Wednesday, November 16, 2011

Rainbow street signs establish Liverpool ‘gay area’

Longtime readers of this blog will know that His Grace is of an essentially latitudinal and tolerant disposition: he eschews the extremes of political ideology, schismatic theology and abstract philosophy in favour of a plethora of viae mediae, even when they may be mutually exclusive or held ‘in tension’, often to the immense frustration of some of his more robust readers and communicants.

The title of this blog post may sound like a joke, but it really isn’t. And His Grace really (no, really) wouldn’t have much of a problem with it, if it were not for the inexorable ascendancy of the emerging hierarchy of competing and mutually-exclusive rights with which Labour has unremittingly burdened the British taxpayer and irredeemably corrupted all political discourse.

We have set religious liberties against gay rights and we have sexual equality legislation which infringes freedom of conscience. The law which was designed to protect minorities from discrimination is riding roughshod over the rights and beliefs of the majority. There is no limit to the application of such a principle. As the Archbishop of Canterbury observed: 'By legislating to protect and promote the rights of particular groups, the government is faced with the delicate but important challenge of not thereby creating the conditions within which others feel their rights have been ignored or sacrificed, or in which the dictates of personal conscience are put at risk'

Now it transpires that homosexuals in Liverpool are being granted their own brightly-coloured street signs emblazoned with rainbows, and these signs are just so happy and gay (that is, if one is any longer permitted to use that word in its original sense of possessing a merry, lively mood or showing extravagance and ornament). Lest anyone be confused by this development in highway insignia, there are no street signs featuring Bungle, Zippy, George, or even Geoffrey: just up above the streets and houses, rainbow climbing high. Everyone can see it smiling over the sky. Paint the whole world with a...

Oh, sorry.

As His Grace was saying, the rainbow (Gen 9:13) has been appropriated by the homosexual community/ies rather like the word ‘gay’ (not to mention Abba, Kylie, the colour purple [not the film – yet] and male grooming). Liverpool has become the first city in Britain to have street signs featuring rainbows, the first of which was unveiled last week on Stanley Street at the heart of the city’s ‘gay quarter’.

Apparently, these rainbows will also feature on Cumberland Street, Temple Lane, Eberle Street and Temple Street, after a decision by the city’s council to recognise the Stanley Street quarter as a ‘gay area’.

Now then, these signs are all very nice and jolly and would brighten up any neglected and rundown area. But the inescapable logic of this precedent (paid for, of course, by the Council Tax-payer) is that any geographic area typified by a distinct identity could now be subject to a barrage of ‘equality’ demands for councils to endow street signs with sundry logos.

Should the entirety of Brighton’s streets be recast with rainbow signage? Or Soho? And what about the straight areas? Should there be a whatever-the-logo-for-‘straight’-is in (say) Newcastle? Or is it only minorities which get dedicated street signs?

How about putting Labour’s logo all over Barnsley? Or the Tory logo over Gerrards Cross? Or Banbury Cross? Or the LibDem logo on rubbish bins? Talking of crosses, why don’t we have the Christian symbol on streets around Holy Trinity Brompton? Or the Sikh khanda in Southall? Or some expression of Islamic incursion and ownership in Minaret Tower Hamlets or Leyton?

O, hang on.

We already have some of the more robust followers of Mohammed demanding: ‘How dare you come to a Muslim area?’ And they know what they’re doing. Where they are in a majority, it becomes a territorial land-grab for Allah – part of the dar-al-Islam, where sharia law prevails. This leads to a rejection of the unbelieving kuffar, or the demand of special taxes upon them and the imposition of the sharia criminal code administered through sharia courts. There is a de facto ban on alcohol consumption in public, and many pubs and bars are forced to close. The advertising of ladies underwear is prohibited, and there are certainly no gay bars.

His Grace is not saying that those behind street signage with gay rainbows are as bad as those who seek to blow us all to kingdom come: but the alienating effects upon some straight people may be just as keenly felt as it is by the infidel gays who dare to venture into a ‘Muslim area’ where a rigorous policy of ‘no gays’ is in operation. It is ironic that, as our public space becomes more secular (and so, we are told, more ‘neutral’), we are apportioning a distinct sexual identity to entire quarters of our main cities. The logic of what must follow, under the provisions of the Equality Act 2010, is inescapable.

147 Comments:

Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

It’s a queer old world Your Grace, WHAT !

16 November 2011 at 07:49  
Blogger AncientBriton said...

Queer it is:
http://ancientbritonpetros.blogspot.com/2011/11/queer-street.html

16 November 2011 at 07:56  
Blogger Gnostic said...

If this spreads there are going to be an awful lot of sheep emblazoned signs going up...

16 November 2011 at 08:40  
Blogger Gary said...

Ghetto mentality rules. It's every group/gang/party/cult for itself as society tears itself apart.

16 November 2011 at 09:08  
Blogger IanVisits said...

Can one presume that you are equally horrified by the street signs proclaiming China Town in London's West End?

Or that next door, street signs tell you that this is TheatreLand?

16 November 2011 at 09:26  
Blogger blondpidge said...

Of course Christians could always reclaim the Rainbow which is, if I remember correctly, a sign of the everlasting covenant between God and his people.

