Thursday, October 20, 2011

Cameron and his ruling élite

There is an observation on David Cameron in the Daily Mail from one of his political colleagues. It is nothing new, but in the context of the impending Commons vote on an In/Out referendum on the UK's membership of the EU, it is revealing of his instinct. Mark Pritchard, secretary of the 1922 Committee, warned that it 'would be dangerous for the "political elite" to be seen to be blocking public demand for a referendum again'.

Before he came to power, David Cameron linked the ubiquity of ‘one-size-fits-all solutions (which) are dispensed from the centre’ with ‘demoralisation and democratic disengagement’. He called for a ‘radical decentralisation’ which does not constitute ‘some romantic attachment to the past’, but one which is designed to revive civic pride by initiating ‘a massive, sweeping, radical redistribution of power: from the state to citizens; from the government to parliament; from Whitehall to communities. From Brussels to Britain; from judges to the people; from bureaucracy to democracy’.

But it may simultaneously be observed that he has done more than any Conservative leader since the nineteenth century to centralise the internal workings of his own party: many of the powers which used to be held by local associations are now exercised centrally by a ruling Tory élite. Unless Mr Cameron manages to overcome his Bullingdon urges, he will lead the Conservative Party to yet another period of intractable division over 'Europe'.

How on earth can there ever be 'a massive, sweeping, radical redistribution of power' without a referendum on the UK's membership of the EU? How can control of our destiny shift 'from the state to citizens; from the government to parliament; from Whitehall to communities. From Brussels to Britain; from judges to the people; from bureaucracy to democracy’ wiithout a significant realignment of what is often referred to as our 'relationship with Europe'? Churchill had it about right: ‘We have our own dream and our own task. We are with Europe but not of it. We are linked but not combined. We are interested and associated but not absorbed.’

Unless we are to end our inexorable absorption, either the EU's foundational precept of 'ever closer union' must be abandoned, or we must leave. The former is not a remote possibilty, so the latter is the only course open to us. Since EEC accession was ratified by a referendum in 1975, a national plebescite would need to precede our departure. Whether or not such a vote could be won when the Outers would be ranged against all three main political parties and the power of the Establishment is unknown: it would be a huge risk. And yet... and yet... as we have been absorbed by increment, perhaps our sovereignty and liberty must be regained by degrees - of which the first must be a symbolic victory in next week's EU referendum question.


Blogger bluedog said...

Excellent comment, Your Grace.

Dave is indeed the victim of his own contradictary statements and cannot credibly resist even Graham Brady's limited demands. It's time for salami tactics, building momentum step by step so that the political elite have no option but to recant before total loss of face. Some of course, such as Ken Clarke, are dogs so old that they cannot learn new tricks. But encouragingly the greatest support for a retreat from Europe comes from the youngest MPs, not from those old warhorses embittered by past defeats.

Remember Your Grace, before a war begins the propaganda war has already been decided. In this regard the Europhiles have already lost as their position is indefensible. It only remains to resist the temptation to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory through over-eagerness.

One can feel the British nation preparing for a historic change of direction by throwing off the manacles of Europe.

The Anglosphere awaits Britain's return.

20 October 2011 at 08:31  
Blogger Gnostic said...

Understanable prime ministerial behaviour since Cameron is a lying, authoritarian, EU loving, three-line-whip of a shitbag, Your Grace.

My contempt for the cretin grows by the day.

20 October 2011 at 08:48  
Blogger G. Tingey said...

Tend to agree with Gnostic.....
IF the vote fails in the Commons, because of Camoron's tactics, then .....
There will be ANOTHER petition ... and another, etc until we finally do get a referendum.

That, or, and it frightens me ...
The persistent layers of coruption being exposed in our society (Police lying under oath, cosy contacts betyween guvmint and the crypto-fascist Murdoch etc ...) may lead to a revolution.

20 October 2011 at 09:27  
Blogger Weekend Yachtsman said...

Erm, the Commons vote is not on an In/Out referendum; it's on a three-way referendum, with the third - attractive-sounding - option being a non-existent one that corresponds with current local administration policy. That is to say, the absurd, unavailable, impossible "renegotiation" option.

So even if the motion is passed and the referendum is held, the result - Option 3 - will be meaningless and will change nothing, but will still be taken as the final closure of the whole question.

But this is all moot because the local administration will win the vote, the motion will fall, and there won't be any referendum.

20 October 2011 at 10:07  
Blogger Rebel Saint said...

"We must become less, the people must become more" - a fine sounding mantra for those who have no power. But without any divine sense of calling or duty, such a John-the-Baptist-like spirit is highly unlikely for those in possession of power.

Dave (or any of the handful of others who actually wield any genuine power), are never going to relinquish it or dilute it.

The inclusion of a 3rd, impotent option into the potential referendum is a master stroke. It's the spoiler option - dividing the "anti" vote. [Not a problem if had AV of course]

As long as people keep voting for the same old unholy trinity of lib/lab/con we haven't got a chance of ever being free from the tyranny of the EU.

20 October 2011 at 10:34  
Blogger bluedog said...

Your Grace

A topical song from archive footage.

A very youthful Mr Anglosphere serenades a flighty Miss Britannia as she leaves him for the false charms of Mr Europe.

20 October 2011 at 11:06  
Blogger seanrobsville said...

I'm intrigued by the photograph. Does this depict the aftermath of a good night out by the boys of the Bullingdon Club?

20 October 2011 at 11:09  
Blogger Hereward said...

Europe hardly registers on the radar of the average voter.

Until real pain from eurozone woes, Greek insurrections and collapsing banks causes mass unemployment in the UK, there will be insufficient momentum to ensure overwhelming public pressure to get us out.

Is it remotely possible that Merkosy can sort the massive eurozone debt problem by complicated financial engineering and radically overleveraging the system? There will come a time, and pretty soon I reckon, when extend and pretend policies collapse in the face of awesome financial realities.

Cameron may then have his mind changed.
Events dear boy. Events.

20 October 2011 at 11:20  
Blogger wiggiatlarge said...

Weekend Yachtsman has to my mind hit the nail on the head with this one ,its a classic divide and rule tactic with option three to be pushed as the solution despite having no power to enforce it ,a case of kicking the problem into the long grass unless of course enough of them actually say no ,i wont hold my breath.

20 October 2011 at 11:46  
Blogger Oswin said...

I'm not generally given to 'conspiracy theories' but the Liam Fox (bloody fool!) affair seems beautifully timed, primed even, to explode at THE opportune moment. Or, was it mere 'happy happenstance' for Cameron's mock-Tory cum Liberal, cabinet?

20 October 2011 at 12:55  
Blogger Old Blue Eyes said...

On Monday we shall see where each of our MPs beliefs lie in relation to true democracy. If they believe in democracy they will vote to let we, the people,have our say in a referendum. Note who do and who don't and remember when the next general election comes around.

20 October 2011 at 13:36  
Blogger Corrigan1 said...

What happens after a referendum if the Scots vote one way and you lot vote the other?

20 October 2011 at 13:40  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

Your Grace is understandably miffed at Cameron’s effortless deceit in promising a redistribution of power from Brussels to Britain before the general election and then implementing a redistribution of power from Britain to Brussels after it.

As long as Cameron can count on the votes of decent Conservatives such as yourself, nothing will change; the Tory leadership will continue to pursue its Europhile agenda. But you and all Conservative voters have it in your power to force the Prime Minister’s hand by making it clear that he will forfeit your support at the next election unless he begins to hack away at the chains that fetter us to Europe.

20 October 2011 at 14:43  
Blogger Owl said...

"the ruling elite"


or, perhap, the elite puppets of the ruling elite.

Dave, at the last election, could have gained the majority of the Anglo/Irish vote. He would have been the first conservative leader to achieve this. All he had to do was keep his "cast iron" promises.

He turned down these few million votes. Why?

He seems to be deliberately ignoring his traditional supporters and any form of commonsense, economic or otherwise. Why?

One possibility is that his last brain cell has long given up the fight.

The other is that he is carrying out his orders to the best of his ability in true Fabian style. Just as Tony the phoney took his.

He may look like a sheep but the wolf behind him is taking on shape.

20 October 2011 at 14:52  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

It tells me something when Belgium have not had a proper government for over a year now, that their country is in effect being run by the EU and overseen by a temp who is now leaving.

Our government can't see that by clinging to the EU their powers are being eroded away too. That there will be no government as such but just overseers to ensure that the EU policies are being implemented correctly. We can't have this, Britain and it's people have so much potential. We have always been a nation of creatives, eccentrics, forward thinkers, and we pull together in times of crisis. Well I think the threat of the all engulfing EU is becoming a crises to be overcome. No time for politeness anymore.

