you kissed a picture of her out of love and piety, does that mean you are worshipping her? Or the picture? 

 RJB hit the nail on the head.  We kiss pictures of our fellow members in Christ (the Saints) out of love.  It does not mean we are worshiping the Saints or the picture.  Our love is directed to the one whose image is on the picture, just as it is when I kiss the picture of my beloved departed grandmother.  I am not worshipping my grandmother just as I am not worshiping the Saint, who is also a beloved member of my family through Christ.

The Christian Faith is above all about love, and indeed a love enfleshed.  It is love with movement and form.  It is also a love with spirit and light.  In fact, the closest thing we can say regarding the essence and ontology of God is the word 'love'.  That is why St. John said "God is love".  Our very ontological being in life is in relationship through love.  Through communion with the other (both God and neighbor), we find true personhood, true being.  That is what it means to be in the image of God - as a person who gives and receives love.  This is the very mystery of the Holy Trinity, and our growth in theosis (that is, in the likeness of God) pertains to our ability to love and be loved.

Images and pictures are an extension of our great love for God Who has entered into the world and sanctified it.  If God is love, and God is infinite, so too is love infinite.  Thus while we worship the Uncreated God in Holy Trinity alone for through Him all love finds its source and being, we too have love for those dear to us, such as our family members by birth, our friends by choice, and our baptized brothers and sisters through Christ.  There is plenty of love to go around when one has allowed Christ to enter into their hearts and transform them with divine love.  From this overflowing love, we find the pious acts of veneration.

It is not mandatory to venerate an image of Christ or of a Saint.  One is not a heretic because he feels uncomfortable doing so.  It can be difficult for some due to cultural upbringing or previous indoctrination.  It can be difficult also for some to differentiate between worship and adoration, especially for new converts.  Having personal discomfort is not heresy, yet it does demonstrate there is room to grow spiritually.   Yet because we may personally find discomfort or unease for our various reasons does _not_ mean that those who do not are necessarily idolaters.  And that is when a person is called a heretic within the Church - when they stubbornly place their individual beliefs, interpretations, and judgements to be above all and accuse their brethren falsely simply because they don't yet fully understand or comprehend.

No one is going to be shut out of the Kingdom for not using icons in their worship service or not venerating and kissing holy relics and icons.  What _will_ shut them out is placing their personal knowledge and wisdom to be greater than the Church and falsely accuse their brethren.  That is why the Seventh Holy Ecumencial Council was done, in order to proclaim what is good to the Church and the Holy Spirit and lead the faithful towards God Who is love.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> However, most churches have 1500 years of separation between them and the Church Fathers. To them, the ancient Church isn't just dead, it's almost forgotten. St. Ignatius of Antioch, St. Paul, and others are as distant as Zeus. For the Orthodox, they are remembered as family who died in Christ only recently.


I believe Ignatius was part of the same church that I am, as was Paul.  That's not to say that Ignatius necessarily affirmed 100% of what I affirm.  Unlike the Orthodox, I believe both church fathers and councils can err.  But I also believe we need to tread carefully when it comes to such things and recognize the weight of what we're dealing with.  Reformed and other Magisterial Protestants are a bit different than baptists and pentecostals in this regard.

----------


## TER

> I believe Ignatius was part of the same church that I am, as was Paul.  *That's not to say that Ignatius necessarily affirmed 100% of what I affirm.*  Unlike the Orthodox, I believe both church fathers and councils can err.  But I also believe we need to tread carefully when it comes to such things and recognize the weight of what we're dealing with.  Reformed and other Magisterial Protestants are a bit different than baptists and pentecostals in this regard.


St. Ignatius lived in a different time, in a different world.  There will be distinctions for sure.  But with regards to eternal truths, there must be unity and confirmation.  Otherwise, it would not be truth.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> St. Ignatius lived in a different time, in a different world.  There will be distinctions for sure.  But with regards to eternal truths, there must be unity and confirmation.  Otherwise, it would not be truth.


There's only one truth, but I believe the church's knowledge of that truth has progressed over time as understanding of rules of hermaneutics have been standardized and improved etc.  I'm not opposed to the idea that someone like Ignatius could have had some theological errors.

----------


## TER

> There's only one truth, but I believe the church's knowledge of that truth has progressed over time as understanding of rules of hermaneutics have been standardized and improved etc.


Have you ever sat around with friends and played the game of 'telephone'? 

 St. Ignatius is like second in the circle.




> I'm not opposed to the idea that someone like Ignatius could have had some theological errors.


Are you opposed to the idea that you may have some theological errors and misinterpretations, and it is St. Ignatius, who is second in the circle, who is correct?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Have you ever sat around with friends and played the game of 'telephone'? 
> 
>  St. Ignatius was like second in the circle.


Perhaps, but its also like we have the original guy's writings.





> Are you opposed to the idea that you may have some theological errors and St. Ignatius, who is second in the circle, is correct?


No, I'm not.  I do, however, believe that hermaneutical skill as a whole has improved since Ignatius' day.  A presupposition that I realize the Eastern Orthodox in particular would majorly object to.  Different presuppositions leads to different conclusions.

----------


## TER

> Perhaps, but its also like we have the original guy's writings.


Which guy?




> No, I'm not.


That is a good answer.   May you be blessed by God.




> I do, however, believe that hermaneutical skill as a whole has improved since Ignatius' day.  A presupposition that I realize the Eastern Orthodox in particular would majorly object to.  Different presuppositions leads to different conclusions.


Hermaneutical skills?  How about the hymns and liturgies of the Church, and the hagiography and writings of the Saints.  Should these not play in our hermaneutical approach to finding the true and everlasting understanding of the verses in the Scriptures?  Does not how the Christians lived and worshipped and understood and applied these verses give some light?  

This isn't deciphering ancient Egyption codes.  This is holding fast to the teachings of our fathers and mothers in the faith, who did the same going back to the Apostles.  A hermeneutics which ignores time and space is one that is not centered on reality and truth, but many times on convenience and error.  If we cannot easily believe and humbly confess that St. Ignatius had a closer understanding of the faith handed down by the Apostles than ourselves, than we need quickly to learn and believe. Otherwise, it is pride which consumes us and makes waste of us and keeps us from the truth.

----------


## hells_unicorn

> I'll tell you, boys, the second you start attaching "ism" to something, it turns way more complicated than it has to be. And for what? I mean, really. For what? To stimulate agreement or disagreement in different religious factions?


I don't fully disagree with the spirit of your notion of "legal" vs. "lawful", though how you mean "legal" is where I think you lose the plot. Every person's idea of "the plain truth" usually involves a lot of hidden caveats, such as that sneaky little thing where various Baptist groups will talk on about God's plain spoken words, but boy do they get complicated on things when it comes to their unnecessary hangups on baptizing children.

Everybody has an "ism" attached to their faith sir, some are just a bit more honest with themselves and others about it.

----------


## hells_unicorn

> No, legalism is when you say certain works have to be performed in order to be justified


I'm not going to be responding to Drake directly because I'm tired of the two of us talking past each other and it's extremely aggravating, but I kind of differ with you regarding this definition. Legalism has to do with terms of communion, or being subject to church censures for something that is either morally neutral or otherwise outside the purview of the Christian faith. Given that most Baptist-founded churches have a warped view of the relationship between the Visible and Invisible Church, there's a lot of ambiguity on what counts of "justification" vs. what is sanctification. Granted, the Adventists may not be threatening censure or excommunication for their views on dietary practices and doctrinal views of Christ's human nature, but the fact that they are preaching and making publications to bind the consciences of their congregations is highly problematic.

My biggest hangup with Seventh Day Adventism (apart from where it came from) is not only that they are reviving the defunct OT Sabbath Day, but also that while misinterpreting the letter of the 4th commandment (viewing the specific date as natural law rather than positive law), they don't actually apply a natural morality to the Sabbath day as a binding day of rest within the week. The 4th commandment is tied to the 1st table of the Decalogue, which deals with "loving God with your whole heart", if we're not obligated by natural morality to improve upon our observance of The Lord's Day, we have 9 commandments instead of 10.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I'm not going to be responding to Drake directly because I'm tired of the two of us talking past each other and it's extremely aggravating, but I kind of differ with you regarding this definition. Legalism has to do with terms of communion, or being subject to church censures for something that is either morally neutral or otherwise outside the purview of the Christian faith.


Fair point, the word is sometimes used this way, and I'm OK with that.  My hesitance here also comes back to my baptistic background.  I've had plenty a person call me legalistic because I believe its not lawful to make images of Christ or because I believe its sinful to refuse to use wine in the Lord's Supper or because of my view of the sabbath (which probably isn't as strict as yours but is still far, far stricter than what is practiced in most dispensational leaning circles) and so on.  I've seen it used to shut down conversation too many times to be willing to use it as an argument, even though of course on this matter I agree with you.  



> Given that most Baptist-founded churches have a warped view of the relationship between the Visible and Invisible Church, there's a lot of ambiguity on what counts of "justification" vs. what is sanctification. Granted, the Adventists may not be threatening censure or excommunication for their views on dietary practices and doctrinal views of Christ's human nature, but the fact that they are preaching and making publications to bind the consciences of their congregations is highly problematic.


I don't know what the SDA views of Christ's human nature is.  I'd actually be significantly more worried about SDA Arminianism than the soft judaizing of being against the eating of certain foods, but then, I'm kinda weird like that 



> My biggest hangup with Seventh Day Adventism (apart from where it came from) is not only that they are reviving the defunct OT Sabbath Day,


Yeah, I don't agree with them, but I'd honestly rather someone keep Saturday than keep no day at all.  I've encountered individuals who I don't see as heretical who hold that view.




> but also that while misinterpreting the letter of the 4th commandment (viewing the specific date as natural law rather than positive law), they don't actually apply a natural morality to the Sabbath day as a binding day of rest within the week.


They don't?  I thought they did.  What am I missing here?




> The 4th commandment is tied to the 1st table of the Decalogue, which deals with "loving God with your whole heart", if we're not obligated by natural morality to improve upon our observance of The Lord's Day, we have 9 commandments instead of 10.


Are they saying otherwise?  Again I'm confused here.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> If we cannot easily believe and humbly confess that St. Ignatius had a closer understanding of the faith handed down by the Apostles than ourselves,


I actually doubt it, but not because I believe I would have done as well or better in his position.  I believe Ignatius believed in the essence of the trinity, but its highly unlikely that he could have formulated it with the precision that we do today, for instance.  There have been developments in the understanding of scripture at times.  And there are definitely times (I don't remember the details now) where the church fathers used sloppy exegesis.  The difference between me and an Orthodox Christian is that the Orthodox don't really believe we have the right to question the patristics, while I believe they need to be carefully questioned

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Baptist groups will talk on about God's plain spoken words, but boy do they get complicated on things when it comes to their unnecessary hangups on baptizing children.


Well. Firstly, baptism is not..._not_..._not_ in Scripture. It is impossible to support any claim that infant baptism is justified by God's Word in the Bible. Infant baptism is not any place in the Bible. There is no incident of it at all. There is no mandate for infant baptism in it at all. There is no call for infant baptism in it at all. And there is no description of infant baptism in it at all. None. It's something that evolved after the second or third century and went mainstream by the fourth as far as I can tell. 

Now, there are several other points I'd make here, but what say you about what I just said here? Let's start with Scripture because that alone should suffice. Irrelevant of that, I do have other points and It's easier to start there and move on down the list. That way things don't get lost/removed from relevance/context.

Speaking of Scripture, none of you have rectified why He said that He was going to bring a drought to corn and new wine in the same sentence. If he was talking about wine on the vine from the perspective of a manufactured good, then, why didn't he call corn some kind of manufactured good? Why didn't He call it...oh...I don't know...bread? You all patted each other on the back and high fived one another but none of you rectified the inconsistency in your translation of the latter of the scripture with the former. Didn't even acknowledge the inconsistency in the actual Scripture. You know? _God's_ word? The true context is right there.

But we can put His word with regard to the corn and the fruit of the vine aside. 

I maintain what I'd mentioned in the initial paragraph here with regard to infant baptism not being supported by Scripture. What say you about it? Let's do the infant baptism argument.

----------


## jmdrake

> I'm not going to be responding to Drake directly because I'm tired of the two of us talking past each other and it's extremely aggravating, but I kind of differ with you regarding this definition. Legalism has to do with terms of communion, or being subject to church censures for something that is either morally neutral or otherwise outside the purview of the Christian faith. Given that most Baptist-founded churches have a warped view of the relationship between the Visible and Invisible Church, there's a lot of ambiguity on what counts of "justification" vs. what is sanctification. Granted, the Adventists may not be threatening censure or excommunication for their views on dietary practices and doctrinal views of Christ's human nature, but the fact that they are preaching and making publications to bind the consciences of their congregations is highly problematic.


LOL.  So rather that talking to me you'll talk about me.  Very Christian of you.  /sarcasm.  Yes churches shouldn't have publications because that's evil.  

Interesting story.  I once was putting up an announcement about a vegetarian cooking class at a health food store.  The guy at the cash register, who had multiple tattoos and piercings, asked if I was a Seventh Day Adventist.  I said "Yes."  He replied "Great!  I love reading the Ellen G. White lady.  She's got a lot of good ideas."  Note he didn't feel at all "bound" by her writings or any other SDA publication.  He just felt her writings were a good resource for living healthy.  And science backs up that view.  Adventists tend to live 7 to 10 years longer than the average U.S. population.  But if you'd rather die sooner rather than later I'm not going to stand in your way.




> My biggest hangup with Seventh Day Adventism (apart from where it came from) is not only that they are reviving the defunct OT Sabbath Day, but also that while misinterpreting the letter of the 4th commandment (viewing the specific date as natural law rather than positive law), they don't actually apply a natural morality to the Sabbath day as a binding day of rest within the week. The 4th commandment is tied to the 1st table of the Decalogue, which deals with "loving God with your whole heart", if we're not obligated by natural morality to improve upon our observance of The Lord's Day, we have 9 commandments instead of 10.