16 November 2011 at 09:31  
Blogger Johnnyrvf said...

As the Kalashnikov AK47 Assault rifle is the 'new' symbol of islam, do you think our oh so politically correct councillors will be falling over themselves to erect these signs in islamic ghettos?

16 November 2011 at 09:32  
Blogger David B said...

A couple of observations.

One being that this is not the sort of problem - for problem it is, I think - that is faced by Britain alone.

There was a recent furore, as I recall, in an area of New York where a rule of having women sit at the back of busses was being imposed in an Orthodox Jewish enclave.

Another - that for all the tensions raised by the sort of anti-discrimination legislation we have, none of us, I trust, would wish to return to the days when people could, with impunity, offer goods and services with an explicit 'No blacks or Irish' sign alongside.

To my mind we, as a society, should have learnt by now though, that ghettoisation is a bad thing. We have the evidence of Northern Ireland to look at, just for a start.

Should particular enclaves of cities be recognised and respected as specifically gay, Islamic or Orthodox Jewish or whatever enclaves? I think not.

David B

16 November 2011 at 09:41  
Blogger Albert said...

I thought the point of the rainbow, was not so much to be a sign of homosexuality, but to be a sign of diversity. But if this is a "gay area" of Liverpool, that doesn't sound very diverse. Most people aren't gay. Or is the idea that this is the only really diverse area, as here both gays and non-gays are allowed, whereas everywhere else it's just straight people? Sounds like a ghetto to me. The litany of Muslim areas or Catholic areas or Tory areas etc. reminds us, that, yet again, things are being claimed for homosexuals that would be at best laughed at for anyone else, but at worst utterly offensive.

I believe in absolute human rights for all people irrespective of sexuality. What I find disgraceful is the giving of greater rights to homosexuals than to others. It's called "discrimination".

16 November 2011 at 10:02  
Blogger Maturecheese said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

16 November 2011 at 10:53  
Blogger Maturecheese said...

Gary 09:08

You are right on the money. This is exactly what multi culturism is and how our esteemed leaders can say it's a good thing, escapes me. Their answer to the problems you so clearly espoused, is more of the same with laws to make it happen. Obey or else!

16 November 2011 10:53

You are also right David B as no one want's to return to 'no Blacks' etc but the values
of those times were on the whole, better.

16 November 2011 at 11:25  
Blogger Fr Ivor Biggin said...

Surely there should be areas for insufferable bigots like yourself.

16 November 2011 at 11:33  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

16 November 2011 at 11:54  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Your Grace,

In Toronto we have a few street signs like this here and there, identifying some famous ethnic areas such as our old China Town and the (once) predominantly Greek area, a "Little Italy," some forgotten former villages that have been eaten up by urban sprawl and a few old old industries, such as our now-posh and fashionable Distillery District. All for commercial reasons, good clean fun and cuteness, to be sure. In that context, having a Gay district marked off with street signs would be consistent and acceptable.

Still, being of the congenitally paranoid persuasion, stuff like this always made me a little queesy. To our frontiersman's psyche here, there is something very un-Canadian, un-North American and, no offense, very "Old World" European...not to mention Ottoman and mediaeval...about it, this official designation of quarters business. Here, the trend has been for immigrants to get away from such temporary clusterings and to climb te social ladder by blending with the larger society, something which had to be fought for economically, culturally and legislatively. My fear is that this new fashion is the first tentative step backward and that one day the next logical step might be for the municipal authorities to designate places such as Jews' Street or judengasse or, perish the thought, something like "The Little Ghetto." And to get the bus tour business during the day, why not some ghetto walls with gates, a hired pitchfork crowd and a golem or two to scare and pacify the judenhassers?

It's all harmless stuff at this point compared to the Muslim enclaves you describe Your Grace(which, if I din't know you beter, I would've thought as wild exaggerations), but it bears to remember that all ghettos began first as practical communal and commercial arrangements in convenient districts, which was all fine, until city governments began planning and designating them, building defenses to keep the nasties away at night, and eventually turning them into around the clock open air prisons to hold the inmates in. Creepy stuff indeed, Your Grace.

16 November 2011 at 12:08  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

Please forgive me Mr Cranmer, but I just can't help myself:

Did you hear about the two homosexual men who went to London?

They were really annoyed when they found out that Big Ben was a clock!

16 November 2011 at 12:16  
Blogger Hereward said...

Don't worry YG, all these silly signs will eventually be recycled into armaments to defend us against the unwelcome attentions of our European "partners".

16 November 2011 at 12:18  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

Avi, should you decide to translate the above joke into German u will need to take care!

16 November 2011 at 12:25  
Blogger St. Nikao said...

Harrumph. Then they ought to have streets in Islamist-dominated areas marked with "DANGER Warning - High Risk Misogyny and Rape Zones. Women do not have rights here."

16 November 2011 at 12:31  
Blogger St. Nikao said...

"And the Rainbow needs to be reclaimed as a symbol of God's promise not reinforced as a symbol of sexual deviation and sin."

Agree with Dodo here.