20 October 2011 at 17:20  
Blogger I do not blog said...

I have a question which I hope His Grace will be able to reply. Two pieces recently appeared on this site bemoaning David Cameron's plans to amend the rules on royal succession, pointing out how intertwined all that is with the Act of Union etc etc. The crux of the articles was that most of our other laws depended in some way or other on those nine acts.

Does His Grace think it would be any simpler to pull out of Europe than it would be to do all that other reform? The present "constitution" doesn't seem to have prevented us from getting sucked in to Europe, however much people keep complaining about the Queen being usurped or whatever.

Perhaps if we are going to pull out of Europe then at the same time we can have some proper legal and consitutional reform. The Scot's seem quite inclined to go their own way within the foreseeable future, which would be another spanner in the works for the present "consitution".

So, pull out by all means, but let's sort out some other nonsense at the same time.

20 October 2011 at 18:11  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Your Grace Most exciting news, what !

Dare the Inspector hope our deliverance day comes ever closer. Let the battle commence – let at least one head roll.

Regarding your earlier points, there was a time when statesmen dictated their speeches to their secretaries. Such is the low calibre of our current political master, he needs speech writers to do it for him. You’d think the idiot would at least give the toadies an idea of what the speeches should contain – not let them make it up as they go ! No class or talent whatsoever, our plastic man.

“There’ll always be an England, you know, and England will be free, if England means as much to you as England means to me” reminds the Inspector. Tally ho !!

20 October 2011 at 18:16  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...


Looks like there’s an EU proconsul running Belgium. No doubt the blighters have one ready for Greece too. An appalling thought now, maybe Mandelson chalked down for us ? Feeling defiant at this stage {INSPECTOR SNORTS}

20 October 2011 at 18:23  
Blogger Marie1797 said...


Glad you've got the fight still in you Inspector after seeing off the Hun twice. Bless you.
Do we really know just what Mandelson signed us up to? Did he at the time???

20 October 2011 at 19:03  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Marie. He’s a child of the continent, here to undermine us. Take him the Tower and leave the scoundrel there where he can’t do anymore harm...

20 October 2011 at 19:17  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...


Hope you're not snorting anything illicit! Not good for you, old chap.

Hve you heard anything from len since he accused of us being Vatican agents taking orders from some mysterious hierarchy? He must be hiding in a corner somewhere.

20 October 2011 at 20:08  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Good shout, that pugnacious bird Dodo.

Regular visitors to this site will notice a weasel pop up, squeak anti Catholic rhetoric then disappear again. If you are fortunate to grasp the animal by the neck, bring him to the Inspector where upon he’ll be swiftly despatched.

For God, Queen and Empire, you know...

20 October 2011 at 20:27  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...


I say, I say. What do you call len when gets 50 on an IQ test?

20 October 2011 at 21:28  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

This had better not be inane Dodo, you know the Archbishop is after your wishbone

20 October 2011 at 21:37  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...


A cheat!

20 October 2011 at 21:49  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

BAH !! On the subject of wishbones, it’s a little known fact that the Inspector has his own. Single as your man is, he is forever asking his female colleagues to make a wish in his ear...

20 October 2011 at 22:11  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...


And I was hopeful that something might come from your initial exchanges with Hazel. Her brief visit here was interesting. A feisty lass.

Good news about Gadafi today although I must say the manner of his killing was, to my mind, distasteful. An unnecessary summary execution, although understandable, is not a good start for a nation hoping to become a democracy supported by the rule of law. I couldn't believe the media frenzy this afternoon as the pictures started to emerge.

As for Mr Cranmer being after my wishbone, it's only when I use the 'b' word about his comments concerning the Catholic Church.

Have you noticed this site has become more civilised since the introduction of the bar on anonymous comments? The nasty, vicious attacks on Rome have dropped and apart from you know who, the majority of comments are not so hateful as they once were. Of course English Viking is the exception that proves this rule but one can't help warming to him.

20 October 2011 at 22:55  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

News Flash - Rapture of 21st October Cancelled

Jesus was "furious, in fact, absolutely livid," according to reports over the leaking of the date of the long awaited Rapture. The date has been revealed in advertising on bumper stickers, the sides of trucks and in a billboard campaign.

As a result God the Father has decided to change the date.

"It's one thing for Wikileaks to reveal that Prince Andrew is a prat, but this leaking of the top secret date for the Rapture is just beyond contemptible," said the office of a high-ranking archangel. "It's a threat to biblical security."

Unconfirmed sources say that when the news was broken to Jesus that biblical scholar Harold Camping was behind the leak, he flew into a tirade.

"What part of 'no man knoweth the day or the hour' doesn't he understand?" he raged.

The Holy Spirit is also reported to have "gone tonto" at the news.

Old Testament scholars believe the billboard campaign will backfire on Mr Camping. "What he's done is a bit of an abomination unto the Lord," said one scholar, "and that never plays too well with the Fire and Brimstone department in Heaven."

But New Testament scholars disagree, saying that Mr Camping can expect to be "left behind" in the Rapture.

Camping is now expected to undergo the Great Tribulation, according to one expert, plus the wrath of the Whore of Babylon, and an unwelcome meeting with "the beast having seven heads and ten horns".

"He's going to throw the Book of Revelation at them," he said.

20 October 2011 at 23:07  
Blogger Gnostic said...

Dodo - that's priceless. :D

21 October 2011 at 10:22  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Ship of Fools, presumably.

21 October 2011 at 13:12  
Blogger Preacher said...

A word of warning old bird, don't dance too near the edge of the cliff.
IMO error or deception is not a matter for laughter or amusement. Many false prophets exist, more than ever nowdays. The Devil loves us to make merry at the deceived & the deceivers. Why? because it serves to undermine the warnings of the Lord about judgement & man's eternal destiny.
We all must take care when we are tempted to go too far with a joke, & remember that "God will not be mocked". Have fun but be careful of who you quote. Enjoy!

21 October 2011 at 15:32  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Dodo. (20 October 2011 23:07)

Excellent satire on the Rapture old man. Still, rather disappointed it didn’t happen as planned. You see, kids need something between the end of summer and Halloween, bless them.

Great balls of fire – didn’t realise the Whore of Babylon and her mate the ‘beast with two backs’ were involved ! The Inspector took the Whore out once, never again. Would prefer to take Hazel to a bridal suite, it was that bad…

I think we can cut the bird a bit of slack on this occasion Preacher – for knocking a false prophet’s rot...

21 October 2011 at 17:57  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

Of course. Plagarism at its very best! Why not?

I do take your points on board.

Christ will return one day and it is a fearsome prospect.

I don't know if there will be a 'rapture' or 'great tribulation' thereafter, having never really thought about it. However, I do know Jesus will return (because He said He would) and then the final, eternal judgement of each one of us will follow.

Now, now. I'm poking fun at you know who and his kin, rather than doubting the ultimate conclusion of history.

21 October 2011 at 19:00  
Blogger len said...

I see the 'double act' are at it again,

Question ,who`s the stooge?
Answer, both of them!.

22 October 2011 at 07:21  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

22 October 2011 at 09:31  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...


A little story just for you:

In an examination on biblical exegesis, the teacher wanted everyone to sign a form stating that they had not received any outside assistance.

Unsure of whether he should sign the form, len stated that he had had the assistance of the Holy Spirit.

The teacher carefully studied his answers and said, "You can sign it with a clear conscience. The Holy Spirit did not assist you."

22 October 2011 at 09:51  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Men, there’s that weasel again ! Chase him over to me and I’ll knock him on the head with this spade...

22 October 2011 at 11:06  
Blogger The Justice of the Peace said...

"Since EEC accession was ratified by a referendum in 1975"

That referendum was for an organisation within the skin of an "economic community". Like a snake its real appearance as the European Union shows that its spokesmen are totally untrustworthy and those who with all their knowledge continue in their attempts to mislead us will one day have their comeupance.

22 October 2011 at 11:46  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...


Don't be sexist now. I'm sure both Hazel and Marie and one or two other women would be more than capable of giving chase to weasel.

22 October 2011 at 12:50  
Blogger len said...

'The dynamic Duo' I consider myself more a mongoose than a weasel!.

And remember what they do to snakes!.

22 October 2011 at 13:07  
Blogger len said...

Mongooses also have receptors for acetylcholine that, like the receptors in snakes, are shaped so that it is impossible for snake neurotoxin venom to attach to them. Researchers are investigating whether similar mechanisms protect the mongoose from hemotoxic snake venoms.

22 October 2011 at 13:09  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...


Yes, maybe you do.