Ummmmmm......huh?  How do you feel you have "improved upon the Sabbath" specifically?  How do you feel most of Christiandom has "improved?"  By making sure they are out of church soon enough on Sunday to catch the NFL?  Great improvement!

----------


## jmdrake

> Once I read how a Roman Catholic parish was transitioning to gluten free wafers because of concerns of allergies.  Now, if we truly believe that the elements become the Body and Blood of Christ, why in the world would we be concerned about gluten allergies?  Or communicable diseases for that matter?  There is not one single case of people getting sick or contracting an illness from sharing of the communal cup.  In fact, the priest must consume all of the Holy Eucharist after all the other faithful have communed.  Priests are not getting illnesses at a higher rate than the average person.  In fact, during the Divine Liturgy on the Holy Thursday service which occurs once a year, a chalice of the Holy Eucharist is kept as an emergency reserve in cases of life threatening illness.  This is used for the year ahead until the following Holy Thursday.  The priest must consume whatever is left over during the service of the following year's Holy Thursday's service. After being kept open on the altar and servicing it to the parishes most ill members of the year, the Eucharist is as fresh as new, as if the first day it was consecrated, and no priest has ever gotten sick from partaking it.  These are just a snapshot of the workings of God within the sacraments of the Church.


I'm curious.  Considering the fact that wine kills germ on contact, why would you expect anything different miracle or no miracle?  And isn't it only the priests that touch the wafers?  Allergies are a totally different animal.

----------


## TER

> I actually doubt it, but not because I believe I would have done as well or better in his position.  I believe Ignatius believed in the essence of the trinity, but its highly unlikely that he could have formulated it with the precision that we do today, for instance.  There have been developments in the understanding of scripture at times.  And there are definitely times (I don't remember the details now) where the church fathers used sloppy exegesis.  The difference between me and an Orthodox Christian is that the Orthodox don't really believe we have the right to question the patristics, while I believe they need to be carefully questioned


There is much to unpack here, but I will first start with your misrepresentation of what the Orthodox believe and don't believe with regards to the Church Fathers.  We do not believe the Saints before us to be infallible.  We do not believe them to be above question.  We do not believe in running carelessly after men and succumbing to their teachings, especially when they go counter to what is the shared experience and beliefs of Christians before them.

It is true that in time, as the generations went past, it became necessary to use more precise terminology to describe the Christian understanding of God.  Using the limits of human reason and the human language, doctrines and terms were written to describe what is actually undefinable and unexpressable, namely God and our experience of communion with Him, in love and abiding in Him.  The reason it became necessary to proclaim certain beliefs and dogma, such as the economy of the Persons of the Holy Trinity and the Christological definitions, was because of the various heresies which had grown and caused unrest within the Church.

But even with that all said, this greater means of expressing the human experience of an encounter with God was not in itself creating a new experience.  It was not describing a different experience of God.  It was rather trying to describe what was already known and experienced by Saints of every generation. 

It is indeed the same Holy Spirit Who revealed the truths to the Apostles as He did to those who followed them.  Humans have invented words and terms to describe these truths, but the faith remains the same faith "which was _once_ delivered unto the saints" (Jude 1:3).  

The point is that even though the Holy Evangelists did not use the words 'ὁμοούσιον' or 'consubstantial' in the New Testament, doesn't mean that this is not what they believed.   The Church had to contend against heresies and the pressures in the world, and so she did.  But the Christian experience of the God-man Jesus Christ within a man's heart and the peace, joy and wisdom which comes from it, is something which is indeed personal, but shared and in union through unity, with all who have experienced His presence.  Thus while Saints may have erred on particular things, it is not these errors which glorify them to be called 'pillars' and 'fathers', but rather those things they taught which resonate far and wide as being true to the people's own common understanding and knowledge about God and how Christians have always believed and experienced and handed down (namely, the catholic and orthodox faith).

St. Ignatius did not use the word 'Trinity' but his writings do not teach against the Trinity.  In fact, the Trinity can be discerned thoughtout the letters he wrote if one looks carefully.  But because he did not describe it using philosophical terms borrowed from Ancient Greek philosophers doesn't mean he did not experience the fullness of God as Trinity.  

The reasons we should weigh heavily the words of St. Ignatius is because of his proximity to the Apostles, the evident truth of his grace-filled writings, his obedience and love of those who came before him, and the received agreement and acceptance of what he taught by the rest of the Church, both during that time and all they way through the centuries.

We should especially consider him heavily if we are trying to understand the life of the Church of Christ at the turning of the first century and what the Apostles established and handed down in faith and form to their immediate successors.

----------


## TER

> I'm curious.  Considering the fact that wine kills germ on contact, why would you expect anything different miracle or no miracle?  And isn't it only the priests that touch the wafers?  Allergies are a totally different animal.


In the Eastern Orthodox Divine Liturgy, the priest uses a spoon to feed the faithful the Holy Eucharist from a chalice, like this:





This can be a line of scores or even hundreds of people.

Wine does not kill most germs on contact.  Grain alcohol, maybe.  But not wine.  Especially watered down wine which is used in the Holy Eucharist service.  It would require high ethanol content and some time to kill many of the common bacteria and viruses, but there are PLENTY of pathogens that would normally not be destroyed in the short time between putting spoons in people's mouths one after another and then finishing the entire cup.  Thus, it is a miracle people do not get sick (especially the priests who consume whatever is left).

Also, unless the wine is well preserved (read: in a vacuum), it turns into vinegar in a short time.  This is not the case with the Holy Eucharist when it is left on the altar.  This too is a miracle.

----------


## jmdrake

> In the Eastern Orthodox Divine Liturgy, the priest uses a spoon to feed the faithful the Holy Eucharist from a chalice, like this:
> 
> This can be a line of scores or even hundreds of people.
> 
> Wine does not kill most germs on contact.  Grain alcohol, maybe.  But not wine.  Especially watered down wine which is used in the Holy Eucharist service.  It would require high ethanol content and some time to kill many of the common bacteria and viruses, but there are PLENTY of pathogens that would normally not be destroyed in the short time between putting spoons in people's mouths one after another and then finishing the entire cup.  Thus, it is a miracle people do not get sick (especially the priests who consume whatever is left).
> 
> Also, unless the wine is well preserved (read: in a vacuum), it turns into vinegar in a short time.  This is not the case with the Holy Eucharist when it is left on the altar.  This too is a miracle.


Sorry TER but science says you're wrong on this.

http://www.livescience.com/7326-wine...s-contact.html

Speaking of science, you haven't even cited a study that says that priests don't get sick more than the general population.  I would, overall, expect priests, especially in 3rd world countries, to get sick less than the general population because they have access to better hygiene.  Doctors and nurses in 3rd world countries get sick less than the general population for the same reason without any Eucharist miracle.  Sorry.  Them's just the facts.

----------


## TER

> Sorry TER but science says you're wrong on this.
> 
> http://www.livescience.com/7326-wine...s-contact.html
> 
> Speaking of science, you haven't even cited a study that says that priests don't get sick more than the general population.  I would, overall, expect priests, especially in 3rd world countries, to get sick less than the general population because they have access to better hygiene.  Doctors and nurses in 3rd world countries get sick less than the general population for the same reason without any Eucharist miracle.  Sorry.  Them's just the facts.


I understand the science a bit (being a physician) and what I wrote in my previous post is accurate. You made the statement that wine kills germs on contact, and that is an inaccurate statement.  


The article you posted expresses that wine does indeed have antiseptic properties, which I am not arguing. It most certainly has antiseptic properties.  That doesn't mean there are not myriads of bacteria and viruses that cannot survive in diluted wine, especially in the short time it takes to dip the spoon into the chalice.  This is science as well.  I am arguing about your statement that wine is some kind of powerful disinfective agent that is incapable of transmitting disease.   How wonderful that would be!  We could wash our dirty, bacteria ridden pots and soiled children in wine and then drink the run off when we are done!

As for the fact that the Holy Eucharist stay fresh and does not turn to vinegar while sitting on the Holy Altar for a year, you seem to have ignored. Any science you know which can explain that?

If there are any studies which have compared the illness rate of Orhodox Christian priests to the general populations, please let me know. I haven't seen any. I guess you will just have to take it on faith until someone spends the money and time to scientifically prove or disprove this claim.  Anectodaly and historically, it does indeed appear to be the case.

----------


## jmdrake

> I understand the science a bit (being a physician) and what I wrote in my previous post is accurate. You made the statement that wine kills germs on contact, and that is an inaccurate statement.  
> 
> 
> The article you posted expresses that wine does indeed have antiseptic properties, which I am not arguing. It most certainly has antiseptic properties.  That doesn't mean there are not myriads of bacteria and viruses that cannot survive in diluted wine, especially in the short time it takes to dip the spoon into the chalice.  This is science as well.  I am arguing about your statement that wine is some kind of powerful disinfective agent that is incapable of transmitting disease.   How wonderful that would be!  We could wash our dirty, bacteria ridden pots and soiled children in wine and then drink the run off when we are done!
> 
> As for the fact that the Holy Eucharist stay fresh and does not turn to vinegar while sitting on the Holy Altar for a year, you seem to have ignored. Any science you know which can explain that?
> 
> If there are any studies which have compared the illness rate of Orhodox Christian priests to the general populations, please let me know. I haven't seen any. I guess you will just have to take it on faith until someone spends the money and time to scientifically prove or disprove this claim.  Anectodaly and historically, it does indeed appear to be the case.


Hello TER.  I didn't know you were a doctor.  Cool!  So is my ex wife.

Okay, back to the discussion.  Warning.  Long response.  But I hope you find it interesting.

You've made the extraordinary claim right?  That there is a miracle involved with priests not getting sick from finishing off the communion wine and bread?  So....isn't the burden on you to support that this is indeed miraculous?  The claim was made in conjunction with you commenting on some priests choosing to go with gluten free wafers rather than risk the health of parishioners with allergies.  As a physician you probably know more about gluten allergies than I do.  I do know that peanut allergies can be deadly.  So I'm guessing that it's possible that gluten allergies can be as well.  

So lets go with "Gluten allergies are deadly."  Should people risk death or at the very least a severe reaction because priests don't get sick more than the general population even though they consume all of the communion?  That's the thesis?  If I'm stating your position wrong, please correct it.  I think we can rule out any pathogens from the communion bread because, at least in the Catholic church, the parishioners do not touch the bread, only the priests.



I've never seen an Orthodox communion but perhaps you can explain this image to me that I found searching for "Orthodox communion."



Is that a piece of communion bread on a spoon?  It doesn't look that the parishioner's mouth touches the spoon.  So I see little opportunity for pathogen transfer.

Alright.  Back to the wine.  I'm assuming that when it comes to the wine, the parishioner's mouth touches the spoon.  (Otherwise there's no chance for pathogen transfer.)  So the question becomes, what effect does the wine have on the pathogens?

I was not familiar with the practice of diluting sacrament wine until you mentioned it.  I did a little Google research on diluting communion wine.  This is what I found.

http://net-abbey.org/cupbact.htm
_CAN YOU GET ILL FROM TAKING THE COMMUNION CUP? A Physician's opinion

...to the Healing of soul and body...

By Emanuel Kolyvas, M.D., 

The Sign [of the Theotokos], Montreal 
Contrary to popular opinion, wine, and other beverages of antiquity produced through fermentation, were probably more important in providing disease-free drinking fluids than in their tendency to intoxicate. Ancient Greeks drank their water mixed with wine, and also used wine to cleanse wounds and soak dressings. More recently, military physicians of the last century observed that during epidemics of cholera, wine drinkers were relatively spared by the disease, and troops were advised to mix wine into the water.

Wine has been shown to be an effective antiseptic even when the alcohol is removed. In fact, 10% alcohol is a poor antiseptic, and alcohol only becomes optimally effective at concentrations of 7;0%. The antiseptic substances in wine are inactive in fresh grapes because these molecules are bound to complex sugars. During fermentation these antiseptic substances are split off from the sugars and in this way become active. These molecules are polyphenols, a class of substances used in hospitals to disinfect surfaces and instruments. The polyphenol of wine has been shown to be some thirty-three times more powerful than the phenol used by Lister when he pioneered antiseptic surgery.

Same year wines can be diluted up to ten times before beginning to show a decrease in their antiseptic effect. The better wines gradually improve with age over the first ten years and can be diluted twenty times without a decrease of the antiseptic effect. This effect then remains more or less constant over the next twenty years and becomes equivalent to a new wine after another twenty-five years. (Modern antiseptics and antibiotics for disinfecting wounds have surpassed wine effectiveness because the active ingredients in wine are rapidly bound and inactivated by proteins in body tissues.)

In preparing communion, the hot water that is added to the wine will increase greatly the antiseptic effect of the polyphenols. Disinfection occurs more rapidly and more effectively at 45 degrees centigrade than at room temperature (22-25 degrees). Another contribution to the antiseptic effect comes from the silver, copper, zinc that make up the chalice itself, ensuring that microbes are unable to survive on its surface.

Throughout the centuries, no disease has ever been transmitted by the taking of Holy Communion. Diseases, such as Hepatitis B, known to be transmitted by shared eating utensils, have never been acquired from the communion spoon. HIV is known not to be transmitted through shared eating utensils, and considering the antiseptic qualities of the Holy Communion received by the faithful, there is no likelihood of acquiring HIV infection through the Common Cup._

So according to at least one Catholic physician, even diluted communion wine, especially if it's diluted with hot water, contains antiseptic properties.  Thus we have a natural explanation for why people don't get ill from taking communion from a common cup.

Oh, and I did a litte research on glueten free communion.  Here's what I found.  It looks like some Catholic nuns have gone through a lot of trouble to develop bread that respects church tradition while safeguarding the health of people with wheat allergies.

http://www.catholicceliacs.org/Options.html
_Catholic Communion and Celiac Disease: the Options
by Barbara Coughlin M.D.