16 November 2011 at 12:33  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Dodo,

My German, learned as a child, is all but gone now....der Grosse Ben Glock? Somehow reminds me of the time I snuck into a Vienna movie theatre with a friend to catch the newly-released film, A Clockwork Ornage, translated as Uhrwerk Orange. Thought it was...and still think it is...the bestest flick I'd ever seen. Mercifully, it was shown with subtitles, not dubbed.

16 November 2011 at 12:51  
Blogger Mr Integrity said...

You’re Grace,
I'm sure you are aware that in 1516, seven hundred Jews were forced to move to a rundown part of Venice, then, an abandoned site of a 14th-century foundry that produced cannons. The word "ghetto," soon used throughout Europe for the neighbourhoods of isolated minority groups, originated in Venice: geto is old Venetian dialect for "foundry."
Amusingly according to the great Bard, 'Shylock' was a part of that community and was in torment as to which was his grater loss. His daughter or his Ducats.
Perhaps a small Island somewhere off the west coast where our non heterosexual fellow homo sapiens could be invited to reside to perform their sodomistic behaviour!
They talk about coming out of the closet, but in the fifties they were hardly ever heard of. Must have been a very large closet. The inordinate increase in their numbers (but still a very small percentage nationally) can surely only be attributed to the vocal strains of the pressure groups propounding that their way was an acceptable way and should be tried.
A balancing resounding voice needs to be broadcast, that is if it were to be allowed.

16 November 2011 at 12:59  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Hereward said, "...these silly signs will eventually be recycled into armaments to defend us against the unwelcome attentions of our European 'partners'."

Sounds like unfair asymetrical warfare. What will the EU fight with? Bombardments with bundles of deflated currency, sappy posters, song fests and stricter regulations on sausages?

16 November 2011 at 13:05  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

It is not right for homosexuals to commandeer the Rainbow as it's already the logo of the Rainbow Trust Children’s Charity for kids with life threatening and terminal illnesses who's parents need support and respite care. Is homosexuality now classed as a long term life threatening illness??? Better stick to the pink Triangle.

16 November 2011 at 13:51  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

Triangle sign meaning warning of course!

16 November 2011 at 13:53  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

Avi, the EU will retaliate by dropping blazing faggots over London. (Not the chopped meat variety, of course.)

16 November 2011 at 13:59  
Blogger Theo said...

A triangle is an apt warning sign. It is a warning that the nation will fall under God's judgement for recognising and celebrating something he regards as an abomination. It is a warning that you are entering an area of high rates of paedophilic abuse and sexually transmitted diseases and it is a warning that family life is under threat from a society that has no respect for our Creators purpose in the relationship between a man and a woman.

16 November 2011 at 15:39  
Blogger Oswin said...

Fr.Ivor Bigg'un @ 11:33

Have you seen the price of property in such areas??? Alas, many have to live within less desirable post-codes; and they don't much like it!

16 November 2011 at 15:41  
Blogger Sam Vega said...

"His Grace is not saying that those behind street signage with gay rainbows are as bad as those who seek to blow us all to kingdom come"

Your Grace, those responsible for the signage probably don't want to blow you either.

16 November 2011 at 15:55  
Blogger Oswin said...

Naughty bad boy!

16 November 2011 at 15:57  
Blogger Maturecheese said...

If the Bigot comment was aimed at me you forgot to add Racist, xenophobic, Homophobic, Islamaphobic, and Far Right. I am most put out.

16 November 2011 at 17:11  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

I have to say that we've been plotting to take over the world through the medium of signage for a while now. For instance, we've sneakily installed this sign in a number of hospitals to promote our homosexualist agenda by encouraging straight men to try it out before they criticise it.

16 November 2011 at 17:44  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

We've also had great success with our sign in Penrith, employing a clever use of reverse psychology to encourage people to 'cottage' there.

16 November 2011 at 17:50  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Hmmm. The Inspector is beginning to warm to the idea. At least our social engineering masters are letting us be ourselves (…for the time being…) and not pushing us into a blender, so we all come out ever so slightly bent and brown. What about white areas free from muslims and blacks ? If the LGBTPs can have their bit of town, so can the rest of us. We could have street signs with a portrait photo of Enoch Powell on them….

Fr Ivor Biggin, 16 November 2011 11:33 .That’s the spirit Padre ! Forget about Christian tenets and decency, why don’t you. And it’s not just God that finds homosexuality behaviour an abomination, the Inspector isn’t too keen on it himself, don’t you know…

16 November 2011 at 17:56  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

We're also trying to persuade Virgin Trains to adopt a new livery to encourage people to embrace the gay lifestyle during rush hour. You guys need to think out of the box if you want to compete, just offering tea and biscuits to vulnerable and homeless people to get them within grasping distance of an Alpha Course vampire is not in the same league.

16 November 2011 at 17:56  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

Letter to a Pastor

I am a former Catholic who was recently saved through the Grace of Jesus Christ.

I am a homosexual. The Catholic Church told me that I had to refrain from what I was in order to be saved!

I never knew that my good works meant nothing! To think, I would have spent my entire life struggling not to engage in homosexual activity, just to wind up in Hell!

I now realize that Salvation is through the finished work of Christ ALONE, and not from good works. I am now living as an active homosexual in the freedom of Jesus Christ!