"Mirror, mirror on the wall ... "

22 October 2011 at 14:03  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Now the weasel thinks he’s a mongoose...

22 October 2011 at 14:07  
Blogger non mouse said...

Interesting on the mongooses, Mr. len. Some people used to suggest that their coats act as armour - the smoothness of the hair deflecting the snake tongues. Either way or both, they're wonderful creatures!

btw: please consider yourself un-harrassed by this daughter of Eve; she's remarked on the species ever since, as a child, she saw one fight a snake.

22 October 2011 at 14:09  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

That’s a mean creature you’re trying to befriend, Dodo and non mouse. Remember his born again convictions deny us the Kingdom of Heaven along with Gaddaffi.

22 October 2011 at 14:17  
Blogger len said...

non mouse.
The mongoose is indeed a wonderful creature and impervious to venom!.
Best wishes.

22 October 2011 at 14:38  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...


"Befriend"? I'm as guarded as ever around the "weatsop", believe me, vicious bloodthirsty little beggars that they are.

According to the Cathecism, God will make allowances for those who, through no fault of their own, were reared in ignorance of the one true faith. One must do what one can to rid him of his delusions and to stop him spreading lies.

22 October 2011 at 14:39  
Blogger len said...

A question for the Dodo ,Inspector, and Albert(who seems to have gone missing, attending a Jesuit function somewhere no doubt?)

Are any of you born again?.
This is a serious question.

22 October 2011 at 14:43  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

"Riki tiki leni mongoose is gone
Riki tiki leni mongoose is gone
Won't be coming around for to kill your snakes no more non mouse
Riki tiki leni mongoose is gone."

22 October 2011 at 14:46  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

“Are any of you born again?” asks the fundamentalist of the unsuspecting Catholic.

Of course we are! Now define your terms, you crafty little weasel.

Do you really want an answer or are you just setting out to confuse the unsophisticated who may read your little sermons on here?

22 October 2011 at 14:55  
Blogger len said...

You wish!.

Still here waiting..............................

22 October 2011 at 14:55  
Blogger len said...

Dodo explain' born again' for me (Catholic version of course)

Don`t tell me the Pope caused this to happen because I don`t want to split my sides laughing!

22 October 2011 at 14:57  
Blogger len said...


,And what of your 'back up'are they doing something 'Catholic' lighting candles,or perhaps making a few effigies, or even doing the rosary thing ?.

22 October 2011 at 15:00  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...


You've proved my point about your supposed:

"This is a serious question."

You have shown your true colours.

As I requested - define your terms.

22 October 2011 at 15:14  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

22 October 2011 at 16:23  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Dodo (22 October 2011 14:39)

It really is the Inspector’s afternoon for delights and learning. For those who don’t know what you are on about...

It is thought that the name "weasel" comes from the Anglo-Saxon root "weatsop" meaning "a vicious bloodthirsty animal"., (From Wiki)

The Inspector has noticed he’s looking for divisions. Stand firm that bird, and he’ll slink away....

22 October 2011 at 16:38  
Blogger len said...

Dodo, 'Born again' my terms are the same as those specified by Jesus.

Inspector, born again? yes or no?.

I am not of course talking of 'sprinkling with water'!.

22 October 2011 at 17:06  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Weasel. In a font aged a few weeks. If it was good enough for John the Baptist, it was good enough for the Inspector, and my wheatsop friend, good enough for YOU !

There is no ‘Blessed are the smug in Christ, for they are the born agains’, you know...

22 October 2011 at 17:54  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...


I repeat - define your terms.

Like Albert I have concluded you are wrapped up in your own litttle world, where you consider yourself the final arbiter of revelation. Like him, I see little point in casting pearls before, in this case, a weasel.

You've already shown your prejudice and ignorance in those pathetic comments on the Pope and Catholic devotions.

22 October 2011 at 18:19  
Blogger len said...

OoiG, well you certainly are NOT born again!...

Dodo still waiting..... have you been sprinkled too?

22 October 2011 at 18:22  
Blogger len said...

OoIG, Johns baptism was one of repentance.How many infants before Baptism are heard to confess their sins?.

22 October 2011 at 18:31  
Blogger len said...

Born again definition, this is a command from Jesus (not a suggestion .)

Starting with Acts 2, the baptism taught by the disciples had a different purpose than the baptism of John. Paul talks about this at length:

"Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been united together in the likeness of His death, certainly we also shall be in the likeness of His resurrection, knowing this, that our old man was crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves of sin. For he who has died has been freed from sin. Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with Him, knowing that Christ, having been raised from the dead, dies no more. Death no longer has dominion over Him. For the death that He died, He died to sin once for all; but the life that He lives, He lives to God. Likewise you also, reckon yourselves to be dead indeed to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus our Lord" (Romans 6:3-11)

(If you have not experienced this you do not belong to Christ, but you belong to religion .)

22 October 2011 at 18:44  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Weasel. That passage has to be taken in context. The Apostles were out to convert people to Christ’s message. The Inspector was born into Christianity (...the bit about him being baptised aged just weeks gives the game away...). And the Inspector lives a good life, respecting his fellows around him, and importantly, hasn’t killed anyone. At least YET (...there is a bloody limit to what he or anybody else can take, you know !...)

22 October 2011 at 19:01  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...


Yes, I was born again in baptism.

Have you been born again?

22 October 2011 at 19:30  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...


Try to read the following without your evangelical glasses on!

Throughout John 3 Jesus equates “born again” or “born from above” with “born of water and the Spirit” and this means being baptised.

Clearly, the context of John 3 implies that born of “water and the Spirit” refers to baptism. Indeed the Evangelist tells us that immediately after talking with Nicodemus, Jesus took his disciples into the wilderness where they baptized people (John 3:22).

John clearly understands Jesus' words about being “born again” and “born of water and the Spirit” to have a sacramental, baptismal meaning.

This is reinforced by many New Testament texts linking baptism, the Holy Spirit and regeneration. At Jesus' baptism, the Holy Spirit descends upon him as He comes up out of the water (John 1:25-34; Matt 3:13-17; Mark 1:9-11; Luke 3:21-22).

Christian baptism, is a baptism with the water and the Holy Spirit (Matt 3:11; Mark 1:8; Luke 3:16; John 1:31; Acts 1:4-5). On Pentecost, Peter calls the Jews to “be baptised in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins” and promises that they will “receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:38). Peter clearly teaches that the “water baptism,” forgives sins and bestows the Holy Spirit.

Christian baptism is no mere external, repentance-ritual with water, but entails an inner transformation or regeneration by the Holy Spirit of the New Covenant; it is a “new birth,” a being “born again” or “born from above.”

In Romans 6:3, Paul says, “Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptised into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life” Baptism, says Paul, effects union with the death and resurrection of Christ, so that through it we die and rise to new life, a form of “regeneration.”

According to Titus 3:5, God “saved us through the washing of regeneration and renewal by the Holy Spirit.” Baptism is a form of “washing away of sin.” In Acts 22:16, Ananias tells Paul, “Get up, be baptised and wash your sins away, calling upon his name.” In 1 Peter 1:3, it is stated that God has given Christians “a new birth to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead.” The term “new birth” appears synonymous with “born again” or “regeneration.”

According to 1 Peter 1:23, Christians “have been born anew having been regenerated” not from perishable but from imperishable seed, through the living and abiding word of God.”

In Mark 16:16, Jesus says, “Whoever believes and is baptised will be saved; whoever does not believe will be condemned.” “Baptism, which is the means by which one “puts on Christ” (Gal. 3:27) and is buried and raised with him to new life (Rom 6:3-5; Gal 2:12). Acts 2:41 says of the Jewish crowd on Pentecost, “Those who accepted his message were baptised . . .” Those whom 1 Peter 1:23 describes as “having been born anew” or regenerated through the “living and abiding word of God” were also those who had been baptised. Thus, being “born of water and the Spirit” and being “born anew” through “the living and abiding word of God” describe different aspects of one thing — being regenerated in Christ. Being “born again” (or “from above”) in “water and the Spirit” refers to the external act of receiving baptism, while being “born anew” refers to the internal reception in faith of the Gospel (being “born anew” through “the living and abiding word of God”).

22 October 2011 at 19:59  
Blogger len said...

OH Dodo , Oh Dear,
I had a feeling you would say that!.

There is always a distinction between water and Spirit baptism. Scripture tells us that John came baptizing in water but that, “There is one who will come after me. . . He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit” (Mk. 1:7-8; Mt. 3:11; Jn. 1:33). The flesh and the spirit are two different properties, two different things. So there are two births- one of the flesh and the other of the spirit that comes from God. John 3:6-7 "That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. "Do not marvel that I said to you, 'You must be born again.'

The term born of water is used only once by John but the term born of God (the Spirit) he uses numerous times.

I Jn 4:7: “Beloved, let us love one another, for love is of God; and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God” This is the love of God shed in a believers heart by believing the gospel.