For the Catholic with celiac disease, the most painful aspect of living on a strict gluten free is the inability to receive the host, or bread, at Communion. Catholics believe that the bread is transformed into the Body of Christ. This transformation and the reception of the Body of Christ, called the Eucharist, takes place at Mass. It is the center around which the religious life of a Catholic revolves. To be suddenly denied this by virtue of having celiac disease is devastating to many Catholics. 

Because the Catholic Church states that Communion bread must be made of only wheat and water with "sufficient gluten to attain the confection of bread," the only option for the Catholic celiac has been to receive Communion under the species of wine alone. According to Catholic doctrine, the whole of Christ is contained in the Precious Blood alone. As such, the person who receives Communion this way is still receiving the whole sacrament. Since part of the rite of the Mass includes placing a small piece of bread into the wine, the person with celiac disease needs to arrange for a separate chalice into which no bread is put. The priest is required to do this, as each Catholic in good standing has a right to receive Communion. At churches where Communion is offered to the congregation under both species, this might not be a problem, as the chalices that are brought out to the congregation generally do not have bread in them. As this is not universal, each individual should become aware of the procedures in her own parish.
Although receiving the Precious Blood alone provides a satisfactory theological answer, many Catholic celiacs still feel a deep sense of loss and isolation by being denied the ability to receive the Body of Christ in the form of bread as they have since childhood. Likewise, parents of celiac children are troubled by having their child receiving Communion differently from other children or by having their child drink wine.

Now there is another choice. The Benedictine Sisters of Perpetual Adoration in Clyde, Missouri, have developed a Communion host that is extremely low in gluten. They have worked for ten years on this project. The host is made from gelatinized wheat starch. The hosts have been tested for the presence of gluten. According to the Sisters, they were tested to a level of 0.01% gluten. At that level, the lowest that could be tested, no gluten was detected. This means that there is less than 0.01% gluten in one of these hosts; however, it is not known how much less. The Secretariat for the Liturgy of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops has stated that these meet the requirements of the Code of Canon Law and may be validly used at Mass with permission of the person’s pastor. They are manufactured by hand in a separate facility from the ordinary wheat hosts and are shipped separately from the wheat hosts so that there is no danger of cross contamination. 

I spoke to Sister Jeanne Patricia Crowe, Pharm D, R Ph. of Immaculata College in Pennsylvania. Sister Crowe (who is in a different order from the nuns who developed the host and has no relationship with them) does not have celiac disease herself, but she has a particular interest in it and often speaks at celiac conferences. She weighed these hosts on an extremely accurate pharmaceutical scale, and then calculated how much gluten would be in one IF it actually were 0.01% gluten. The result was approximately 32 micrograms; a quarter of a host would have about 7 micrograms of gluten. For those (like me) who are little shaky on the metric system, 7 micrograms is 7/one millionths of a gram. To put this into perspective, a very small bread crumb contains about 10 milligrams, or 10/one thousandths of a gram--substantially more.

But, of course, the question in everyone’s mind is, "Is this safe?" The answer from the experts is, "Probably." Alessio Fasano MD of the Celiac Center at the University of Maryland has stated that the gluten free hosts are safe for people with celiac disease; however, he has not explained why. I have attempted to contact him, but he has not responded to me or to another person who has been researching this.

In 1993, Dr. Catassi published a study showing that the lowest level of gluten that produced a visible change in the biopsies of celiac volunteers was 100 milligrams of gliadin (equal to 200 milligrams of gluten) a day. Some experts have extrapolated from that to state that the maximum amount of gluten a celiac should ingest in a day is 10 milligrams. Clearly, the amount of gluten in one of these hosts is significantly lower than that, which suggests that it is a safe amount, However, no studies have been done on this, so it is impossible to know if there are any risks or dangers of long term exposure to this level of gluten. 
I also spoke to Michelle Melin-Rogovin from the University of Chicago’s Celiac Disease program. She told me that no one knows how much gluten is safe, and that in the Real World, we are all probably ingesting some low level of gluten. She stated that she could not say that it would be safe for someone to use these hosts, but that it might be considered an "acceptable risk" that would be a valid decision for some. She recommended taking only a quarter of a host once a week at most. She also suggested that it would be wise for someone choosing to do this to check her antibodies beforehand and then several months later. She would not recommend someone who had elevated antibodies to use these hosts.

I realize that the policy of our support group and, therefore, of this website is to advocate that a person with celiac disease should do her utmost to avoid any consumption of gluten. As such, this article may seem to be in conflict with this message. As a Catholic celiac myself, however, I understand the deep sorrow that not being able to have the Body of Christ can cause. In the past four years, I have come to accept my gluten free life; I live fully and joyfully and eat very well. But the one issue that has continued to be painful and difficult to live with has been my loss of the ability to receive the Body of Christ at Mass. I also realize that non-Catholics may find it hard to grasp how vital the sacrament is for us, and why even those of us who are scrupulous to avoid any other source of gluten may choose this as an acceptable risk, and I hope they will look at it without judgement. I felt it important to gather as much information as I could about the low gluten host so that each person can make her own decision. The latest issue of Gluten Free Living also contains an article on the low gluten hosts, with comments from experts on celiac disease regarding their safety for someone on a gluten free diet. 
My mentor in college once told me, "For the rest of your life, you will be making decisions based on insufficient information." That certainly applies to life with celiac disease! Whether or not one decides to accept the use of the low gluten host or to allow one’s child to receive it is a personal decision. Having had to make it myself, I know how difficult it is. If anyone would like to speak to me personally about the low gluten host or the logistics of using it in a way that avoids cross contamination, please feel free to call or to email me.


The low gluten hosts can be purchased from: 
Congregation of Benedictine Sisters of Perpetual Adoration
Altar Breads Department_

----------


## hells_unicorn

> Well. Firstly, baptism is not..._not_..._not_ in Scripture. It is impossible to support any claim that infant baptism is justified by God's Word in the Bible. Infant baptism is not any place in the Bible. There is no incident of it at all. There is no mandate for infant baptism in it at all. There is no call for infant baptism in it at all. And there is no description of infant baptism in it at all. None. It's something that evolved after the second or third century and went mainstream by the fourth as far as I can tell.


Oh yes it is, you just have to read the entire New Testament instead of hanging on the words of Baptist ministers who think raising their voices makes their arguments more compelling (not that their arguments were compelling prior to upping the volume). The concept of "Believers Baptism" as defined by Baptists is nowhere to be found in scripture, nor is there a direct command by Jesus to refuse baptism to the infant children of believers, and a couple of good verses that indicate that he frowns upon Baptist sectarians going against 1,500 years of official church history (see Matthew 19:14; Luke 18:16 and Mark 10:14). But rather than write a chapter of a book laying out why Baptists are both wrong and heretical on this issue, I'll let you have a gander at this website. (I don't endorse the OPC as an institution, largely because they are too soft on Baptist heretics and have even adopted some of their errors like using grape juice in communion, but on this point they have remained orthodox).

Oh, and the notion that infant baptism evolved "after the 2nd or 3rd century" is categorically false if we look at the writings of Iranaeus, Hippolytus, Origen, Cyprian of Carthage, Gregory of Nazianz, and John Chrysostom. Iranaeus was a student of Polycarp, who was a disciple of the apostle John. It stands to reason that the words of Iraenaeus, who said that baptizing children was the common practice for his entire lifetime, carry a bit more weight than some jive-shouting pastor who was immersed "down by the riverside". This goofy conspiracy theory/delusional raving that infant baptism was some 4th century Roman invention that is regularly spouted by Baptists who can't explain away the early fathers of the church being 100% pro-infant baptism is a testament to why so many cults have sprouted out of Baptist circles.




> Now, there are several other points I'd make here, but what say you about what I just said here? Let's start with Scripture because that alone should suffice. Irrelevant of that, I do have other points and It's easier to start there and move on down the list. That way things don't get lost/removed from relevance/context.


Okay, we'll start with some basic bible quotes since I have a feeling what I provided to you earlier in this post will be brushed away with a typical Baptist "Dat ain't in da bible" retort. Consider the following:

Acts 2:38-39 : "Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is unto you, *and to your children*, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call."

Luke 18:15–16: "And they brought unto him also infants, that he would touch them: but when his disciples saw it, they rebuked them. But Jesus called them unto him, and said, *Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.*"

Care to explain these away. It's pretty cut and dry from where I stand.




> Speaking of Scripture, none of you have rectified why He said that He was going to bring a drought to corn and new wine in the same sentence. If he was talking about wine on the vine from the perspective of a manufactured good, then, why didn't he call corn some kind of manufactured good? Why didn't He call it...oh...I don't know...bread? You all patted each other on the back and high fived one another but none of you rectified the inconsistency in your translation of the latter of the scripture with the former. Didn't even acknowledge the inconsistency in the actual Scripture. You know? _God's_ word? The true context is right there.


Uh, what point are you trying to make here? Do you think the King James actually trumps the original Hebrew word used for wine in that passage? While we're on the topic, why don't we ask why the KJV calls it "corn" instead of the generic "grain", since the former term is now universally used to describe a type of grain that was alien to people in ancient Israel. The King James is the best English translation we have available at present, but like with any translation, there are flaws that can rise with the fluid nature of language following the confusion of tongues, hence why falling back on the original Hebrew and Greek is necessary when theological controversies arise.

"God's Word" requires discernment, hence why scripture itself instructs in Acts 8:30-31 that the church should provide a qualified guide for all of those seeking to understand scripture. Baptist ministers fail this requirement by default, and you couldn't even keep the Hebrew terminology for different types of wine straight when this topic was discussed, you lost, and the rest of us supposedly began high-fiving each other.




> But we can put His word with regard to the corn and the fruit of the vine aside.


Baptists have a common practice of "putting his Word aside" whenever they hear something from it they don't like. 




> I maintain what I'd mentioned in the initial paragraph here with regard to infant baptism not being supported by Scripture. What say you about it? Let's do the infant baptism argument.


Your move, I think the points in this post should kick things off sufficiently, and I have the benefit from being severely jet-lagged since I just got back from my 2 week vacation in Kharkiv so it may prove to be a fair competition. lol

----------


## TER

> Hello TER.  I didn't know you were a doctor.  Cool!  So is my ex wife.
> 
> Okay, back to the discussion.  Warning.  Long response.  But I hope you find it interesting.
> 
> You've made the extraordinary claim right?  That there is a miracle involved with priests not getting sick from finishing off the communion wine and bread?  So....isn't the burden on you to support that this is indeed miraculous?


Not really.  I don't need to prove it.  I already understand the great power of the Holy Eucharist by my own personal experience.  Also, I have spoken with enough priests and read enough writings to believe that what I wrote above is true with regards to the miraculous nature of the Holy Gifts (which are in no way limited to the few examples I have provided).  You are free to not believe it. and if you wish to disprove it, then you can go and conduct an evidence-based study to do so.  But I have seen enough evidence in my own life to believe it and don't need to see a scientific study to do so.  If that is not enough proof for you, I understand.  I'm okay with that.




> The claim was made in conjunction with you commenting on some priests choosing to go with gluten free wafers rather than risk the health of parishioners with allergies.  As a physician you probably know more about gluten allergies than I do.  I do know that peanut allergies can be deadly.  So I'm guessing that it's possible that gluten allergies can be as well.


Gluten allergies are not deadly and do not cause anaphylaxis as peanuts can.




> So lets go with "Gluten allergies are deadly."


Well, they aren't, so your example does not apply.




> Should people risk death or at the very least a severe reaction because priests don't get sick more than the general population even though they consume all of the communion?  That's the thesis?  If I'm stating your position wrong, please correct it.


No, that is not my thesis at all.  The Holy Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Christ, and thus to be concerned about gluten allergies demonstrates a lack of faith.  Now I can't speak for the Catholic Eucharist, but no one with gluten allergies is getting sick from the Orthodox Holy Eucharist.  There are people who are sensitive to alcohol (indeed, a true allergy) (one person whom I know), and they never have any reaction to partaking of the Holy Eucharist.

The reason I bring up that priests don't get sick more often than the general population is because some people (like yourself) require more evidence about the miraculous nature of the Holy Eucharist.  If you don't accept that as proof, that is okay.  Again, I don't need to prove it to you.  You are free to wait for a scientific study to confirm it if that is what you need.  In the meanwhile, as a physician, if a patient or friend tells me they have a gluten allergy and are concerned about taking Holy Communion, I would tell them if they have faith, they have nothing to fear.




> I think we can rule out any pathogens from the communion bread because, at least in the Catholic church, the parishioners do not touch the bread, only the priests.


Again, I am speaking about the Holy Eucharist of the Orthodox Divine Liturgy, whereby the priest communicates the Holy Gifts using a spoon and a chalice.






> I've never seen an Orthodox communion but perhaps you can explain this image to me that I found searching for "Orthodox communion."


Since that is an image of Pope Benedict giving Catholic communion, and not an Orthodox priest offering Orthodox communion, I guess my suggestion to you is not trust everything you search for on Google.  In Orthodoxy, the elements of bread and wine and consecrated together into the chalice and the communicant receives both with a spoon.






> Is that a piece of communion bread on a spoon?  It doesn't look that the parishioner's mouth touches the spoon.  So I see little opportunity for pathogen transfer.


The image you posted in not coming through on my device, so I can't comment.  As someone who has seen numerous Divine Liturgies, most people close their mouths over this spoon, like this video:







> Alright.  Back to the wine.  I'm assuming that when it comes to the wine, the parishioner's mouth touches the spoon.  (Otherwise there's no chance for pathogen transfer.)  So the question becomes, what effect does the wine have on the pathogens?


It has some, but it certainly does not naturally sterilize the contents, which you seem to want to claim.




> I was not familiar with the practice of diluting sacrament wine until you mentioned it.  I did a little Google research on diluting communion wine.  This is what I found.


The zeon (or water) added to the wine during the consecration is an ancient tradition going back to the very early history of the Church.  