16 November 2011 at 18:20  
Blogger William said...

Mr Dodo @18:20

A startling revelation! I must say I didn't see that coming.

16 November 2011 at 18:37  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Dodo. What the hell happened to you last night ?

16 November 2011 at 18:40  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

"A startling revelation! I must say I didn't see that coming."

Lol. My gaydar has been picking his signal up for months now.

16 November 2011 at 18:43  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

Inspector
Assigned a covert operation, dear Sir. All hush, hush - so keep it to yourself. A way needs to be found to understand the born-againers and homosexuals.

Will make regular reports on progress.

16 November 2011 at 18:55  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo, being a so-called 'sleeper agent' doesn't mean what you think it means.

16 November 2011 at 19:18  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

During the summer the country was in an uproar about the gang culture taking hold of our towns and cities,(gang culture is all about turfs/areas that are controlled by the gangs) Labelling certain areas homosexual with marked street signs is just a legalised form of gang culture isn't it? What happens if I or any other straight person wants to move in to a Queer Street? Will we be hounded out or made to feel unwelcome or if buying a house be priced out?

I think this is all very childish.

16 November 2011 at 19:20  
Blogger MFH said...

This poor country is under the flag of Saint George.
When will people wake up to see they were more free under the bigoted christians than they are under the bigots of all this anti - God expressions.

16 November 2011 at 19:21  
Blogger Mr Integrity said...

Way of the Dodo 18;20
'I am now living as an active homosexual in the freedom of Jesus Christ!' An interesting concept. I thought that Jesus said; " If you love me, you will keep my comandments".
D we have a gospel that allows us to do as we will? God forbid.

16 November 2011 at 19:27  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Marie: "Will we be hounded out or made to feel unwelcome or if buying a house be priced out?"

From your past comments, you're a veritable magnet for gay people in every aspect of your life so I expect it wouldn't matter where you actually lived as you'd still be immediately surrounded.

16 November 2011 at 19:27  
Blogger Nowhere man said...

The Balkanisation of Britain continues.

We should get stickers for the cross, heterosexuality and British (by that I mean white, naturally).

Lets get them produced cheaply, en masse, and stick them all over our road signs.

16 November 2011 at 19:42  
Blogger Albert said...

Inspector,

Fr Ivor Biggin, 16 November 2011 11:33 .That’s the spirit Padre ! Forget about Christian tenets and decency, why don’t you. And it’s not just God that finds homosexuality behaviour an abomination, the Inspector isn’t too keen on it himself, don’t you know…

Something tells me "Fr Ivor Biggin" isn't his real name.

16 November 2011 at 19:45  
Blogger bluedog said...

Marie 1797 @ 19.20, if you are ever travelling in a strange city, the homosexual and Jewish quarters are usually the safest places to be. In fact this communicant suspects that property prices would rise in a designated homosexual area. You would certainly find a better class of restaurant there. Areas to avoid, for Whitey, the Muslim quarter and any zone with a high third world refugee population.

16 November 2011 at 19:49  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Albert. The Inspector had a similar doubt, yet search for him on google and there he is (...apparently...)

Bluedog. The Inspector used to stay with friends at Burgess Hill around 20 years ago, Accommodation costs in nearby Brighton were through the roof then !

Dodo. Do not like where this is heading, brave (...soon to be sore...) bird

16 November 2011 at 20:04  
Blogger David B said...

@DanJO

Perhaps you would be amused at a shop front I took a photo of in a small town in Fife.

It is a sort of charity shop aimed at eaising funds for a church, as far as I can tell.

It's called 'The Glory Hole'.

There is a pic of it on my discussion board which I could point you at should you join.

Even a straight like me knew what that meant, though I can't remember where I encountered the word. Something is nagging at me that it was in Tom Driberg's autobiography, but perhaps not.

David B

16 November 2011 at 21:21  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

Mr Integrity said...

"Way of the Dodo 18;20
'I am now living as an active homosexual in the freedom of Jesus Christ!'
An interesting concept. I thought that Jesus said; " If you love me, you will keep my comandments".
D we have a gospel that allows us to do as we will? God forbid.


Irony, Mr Integrity, irony!

There are those who believe salvation stems only from faith and that on the part of man himself there is placed no condition or requirement for his salvation.

On the contrary, personal salvation is neither a gift, nor a simple work, but a process and an undertaking that matures or develops gradually and is realized in the co-operation of two persons: God and man. On the part of God, Grace, an absolute necessity, is offered to us, while for man's part, faith and righteous deeds are also necessary. Consequently, the prerequisites for our personal salvation are the Grace of God and the faith and virtuous deeds of man.

Our objective salvation is realized only in the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, whereas our personal salvation, our righteousness, holiness, or salvation, is realized as a continuance of this objective salvation, with our personal activity acting in co-operation with God's Grace.

16 November 2011 at 22:06  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

Inspector

The mission is beyond me - miserable failure!

I realised this as I was sitting in a homosexual bar. I met a 'couple' from Ireland:
Patrick Fitzhenry and Henry Fitzpatrick. When I broke wind somewhat noisily, I attracted too much attention and one guy remarked, "virgin then?"