I Jn 5:1: “Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and everyone who loves Him who begot also loves him who is begotten of Him.” This of course has to do with the gospel.

I Jn 5:4: “ For whatever is born of God overcomes the world. And this is the victory that has overcome the world-- our faith” The new nature of the spirit of God has our affections change toward God and not toward the fallen world.

I Jn 3:9 Whoever has been born of God does not sin, for His seed remains in him; and he cannot sin, because he has been born of God. ”

I Jn 5:18: “We know that whoever is born of God does not sin; but he who has been born of God keeps himself, and the wicked one does not touch him.” There is life change where one lives more in righteousness than they do in the old way of life in sin. John explains this in I Jn 2:29: “If you know that He is righteous, you know that everyone who practices righteousness is born of Him” And Paul teaches this through the book of Romans especially chapter 6-7

Romans 7:6 “But now we have been delivered from the law, having died to what we were held by, so that we should serve in the newness of the Spirit and not in the oldness of the letter.”

The Bible teaches that a man is “born of God” (Greek- EK - out of). This description occurs four times in John’s epistle alone, 1 Jn. 3:9, 4:7, 5:1,4. In all the instances where the source of the new birth is mentioned, the language is EK Him, EK God, or EK Spirit. John 1:12-13, we receive Christ by believing in His name, “not born by the will of man . . . but of God.” Nowhere in the Bible does it say that God uses creation (born of water) as part of conveying the new birth. The Greek preposition (“out of”) is never used elsewhere in connection anything else but its source which is God Himself.

In John 3:3, the term “born-again” literally means “to be born from above,” is what happens by Jesus sending His Spirit to those who respond to the gospel. The very essence of regeneration is by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. It is an unseen work that one receives when they believe, they are then sealed with the Holy Spirit (Eph. 1:13

22 October 2011 at 20:47  
Blogger len said...

I now realise the problem I have been having talking to Catholics!
They assume they are born again when they are not!.
The carnal mind(all you have before you are born again) is all they have.And the carnal mind cannot understand the things of God.The carnal mind is hostile towards God but very inclined towards religion!.

“Unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.”

22 October 2011 at 20:50  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...


Umm ... I note it took you all of 3 minutes to read my reply and post your considered response. Either your a wiz with scripture or you made upyour mind without reading the reply. Now, I wonder which one it was?

The real problem you have is that you talk incessantly and quote endless reams of scripture out of context and do not read it as a coherent whole. You are closed to the truth. You cannot comprehend the meaning of John 3 and associated texts because of a wilful stubborness.

Please don't waste my time again.

22 October 2011 at 20:58  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...


Weatsop the weasel lets everyone down in the end. But to be fair to the animal, he didn’t reply for 50 mins. No apology needed though, he's not worth it.

22 October 2011 at 22:13  
Blogger non mouse said...

Time was when His Grace attracted scholars to this blog who, among other things, knew their Old English.

Anyone who comes here now ... Beware, those days are gone, though one remains grateful that His Grace and some Communicants endure.

Should you need an Anglo-Saxon Dictionary, J. R. Clark Hall and Bosworth-Toller are the respected authorities.

They agree: wesle, an ; f. A weasel :-- Uueosule, uuesulae mustela, Txts.[from B-T].

The Toronto project progresses: A-G is available online - at a price, or through a subscribing university:

22 October 2011 at 22:54  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...


What len doesn't seem to realise is that his brand of christianity is damaging. Having been deceived, he is himself a deceiver of men.

He presupposes there is a single life changing encounter, a direct encounter with Christ, that changes one for ever. This turns people off because God does not work this way with everybody. And he's fanatical about this. For most of us sinful men, our journey is slow as we grow in the fullness of truth, secure in the knowledge we are one with Christ through our baptismal rebirth.

His unbiblical understanding of the sacrament of baptism, clearly introduced by Christ as the means of a spiritual rebirth and regeneration, and his ignorance of the rest of the gospel pertaining to this, demonstrates a blindness to truth. His random quotes above do not present any sort of coherent argument.

You are correc. He is weatsop the weasel and his misrepresentations of scripture and the Church have to be exposed for what they are.

22 October 2011 at 23:13  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...


Agreed, these born agains are the most selfish of Christians. Why is this one asks. In the Inspector’s opinion, it’s because they tend to come from godless backgrounds. The Inspector has met at least two who were serving soldiers. Converted as they were, by evangelicals, they are only carrying out orders. Perhaps Weatsop the weasel is himself in the same situation.

non mouse. The Inspector is not what you would describe as a scholar. However, he does has a keen mind, having gone through the University of Life. And fortunately, we do have wikipedia now...

23 October 2011 at 01:10  
Blogger non mouse said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

23 October 2011 at 02:14  
Blogger non mouse said...

Mr.OiG --- then there's something wrong with your university of life if it's taught you to trust the likes of Wikipedia. That's the place where any bozo can post anything he or she likes, without any authority.

You should also know enough to suspect pronouncements in the passive voice, such as "it is thought..." without any indication of who thinks 'it.'

Having seen more than my fair share of Living Death... I also hold a few academic qualifications, and they're not all old. One of the things one picks up along that way, is the knowledge of where to find information.

The Anglo-Saxon dictionaries don't attest even to the existence of the word you claim. I cited those authorities; if you choose neither to explore nor accept them--that's your business.

However, I am sufficiently wary of your world also to check Chambers and the OED online. The latter provides the following etymology:

Old English wesule , wesle weak feminine = North Frisian wisel (West Frisian wezel- , weezling ), (Middle) Dutch wezel , Old High German wisula , -ala (Middle High German wisele , wisel , modern German wiesel feminine) < Old Germanic *wisulōn- , of obscure origin.
From German dialects come the Icelandic (hreysi)vísla , ‘(cairn-) weasel’, Swedish vesla , vessla , Danish væsel .
["weasel, n." OED Online. September 2011. Oxford University Press. 22 October 2011 Sunday October 23, 2011.]

Beyond that -- I really don't have time for the nonsense that's on here, these days - it's as bad as being chased round sofas or made to run in Alice's caucus race.

I prefer to do my work and lift my loads.

23 October 2011 at 03:13  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...


So the origins of the word weatsop may be doubtful. So? I like it and will continue to apply it to our special little weasle who pops up, squeaks his nonsense and then disappears after posting reams of disjointed scriptural passages without any coherent discussion.

23 October 2011 at 10:36  
Blogger bluedog said...

Well said, non mouse @ 03.13. The bullying and mockery of Len by some parties is quite odious, indeed anything but Christian.

23 October 2011 at 11:00  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Mr Bluedog,

His Grace is monitoring this bullying, and is approaching the point of intervention - especially with the one communicant who creates multiple identities and keeps on reappearing in various guises in order to bolster support for opinions expressed under a previous moniker. You know who you are. And if you do not, your IP address betrays you.

23 October 2011 at 11:06  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Your Grace. As it pleases you, the Inspector will reduce his mockery (...he doesn’t accept the term ‘bullying’...) of the correspondent concerned. However, be it placed on record that said correspondent fight’s his corner rather well. And what corner is that ? Informing the world and his dog at every opportunity that there is NO salvation for mainstream Christians such as the Inspector, Dodo, and dare it be said, a certain Archbishop. Nay, said correspondent has decided unilaterally that salvation is his alone and for a few invited born again mates.

The weasel words your man uses is of course viewed by your vast following – and you are asking that they not be mocked. He’s like a dripping tap. Can’t shut the fellow up. Must use all devices at hand to fight his infamy.

And non mouse we come to you. Not up to your high standards then, this wonderful site His Grace has created. Thank you for informing the Inspector of your feelings, he’s grateful and doesn’t consider he’s being bullied by a classics graduate. Can the Inspector respectfully suggest that you create your own blog site whereby you can screen out underachievers as the Inspector clearly appears to you. Good luck...

23 October 2011 at 13:22  
Blogger len said...

OoIG and Dodo,

If you continue to promote false doctrine it is my duty and the duty of every Christian to counter false claims(backed up by Scripture)
When you are unable to use scripture to support your claims (because there aren`t any) you resort to personal attacks which really exposes the futility of your arguments.
Being' Born again' is a command of Jesus which you casually deride as you do much of Holy Scripture.
You and your sidekick Dodo are bullies but as I proclaim the True Gospel I expect opposition from those in the 'other camp' 'so to speak.
I feel no personal animosity towards you or anyone else only the religious systems you promote.

In the true spirit of Christianity I forgive you(and others)and I will continue (with His Graces`s kind permission ) to preach the Gospel and counter error whenever possible.

23 October 2011 at 13:49  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

There really is no peace with you around, is there... but as I proclaim the True Gospel Priceless !