> CAN YOU GET ILL FROM TAKING THE COMMUNION CUP? A Physician's opinion
> 
> ...to the Healing of soul and body...
> 
> By Emanuel Kolyvas, M.D......


Thank you for that article which says that "Throughout the centuries, no disease has ever been transmitted by the taking of Holy Communion.". You didn't bold that part, so I don't know if maybe you missed it.  I am actually familiar with that article from several years back, and it was written because of concerns by some fearful members of the Orthodox Church who had concerns about getting diseases (particularly HIV) from sharing the same spoon.  In order to reassure them (since their faith was not strong), this article was written.

As for you posting it, I am not exactly sure why you did, seeing that you require proof and scientific data to believe, and there is not one single research experiment or citation provided.  I don't think you are being fair or consistent.




> So according to at least one Catholic physician, even diluted communion wine, especially if it's diluted with hot water, contains antiseptic properties.  Thus we have a natural explanation for why people don't get ill from taking communion from a common cup.


Actually, that is an Orthodox Christian physician and not a Catholic one, and I don't doubt that diluted communion wine has antiseptic properties as I already wrote in a previous post. The fallacy which you are making is that _that_ is the (only) reason why nobody gets sick from taking communion from the common cup.  This is a conclusion that the very author you are citing does not even make.  You are making you own conclusions based on your own presuppositions.  If you don't wish to believe in the miraculous nature of the Holy Eucharist, than that is your own loss.  But so far, you have tried to disprove what I wrote initially above several posts ago and have yet still not done so.  I am not sure why it bothers you so much that the Holy Eucharist of the Orthodox Divine Litrugy may be a miracle.  No one is forcing you to believe.




> Oh, and I did a litte research on glueten free communion.  Here's what I found.  It looks like some Catholic nuns have gone through a lot of trouble to develop bread that respects church tradition while safeguarding the health of people with wheat allergies.
> 
> _Catholic Communion and Celiac Disease: the Options
> by Barbara Coughlin M.D._


Again, I am only speaking for the Orthodox Church and their liturgical practice, not the Roman Catholic one which is brought up in the second article you posted.  I can assure you with 100% confidence that no Orthodox Church is worrying about gluten in the bread or with concerns of gluten allergies.  And that is not because they are being careless, but because there is no need to.   I have never heard of someone with gluten sensitivities/allergies getting adverse reactions from partaking of the Holy Eucharist in the Orthodox Divine Liturgy.  If this is a particular problem in the Roman Catholic Church, than that is something you should ask them about.  I am specifically referring to the Holy Eucharist of the Orthodox Church.

----------


## Natural Citizen

Mm. Yeah, see, I don't think that anything that anyone would say would suffice. No matter what anyone says, you're going to respond with "you lost and I won." I've been in faaaaar too many of these dabates to not know how it ends.

 I think the EO rhetoric provides a terrible disservice to God's Word. It's so arbitrary. And based on the whims of men. It's wrong to worship men. It's wrong to stimulate the notion that men are to be worshiped. These "Church Fathers." Most of them served tyrants. Heck, there are instances where they even acknowledged that child baptism wasn't referenced in context in the Bible yet still chose to do it. If you were honest in your rhetoric, then, you'd know that.

Do what you want. I choose to worship God. Not men. I've been in too many of these debates to waste time with another one.

----------


## RJB

> Mm. Yeah, see, I don't think that anything that anyone would say would suffice. No matter what anyone says, you're going to respond with "you lost and I won."


 That's exactly what you seem to be doing.




> I think the EO rhetoric provides a terrible disservice to God's Word. It's so arbitrary. And based on the whims of men. It's wrong to worship men. It's wrong to stimulate the notion that men are to be worshiped. These "Church Fathers." Most of them served tyrants.]


. No EO has stated worshipping men!  What's the matter with you!?  Are you trolling or how did you come to that  erroneous conclusion?  You've really changed dramatically in the last few months.  Seriously.  What's up with you?

----------


## Natural Citizen

> That's exactly what you seem to be doing.


No, I'm not. I've red these threads for a long time, though. Ultimately, that is the case. Doesn't matter. As I said, y'all do y'all and I'll do me. 




> No EO has stated worshipping men!  What's the matter with you!?  Are you trolling or how did you come to that  erroneous conclusion?  You've really changed dramatically in the last few months.  Seriously.  What's up with you?


Yeah, you're right. I have changed dramatically. My entire worldview has changed. I tend to look at thiungs in scope as opposed to the immediate points at hand, too. Which is somethign else. Yet relative to this, too.

Anyway. I don't want to really want to get into back and forth religion bashing. There's nothing to be had by it. And I regret particvipating but the ad-hominem toward baptists kind of led me to respond in kind. Again, it's just simpler if I do me and you all do you all. You know? I find that there are entirely too many chiefs and not enough indians when it comes to understanding the word of God. It's human nature.

----------


## TER

> Mm. Yeah, see, I don't think that anything that anyone would say would suffice. No matter what anyone says, you're going to respond with "you lost and I won." I've been in faaaaar too many of these dabates to not know how it ends.
> 
>  I think the EO rhetoric provides a terrible disservice to God's Word. It's so arbitrary. And based on the whims of men. It's wrong to worship men. It's wrong to stimulate the notion that men are to be worshiped. These "Church Fathers." Most of them served tyrants. Heck, there are instances where they even acknowledged that child baptism wasn't referenced in context in the Bible yet still chose to do it. If you were honest in your rhetoric, then, you'd know that.
> 
> Do what you want. I choose to worship God. Not men. I've been in too many of these debates to waste time with another one.


What an unfortunate post.  

There was a greatly revered Orthodox monk of the last century (his name escapes me at this time, but I believe he was either Romanian or Greek).  He was what is called a fool-for-Christ, which is when extremely virtuous and saintly monks take upon the act of a madman in order to demonstrate how crooked and illusionary the world operates, to be around and associate with great sinners in order to bring them to Christ, as well as to avoid human praise and pride.   Anyway, he used to go to different places of worship, such as mosques and Jewish synagogues and Indian temples, to have peaceful and respectful discussions about eachother's faith.  There he would politely listen to their points and all the while teach the listeners about Christ and the Gospel.  Even though those around him would disagree with much of what he said, he was such a grace-filled and meek and humble man, they would listen to what he said, debate with him in a friendly atmosphere, and then kindly depart in peace.  He said the only time he was shouted down, rushed out, and threatened physically was when he once went into a Baptist Church to discuss with them the Gospel.  lol

----------


## RJB

> Yeah, you're right. I have changed dramatically. My entire worldview has changed. I tend to look at thiungs in scope as opposed to the immediate points at hand, too. Which is somethign else. Yet relative to this, too.


Near death experiences will do that.  

I do regret calling your post BS a month ago. That was wrong on my part.  It caught me at a bad time.  I meant to tell you that but I didn't get around too it.



> Anyway. I don't want to really want to get into back and forth religion bashing.


  But that last post you made says otherwise.   Falsely accusing me and other Orthodox of worshipping men is asking for a back and forth.  Lately you have said things that are a bit outrageous and then back up and say you tend to mouth off and duck out of the conversation.  Say a prayer before hitting send. Thankfully I've deleted quite a few posts before hitting "Post Quick Reply."



> And I regret particvipating but the ad-hominem toward baptists kind of led me to respond in kind.


  Then you know how I feel and why I must respond.  BTW  neither HellsUnicorn nor Christian Liberty are Eastern Orthodox.  I don't know why you directed your last rant at my faith.  Neither TER nor I issued them against your church.



> I find that there are entirely too many chiefs and not enough indians when it comes to understanding the word of God. It's human nature.


 There is the truth.  God would not leave us without giving it to His Church.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Near death experiences will do that.  
> 
> I do regret calling your post BS a month ago. That was wrong on my part.  It caught me at a bad time.  I meant to tell you that but I didn't get around too it.
> 
>   But that last post you made says otherwise.   Falsely accusing me and other Orthodox of worshipping men is asking for a back and forth.  Lately you have said things that are a bit outrageous and then back up and say you tend to mouth off and duck out of the conversation.  Say a prayer before hitting send. Thankfully I've deleted quite a few posts before hitting "Post Quick Reply."
>    Then you know how I feel and why I must respond.  BTW  neither HellsUnicorn nor Christian Liberty are Eastern Orthodox.  I don't know why you directed your last rant at my faith.  Neither TER nor I issued them against your church.
>  There is the truth.  God would not leave us without giving it to His Church.



Well, no. I regret nothing I say here any place on the board. If I pop my mouth off about something, I stand by it. I don't duck discussion. Ever. Lately, I'm making decisions to see some discussions for what they are at their root and move along. That's all. 

If you go back to my initial posting in this thread, I was on the defensive from the beginning simply be responding to some arrogant kid. And that was a mistake. I should have just seen it for what it was and moved long. There's nothing to be had. 

I don't care about your faith, RJB. It doesn't affect my day in any way. Respectfully. Believe what you want. My view on your faith is irrelevant.

I've come to the conclusion that I'm taking the Bible and God's Word literally and in the context it is offered. I'll leave it at that. I've no want or need to look for the guidance of sacred men (regardless of whether they're Church Fathers or Church Scholars or whatever) who would twist the Gospel around so it's more conforming and permissive to either my own worldly indulgences or to the whims of the tyrants of the world, both past and present.

----------


## RJB

> I don't care about your faith, RJB. It doesn't affect my day in any way. Respectfully. Believe what you want.


  Good.  In the future, don't falsely accuse me of worshipping men and we'll get along fine.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Good.  In the future, don't falsely accuse me of worshipping men and we'll get along fine.


And call no _man_ your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. 

God said that. 

Yet here we are worshiping sacred men every day. We're teaching others to worship sacred men. This is against God's word. But you wouldn't know that to hear them tell it. Nope. Never.

That's all I'm saying, RJB. Had nothing to do with you specifically. You're free to believe what you want. I'm just pointing out the social disease that comes from rhetoric that teaches that we should worship sacred men is all. It's something that's learned and passed down from men who have arbitrarily provided for themselves such status throughout history.

----------


## RJB

> And call no _man_ your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. 
> 
> God said that.


So what do you call your father?  Dad?  Papa? Another variant of father?   What do you call your teachers?  What do you call a doctor?




> Call No Man Father
> "Good day, Father!" "How are you, Father?" "Good sermon, Father!"
> 
> *Who is being addressed? A Catholic priest?
> 
> Would you believe a Baptist minister in a Baptist church?*
> 
> Neither would I, but, believe it or not, its true. *For the first 300-400 years after the Reformation, most Reformation congregations addressed their ministers as "Father". Also, the honorific "Father" was not reserved for clergy alone. Missionary pioneers were also referred to as "Father" and "Mother". Early American Methodists referred to John Wesley as "Father Wesley".*
> 
> ...




http://christian-apologetics-society...an-father.html

----------


## hells_unicorn

> Mm. Yeah, see, I don't think that anything that anyone would say would suffice. No matter what anyone says, you're going to respond with "you lost and I won." I've been in faaaaar too many of these dabates to not know how it ends.


Nothing anyone would say would suffice because this is a clear cut issue, the Bible in no uncertain terms tells us that children are to come to Christ and that the Gospel promise is to believers and their children. There is no good reason to state that infants of believers can not be baptized, which is why absolutely no one was saying it prior to the Anabaptists. There has been a lot of revisionist history regarding Peter Waldo (founder of the Waldensies, referenced as the Latin Valdesius by sources of his time) being an earlier proponent of the Baptist position on baptism, but Waldo's confession of faith expresses the exact opposite. The Roman Catholic Church has been trying to claim them as in line with Papist thought, though this begs the question of why the Papacy persecuted them and manufactured lies that they were denying the Real Presence during the Lord's Supper and the baptism of infants in order to incite people against them. Similarly, one has to be perplexed as why Baptist ministers are willing to rely solely on the word of Papist agitators against the Waldensies for their view that the Waldensies were against infant baptism.




> I think the EO rhetoric provides a terrible disservice to God's Word. It's so arbitrary. And based on the whims of men. It's wrong to worship men. It's wrong to stimulate the notion that men are to be worshiped. These "Church Fathers." Most of them served tyrants. Heck, there are instances where they even acknowledged that child baptism wasn't referenced in context in the Bible yet still chose to do it. If you were honest in your rhetoric, then, you'd know that.


I don't know who you are talking to here because I'm not Eastern Orthodox, and neither are half of the people that you are arguing with on this, the Church Fathers/Patriarchs are cited by anybody who holds to the words of Paul in Ephesians 2:20 "And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;", because Christ's church has been with us through history and the wisdom of its teaching is profitable to believers. I have objections to some of the EO's doctrines, but calling them worshipers of men is irresponsible and flat out wrong. The Church Fathers were not servants of tyranny, they supported magistracy and societal cohesion, as did the Magistrate Reformers (Luther, Calvin, Knox, et cetera). By your logic the Apostle Paul was a servant of tyranny given his endorsement of government authority (albeit just authority) in Romans 13. Exclusive adult baptism is not taught in scripture, and yet you choose to argue that we should deny children access to the body of Christ, in clear contrast to what was said in the Gospel quotes I gave earlier. Given how stubbornly Baptists cleave to this false notion, one might speculate that Baptists hate their own children, there is no other way to explain this obstinate refusal to allow them access to the church.




> Do what you want. I choose to worship God. Not men. I've been in too many of these debates to waste time with another one.


If you weren't holding to an incorrect understanding of how God commands worship, this debate wouldn't be happening. If you don't want to argue on the merits, fine, but don't insult my intelligence by pretending to be above the fray here. You injected yourself into this discussion, you are likewise bound to defend your positions as much as the rest of us are to our own.

----------


## Natural Citizen

Do you know what the greatest sin of all is? I'll tell you. It's the lost consciousness of sin.