Not for me and been recalled to base.

16 November 2011 at 22:10  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Dodo. Hopefully not after losing your anal cherry, what !

16 November 2011 at 22:26  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

Inspector, no, all's well. Close call as the bar stools were placed upside down! However, noticed in time so no harm done.

16 November 2011 at 22:30  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

David B

Before the expression 'Glory Hole' was corrupted by the sexually deviant it was common in Ireland and Scotland. It referred to a room aside for storing items or curiosities one didn't want to discard.

16 November 2011 at 23:58  
Blogger Oswin said...

Stab me vitals if I wasn't right all along: it IS Hinge and Bracket!

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

Oswin said ...
"Stab me vitals ..."

I'll pass on that, thank you.

17 November 2011 at 01:57  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

"It is a sort of charity shop aimed at eaising funds for a church, as far as I can tell. It's called 'The Glory Hole'."

Lol. Dear oh dear. When I was in South Africa, there was a chain of Christian bookstores called "CUM Books" which always made me snigger. If there was ever a pragmatic argument for normalising gay relationships and making it all open and above board then it's hideous things like glory holes.

As for the rainbow thing, I can see the technical argument against it that His Grace is making and even though it's those tabloid numpties at the Christian Institute trying to kick up yet another fuss I can agree. However, I think think the reality here is that it's intended by the local council to be a USP to attract business to the area in the style of (say) Canal Street in Manchester.

17 November 2011 at 06:37  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "Patrick Fitzhenry and Henry Fitzpatrick. When I broke wind somewhat noisily, I attracted too much attention and one guy remarked, "virgin then?""

At least you stayed within the bounds of decency there Dodo, to coin a sanctimonious phrase from another thread. ;)

17 November 2011 at 06:41  
Blogger len said...

I can only conclude from some of the remarks currently being displayed (from the regular suspects) that their intention is either to trivialise H G`s blog or have it shut down completely (possibly both)

17 November 2011 at 08:02  
Blogger non mouse said...

One wonders, Mr. Len @ 08:02.

17 November 2011 at 09:51  
Blogger William said...

Mr Dodo

Have you thought about putting a rainbow over the dodo in your avatar? It's all the rage these days.

Len

HG appears to be in whimsical mood. He's now got me humming the Rainbow theme tune.

17 November 2011 at 09:57  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

William, funnily enough I am contemplating a change of avatar. I'll bear that suggestion in mind but I'm not sure I have the technical expertise to accomplish it.

len, do lighten up, dear fellow! A few risque jokes amount to neither trivialisation nor an attempt to have a blog closed down. Besides, I'm sure Mr Cranmer will intervene should the bounds of acepptability be transgressed.

DanJO, what a queer comment. If you really cannot see the difference between my posts and your personalised, sick insinuation about myself and Albert then you are truely lost.

17 November 2011 at 12:34  
Blogger Jon said...

I'm more concerned by the huge taxpayer expense which has gone into translating street and airport signs into Welsh and "Gaelic" in Wales and Scotland. What a waste of money! After all, those are just ghettoes too, aren't they? Condemning kids who learn those pointless languages to lower employment prospects, and almost certainly gang membership, eh, Marie?...

Since these are replicated on more than c. 6 street signs in Liverpool, I can only imagine the fury of Cranmer, Dodo et al.

17 November 2011 at 14:57  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

Jon, do you always miss the point of a discussion or is this a one off?

17 November 2011 at 15:46  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

len
Your sensibilities aside and suspicions aside, have you nothing to say about my comments:

16 November 2011 @ 18:20
16 November 2011 @ 22:06

17 November 2011 at 15:57  
Blogger William said...

Mr Dodo

You just can't help yourself can you?

17 November 2011 at 18:43  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

William, nope.

17 November 2011 at 18:58  
Blogger len said...

Dodo,(reference to your comments @16 November 2011 @ 18:20
16 November 2011 @ 22:06

As I have said many, many, times(in fact so many times there can surely be little room for doubt left?)

Jesus said" You must be born again.".
This is a process where we partake in the death and the resurrection of the Lord because we are joined one Spirit with Him.We become a 'new creation'.
Our old life(the old Creation is left behind in the place of death) held in the place of death by the Power of the holy Spirit.
This is the gospel Paul preached and the question he was constantly asked was" what about sin, does this grace of God give me licence to sin?. In fact if this question is NOT asked then you haven`t heard the Gospel preached correctly.
In the words of the Apostle Paul 'What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it? Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life. (Rom 6:1-4)

So anyone who continues to live an ungodly lifestyle has completely misunderstood and misused the Grace of God.

17 November 2011 at 23:29  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

len

So we do have to cooperate in a process of transformation, follow God's commandments and lead good Christian lives based on the Gospel and active love.

William

Have changed my avitar - but something went wrong and I ended up as a fish!

17 November 2011 at 23:42  
Blogger len said...

Dodo, Many people do not understand God`s plan for salvation, this includes many within 'organised religion'of whatever denomination.