You have no intention in joining in with the spirit of this site – you merely parasite it....

23 October 2011 at 14:02  
Blogger len said...

OoIG There is only One Spirit I ever wish to be joined with!
So it is written: "The first man Adam became a living being"; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit.

23 October 2011 at 14:51  
Blogger len said...

I know the phrase (indeed the command) used by Jesus"you must be born again" offends some peoples sensibilities but this is the whole purpose of Jesus mission to Earth.!If this vital point is missed all you are left with is a useless powerless religion.
Second Corinthians 5:17 says, “Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new
creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.” The phrase
“in Christ” is a terminology that is used over 300 times in the New Testament, always
referring to a vital union relationship with God. Once that takes place, you become a new
creature. Some translations actually say “a new creation.”

Indeed the old creation [in Adam] was condemned as being totally irredeemable by God( although some seem to persist in trying to reform this 'old creation' by teaching it

23 October 2011 at 15:00  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

For God’s sake – they were trying to convert (...look that word up...) people to Christianity – It doesn’t apply to existing Christians, you damn fool !!!

(....That’s it, where’s that spade...)

23 October 2011 at 15:15  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...


Calm down man. We need to exercise rstraint or 'excommunication' beckons - especially for me.

Mea culpa I am the dastardly person who posts occasionally under the monikers The Worker, Serpents and Doves and Man with No Name.

From memory, I have never used it as a tactic to attack or bully anyone - just to make the odd point outside of one's usual persona.

Is this a forbidden practice?

23 October 2011 at 16:22  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...


The Inspector is most concerned – rather underhand tactics you know. Something Johnny Foreigner would reach for, but a Briton – well really !!

But why, when your comments stand up so well under scrutiny – that’s the puzzling bit...

No wonder the Archbishop is furious with you; so best behaviour from now on. Consider yourself caned. Expulsion beckons you know if you persist.

Carry on...

23 October 2011 at 16:40  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

Oh, I forgot to mention the couple of posts by Irish Viking (tobuild a bridge with English Viking) and one or two from God (for amusement) and, while I'm at it it's best get them all in the open, Mr's Dodo (for comfort) and Chancellor More.

Well, there's my full and frank confession. If I've overlooked any then it's a case of poor memory.

And my penance is ......

23 October 2011 at 16:40  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...


Indeed, his forbearance has generous.

My Irish and Jewish blood is all I can offer by way of an explanation. Not a true Brit you see. Also, being new to blogging, it was so tempting.

Still, a new leaf turned over and all the old identities consigned to the 'delete' button.

Maybe it's the Jesuit in me?

23 October 2011 at 16:44  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...


The Inspector is himself a product of the Emerald Isle, not a drop of English blood in him (...unless you count English settlement...). Plenty of Viking blood though ! The Inspector has embraced the British way of life. You see, there’s nothing quite like it in the world, you know. God is truly an Englishman.

He was right you know, the Archbishop was after your wishbone. What do you say to that !

(If all goes well, should be a new image of your man on his profile, getting on a bit now...)

23 October 2011 at 17:07  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...


“And the accused would like the following similar misdemeanours to be taken into account, your honour” Quite incorrigible aren't you !!

23 October 2011 at 17:17  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...


I await my fate.

" ... and you may be sure that your sin will find you out."

I may update my name - not my picture - to remind myself of my need tocomply with the rules of proper conduct.

23 October 2011 at 17:32  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

Archbishop Cranmer

Mea maxima culpa.

Apologies to you for your forebearance and to other bloggers for the misuse of your sight. It will not happen again - under pain of blogger death!

23 October 2011 at 17:37  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Not to 'weatsop' I hope - that one is reserved...

23 October 2011 at 17:40  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "Is this a forbidden practice?"

It's ... there's ... one must surely ... how can ... gah! There's no words other than you must have no sense of shame at all.

23 October 2011 at 18:15  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...


I know!


Unreserved and unconditional - to one and all.

Now stop or you'll be penalised too. We've been warned!

23 October 2011 at 19:07  
Blogger bluedog said...

Your Grace, thy rod and thy staff, they comfort me.

23 October 2011 at 19:31  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Dick Dastardly Dodo (Sassa frassen rassa frassa...)'fessed'

"Mea culpa I am the dastardly person who posts occasionally under the monikers The Worker, Serpents and Doves and Man with No Name.


Oh, I forgot to mention the couple of posts by Irish Viking (tobuild a bridge with English Viking) and one or two from God (for amusement) and, while I'm at it it's best get them all in the open, Mr's Dodo (for comfort) and Chancellor More.

Well, there's my full and frank confession. If I've overlooked any then it's a case of poor memory."

You don't say and SUCH FORM! *Chortling at such heartwarming fession's* but is that all your 'persona non gratas' you would like to unburden that poor tortured Fowl of yours from? *Guffaws loudly*

Dear chap, are we poor non roman catholics allowed to hear such 'fessions' and are they not the perogative of that priesthood of your's to hear.
Will you not confess such terrible behaviour to your priest, father o'shaunassey, so WE must absolve you? * Shoulders jumping like crazy*

For the sake of you not shaming yourself (as you really should) at your local church, Ernst will oblige on behalf of other Non RC's here.

Say three 'wheels on the bus' and 2 'hickory dickory docks'.

There, don't you feel better now?

Tibi Ignosco ! in nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritūs Sancti. *et hoc genus omne*

Ernst 'the fessional forgiver' Blofeld

bluedog said...

'Your Grace, thy rod and thy staff, they comfort me.' Indeed, my favourite multi-coloured hound, Ernst has advised Dodo that His Grace has eyes in the back of His Urn!

Can't wait for Ernst's internet to be restored tomorrow.
A distinct telling off from His Grace for 'you know who' and Ernst missed it! Blast.

23 October 2011 at 19:54  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Richard Branson

If Ernst's internet is not fully restored by tomorrow as promised by that nice 'Dave' from bangladesh, You will receive the full force of an operational crater merely for the pleasure.

You have not taken into account Ernst previous displeasure at promising him 30 mb when all he received was 10 or do you think that damage done to that luxury island was mere chance.

You have been warned bearded fool.
Ernst with no internet is unbearable and you will need to change your name to Branston as you will be made pickle of.

Ernst 'you are in the last chance saloon, branson' Blofeld

23 October 2011 at 20:05  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...


Nobody disputes the need to be reborn from above and to be joined to Christ. So stop suggesting they do. It is the means whereby this is accomplished that is under discussion.

In John 3 Jesus equates “born again” or “born from above” with “born of water and the Spirit” i.e baptisism. The Evangelist tells us that immediately after talking with Nicodemus, Jesus took his disciples into the wilderness where they baptised people (John 3:22). So it really isn't that difficult to make the link.

John clearly understands Jesus' words about being “born again” and “born of water and the Spirit” to have a sacramental meaning.
This is still the understanding in Roman Catholicism, Anglicanism, Lutheranism and Eastern Orthodoxy.

Are they all wrong and only you right?

The idea you promote refers to a conversion experience, accepting Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior in order to be saved from Hell and given eternal life with God in Heaven. Other mainstream Christians see it differently, a journey of faith in Christ following baptism and a conversion of the heart over time, an interior conversion, drawn and moved by grace to respond to the merciful love of God.

I've witnessed evangelical meetings and the formulaic:
"Lord Jesus, I believe in You. I accept You. Please come into my life. I commit it to You."
Maybe it works for you and for others. For me, it seemed shallow and theatrical. However, that's as maybe, baptism by water and the spirit is still necessary - as commanded and practiced by Jesus.

23 October 2011 at 20:13  
Blogger non mouse said...

Your Grace, --
With Mr. bluedog and Mr. Blofeld, may I say:
"Thy rod and thy staff, they comfort me."

23 October 2011 at 20:31  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...


Thank you for being so generous in you forgiveness.

This is, of course, a non-sacramental form of confession, being secular in nature. I doubt my priest, who is not Irish, would know what I was talking about!

For goodness sake, do try and kept this under wraps. If English Viking ever finds out my life will become unbearable!

23 October 2011 at 20:40  
Blogger len said...

Dodo you being a self confessed fraud AND having multiple personalities why on Earth should I accept anything you say?

23 October 2011 at 21:10  
Blogger len said...

Your conversion was short lived! You are now mocking those who come before Christ in all sincerity and honesty claiming their salvation.
Is there no depths you will not stoop to?.

23 October 2011 at 21:14  
Blogger len said...

Dodo, Catholics can pour water over babies heads `till the cows come home but unless God wills it it will not happen.
And could or would God work through a religious system which has supplanted His Son with a mortal( AKA the Pope?.)

You mention Sacraments!