As far as Romans 13, the spiritual brotherhood of men under the common fatherhood of God is the foundation for proper, moral, Government-to-Man relations. This is The Naural Law. All men are created...endowed by their Creator. This provides for Man-over-Government society (liberty) by way of proper Man-to-Man relations. Not Government-over-Man (tyranny) where Man's contribution and right to self-govern by way of his Divine Origin is removed from the picture, as many of these Church Scholars would have people  think. Consent is Man's God-Given right by way of Man's Divine Origin.

----------


## hells_unicorn

Just as a general aside, I want everyone to be clear that I am not a member of the Eastern Orthodoxy Church, and that I am not referencing any EO figure from any point in time after the Great Schism. My positions, which are often similar to their's, is based on a belief in the historical continuity of the Christian faith. Simultaneously, I believe that whenever someone from a different denomination rightly uses the wisdom of the early church to bolster doctrines held in common with my own, there is no reason for me to seek conflict with them.

My frequent back and forth debates with Baptists and Roman Catholics on here has to do with divergent doctrines. I will admit that I can get a bit pugnacious as I am a very avid believer in Presbyterian theology, and this gets particularly dicey with both of said churches because they tend to be the most obnoxiously anti-Reformed out of the entire spectrum of Christian claimants. Baptists particularly tend to get under my skin because I'm always at odds with the American Evangelical contingent of American Christianity on just about every issue that comes up in either politics or theology, save the gay marriage and abortion issues.

It is what it is, and I don't really see a reason to apologize for defending my position and challenging falsehoods when I see them.

----------


## RJB

NC, who are you talking to?  Are you alright?   You keep saying that you don't want a back and forth, yet you keep re-instigating it.   You've edited your posts a bunch of times and each time you get more confrontational.  You do not respond to anything anyone has said to refute your claims.  Instead you pretend you never were refuted and you post something completely different.  What's the matter with you?

By the way, you claim to seek truth from the Bible yet your knowledge of it is minimal.  And it's telling that you cite a few verses and move on to an unrelated subject when called on it.



> Do you know what the greatest sin of all is? I'll tell you. It's the lost consciousness of sin.
> 
> As far as Romans 13, the spiritual brotherhood of men under the common fatherhood of God is the foundation for proper, moral, Government-to-Man relations. This is The Naural Law. This provides for Man-over-Government society (liberty). Not Government-over-Man (tyranny) as many of these Church Scholars would have people  think.

----------


## hells_unicorn

> Do you know what the greatest sin of all is? I'll tell you. It's the lost consciousness of sin.


Who is losing consciousness of sin? I think everybody is born with it and every Christian struggles with it for their entire lifetime. My whole reason for attacking the Baptist position on baptism is tied in with this notion that sin is a universal human affliction. Infants do not automatically go to heaven because they don't possess the ability to openly profess their faith, so thinking it is okay to deny them baptism is foolishness and trivializes the concept of sin. In extreme cases I think it is possible for infants, the mentally indigent, and those who are martyred for the faith without being baptized to be saved as the Holy Spirit works in all that God has chosen, but even this itself is not grounds to start picking and choosing who is invited into the church without a specific command from scripture.




> As far as Romans 13, the spiritual brotherhood of men under the common fatherhood of God is the foundation for proper, moral, Government-to-Man relations. This is The Naural Law. This provides for Man-over-Government society (liberty). Not Government-over-Man (tyranny) as many of these Cuurch Scholars would have people  think.


I'm sorry, what? You just said I should be conscious of sin and now you are telling me that men who you say I shouldn't worship should be the final government authority? That's the only way I can interpret your concept of "Man-over-Government". Non-tyrannical government that is in line with Natural Law is one where The Law is King, not some socialist pipe-dream where men can collectively govern. Authority is of God, thus it stands to reason that any men occupying offices of government should be Godly, and likewise the government should have an official policy of defending the Christian faith. You are saying that I shouldn't listen to church scholars, and yet here you are either intentionally or unintentionally paraphrasing the ramblings of Thomas Munzer.




> It's a good scripture when read right.


All scripture is good when read right, so please start reading it right.

----------


## RJB

> Who is losing consciousness of sin?


This goes to another thread on marijuana that I partially agreed with.  I have no idea why he brought it up here.  That's why I am asking if he's alright.

----------


## TER

> I've come to the conclusion that I'm taking the Bible and God's Word literally and in the context it is offered.


What you are saying is : I take _my interpretation_ to be above all others.

HU already demonstrated above that you use the word 'corn' for at passage which is NOT what the Bible literally says.  You were wrong there with your interpretation.

How many other verses and words are you reading that are not what the original manuscripts literally wrote or meant?  Any person can pretty much pick whatever context (even one with no historical foundation) or translation which suits them.  How easy!

You can't even depend on the translation you are using, how is it that you can claim to know the literal meaning of the verses and words?  Even more astonishing, how is it that you think you know better than those who lived in the days of the early Church, who read and spoke Greek, and lived and worshiped with the very Apostles?   

I bet you that there are _dozens_ of instances in the New Testament where you are using poor translation of the original literal word, and from that harboring ideas and beliefs which go against the witness, understanding and interpretation of the early Christians.  That's okay.  We all need to grow.  But the problem as I see it is that you are taking a very dense and wrong approach in this new found faith.  Ignoring history and one's weakness and deficiencies, and taking a prideful approach towards the meaning of the Scriptures, is not a beneficial way.  It will leave you apart from the Church.  We must humbly heed the voices of the great Christian saints who came before us, as important members of the body, and hand down the teachings they also handed down from their own fathers, in obedience and faith.  For this is the (Biblical and historical) way the truth has endured: through humility, faith and obedience, which is through unity, love and consensus.  It was a great message of St. Paul's ministry, and indeed, for all the Apostles and Saints.

Those holy saints who you claim are worshipped by Orthodox Christians are not worshipped by us.  Rather, it is those who (knowingly or unknowingly) worship themselves who often times make that claim against Orthodox Christians.   

The truth is, NC, men like St. Ignatius, St. Clement, St. Ireneaus are considered much higher than you in the Kingdom of Heaven.  Much higher than me too.  That's okay.  I am not jealous about it and I am certainly not upset.  I am actually very happy for them!  I praise God above for this!  There are many rooms in His mansion, and I know I don't deserve anything more than a closet.  These godly men and women, however, shall be near the King's chambers.

  I do not worship these saints, but I sure do admire them and respect them and consider them amidst the cloud of witnesses.  I believe they know a hell of a lot better on the literalness of the Bible and the context surrounding its meaning then we do, and that they were much greater men of faith and Christian love then either of us.  So when you speak down on them, I feel sorry for you.

You understand that Christ is the Lord and that He is the Savior.  That is excellent, and is absolutely essential!  Now, instead of attacking Saints, go and further educate yourself.

----------


## TER

> Just as a general aside, I want everyone to be clear that I am not a member of the Eastern Orthodoxy Church, and that I am not referencing any EO figure from any point in time after the Great Schism. My positions, which are often similar to their's, is based on a belief in the historical continuity of the Christian faith.


What happened to the historical continuity of the Christian Faith and the very Church at the time of the Great Schism that precludes you from referencing any EO figure since?  Did the Church disappear?  And if not, where did it go?  The Papal Roman Church?  Or did it stay with the remaining four Patriarchates which are still in communion to this day?  I am interested to learn what you are being taught.

----------


## jmdrake

> Not really.  I don't need to prove it.  I already understand the great power of the Holy Eucharist by my own personal experience.  Also, I have spoken with enough priests and read enough writings to believe that what I wrote above is true with regards to the miraculous nature of the Holy Gifts (which are in no way limited to the few examples I have provided).  You are free to not believe it. and if you wish to disprove it, then you can go and conduct an evidence-based study to do so.  But I have seen enough evidence in my own life to believe it and don't need to see a scientific study to do so.  If that is not enough proof for you, I understand.  I'm okay with that.


Okay.  But your claim that priests would be more likely to get sick than the general population if not for the miracle of the Eucharist is simply not scientifically valid.  Or if it is you've not provided any evidence to support the assertion.  That's not something you can brush off by appealing to faith.  Your claiming that something that isn't miraculous (not getting sick from drinking wine behind someone who might be sick) is somehow miraculous.




> Gluten allergies are not deadly and do not cause anaphylaxis as peanuts can.


Thank you for the clarification.  I didn't know one way or the other.  




> Well, they aren't, so your example does not apply.


Okay.  I was simply giving a hypothetical anyway.




> No, that is not my thesis at all.  The Holy Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Christ, and thus to be concerned about gluten allergies demonstrates a lack of faith.  Now I can't speak for the Catholic Eucharist, but no one with gluten allergies is getting sick from the Orthodox Holy Eucharist.  There are people who are sensitive to alcohol (indeed, a true allergy) (one person whom I know), and they never have any reaction to partaking of the Holy Eucharist.
> 
> The reason I bring up that priests don't get sick more often than the general population is because some people (like yourself) require more evidence about the miraculous nature of the Holy Eucharist.  If you don't accept that as proof, that is okay.  Again, I don't need to prove it to you.  You are free to wait for a scientific study to confirm it if that is what you need.  In the meanwhile, as a physician, if a patient or friend tells me they have a gluten allergy and are concerned about taking Holy Communion, I would tell them if they have faith, they have nothing to fear.


Actually I don't believe in the miraculous nature of the Eucharist....because it's not biblical.  If the wine was changed to something other than wine the why did Paul warn against getting drunk off of it?

Oh...and I took this off of a Catholic blog.

http://taylormarshall.com/2013/11/gl...eucharist.html
_Thomas Aquinas would say that the accidental properties of the gluten are still active. Hence, someone with an allergy to gluten will still react to the accidental property of this grain protein even though the substance of bread has changed.

Likewise, if one drank a gallon of the Precious Blood, he would become drunk. In fact, Saint Paul complained that Christians in the first century were getting drunk off the Precious Blood! “One, indeed, is hungry, and another is drunk” (1 Cor 11:21).*_

Your free to believe what you wish to believe of course.  But I agree with those who say that if wine hasn't changed to the point that you no longer get an alcoholic reaction to it than it's possible that it hasn't changed to the point that you can't get an allergic reaction to it.





> Again, I am speaking about the Holy Eucharist of the Orthodox Divine Liturgy, whereby the priest communicates the Holy Gifts using a spoon and a chalice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since that is an image of Pope Benedict giving Catholic communion, and not an Orthodox priest offering Orthodox communion, I guess my suggestion to you is not trust everything you search for on Google.  In Orthodoxy, the elements of bread and wine and consecrated together into the chalice and the communicant receives both with a spoon.


Ummmm...sorry but you've gotten confused friend.  I didn't say the picture of Pope Benedict was of an Orthodox priest.  This is the image I was saying was of the Orthodox priest.



And I see the reason for the confusion.  That image didn't come through.  Probably hot-linking is blocked.  I'll download it and upload it to TinyPic so you can see what I was talking about.



So ^that is an image of an Orthodox priest using a spoon to give communion.  And again my point is that it doesn't look like the spoon touches the mouth so no pathogen transfer.  The image of the Pope giving communion was to show that in the Catholic church as well the parishioners don't touch the bread so again there is no possibility of pathogen transfer.




> The image you posted in not coming through on my device, so I can't comment.  As someone who has seen numerous Divine Liturgies, most people close their mouths over this spoon, like this video:


Yeah.  My bad.  Hotlinking is disabled on that site.    So on the wine the mouth touches the spoon.  But wine, even diluted wine, has antiseptic properties.  So no suprise (to me at least) that the priests don't get sick from finishing it off.




> It has some, but it certainly does not naturally sterilize the contents, which you seem to want to claim.


Ummmm....I'm not "wanting to claim" anything.  I'm simply reporting from the evidence given, in this case a Catholic MD.  You disagree with him?  Fine.  You're an Orthodox MD.  Maybe you and he could write a research paper together on the subject.   




> The zeon (or water) added to the wine during the consecration is an ancient tradition going back to the very early history of the Church.


Okay.  I wasn't claiming it was something new.  Thanks for giving the name of it.




> Thank you for that article which says that "Throughout the centuries, no disease has ever been transmitted by the taking of Holy Communion.". You didn't bold that part, so I don't know if maybe you missed it.


I didn't miss it.  I'm not disputing that.  The Catholic MD who wrote the article and I agree that we wouldn't expect disease to be transmitted through Holy Communion because it's scientifically unlikely.




> I am actually familiar with that article from several years back, and it was written because of concerns by some fearful members of the Orthodox Church who had concerns about getting diseases (particularly HIV) from sharing the same spoon.  In order to reassure them (since their faith was not strong), this article was written.


And thankfully most people now realize that HIV isn't that easily transmitted anyway.




> As for you posting it, I am not exactly sure why you did, seeing that you require proof and scientific data to believe, and there is not one single research experiment or citation provided.  I don't think you are being fair or consistent.


LOL.  I posted an earlier article with citations disputing your claim that wine doesn't kill germs on contact and you complained because the wine wasn't diluted.  I posted this article from a Catholic MD explaining that even diluted wine has strong antiseptic properties and you complain because it doesn't contain citations.  So far you haven't posted any references to support any of your claims.  Except you are happy to use my article to support your claim, which I'm not disputing, that nobody has gotten sick from taking Communion.  It seems to me that you're the one trying to have it both ways.  But that's fine.  You think it's miraculous that there aren't reports of priests getting sick from communion?  Cool.  I think it's natural that there aren't reports of priests getting sick from communion.  And at least some people who agree with you that the Eucharist is a miracle agree with me that even if it wasn't a miracle it's still unlikely that priests would be getting sick.




> Actually, that is an Orthodox Christian physician and not a Catholic one, and I don't doubt that diluted communion wine has antiseptic properties as I already wrote in a previous post.


Okay.  That makes my argument even stronger.





> The fallacy which you are making is that _that_ is the (only) reason why nobody gets sick from taking communion from the common cup.