At the Cross of Calvary where Jesus Christ was Crucified God brought to an end the old Creation ,the creation corrupted by the fall of Adam after which all Adam`s descendants inherited the corrupt nature.
There was no attempt to teach the old nature to 'be good',to teach it religion, or how to' better itself' the old nature was crucified (In Christ)and all who would follow Christ.The old nature is irredeemable corrupted beyond repair however hard it tries to 'be good' it just cannot do it!.

It is only from this death and subsequent resurrection(re - birth that the believer is justified in the eyes of God.

This is God`s plan(His only plan )for the salvation of Humanity to co-die and co- live with Christ.

From this you will see the futility of religion or trying to re train the old nature to be Christian .....it just cannot do it!.

17 November 2011 at 23:48  
Blogger len said...

Dodo,
Our co operation with the Gospel is one of being willing to let God work through us.
This is not self effort as such.
Jesus said "of Myself I can do nothing"
So salvation is totally a work of God with our co operation (not works)

17 November 2011 at 23:53  
Blogger len said...

Dodo,
We are serving God under one of two Covenants.In the old Covenant we are serving God under a covenant written on tablets of stone.We are given a set of instructions and we do our best to follow them.This is IMO 'religion.'It is man doing his best to live a 'Godly Life', this is a 'works based religion'.

However,
In the new Covenant God says 'A new heart will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you. And I will put my Spirit within you.' -Ezekiel 36: 26, 27.

What God requires of Man HE WILL DO in and through the man who is open to and receptive to God.
This is why Christ refused to do 'any works' through self effort he relied totally on God.

Jesus gave them this answer: "I tell you the truth, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does(John 5:19)

18 November 2011 at 00:16  
Blogger prziloczek said...

A Lesbian friend I know, in a "marriage" with a partner has two children from her first heterosexual marriage. The eleven year old boy, who lives with her, was bullied at school, she tells me, unmercifully because "Your Mum's a Lezzie." He often comes home bruised. the daughter (aged 14) has gone completely off the rails and the other day she disappeared.
She was eventually found to be, with her (girl) friend at the house of a 17 year old boy. In the bedroom. His mother was a single parent and she was clearly terrified that he would beat her up. My friend had to go away without her daughter after the young man appeared on the stairs and threatened violence to the women because he was the strongest there.
Then he went back to his paedophilia.

Allow me to repeat: in a marriage, you need both men and women. Both.....and......

18 November 2011 at 07:16  
Blogger William said...

The Way of the Rainbow Fish

Do you fully accept Christ's complete solution for your salvation?

If yes, then you will act on it.

If no, then you will have to work to make up the deficit. If you can.

18 November 2011 at 08:09  
Blogger Albert said...

Len,

Your talk of co-operation with God is interesting me. It sounds rather more Catholic than I had expected, and perhaps than you realise. Perhaps you could clarify a few point for me please:

There was no attempt to teach the old nature to 'be good'...he old nature is irredeemable corrupted beyond repair however hard it tries to 'be good' it just cannot do it!

The difficulty here, is knowing what is meant by 'old nature'. Presumably you don't mean that pre-justified Len cannot be saved, so that the "new creature" Len actually isn't the same person as before. There must be some sense in which the person saved is the person that was before, or there is no salvation. So perhaps you could clarify this.

Our co operation with the Gospel is one of being willing to let God work through us.
This is not self effort as such.


Do you mean that we are passive in our salvation?

So anyone who continues to live an ungodly lifestyle has completely misunderstood and misused the Grace of God.

But are they still justified if they have faith?

18 November 2011 at 09:05  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

William

I cooperate with the gift of Grace and play my part as best I can in realising the salvation that is offered through faith in Christ. I have the Holy Spirit, the Church and the sacraments to strengthen and sustain me on the journey.

Ps
'Dodo' remains but the 'Raphus cucullatus' is on a leave of absence - for now.

18 November 2011 at 10:57  
Blogger William said...

Via Raphus cucullatus

Pax vobiscum.

18 November 2011 at 11:13  
Blogger Jon said...

Dodo - do you always find a way to twist any discussion around to your particular set of issues with the modern world/ other people's faith/ general ridicule at those who disagree with you?

Don't answer - the question is rhetorical. Everyone here knows the answer!

18 November 2011 at 12:09  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

William
Pax tecum.

18 November 2011 at 15:14  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

Jon
Is this particular thread about homosexuality and how far this practice should be accommodated? About a tension between secular and Christian values?

Or maybe it really is just about colourful signs brightening up our streets.

18 November 2011 at 16:13  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

The Inspector apologises to the gay fraternity, but for society's sake homosexuality should be suppressed when it manifests itself publically. It’s street signs today, but tomorrow it could be militant homosexuals taking classes in schools, encouraging the children to touch each other’s anus.

18 November 2011 at 18:59  
Blogger Dodo's Way said...

Inspector
Metaphorically speaking of course! They will be asking male children to seek out for their 'femine' side and giving it expression. In fact, they are already doing so.

19 November 2011 at 00:29  
Blogger len said...

Albert,

The Cross of Christ is also the Cross of the Believer.

Jesus says`s follow me.( To the Cross.)

God brings life out of death, the Cross illustrates this perfectly.When we become totally identified with Christ in His death and his life, we by the Grace of God become renewed in Spirit.Joined One Spirit with Him.