Over time, the Roman Catholic Church has abandoned biblical teaching on faith and on God’s means of communicating saving grace and established instead a full blown sacramental system as the means by which salvation comes to man. The Council of Trent’s decree in 1547 is explicit about the importance of the sacraments:

Canon IV. If anyone saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous; and that, without them, or without the desire thereof, men obtain of God, through faith alone, the grace of justification; — though all [the sacraments] are not indeed necessary for every individual: let him be anathema. (which is a curse although the Bible says Bless and not Curse, and the Catholic church attempts to'corner the market' on salvation so to speak)
So how does the new Birth come about? let us go to the scriptures. " In his great mercy he (God the Father) has given us new birth into a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, and into an inheritance that can never perish, spoil or fade—kept in heaven for you ..." (1 Peter 1:3-4, NIV)

23 October 2011 at 21:28  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...


Fraud? I've owned up to having a number of other blog monikers. Let's keep this in perspective.

Please don't go all self righteous on me. That would so out of character for your usual humble pose.

Do remember:

"Then came Peter unto him and said: Lord, how often shall my brother offend against me, and I forgive him? Till seven times? Jesus said to him: I say not to you, till seven times; but till seventy times seven times."

Or does this only apply to your small group of 'born again' brethen?

And come on, be serious, when have you ever accepted anything of substance 'The Way of the Dodo' has said?

23 October 2011 at 21:33  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...


We are soon to face the full sarcasm of Mr Bloe. You’ve probably ADDED a couple of years onto his lifespan. You are looking for a new name, how about “Doing Bird”

Len, you can fu....I mean you’re wrong again, as usual. (....Apologies Archbishop...)

non mouse and bluedog, what are you staring at....

The Inspector feels very let down tonight...

23 October 2011 at 21:45  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...


This from someone who denounces and mocks the wonderful, God given sacrament of baptism held sacred by millions of Catholics, Lutherans, Anglicans and Eastern Orthodox Christians for centuries?

"Catholics (Lutherans, Anglicans and Eastern Orthodox Christians too?) can pour water over babies heads till the cows come home ..."

There is nothing inconsistent with this and the scripture you have quoted. The vast majority of Christians see life as a journey of faith in Christ following our spiritual death and rebirth in Him at our baptism, and, thereafter, a conversion of the heart over time, an interior conversion, drawn and moved by grace to respond to the merciful love of God.

This is not a uniquely Catholic doctrine. Have you such contempt for the faith of millions?

23 October 2011 at 21:51  
Blogger len said...

Dodo, When the jailor asked Paul what he must do to be saved, Paul did NOT say, "Believe on Jesus and be baptized and take communion." Rather, Paul said, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household" (v. 31). Thus, we see that it is faith that is the ingredient necessary for salvation. It was understood that one who believed would be baptized, but baptism was not necessary for salvation. If it were, Paul would have given it more weight in his missionary journeys (1 Corinthians 1:14-18).

23 October 2011 at 21:56  
Blogger len said...

Dodo, Again and again throughout Scripture, faith, not faith PLUS baptism, is seen as the means through which one receives salvation (John 1:12; 3:14-16; Ephesians 2:8-9; Romans 3:19-26; 4; 10:9-13; etc.).

The grace we will ever need is received the moment we trust Jesus, by faith, as Savior (Ephesians 2:8-9). The saving grace that is granted at the moment of genuine faith is the only saving grace God’s Word calls on us to receive. This grace is received by faith, not by observing rituals. So, while the seven sacraments are “good things to do,” when they are understood in a biblical context, the concept of the seven sacraments as “conferring sanctifying grace” is completely unbiblical.

23 October 2011 at 22:00  
Blogger len said...

Also, I have yet to hear an infant repenting and confessing his or her sins before being Baptised?.

23 October 2011 at 22:01  
Blogger len said...

Of course if salvation can be obtained without the Catholic Church that would make the Catholic Church and its 'systems' somewhat redundant and that would never do ....would it.?

23 October 2011 at 22:04  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...


We could go on forever!

In Acts 22:16, Ananias tells Paul, “Get up, be baptised and wash your sins away, calling upon his name.”

Let's leave it at that. I see your understanding as being wrong and unbiblical. You counter you are right and that Catholic, Lutheran, Anglican and Eastern Orthodox Churches are all wrong. Indeed, as Churches, according to you, they all promote a false anti-Christian message.

Not much room for further discussion is there?

23 October 2011 at 22:10  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...


I was heartened by the comments of Ernsty.

The only person who seems to have got any personal satisfaction from this is our old friend - the nameless one.

Why are you feeling let down? I confessed to remove all suspicion from you as Mr Cranmer made it clear one of us was misbehaving. I quess it has given our foes material to chuck at us. You could always disown me.

If I survive the storm will be weathered and soon pass, just so long as Viking doesn't find out. If he does the abuse will goon forever!

23 October 2011 at 22:31  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

Ernsty, non mouse and bluedog

Thank you for your references to Psalm 23 - so wonderfully comforting.

"And your mercy will follow me all the days of my life."

23 October 2011 at 22:48  
Blogger len said...

Paul was baptised AFTER his conversion as I was!.

I hope you weather the storm as I feel you have been led astray by bad company.
Will pray for you and your accomplice.
Oh one last thing....being born again is not a 'super special Christian'but a basic requirement, entry level Christianity.

24 October 2011 at 22:59  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...



It's unbecoming and unchristian for us to continue all this unseemly disagreement about the merits of baptism v's being reborn from above. You've made up your mind and your questions are rhetorical and merely posed so you can come back and 'sell' you particular evangelical message.

I wont be playing along anymore.

You are in a minority on this issue and I'm not too sure why you seem to be fixated on Roman Catholicism when, as I've repeated stated, it's an Anglican, Lutheran and Eastern Orthodx position too - as is Apostolic succession.

Were you baptised and confirmed as a Catholic? Is that it?

Just consider the impact all this has on the those who are seeking God. They don't want to hear about theological disagreements and witness this acrimony. It puts a barrier in their way. At its core Christianity is really very simple.

It's underhanded to refer to my having being 'led astray' and to having an 'accomplice'. So we got infuriated with you banging on about our faith and had a some fun mocking you. You'll get over it. Please don't over-work it. You are a big boy now and I'm sure have encountered worse.

Oh, one last thing, baptism by water as a child, with adults representing us, does lead to our spiritual rebirth and regeneration as we join Christ in His death and His resurrection. This is a Christian believe dating back tothe earliest days of Christianity and is accepted by all the major denominations.

25 October 2011 at 02:11  
Blogger len said...

The futility of infant baptism is keeping many people out of the Kingdom of God.
Baptizing a baby has no spiritual meaning to that baby and those who promote this practice have a confounded viewpoint that somehow faith and grace and salvation and regeneration and entrance into the church is all dumped into that little baby at the point at which water is dumped on its head. Nothing to do with the gospel of faith at all.
Infant baptism just totally throws us into chaos because the world is full of these baby baptized adults who range everywhere from the hypocritically religious through the indifference of the blasphemous. They're not in the church. They can't be included in the church. And if infant baptism saved them, then salvation doesn't change anybody.

25 October 2011 at 19:09  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...



Your words are offensive to all Christians who accept Baptism by water and the Baptism of children. Are you claiming all such people are not Christian? That they are not saved and will be eternally damned?

Who gave youthis authority? And who are you to judge other people?

Here'a some 'homework' for you:

Born Again in Water Baptism

John 1:32 - when Jesus was baptized, He was baptized in the water and the Spirit, which descended upon Him in the form of a dove. The Holy Spirit and water are required for baptism. Also, Jesus’ baptism was not the Christian baptism He later instituted. Jesus’ baptism was instead a royal anointing of the Son of David (Jesus) conferred by a Levite (John the Baptist) to reveal Christ to Israel, as it was foreshadowed in 1 Kings 1:39 when the Son of David (Solomon) was anointed by the Levitical priest Zadok. See John 1:31; cf. Matt. 3:16; Mark 1:9; Luke 3:21.
John 3:3,5 - Jesus says, "Truly, truly, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." When Jesus said "water and the Spirit," He was referring to baptism (which requires the use of water, and the work of the Spirit).

John 3:22 - after teaching on baptism, John says Jesus and the disciples did what? They went into Judea where the disciples baptized. Jesus' teaching about being reborn by water and the Spirit is in the context of baptism.

John 4:1 - here is another reference to baptism which naturally flows from Jesus' baptismal teaching in John 3:3-5.
Acts 8:36 – the eunuch recognizes the necessity of water for his baptism. Water and baptism are never separated in the Scriptures.
Acts 10:47 - Peter says "can anyone forbid water for baptizing these people..?" The Bible always links water and baptism.