Ummm.....I'm wondering if you understand what the word "fallacy" means or if you simply don't understand what the article was saying.  The point of the article is that based on the scientific nature of what's going on there's really no risk of getting sick from taking communion.  If a miracle was needed to not get sick from taking communion behind a sick person then the doctor writing the article should have said it and added "But you can't get sick anyway because of the miracle of the Eucharist."

Since the article mentioned the HIV scare I'll use an HIV example.  At one point people might have been scared of being baptized by immersion behind someone who might have HIV.  I've never heard of someone catching HIV that way.  Someone might argue that you don't have to worry about HIV because the prayer over the water made it holy so that pathogen transmission became impossible.  But one shouldn't expect there be HIV transmission that way.

Something else to consider.  Let's say you're right that diluted wine isn't enough to kill all the pathogens.  You've given nothing but your own opinion to support that idea but let's say you're right.  And?  That still would mean the pathogens were weakened.  So every communion the priests would basically be vaccinating themselves by drinking a chalice full of weakened pathogens.  I don't know if you were keeping up with the scare in Rio over pathogens in the beach water.  Some city official pointed out that he swam in the water all of the time.  The scientist who released the report regarding the beach biohazard said "Sure.  He's been swimming there for years and built up an immunity."
So here's your fallacy in reverse.  You're arguing that just because their *might* in general be a pathogen risk from drinking diluted wine after someone who's sick that the answer is that the fact nobody got sick means there *must* be a miracle going on such that nobody should worry about gluten allergies communion.  Now I do agree with you, after reading what you wrote about gluten allergies and then doing some research on my own, that people probably don't need to worry about gluten allergies from a single wafer.  According to one report I read 1.8 people in the U.S. have gluten allergies and 1.4 people don't know it.  If that's true then the symptoms must not be that severe.




> This is a conclusion that the very author you are citing does not even make.  You are making you own conclusions based on your own presuppositions.


You've got it exactly backwards.  The author has the same presupposition as you that there is a Eucharist miracle.  But he comes to the same conclusion as me that the properties of the wine itself, even diluted, would make it unlikely to catch a disease from the Eucharist.  My presuppositions have absolutely nothing to do with it.




> If you don't wish to believe in the miraculous nature of the Holy Eucharist, than that is your own loss.


Not really but you're free to believe that.





> But so far, you have tried to disprove what I wrote initially above several posts ago and have yet still not done so.  I am not sure why it bothers you so much that the Holy Eucharist of the Orthodox Divine Litrugy may be a miracle.  No one is forcing you to believe.


 You're so intent on proving the "Divine miracle" that you're missing the point that even people who believe along with you in the "Divine miracle" don't support your argument that priests not getting sick is proof of the miracle.  That doesn't mean your conclusion is wrong.  But your premise is.  Of course you are free to continue to believe a faulty premise anyway.  I'm not sure what your premise is so important to you when people who don't accept it can still come to your same conclusion.

----------


## TER

Thank you jmdrake for the post above.  I can tell that you are not prepared to believe in the miraculous nature of the Holy Eucharist and that I will not convince you.  In that case, I will withdraw from that debate with you.  It was nice discussing it with you.  God bless!

----------


## jmdrake

> Thank you jmdrake for the post above.  I can tell that you are not prepared to believe in the miraculous nature of the Holy Eucharist and that I will not convince you.  In that case, I will withdraw from that debate with you.  It was nice discussing it with you.  God bless!


You're welcome.  I'm not quite sure why your premises are so important to you that you're not willing to accept the arguments of people who agree with your conclusions but that's okay too.  God bless you as well!

----------


## TER

> You're welcome.  I'm not quite sure why your premises are so important to you that you're not willing to accept the arguments of people who agree with your conclusions but that's okay too.  God bless you as well!


My premise is that it would not simply be antiseptic properties of diluted wine which can explain the lack of disease transmission from the Eucharist as administered by the Orthodox Church.  Now if you believe that as well, then I missed it and I apologize.

In my preceding posts, I used 'proofs' which were not good enough for you, which I totally get.  You are not alone.  You need scientific studies to believe.  I don't, and as a physician I also say that, that is how confident I am with this topic.  I think there is more than enough proof, both anectodotally and historically (as well as theologically) to demonstrate that with faith, there is no need to worry about contracting illnesses from sharing in the Common Cup.  It is also the conclusion I make through experiential knowledge of actually communing of the Holy Eucharist within the Orthodox Church.  Thus, I also believe there is a great deal of personal confirmation and faith which is involved.  I do not deny that.

Since we are at this impass which I cannot resolve with words, I think it is best that we will have to agree to disagree.  Unless of course, you do agree with my first statement of this post, in which case, we are simply arguing for the sake of arguing!

----------


## Christian Liberty

> one might speculate that Baptists hate their own children, there is no other way to explain this obstinate refusal to allow them access to the church.


I have a (slightly) less horrifying guess as to the reason.  Actually its a couple things.  First of all they don't have a good understanding of good and necessary consequence.  So they literally look for a specific passage that shows an infant being baptized (and weirdly, when looking for evidence that they should be celebrating Christmas or doing drama skits in church or the use of grape juice in the Lord's Supper they just say "the Bible doesn't say we can't".... an inconsistency I don't understand).  I've been having this conversation with my mother and she literally still falls back on "Believe and be baptized."  I don't think she hates her children (I understand I have reason to be biased, but I don't think I am  )   I think she just doesn't get it.  But I think there's a reason that most people at Patrick Henry College either start going higher church or going more liberal at some point.  PHC is a smart, evangelical crowd, and its really hard to be smart and theologically inclined and still be an evangelical.  A lot more of those people go Anglican than anything else, though after going through basically the same thing I came out as a theonomic presbyterian.  

Then you take their general stupidity/stupid literalism and add their desire not to be Catholic FOR THE SAKE OF NOT BEING CATHOLIC, and its easy to see how this could happen.  Ugh.   Its a mess.

----------


## jmdrake

> My premise is that it would not simply be antiseptic properties of diluted wine which can explain the lack of disease transmission from the Eucharist as administered by the Orthodox Church.  Now if you believe that as well, then I missed it and I apologize.


No.  I don't believe that.  And neither does the Orthodox MD that I cited.  He doesn't accept your premise even though he accepts your conclusion that the Eucharist is indeed miraculous.  Therefore your premise is not required for your conclusion.  So why are you fighting so hard for it?  You believe it, fine.  But it's a fallacy to conclude that someone that doesn't accept your premise is doing so because they don't want to accept your conclusion when someone who has accepted your conclusion doesn't accept your premise.  Understand now?

----------


## PierzStyx

>if two unmarried people sleep together, the punishment was that they had to get married.

The fact that the people who think the scripture says women should be forced to marry their rapist are also those calling for a powerful statist theocracy which is the totally antithesis of the anarchy God established in Judges really demonstrates how unfit these people are to either be giving biblical exegesis or ruling.

The text of scripture clearly says that a woman shouldn't be forced to marry her rapist, when the biblical scripture is translated correctly.

http://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/ot_and_rape.htm

----------


## TER

> No.  I don't believe that.  And neither does the Orthodox MD that I cited.  He doesn't accept your premise even though he accepts your conclusion that the Eucharist is indeed miraculous.  Therefore your premise is not required for your conclusion.  So why are you fighting so hard for it?  You believe it, fine.  But it's a fallacy to conclude that someone that doesn't accept your premise is doing so because they don't want to accept your conclusion when someone who has accepted your conclusion doesn't accept your premise.  Understand now?


Can you point to where in the article by the Orthodox MD where he denies my premise?  You have mentioned it a few times now, but I don't see it.

----------


## jmdrake

> Can you point to where in the article by the Orthodox MD where he denies my premise?  You have mentioned it a few times now, but I don't see it.


Sure.  Here it is:

_Wine has been shown to be an effective antiseptic even when the alcohol is removed. In fact, 10% alcohol is a poor antiseptic, and alcohol only becomes optimally effective at concentrations of 7;0%. The antiseptic substances in wine are inactive in fresh grapes because these molecules are bound to complex sugars. During fermentation these antiseptic substances are split off from the sugars and in this way become active. These molecules are polyphenols, a class of substances used in hospitals to disinfect surfaces and instruments. The polyphenol of wine has been shown to be some thirty-three times more powerful than the phenol used by Lister when he pioneered antiseptic surgery.

 Same year wines can be diluted up to ten times before beginning to show a decrease in their antiseptic effect. The better wines gradually improve with age over the first ten years and can be diluted twenty times without a decrease of the antiseptic effect. This effect then remains more or less constant over the next twenty years and becomes equivalent to a new wine after another twenty-five years. (Modern antiseptics and antibiotics for disinfecting wounds have surpassed wine effectiveness because the active ingredients in wine are rapidly bound and inactivated by proteins in body tissues.)

In preparing communion, the hot water that is added to the wine will increase greatly the antiseptic effect of the polyphenols. Disinfection occurs more rapidly and more effectively at 45 degrees centigrade than at room temperature (22-25 degrees). Another contribution to the antiseptic effect comes from the silver, copper, zinc that make up the chalice itself, ensuring that microbes are unable to survive on its surface._

Not only does he say that diluted wine still has effective antiseptic properties *but also that the antiseptic effect is GREATLY INCREASED* by the type of water added.  (Hot water).  And he adds that the chalice itself, because it's made of sliver, copper and zinc, also has antiseptic properties.  

Seriously I don't get how you can think he's supporting your premise that the fact that the wine is diluted means that it somehow lacks sufficient antiseptic property to prevent pathogen transmission to the point where one wouldn't expect priests to get sick more than the general population simply because they consumed the rest of the Eucharist.

----------


## TER

Did he say that the antiseptic properties listed above is enough to explain the fact that there is no evidence of anyone ever getting a transmittable disease from partaking from the Common Cup, including during times of pandemics?

----------


## TER

Just found this article jmdrake might be interested in, using actual scientific experimentation. 

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...01971213001872

*International Journal of Infectious Diseases*
November 2013, Vol.17(11):e945–e948, doi:10.1016/j.ijid.2013.05.001

*Infections associated with religious rituals*
James Pellerin Michael B. Edmond


_Summary_
This review evaluates the medical literature for religious rituals or ceremonies that have been reported to cause infection. These include an ultra-orthodox Jewish circumcision practice known as metzitzah b’peh, the Christian common communion chalice, Islamic ritual ablution, and the Hindu ‘side-roll’. Infections associated with participation in the Islamic Hajj have been extensively reviewed and will not be discussed.



*Here are the applicable paragraphs:*

4 The common communion chalice

Holy Communion is a Christian practice that consists of a group gathered to share bread and wine from a minister or priest.18 The wine is frequently shared from a cup or by dipping the bread into wine, a practice called intinction. After each participant drinks from the cup, the minister wipes the rim prior to the next communicant drinking from the cup. Also, in some churches, communion wafers are placed into the cup containing wine, and a spoon (known as a cochlear) is used to retrieve a communion wafer from the chalice and placed into the recipient's mouth. The common spoon is not wiped between recipients.

The capability of the chalice to spread infection has been debated in the medical literature since the 19th century when Forbes and Anders hypothesized that contamination from the mouth may lead to bacteria in the wine.19 Since then four experimental studies, a review, and several opinion pieces including one from the CDC have been published that discuss the infection risk of the chalice.

The risk of infection depends on several factors including the bacterial or viral load in the communicants’ saliva, the ability of the organism to withstand the antimicrobial properties of the gold/silver chalice and the alcohol content of the wine, the linen cloth used to wipe the rim, and the recipient's ability to destroy any pathogenic organism. Examples of potential pathogens are those that are transmitted via saliva, oral/labial skin lesions, fecal-orally, or droplet and airborne routes.18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 and 24

In 1946 Burrows demonstrated that when human volunteers shared a communion cup, with instructions to get as much saliva as possible on the rim, bacteria were recovered in small numbers.18 In 1967 Gregory showed that in a more realistic simulation of a communion service, various species of bacteria could be recovered from the cup, including staphylococci, Neisseria species, beta-hemolytic and non-hemolytic streptococci, and Micrococcus species.18 In 1967 Hobbs and colleagues performed experiments that concluded that silver and wine may have antimicrobial properties. However, the time interval between each communicant drinking from the cup, which is typically less than five seconds, is not sufficient to cause a significant decrease in bacterial counts. They also found that rotating the chalice was ineffective at decreasing colonization; however wiping the rim with the linen cloth decreased bacterial counts by 90%. [note: Orthodox priests do not wipe down the spoon prior to giving the Eucharist to the next person, as seen in the video earlier posted by me, so this is not applicable. - TER] All studies concluded that the risk of spreading disease cannot be excluded but is extremely low.19

In 1993 Furlow and Dougherty swabbed silver and pottery chalices before and after eight services. They cultured potentially pathogenic organisms, such as Staphylococcus aureus, Haemophilus parainfluenzae, and Moraxella catarrhalis. They concluded that individual cups (challicles) should be used to eliminate infection risk.20

Finally, in 1998 the CDC reported there had never been an outbreak of infection related to the communion cup.23 They referenced a study from 1997 in which 681 participants who drank daily from a common cup were at no higher risk of infection than those who participated less frequently or who completely abstained from Christian services. They concluded that it is probably safe to participate in services where a common cup is used, with the caveat that any member of the congregation with active respiratory illness or open labial or mouth sores abstain from partaking.23

*In conclusion, there is experimental evidence suggesting that sharing a communion cup contaminates the wine and cup. However, there has never been a documented case of illness caused by sharing a chalice reported in the literature.*

(The citations and references are in the link)

----------


## TER

Here is some more:


L. Managan, L. Sehulster, L. Chiarelo, D. Simonds, W. Jarvis

*Risk of infectious disease transmission from a common communion cup*
_Am J Infect Control, Volume 26, 1998, pp. 538–539_

"Bacteriological experiments have shown that the occasional transmission of micro-organisms is unaffected by the alcoholic content of the wine, the constituent material of the cup or the practice of partially rotating it, but is appreciably reduced when a cloth is used to wipe the lip of the cup between communicants."  (again, the spoon in the Orthodox service is not wiped down- TER).