He is the Vine we are the Branches.This is a dependency on the Life of Christ flowing through us and out of us.

19 November 2011 at 09:36  
Blogger len said...

Albert, When we are saved ,born again, we are spiritually renewed by the Grace of God.This is entirely a 'work' of God, there is nothing we can do to effect it!.(So that none can boast, ie" I saved myself through good works")

Man consists of Spirit , Soul, and Body.

The 'part'renewed in salvation is the Spirit, the soul and Body are untouched(initially). God is a Spirit and He places His Spirit within our Human Spirit.This is the' born again' experience.

So our Spirit IS saved , our Soul is BEING saved, and our Body WILL be saved .

The rest of the transformation of the believer is an outworking of the Spirit transforming the Soul(mind, will and emotions).

So salvation is not a passive experience but a co operation with God of repentance and dependence on God for His Life to enable us to live Godly lives.

19 November 2011 at 09:49  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Len, you are a bloody heretic, don’t you know...

This is YOUR Christianity, no one elses...

19 November 2011 at 10:32  
Blogger Dodo's Way said...

len
And now, as per your pentecostal/charismatic error, we have the 'trichotomist' heresy!

19 November 2011 at 10:46  
Blogger Albert said...

Thanks Len,

It probably won't come as any surprise (or perhaps it will) that there is nothing in your first comment for me as a Catholic to disagree with. The unclarity comes in the second comment because I don't follow the distinction between Spirit, Soul and Body. The last two I get, but the first distinction has an uncertain history, and I am not sure what you mean by "spirit" (I'd rather not capitalise the "S" there, so as to avoid any pantheistic connotations that our spirit is God's Spirit - a sort of Hindu atman doctrine) as opposed to "soul".

This is entirely a 'work' of God, there is nothing we can do to effect it!

So to clarify: you are saying that God causes our justification, by the merits of Jesus Christ. This means that the "justness" of the justified, is not their own, but God's. Yes?

But then you say:

So salvation is not a passive experience but a co operation with God of repentance and dependence on God for His Life to enable us to live Godly lives.

Now it's the co-operation there and the meaning of dependence that needs clarifying. Clearly you don't want to take away from this being wholly a work of God, but neither do you want it to be passive on our part. So I'm a bit unclear here.

God is a Spirit and He places His Spirit within our Human Spirit

So perhaps you mean that the Holy Spirit gives God's justice (justifies) to us according to our co-operation. So:

God brings life out of death, the Cross illustrates this perfectly.When we become totally identified with Christ in His death and his life, we by the Grace of God become renewed in Spirit

In other words, the merits of Christ on the cross are communicated to us by the Holy Spirit. So that

Joined One Spirit with Him

We are (to use a different biblical term) we are grafted into Christ.

Is this what you are saying?

19 November 2011 at 10:48  
Blogger Albert said...

Dodo and Inspector,

Why don't we have a sensible discussion with Len about this? We have to listen to Len saying the same things to us as you are saying to him. Wouldn't it be better to call a truce and just have some discussion?

19 November 2011 at 10:54  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Albert. We all know that Len has little interest in what the Archbishop posts. He merely parasites this blog to spread his born again rot. He deserves everything coming to him, and a little bit extra on top. However, as you asked politely, the Inspector will endeavour to ignore him over the weekend...

19 November 2011 at 11:13  
Blogger Albert said...

Thanks Inspector. I'm not saying don't argue with Len anywhere else, but as there's a chance on this thread of settling down to discussing what separates us, let's see where it takes us.

19 November 2011 at 11:18  
Blogger Dodo's Way said...

Albert
Agreed.

Given our track record, I'll take a back seat on this one.

These are central issues of faith and doctrine.

19 November 2011 at 11:30  
Blogger Albert said...

Thanks Dodo.

Len, the floor is yours without let or hindrance.

19 November 2011 at 11:49  
Blogger len said...

Hello Albert sorry for some of my more frivolous comments.But salvation and the Gospel I take very seriously!.

We are indeed grafted into Christ.(John 15:4) Abide in me as I abide in you. Just as the branch cannot bear fruit by itself unless it abides in the vine, neither can you unless you abide in me.

This is talking of a Spiritual Union a Joining of Spirits.

When Adam sinned by rebelling against God he died Spiritually immediately although not physically for many years.We have all inherited this condition from the father of the human race Adam.

Jesus Christ came to reverse this process whereby the Human(dead to God, but not dead to satanic influence)spirit could be revived and put back into God`s original intention destroyed by the fall.God`s original creation man was to be filled with the Spirit of God.

'So it is written: "The first man Adam became a living being"; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit.'(1Corinthians 15:45)

The are two spiritual Laws(there are many more but these two are for illustration)the Law of Sin and Death.....and The Law of the Spirit of Life in Christ Jesus ,when we are redeemed we are taking from the Law of Sin and Death and placed (by God)into the Law of the Spirit of Life In Christ Jesus.

19 November 2011 at 20:26  
Blogger Albert said...

Thanks Len,

Now this is what puzzles me about all this: Thus far, I cannot see how your doctrine differs from that of the Council of Trent (I even constructed my last post with more than an eye on the Tridentine decree on justification, to be sure of myself!). There must be a difference somewhere (unless you are more Catholic than you realise), but at the moment, it remains unclear to me.