Acts 22:16 – Ananias tells Saul, “arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins.” The “washing away” refers to water baptism.
Titus 3:5-6 – Paul writes about the “washing of regeneration,” which is “poured out on us” in reference to water baptism. “Washing” (loutron) generally refers to a ritual washing with water.

Heb. 10:22 – the author is also writing about water baptism in this verse. “Having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water.” Our bodies are washed with pure water in water baptism.

2 Kings 5:14 - Naaman dipped himself seven times in the Jordan, and his flesh was restored like that of a child. This foreshadows the regenerative function of baptism, by water and the Holy Spirit.

Isaiah 44:3 - the Lord pours out His water and His Spirit. Water and the Spirit are linked to baptism. The Bible never separates them.

Ezek. 36:25-27 - the Lord promises He will sprinkle us with water to cleanse us from sin and give us a new heart and spirit. Paul refers to this verse in Heb. 10:22. The teaching of Ezekiel foreshadows the salvific nature of Christian baptism instituted by Jesus and taught in John 3:5, Titus 3:5, 1 Peter 3:21 and Acts 22:16.

25 October 2011 at 21:02  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

Baptism is Salvific, Not Just Symbolic

Matt. 28:19-20 - Jesus commands the apostles to baptize all people "in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit." Many Protestant churches are now teaching that baptism is only a symbolic ritual. This belief contradicts Scripture.

Acts 2:38 - Peter commands them to repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ in order to be actually forgiven of sin.

Matt. 28:19-20; Acts 2:38 - there is nothing in these passages or elsewhere in the Bible about baptism being symbolic.

Mark 16:16 - Jesus said "He who believes AND is baptized will be saved." Jesus says believing is not enough. Baptism is also required.

John 3:3,5 - unless we are "born again" of water and Spirit in baptism, we cannot enter into the kingdom of God. Baptism brings about salvation, not just a symbolism of our salvation.

Acts 8:12-13; 36; 10:47 - if belief is all one needs to be saved, why is everyone instantly baptized after learning of Jesus?

Acts 16:15; 31-33; 18:8; 19:2,5 - these texts present more examples of people learning of Jesus, and then immediately being baptized.

Acts 9:18 - Paul, even though he was directly chosen by Christ and immediately converted to Christianity, still had to be baptized to be forgiven his sin.

Acts 22:16 - Ananias tells Paul, "arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins," even though Paul was converted directly by Jesus Christ. Ananias' phrase "wash away" means an actual cleansing which removes sin.

Rom. 6:4 - in baptism, we actually die with Christ so that we, like Him, might be raised to newness of life.

1 Cor. 6:11 - Paul says they were washed, sanctified, and justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, in reference to baptism. The “washing” of baptism gives birth to sanctification and justification.

Gal. 3:27 - whoever is baptized in Christ puts on Christ. Christ actually dwells within our soul.

Col. 2:12 - in baptism, we literally die with Christ and are raised with Christ.

Titus 3:5-7 – “He saved us by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit, which He poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ, so that we might be justified by His grace and become heirs of eternal life.” The “washing of regeneration” “saves us.”

Heb. 10:22 - in baptism, our hearts are sprinkled clean from an evil conscience (again, dealing with the interior of the person) as our bodies are washed with pure water (the waters of baptism). Baptism regenerates us because it removes original sin, sanctifies our souls, and effects our adoption as sons and daughters in Jesus Christ.

1 Peter 3:21 - Peter expressly writes that “baptism, corresponding to Noah's ark, now saves you; not as a removal of dirt from the body, but for a clear conscience. “ Baptism is salvific (it saves us), and deals with the interior life of the person, and not the external life (removing dirt from the body).

Mark 16:16 - Jesus says that he who believes and is baptized will be saved.

Mark 10:38 - Jesus says "are you be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized?," referring to His death.

1 John 5:6 - Jesus came by water and blood. He was baptized by both water and blood. Martyrs are baptized by blood.

25 October 2011 at 21:34  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

Infant Baptism

Col 2:11-12 - baptism is the new "circumcision" for all people of the New Covenant. Therefore, baptism is for babies as well as adults.

Psalm 51:5 - we are conceived in the iniquity of sin. This shows the necessity of baptism from conception.

Matt. 18:2-5 - Jesus says unless we become like children, we cannot enter into heaven. So why would children be excluded from baptism?

Matt 19:14 - Jesus clearly says the kingdom of heaven also belongs to children.

Mark 10:14 - Jesus says to let the children come to Him for the kingdom of God also belongs to them. Jesus says nothing about being too young to come into the kingdom of God.

Mark 16:16 - Jesus says to the crowd, "He who believes and is baptized will be saved." But in reference to the same people, Jesus immediately follows with "He who does not believe will be condemned." This demonstrates that one can be baptized and still not be a believer.

Acts 2:38 - Peter says to the multitude, "Repent and be baptized.." The Greek translation literally says, "If you repent, then each one who is a part of you and yours must each be baptized” (“Metanoesate kai bapistheto hekastos hymon.”) This actually proves that babies are baptized based on their parents’ faith.

Acts 2:39 - Peter then says baptism is specifically given to children as well as adults. “Those far off” refers to those who were at their “homes” (primarily infants and children).

Acts 10:47-48 - Peter baptized the entire house of Cornelius, which generally included infants and young children.

Acts 16:15 - Paul baptized Lydia and her entire household. Paul baptizes the household based on Lydia's faith, not the faith of the members of the household.

Acts 16:33 - Paul baptized the jailer (an adult) and his entire household (which had to include children).

Rom. 5:12 - sin came through Adam and death through sin. Babies' souls are affected by Adam's sin and need baptism just like adult souls.

1 Cor. 1:16 - Paul baptized the household of Stephanus.

Eph. 2:3 - we are all by nature children of wrath, in sin, like all mankind. Babies should not be denied baptism because they are unable to make a declaration of faith.

Matt. 8:5-13 - the servant is healed based upon the centurion's faith. This is an example of healing based on another's faith.

Mark 9:22-25 - Jesus exercises the child's unclean spirit based on the father's faith.

1 Cor. 7:14 – Paul says that children are sanctified by God through the belief of only one of their parents.

25 October 2011 at 21:58  
Blogger len said...

Dodo, you seem to have strayed somewhat from the original point which was' baptism of infants' and thrown out a lot of verses(supposedly to support your position many of them are actually irrelevant)

Some of the verses you have used prove MY point not yours!

The point you seem to have missed (spectacularly)is which come first repentance or Baptism .

Baptism does not save a person. It does not matter if you were baptized by immersion, pouring, or sprinkling - if you have not first trusted in Christ for salvation, baptism (no matter the method) is meaningless and useless. Water baptism by immersion is a step of obedience to be done after salvation as a public profession of faith in Christ and identification with Him. Infant baptism does not fit the Biblical definition of baptism or the Biblical method of baptism. If Christian parents wish to dedicate their child to Christ, then a baby dedication service is entirely appropriate. However, even if infants are dedicated to the Lord, when they grow up they will still have to make a personal decision to believe in Jesus Christ in order to be saved.

25 October 2011 at 23:01  
Blogger len said...

Dodo, Infant baptism is not a Biblical practice. An infant cannot place his or her faith in Christ. An infant cannot make a conscious decision to obey Christ. An infant cannot understand what water baptism symbolizes. The Bible does not record any infants being baptized. Infant baptism is the origin of the sprinkling and pouring methods of baptism - as it is unwise and unsafe to immerse an infant under water. Even the method of infant baptism fails to agree with the Bible. How does pouring or sprinkling illustrate the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ?

25 October 2011 at 23:04  
Blogger len said...

God will not interfere with anyone`s free will.Because the parents make a choice for the child as to what religion that child will follow this negates the free will of the Child if they are then compelled to follow their parents religion.
Following Christ must be a conscious decision and not one taken for you!.

25 October 2011 at 23:09  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...


Do read the cited biblical passages!!!

You really are lost in your undertanding of baptism.

These passages from scripture show that repentance before baptism is not required. They show that baptism is the rebirth and regenertion. And, they show that infant baptism is valid.

And who on earth says baptism removes free will?! Even Jesus warned us we could sin after baptism.

25 October 2011 at 23:26  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

Pouring and Sprinkling versus Immersion

Ezek. 36:25 - Ezekiel prophesies that God "will 'sprinkle' clean water on you and you shall be clean."

Num. 19:18 – here, the verbs for dipping (“baptisantes”) and sprinkled (“bapsei”) refers to affusion (pouring) and sprinkling (aspersion), not immersion.

Matt. 3:11; Mark 1:8; Luke 3:16 - John the Baptist prophesied that Jesus will baptize ("baptisei") with the Holy Spirit and fire. In this case, "baptisei" refers to a "pouring" out over the head.