----------


## TER

*Experiments on the communion cup*

Betty C. Hobbsa1, Jill A. Knowldena1 and Anne Whitea1
a1 Central Public Health Laboratory, Colindale Avenue, London, N. W. 9

Experiments were made to find out whether the common communion cup is likely to serve as a vehicle for the transmission of infection.

A silver chalice and sacramental wine containing 14·5% of alcohol were used. Observations with volunteers showed that the number of organisms deposited on the rim of the chalice varied from person to person, but was usually quite small—less than 100.

Rotation of the cup was of no benefit except to those partaking during the first round, since the saliva deposited on the rim by each person in turn remained to contaminate the cup during the second round, and the combined effect of the alcohol and the silver of the chalice was not rapid enough to destroy the contaminating organisms before rotation of the cup was completed.

On the other hand the use of a linen cloth or purificator led to a diminution of about 90% in the bacterial count of the cup.

*Organisms in saliva deposited on the interior of the dry chalice suffered some diminution in numbers within 8 min., presumably as the result of the disinfectant action of the silver, but the effect was too small to be of significance.

When suspended in wine and deposited on the internal surface of the chalice Escherichia coli suffered a substantial reduction within 3 min., Streptococcus pyogenes was destroyed completely; but Staphylococcus aureus was affected to a much less extent.*

Various experiments designed to measure the disinfectant action of wine, and of silver and wine together, showed that the augmenting effect of silver on the disinfectant action of the alcohol was quite small. Strep. pyogenes proved to be far more sensitive to alcohol than Esch. coli, Staph. aureus and Serratia marcescens. *Under the conditions of the experiment these last three organisms were not destroyed for 10–12 min., whereas Strep. pyogenes perished within 1½ min.*. 

*The results of our work are in general agreement with those of previous workers, and show that the organisms deposited on the rim of the communion cup are not destroyed within the short time—5 sec. as an average—elapsing between the partaking of the sacrament by each successive communicant.*

It must therefore be admitted that the common communion cup may serve as a means of transmitting infection. Reasons are given, however, for believing that the risk of transmission is very small, and probably much smaller than that of contracting infection by other methods in any gathering of people.

Such risk as there is could be greatly diminished by the use of a purificator for wiping the cup between each communicant, and could be abolished completely by substituting individual cups or by the practice of intinction. [again, there is no wiping of the spoon in the Orthodox administration of the Hoy Eucharist, so the risks of transmission should (in theory) be significantly higher than the Roman Catholic or Anglican practice.  The fact is, there is no documented case of it ever happening in two thousand years since it began.  - TER]

----------


## PierzStyx

Man, seeing how threads turn out can be odd. A thread starting out with Christian "Liberty" trying to spread more theocratic statism based on poor interpretations of the scriptures ends up being a debate about whether you can catch cold (or worse) from a shared communion cup. Who knew this thread would go this direction?

----------


## jmdrake

> Man, seeing how threads turn out can be odd. A thread starting out with Christian "Liberty" trying to spread more theocratic statism based on poor interpretations of the scriptures ends up being a debate about whether you can catch cold (or worse) from a shared communion cup. *Who knew this thread would go this direction?*


LOL.  Anybody who spends time at RPF especially in the religion subforum.    FWIW everybody agrees that it's there's little to no chance of getting sick from a common communion cup.  The only debate is if that's to be expected anyway.

----------


## jmdrake

> *In 1946 Burrows demonstrated that when human volunteers shared a communion cup, with instructions to get as much saliva as possible on the rim, bacteria were recovered in small numbers.*


So with people basically hocking and spitting in the cup for the experiment they only had small amounts of bacteria recovered.  




> 18 In 1967 Gregory showed that in a more realistic simulation of a communion service, various species of bacteria could be recovered from the cup, including staphylococci, Neisseria species, beta-hemolytic and non-hemolytic streptococci, and Micrococcus species.18 In 1967 Hobbs and colleagues performed experiments that concluded that silver and wine may have antimicrobial properties. However, the time interval between each communicant drinking from the cup, which is typically less than five seconds, is not sufficient to cause a significant decrease in bacterial counts. They also found that rotating the chalice was ineffective at decreasing colonization; however wiping the rim with the linen cloth decreased bacterial counts by 90%. [note: Orthodox priests do not wipe down the spoon prior to giving the Eucharist to the next person, as seen in the video earlier posted by me, so this is not applicable. - TER] All studies concluded that the risk of spreading disease cannot be excluded but is extremely low.19


And so you're extrapolating from an experiment done with people putting their mouths on a chalice to one where people are using a spoon and then dipping into the chalice to form a conclusion?  You're ignoring the fact that with a spoon there is no possibility of backwash which means less saliva getting into the Orthodox chalice.

Here is a study that won't be done but probably should be.  Have two groups of people drinking watered down wine from a communal chalice.  You can use spoons or putting their lips on the chalice itself.  In one group it's actually communion being done.  In the other it's just people enjoying some watered down wine.  See if there is any significant disease difference between the two groups.  I strongly doubt there will be.

----------


## TER

> So with people basically hocking and spitting in the cup for the experiment they only had small amounts of bacteria recovered.  
> 
> 
> 
> And so you're extrapolating from an experiment done with people putting their mouths on a chalice to one where people are using a spoon and then dipping into the chalice to form a conclusion?  You're ignoring the fact that with a spoon there is no possibility of backwash which means less saliva getting into the Orthodox chalice.
> 
> Here is a study that won't be done but probably should be.  Have two groups of people drinking watered down wine from a communal chalice.  You can use spoons or putting their lips on the chalice itself.  In one group it's actually communion being done.  In the other it's just people enjoying some watered down wine.  See if there is any significant disease difference between the two groups.  I strongly doubt there will be.


Funny when lawyers start trying to be doctors.  

As I said before, I am done discussing this topic with you.  However, I am grateful that we had it because it helped me find those scientific publications which I didn't know existed.  I praise the Lord for this, and I thank you as well!

----------


## TER

....

----------


## jmdrake

> Funny when lawyers start trying to be doctors.


Before I was a lawyer I did statistical analysis for epidemiologists, psychologists and behavioral health scientists.  My name is even on published papers.  Most of the studies I worked were not on communicable diseases but I am familiar with how studies are designed and how someone comes up with controls and their null hypothesis.




> As I said before, I am done discussing this topic with you.  However, I am grateful that we had it because it helped me find those scientific publications which I didn't know existed.  I praise the Lord for this, and I thank you as well!


Glad you enjoyed the discussion.  I did as well.

----------


## PierzStyx

> LOL.  Anybody who spends time at RPF especially in the religion subforum.    FWIW everybody agrees that it's there's little to no chance of getting sick from a common communion cup.  The only debate is if that's to be expected anyway.


It has been a while since I've been really active around here. But I do remember how wild the religion forum can get sometimes. You just never know _where_ it will end up. That is always a surprise!

----------


## TER

> It has been a while since I've been really active around here. But I do remember how wild the religion forum can get sometimes. You just never know _where_ it will end up. That is always a surprise!


That's true!  Every page or two, the topic is completely different, and sometimes there are four or five conversations taking place at one time!

----------


## TER

> Before I was a lawyer I did statistical analysis for epidemiologists, psychologists and behavioral health scientists.  My name is even on published papers.  Most of the studies I worked were not on communicable diseases but I am familiar with how studies are designed and how someone comes up with controls and their null hypothesis.


As for the study above which you suggested should be done, it would be very interesting to see the results.  It would require many volunteers if it is to produce data which is valuable and reliable.  I would greatly be interested in seeing the results of such a study.




> Glad you enjoyed the discussion. I did as well.


It is good to have these discussions, which are fruitful and brings great benefit to those who hear and listen.  I, for one, am grateful that we can do so in a forum which allows such frank discussions.  I applaud the moderators who have restored order and decorum to this subforum.  I also thank you jmdrake for digging deeper, so that we might find treasures.  This is what friends do, and I thank you.

----------


## Christian Liberty

TER, just curious, do you think that tons of people get sick in Protestant congregations that serve wine in a common cup?  Would be curious to hear HU's thoughts here as well since I know he's in a congregation that does.  

Furthermore, what's the Orthodox view on the legitimacy of Protestant Lord's Supper?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Man, seeing how threads turn out can be odd. A thread starting out with Christian "Liberty" trying to spread more theocratic statism based on poor interpretations of the scriptures ends up being a debate about whether you can catch cold (or worse) from a shared communion cup. Who knew this thread would go this direction?


I'm only a statist in that I support the existence of a State.

----------


## hells_unicorn

> What happened to the historical continuity of the Christian Faith and the very Church at the time of the Great Schism that precludes you from referencing any EO figure since?  Did the Church disappear?  And if not, where did it go?  The Papal Roman Church?  Or did it stay with the remaining four Patriarchates which are still in communion to this day?  I am interested to learn what you are being taught.


No, the church didn't disappear, the unity of the church disappeared. The Reformed assert that the EO was on the right side of the Papal issue, but in addition to the institutional separation of the church, there is the matter of certain doctrinal developments in the centuries leading up to the schism. The Lutherans and the Anglicans have maintained a stance of either support or ambivalence on the matter of the 2nd Council of Nicaea, the Reformed held a different position on this issue. Consequently, there is a schismatic divide between the Lutherans and Anglicans (and consequently also the EO) with the Reformed Churches.

To give you a point by point answer to your questions, I present the following.

- I don't reference EO figures following the Great Schism because there is a general hostility between the East and the West concerning Ambrose, Augustine of Hippo and a few other Latin figures that the Reformed consider fully orthodox.
- The Church did not disappear, but institutional unity ceased in a universal sense.
- The Church endures in various forms and to various degrees in a visible sense, be it faithful individual, entire congregations, or even synods espousing an orthodox position in either a sufficient or near total sense. Presently there are several nations that have orthodox confessions according to the Reformed position (The U.K., The Netherlands), but their institutional churches have become derelict in enforcing them. America, in our position, defied the concept of a national covenant with its proto-socialist Constitution and is viewed as a secular empire by the Steelite dissenters based on the original Solemn League and Covenant.
- The Papal Roman Church is an illegitimate institution that declared its head a prophet at Vatican I, but the seeds of this were planted by the Ultramontanist movement going back several centuries before.
- The 4 other Patriarchates are a separate matter from Rome, but there are existing issues of doctrine that prevent the Reformed from being in communion with them. I believe that historically the Latin West had a claim of legitimate authority over much of the western church, but that they lost that right when they went down the road of innovative ecclesiastical governance and doctrine, However, this does not mean that the other 4 Patriarchates have a right to move in on the west and make us subservient satellites of their areas of historic influence.

In short, the Churches of Scotland, England and Ireland have a legitimate claim of autonomy and orthodoxy according to the WCF, which was a necessary re-covenanting of said nations in reaction to Papal encroachment. It is rooted in historic doctrine that is informed by scripture, and well as the early council declarations (excluding 2nd Nicaea and any subsequent synod or councils by Rome) and the theology of various early figures. I stand by it as an orthodox declaration of the western church, as does the remaining Reformed Presbytery that have not bent the knee to American exceptionalism or modern liberalism.

----------


## hells_unicorn

> TER, just curious, do you think that tons of people get sick in Protestant congregations that serve wine in a common cup?  Would be curious to hear HU's thoughts here as well since I know he's in a congregation that does.  
> 
> Furthermore, what's the Orthodox view on the legitimacy of Protestant Lord's Supper?


The way we observe the Lord's Supper is by having our minister consecrate the elements (a loaf of leavened bread and a common cup), then the loaf is passed around and each person sitting at the table breaks off a piece to eat. The cup is then passed around and each sitting member takes a drink from the common cup. The wine that we use is red and not diluted. In the time that I've received communion in a common cup, be it as an Anglican (my youth), Romanist (from about 2004 up until 2008), Ultrajectine Old Catholic (2008 until late 2009) or Presbyterian I have never gotten sick in close proximity to doing so.

We make a regular practice of testing every recipient on what is taking place at The Lord's Supper before giving it, just for the record.

----------


## TER

> TER, just curious, do you think that tons of people get sick in Protestant congregations that serve wine in a common cup?


I can only speak from what I know with regards to the Orthodox Church.  The studies which I found and posted earlier in the thread are not very clear on which denomination they were testing.  One of the tests involved the subjects receiving Anglican communion which did not demonstrate any transmission.  




> Furthermore, what's the Orthodox view on the legitimacy of Protestant Lord's Supper?


You will get varying beliefs on this.  If you study the Church Fathers, it is quite ubiquitous stated that those sacraments held outside the Church are without grace (for example, this was the charge held against the Arians and many other heretical splinter groups which developed in the course of history.)  Most priests I have spoken with tell me to worry about my own sins and let God worry about the sacraments held outside the Church.

----------


## PierzStyx

> I'm only a statist in that I support the existence of a State.


That would be the definition of a statist, those who support a government based on violent compulsion, i.e. the State. That this is the opposite of the order God established seems to escape your notice.

----------


## TER

> No, the church didn't disappear, the unity of the church disappeared.


That is not what the Roman Church or the Eastern Churches believed, neither at the time of the Great Schism or after (except perhaps for what Vatican II taught, regarding Branch theories and such which completely go against the Patristic teachings).  They don't believe the Church can be divided, and rather each claim to be the true Church established by Christ. Before the Schism, this was true, but after it, one was the true Church and the other fallen away.  To any serious seeker of the truth, this fork in the road is the pinnacle in determining where the Church of the New Testament is.  It is one of two, either it is the Roman Catholic Church or the Eastern Orthodox Church. 

  Christ's Body cannot be broken into two.  It wasn't that the Church divided in unity, it was that one section fell away. Although a branch falls from the tree, it does not mean that the tree has divided.  It remains one tree.




> Reformed assert that the EO was on the right side of the Papal issue, but in addition to the institutional separation of the church, there is the matter of certain doctrinal developments in the centuries leading up to the schism.


You are correct, but if you think the doctrinal developments have to do with icons or the Second Council of Nicea, you would be incorrect.  The innovation which developed was actually iconoclasm, and that is what was rooted out by the One Church.  As for the innovations which led to the Great Schism, it did not occur in the Orthodox Church, it occurred in the Western Church (ex: Filioque), first with Rome and then the Protestant Reformation (which is the offspring of the Papal Church which broke away).




> The Lutherans and the Anglicans have maintained a stance of either support or ambivalence on the matter of the 2nd Council of Nicaea, the Reformed held a different position on this issue. Consequently, there is a schismatic divide between the Lutherans and Anglicans (and consequently also the EO) with the Reformed Churches.


In that case, the Lutherns and Anglicans have it more correct than the Reformed Churches, which makes sense since the Reformed Churches are even greater degrees of separation from the Apostolic Church theologically, ecclesiologically and sacramentally.




> To give you a point by point answer to your questions, I present the following.
> 
> - I don't reference EO figures following the Great Schism because there is a general hostility between the East and the West concerning Ambrose, Augustine of Hippo and a few other Latin figures that the Reformed consider fully orthodox.


Augustine and Ambrose are Saints within the Orthodox Church. Now Thomas Aquinas, that's a whole different story.  Unfortunately, they (especially Aquinas) taught some doctrines which were unbalanced and in error, such as the extreme penal substitutionary atonement theories and the hyper-juridical approach to the Christian faith.  This developed into the main Papal scholastic approach towards the faith as they drifted further and further away from the teachings of the Fathers before them.  Unfortunately, the Reformed Churches clinged on to these errors.  It was wrong when Rome made it the cornerstone of their theology, and it was wrong when it was carried over to its offspring, the Protestant Churches.

-


> The Church did not disappear, but institutional unity ceased in a universal sense.


Says who?  The Church will always remain, and the gates of hell cannot overcome it.  Just as the Arians fell away, and did not cease the universality and catholicity of the Church, likewise the Great Schism did not cease the Church as being One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic.  The question rather became: which is the True Church, the Papal Church or the Eastern Church?  This teaching regarding the undivided nature of the body, as Christ is undivided, goes back to what the Apostles taught, namely St. Paul.  What the Great Schism resulted in was a large number from one Patriarchate falling away.  Your community's ecclesiological approach is flawed if you believe the Church ceased to exist as One Body of Christ because Rome split from the other Four Patriarchates.




> - The Church endures in various forms and to various degrees in a visible sense, be it faithful individual, entire congregations, or even synods espousing an orthodox position in either a sufficient or near total sense.


Well, no.  Going back to the teachings of the early Christian Saints, there is a visible Church militant (those in the world, baptized and in sacramental communion with the Apostolic Church) and the invisible Church triumphant (the Angels and those who have run the race and died in communion with the Church militant and await the Final Judgment).  




> Presently there are several nations that have orthodox confessions according to the Reformed position (The U.K., The Netherlands), but their institutional churches have become derelict in enforcing them. America, in our position, defied the concept of a national covenant with its proto-socialist Constitution and is viewed as a secular empire by the Steelite dissenters based on the original Solemn League and Covenant.


This is another argument altogether.  The Church, which looks toward the eschatological Kingdom of Heaven and called to be not of this world, is not defined by ethnic or national borders.  It remains One Church.  The tradition of national arraignments have to do with administrative and pastoral reasons.  Ethnophyletism, however, is a heresy and has been condemned within the Orthodox Church.  Unfortunately, there exist strains of it within the Body, which are unfortunate.




> - The Papal Roman Church is an illegitimate institution that declared its head a prophet at Vatican I, but the seeds of this were planted by the Ultramontanist movement going back several centuries before.


That may be true, but the Protestant Church sprang from this same community (Rome) which had already fallen away from the One Church, according to what the Orthodox believe.  




> - The 4 other Patriarchates are a separate matter from Rome, but there are existing issues of doctrine that prevent the Reformed from being in communion with them. I believe that historically the Latin West had a claim of legitimate authority over much of the western church, but that they lost that right when they went down the road of innovative ecclesiastical governance and doctrine, However, this does not mean that the other 4 Patriarchates have a right to move in on the west and make us subservient satellites of their areas of historic influence.


Excuse me, what?  Acknowledging history and adhering to Church canons is not 'moving in on the west'. It seems like the west innovates and/or ignores those things, like Rome's adaptation of the Filioque and the Protestant willful ignorance on Church history and canonical norms.  Also, the Orthodox Church is notorious for not trying to enter into Western cities, whether in Europe or the US, and trying to proselytize the population there.  This is in fact one of the criticisms people have of the Orthodox Church, that it keeps too much to itself and does not effectively do missionary work (which many believe have to do with the suspicions which have developed from both sides). 




> In short, the Churches of Scotland, England and Ireland have a legitimate claim of autonomy and orthodoxy according to the WCF, which was a necessary re-covenanting of said nations in reaction to Papal encroachment. It is rooted in historic doctrine that is informed by scripture, and well as the early council declarations (excluding 2nd Nicaea and any subsequent synod or councils by Rome) and the theology of various early figures. I stand by it as an orthodox declaration of the western church, as does the remaining Reformed Presbytery that have not bent the knee to American exceptionalism or modern liberalism.


Church history, ecclesiological tradition, Church canons, and basic theology disagrees with you, as do I.  The WCF is not a product of the Church of the Holy Ecumencial Councils, it is a new confession apart from her.  I am not saying that you or anyone else cannot find Christ within your community and find salvation, but to claim that your community has autocephaly when such has never been granted as is canonically required within the historical Christian Church (canons which were formed WAY WAY before any Great Schism was ever imagined), breaks from canonical order.  To claim apostolic succession, when it is a child of Rome which split away centuries before because of doctrinal errors and distorted ecclesiology, is not historically correct.  To claim that the Church ceased to have catholicity because one of the Patriarchates fell away demonstrates a revisionist approach to Church history and the nature of the Church and is an innovation which has been propagated just these last couple of centuries.

To top that, to ignore a Holy Ecumenical Council which convened at a time long before the Great Schism and almost 800 years before Luther was born, demonstrates that your community and its founders do not actually take ecclesiology seriously or have a firm basis in historical realities and canonical orders, but rather, imitating the typical Protestant approach from which they sprung from, have created a new body apart from the historical and original Church and picked and chosen whatever doctrines and traditions they want to believe in, even if it has no basis within the life of the earlier Church.  

These seem like hard and insensitive statements for me to make, but I am only responding to some of the errors which the community which you have decided to follow have fallen into.  I am speaking the truth as I understand it.  _Again_, I am not saying that one cannot find salvation within that community, but we should not ignore certain fundamental and ancient ideas regarding the nature of the Church as the Body of Christ, and how it has endured through the centuries as threatened from enemies both within and without.

----------


## TER

I just want to emphasize that I believe God is merciful and just, and He knows the hearts of men and which men truly love Him.  I also believe He works in the lives of all those who call on the name of His Son and who look towards the Lord Jesus Christ for salvation.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

So, what's the verdict, men?  Do we ban prostitution or not?

----------


## osan

> Going in the religion section, as I'm primarily directing this at others who acknowledge the authority of scripture (as Vance does.)  For those who dont, I'm not really addressing this at you.
> 
> https://reconvenantersassanach.wordp...-its-problems/
> 
> This was my response to Vance's article today.


The laws you quote are, IMO, idiotic on their faces.  They are arbitrary and without stated justification other than "because God says so".

FAIL.

God gave us brains and IMO the purpose of the brain is NOT to be a hat rack.

It is claimed we are made in His image.  I seriously doubt that this means arms, legs, and the dangly bits in between.  Therefore, I must conclude that if we are made in His image, it means that our MINDS are isomorphic.  That further implies that our reason is very similar to God's, even if somewhat circumscribed in relative terms.  This tells me that our reason and intuition, being similar to that of God, are valid.  My reason and intuition tells me that these purported laws are not God's at all, but rather those of a herd of camel-$#@!ers.  That further reveals to me that they have no validity whatsoever.  

Unlike many, I do not believe God to be a stooge, nor intentionally cruel to good people.  I must therefore reject such pseudo-law on its face as the work of said camel-$#@!ers, whose interests are likely not in line with my own, or those of women in general, which is probably why they are camel-$#@!ers in the first place.

Believe as you will, of course, but I see no profit in any of this.  Rather, I see compliance to that which is patently idiotic as the acts of frightened men, fearful of possible retribution by a God they clearly envision as a cranky, constipated, sadistic old prick with nothing better to do than strike those dead who dare get off their knees even for a moment.

I have no time for such childish nonsense.  When I see images of creation such as that of the Cat's Eye nebula, it becomes impossible for me to accept the God-as-petty-stooge model of reality. YMMV, and who knows, I could be dead-wrong on every count.

----------


## osan

> So, what's the verdict, men?  Do we ban prostitution or not?



HELL $#@! NO!  

Gotta have hookers.  

Just gotta.

----------


## osan

> I just want to emphasize that I believe God is merciful and just, and He knows the hearts of men and which men truly love Him.  I also believe He works in the lives of all those who call on the name of *His Son* and who look towards the Lord Jesus Christ for salvation.


Which son would that be?  I mean, am I now God's son?  Are you not?

I admit my doubts about some, though.

----------


## tod evans

> So, what's the verdict, men?  Do we ban prostitution or not?


If befriending prostitutes was good enough for Jesus it's good enough for me.

----------


## hells_unicorn

> So, what's the verdict, men?  Do we ban prostitution or not?


Gauging the current state of American society, banning prostitution wouldn't accomplish anything even if it were possible, pagans gonna pagan. I will, however, encourage every person I know to practice biblical marriage, procreate, and protect their daughters and sons from the wicked practices of the heathen.




> If befriending prostitutes was good enough for Jesus it's good enough for me.


Your definition of befriending prostitutes and Jesus' are quite different, not that you'd know since you wouldn't have made a statement like this had you ever comprehended what was going on in the gospel accounts. Your idea of befriending a prostitute is probably along the same lines of a friend who buys his alcoholic friend a bunch of rounds, then hands him the car keys and tells him to have fun on the way home.

----------


## hells_unicorn

> I just want to emphasize that I believe God is merciful and just, and He knows the hearts of men and which men truly love Him.  I also believe He works in the lives of all those who call on the name of His Son and who look towards the Lord Jesus Christ for salvation.


I'm going to submit a more comprehensive response to yours at a later date, I have personal business that I need to attend to in the meantime. But suffice to say, I will not now nor ever will I accept Nicaea II as a valid council, and I consider the worship practices that it endorses dangerous. Nicaea II was not confirmed by a subsequent council prior to the schism, and the Church of Scotland is not bound by the arbitrary decrees of any outside body, be it Rome or the other Patriarchs. You have no authority over the Reformed community, and prior to these issues being hammered out by a legitimate ecumenical council, it will be a matter of Nicaea II vs. Frankfurt. There were no Frankish representatives at the council, so at best, Nicaea II and Frankfurt amount to contradictory synods resulting in schism. I am aware that Frankfurt did not condemn the presence of icons or their veneration, but rather drew into question whether Nicaea II was actually an ecumenical council.

I will reciprocate your position that salvation is indeed possible and likely within the Eastern Church, and that Christ's grace is not tied to one national/particular church. I will even grant that it is indeed possible among more deformed and heterodox communions such as the Roman Catholic Church and the Trinitarian Baptist groups. But as a covenanted member of the Church of Scotland and Northern Ireland, I am as bound to resist contrary doctrines that go against my understanding of scripture, history and my conscience.

----------


## tod evans

> Your definition

----------


## hells_unicorn

> 


Unless your definition of "befriending prostitutes" involves trying to convince them to take a different path in life, you're not really their friend now, are you? Truth can be painful, so painful it can cause social liberals to roll their eyes.

----------


## jmdrake

> Unless your definition of "befriending prostitutes" involves trying to convince them to take a different path in life, you're not really their friend now, are you? Truth can be painful, so painful it can cause social liberals to roll their eyes.


Jesus' definition of befriending prostitutes didn't involve stoning them or imprisoning them.  Yes, try to convince anyone living a life outside the will of God to repent.  But this thread was specifically about whether or not one should advocate criminal penalties for prostitution.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> I will, however, encourage every person I know to practice biblical marriage, procreate, and protect their daughters and sons from the wicked practices of the heathen.


 Sounds good, my man.  I am all for that!

How are you protecting your kids, Unicorn?

----------


## TER

> I'm going to submit a more comprehensive response to yours at a later date, I have personal business that I need to attend to in the meantime.


I completely understand.  Take your time.  I look forward to reading it.

----------


## hells_unicorn

> Sounds good, my man.  I am all for that!
> 
> How are you protecting your kids, Unicorn?


Homeschooling, it's about as effective against libertine morality infecting the youth as it is preventing children from becoming wards of a godless state. Do try it sometime if you haven't already.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Homeschooling, it's about as effective against libertine morality infecting the youth as it is preventing children from becoming wards of a godless state. Do try it sometime if you haven't already.


All in its season (too young, yet).  Beyond a doubt, it's toppers!  The tip of the top for the cream of the crop, this homeschool business.  _Group_ homeschooling may really be the ticket, though, I think, with a select group of youth and parents, upstanding in moral behavior and, sorry to offend anyone but genetics as well.  That way you get good pheromonic reinforcement and behavioral modeling to buttress the lessons you're teaching in your family.  You don't want your family to just be an island in a sea of putrid filth.  If it is, it will be a desperate, failing, dying, inevitably _doomed_ island.  It's not just lessons, it's a way of life!  A way of life is not a trivial thing.  Got to have the pheromones on your side, the mirror neurons on your side and firing on all cylinders, just every possible factor backing you up and all pushing in the same right direction.

----------