Matt. 20:22-23; Mark 10:38-39; Luke 12:50 - Jesus also talks about His baptism (from "baptizo") of blood, which was shed and sprinkled in His passion. But this baptism does not (and cannot) mean immersion.

Luke 11:38 - Jesus had not washed ("ebaptisthe") His hands before dinner. Here, the derivative of "baptizo" just means washing up, not immersing.

Acts 2:41 - at Peter's first sermon, 3,000 were baptized. There is archeological proof that immersion would have been impossible in this area. Instead, these 3,000 people had to be sprinkled in water baptism.

Acts 8:38 - because the verse says they "went down into the water," many Protestants say this is proof that baptism must be done by immersion. But the verb to describe Phillip and the eunuch going down into the water is the same verb ("katabaino") used in Acts 8:26 to describe the angel's instruction to Phillip to stop his chariot and go down to Gaza. The word has nothing to do with immersing oneself in water.

Acts 8:39 - because the verse says "they came up out of the water," many Protestants also use this verse to prove that baptism must be done by immersion. However, the Greek word for "coming up out of the water" is "anebesan" which is plural. The verse is describing that both Phillip and the eunuch ascended out of the water, but does not prove that they were both immersed in the water.

Acts 9:18; 22:16 - Paul is baptized while standing up in the house of Judas. There is no hot tub or swimming pool for immersion. This demonstrates that Paul was sprinkled.

Acts 16:33 - the baptism of the jailer and his household appears to be in the house, so immersion is not possible.

Acts 2:17,18,33 - the pouring of water is like the "pouring" out of the Holy Spirit. Pouring is also called "infusion" (of grace).

Titus 3:6 – the “washing of regeneration” (baptism) is “poured out” upon us. This “pouring out” generally refers to the pouring of baptismal waters over the head of the newly baptized.

Heb. 6:2 – on the doctrine of baptisms (the word used is “baptismos”) which generally referred to pouring and not immersion.

Heb. 10:22 – the author writes, “with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience.” This “sprinkling” of baptism refers to aspersion, not immersion.

Isaiah 44:3 - the Lord "pours" water on the thirsty land and "pours" His Spirit upon our descendants. The Lord is “pouring,” not “immersing.”

25 October 2011 at 23:41  
Blogger len said...

Dodo ,
You do not seem to be able to keep to the point in question, your verses are still irrelevant(you have gone from infant baptism to pouring water on the land, how is that relevant?)

To return to the point in question (which is infant Baptism in case you really have forgotten)
Notice each of the Bible examples of household conversions:
Cornelius' household - Acts 10:1-11:18; 15:7-11
Peter taught these people that God is no respecter of persons (10:34). So whatever anyone in the household did to be baptized, all the rest must have done the same things. Peter did not give two sets of rules, one for babies and another for adults.
Notice some things that people in this household did that babies cannot do: all in the household feared God (10:2,35); all came together to hear and receive what God had commanded (10:33,44; 11:1,14); they heard and believed (15:7,9; 10:43), they repented (11:18), and they were told to work righteousness (10:35). No babies baptized here!
Furthermore, since God is no respecter of persons, we are not going to find any examples of conversion in which less was required of people than in the examples we have already studied. Some examples may give fewer details, but no one in any household was baptized without faith, repentance, confession, etc. If such a case existed, God would be a respecter of persons.
Lydia's household - Acts 16:13-15,40
In this case there is no reason to believe that Lydia was even married, let alone that she had little children. The Bible teaches that, if a woman has a husband, he should be the head of the household (Eph. 5:22-25). So whenever the Bible refers to the activity of a household, if the husband is included in that activity, if the wife is mentioned by name then the man is also mentioned. (Notice how the other household conversions demonstrate this. Genealogies also followed this rule.)
Since Lydia's household was baptized, the fact that no man is mentioned would imply that she was the head of the household. Her household may have included relatives, especially older relatives, and perhaps servants, but no husband is implied, let alone children.
Paul later "encouraged" those who were brethren (NKJV), including Lydia's house (v40). Did this include babies?
The Jailer's household - Acts 16:23-34
Before this household was baptized, Paul spoke the word to all in the house (v32), and they believed (v31,34). Again, babies can't do these things, so no babies were included in the number baptized here.
Stephanas' household - 1 Corinthians 1:16; 16:15
Again, what verse says there were babies in this household? Note that Stephanas' house ministered to the saints. Again, people who are baptized must be old enough to be active in God's work as members of the church. This does not include babies.
The household conversions do not disprove what we have learned elsewhere. Instead they harmonize with it. All who are baptized must do things that babies cannot do. Therefore, the command to be baptized does not include babies. When people baptize babies, they follow human authority, and they displease God.

Dodo you are trying to prove your point by trailing out' red herrings 'as a means of distraction which means your argument has failed why don`t you just admit it or must we carry on this farce?.

26 October 2011 at 00:00  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...


You're clearly no biblical scholar! The bible has to be read as a unified whole. It's no good isolating individual passages. The Old Testament foreshadowed the New Testament.

Why not read the passages I've cited respectfully and allow the Holy Spirit to guide you in your understanding? The barrier to understanding is your stubborness and insecurity.

I will never accept your over simplification of scripture and your distortion of the biblical basis for seeing baptism as spiritual rebirth and for infant baptism.

You are carrying on the 'farce' as you call it.

Do you really expect me to stand by and see you corrupt God's word?

26 October 2011 at 01:18  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...


I end where I started:

"Your words are offensive to all Christians who accept Baptism by water and the Baptism of children. Are you claiming all such people are not Christian? That they are not saved and will be eternally damned?

Who gave you this authority? And who are you to judge other people?"

Your's is the worst kind of 'christianity'. Exclusive and judgemental - faults you dare to accuse Roman Catholicism of! So you've had a life changing 'encounter'. Others haven't. Meaning what?

The cited texts cover all your points. Do read them. I'llsaynomore.

No doubt you'll want the last word.

Keep it brief.

26 October 2011 at 01:28  
Blogger len said...

Dodo, even Catholic theologians state that the practice of infant Baptism is impossible to verify through scripture, the reason being that it isn`t there!.
Scripture does not teach that water baptism is the means of regeneration and forgiveness of sins, and the early Church’s rapid slide into believing that it does reflects the same error of the Jews under the Old Testament dispensation when, as the people of God they had taught that an individual entered into God’s covenant through the rite of circumcision. What may be called sacramental regeneration is the very mistake Paul clearly addressed in the epistle to the Romans. In chapters two to four he exposed the distinction between an outward, physical circumcision and a spiritual circumcision which takes place in the heart by the Spirit of God. He pointed out that though one may be physically circumcised as a Jew, this did not mean that one was spiritually circumcised. True circumcision of the heart, he wrote, would result in moral changes and in righteous living. Physical circumcision apart from the inner circumcision of the heart which results in a transformation of life was meaningless and empty — and could lead to the blaspheming of God because the life that was lived denied the profession that was made.
It is extremely important that the facts about infant baptism are brought to light because countless millions baptised as infants assume that they are'Christians' when in fact they are not.

This is my last word unless you post again!.

26 October 2011 at 08:16  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...


We'll leave it be. By your judgement Christians have been wrong for 2000 years. Never mind, we have you to put us back on the right path now.

26 October 2011 at 09:09  
Blogger Oswin said...

Len @ 08:16 :

A most interesting piece Len!

The whole area of baptism is a fascinating one. I tend to agree with your summation, but perhaps feel that it a tad too negative (yes, I realise you were in converation with Dodo!).

The baptism of infants is yet another of those Christian 'over-ridings' of previous, non-Christian rituals. Unlike our Pagan friends, I find nothing wrong with this, being something of a natural progression. Forgive my rather loose choice of words here, but it was, and still is, regarded as 'powerful magic' - the intent is an honest and honourable one. Especially so, when furthered by a later 'Confirmation' - it is a 'good start' in my opinion, not withstanding your own, most valid caution.

27 October 2011 at 16:03  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...


Heretic ...

27 October 2011 at 22:11  
Blogger Oswin said...

Hell, Dodo is now ordering stockpiles of railway sleepers! (I'd say 'faggots' but I don't wish to give the wrong opinion)

28 October 2011 at 01:01  
Blogger Oswin said...

sorry: I meant 'impression'& not ''opinion'' - a glass too many of the old sloe gin!

28 October 2011 at 01:05  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...


No, no, visits in the night, visits in the night, friend. Quick, silent, effective and leaves no carbon footprint.

29 October 2011 at 10:06  
Blogger Oswin said...

Hm, an ecologically sound Dodo; or a Jesuit juice-extractor? ;o)

29 October 2011 at 14:43  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...


One doesn't necessarily rule the other out.

29 October 2011 at 16:54  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older