Food for thought on the Lord's Day!

19 November 2011 at 21:37  
Blogger len said...

Thanks Albert, I will give it some thought.

19 November 2011 at 21:44  
Blogger len said...

Albert( for further clarification)

In the Old Covenant man had failed in what he had to do.In the New God is to do everything in him.The Old could only convict of sin.The New is to put it away and cleanse the Heart of all its filthiness.In the Old it was the Heart that was wrong, for the New a New Heart is provided in which God puts His fear(respect reverence), His Law, and His Love.The Old demanded but failed to secure obedience;in the New God causes us to walk in His Judgements.The New is to fit a man for a true Holiness, a true fulfilment of the Law of a loving God with a whole Heart,a walk truly pleasing to God.

Gods plan for the salvation of Humanity is contained in the Words of Ezekiel(36;26) ' I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh'.

Jesus Christ`s mission to Earth was to put God`s redemption plan into effect.
Jesus (the second Adam) came to regain all that was lost through the first Adam and to restore God`s Creation to His original purpose.
So we are either IN the first Adam or IN the' Last Adam' Jesus Christ and this determines our future.

20 November 2011 at 08:25  
Blogger Albert said...

Len,

Thank you, but I still don't see where we differ. I could have quibbled about In the New God is to do everything in him [man], on the grounds that it could be taken to mean man is entirely passive - as he is when a piano falls on his head - but you've already excluded that possibility, and I've already said that Trent makes God the cause of justification, so I don't think that even this phrase is problem.

Now all this agreement is extremely interesting because you say:

So we are either IN the first Adam or IN the' Last Adam' Jesus Christ and this determines our future.

Now as Catholics clearly believe what you are saying, it follows that we are IN the 'Last Adam' Jesus Christ.

So, there are some possibilities here. Either there is no disagreement or the disagreement hasn't yet become apparent, or you are more Catholic than you realise, because you misunderstand what Catholics believe. I'd have to say that in my discussions with Protestants, the latter has typically been the case. This seems plausible here as it looks as if you think we believe we are under the old covenant, expecting to be justified by works of the Law.

20 November 2011 at 10:17  
Blogger len said...

Albert,there are differences between Catholics and non Catholics which to me seem irreconcilable.
To give just one example; the Pope is a man Catholics have claimed is a mediator between God and mankind. But as it has been said Jesus is the only mediator between God and mankind (1 Timothy 2:5). Catholics also claim the Pope is the head of the Church on earth, but the Bible says Jesus is the head of the Church (Colossians 1:18, Ephesians 1:22, Colossians 2:9-10). We should not give to any man the honour that belongs to Jesus alone.

I also believe a lot of denominations are mixing a blend of Old Covenant and New Covenant which is a very dangerous concoction;

"And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work." [Romans 11:6]

20 November 2011 at 13:10  
Blogger Albert said...

Len,

Well that's a move I wasn't anticipating! I agree entirely that there are irreconcilable differences between Catholics and Protestants. It's just that I thought that they were originally over justification and I was expecting you to bring such justificationalist differences into view. Instead what you've done is change the subject.

Now it's tempting for me to join you in a changed subject, and to answer your new examples. But let's keep to the original topic can we, while we we're on it?

What is it in Catholic teaching on justification that you find so objectionable? You often refer to it. You rant about it, you condemn it, you condemn Catholic teachers and Catholics in general on these grounds. And yet, so far, I don't have enough evidence to convict you of departing from the teaching of the Council of Trent!

20 November 2011 at 16:32  
Blogger len said...

Albert , perhaps it would eliminate any confusion if you explain how you feel you were Justified( in the eyes of the Catholic faith .)

20 November 2011 at 17:18  
Blogger len said...

Albert ,(cannot wait for your answer taking my motorcycle for a spin.) Essential to the Roman Catholic doctrine of salvation are the Seven Sacraments, which are: baptism, confirmation, the Eucharist, Penance, anointing of the sick, Holy Orders, and matrimony. Protestants believe that on the basis of faith in Christ alone, believers are justified by God as all their sins are paid for by Christ on the cross and His righteousness is imputed to them. Catholics on the other hand believe that Christ’s righteousness is imparted to the believer by “grace through faith,” but in itself is not sufficient to justify the believer. The believer must “supplement” the righteousness of Christ imparted to him with meritorious works. Catholics and Protestants disagree on what it means to be justified before God. To the Catholic, justification involves being MADE righteous and holy. They believe that faith in Christ is only the beginning of salvation, and that the individual must build upon that with good works because “man has to merit God’s grace of justification and eternal salvation.” Of course this view of justification contradicts the clear teaching of Scripture in passages such as Romans 4:1-12; Titus 3:3-7, as well as many others. On the other hand, Protestants distinguish between the one time act of justification (when we are declared righteous and holy by God based on our faith in Christ’s atonement on the cross), and sanctification (the ongoing process of being made righteous that continues throughout our lives on earth.) While Protestants recognize that works are important, they believe they are the result or fruit of salvation, but never the means to it. Catholics blend justification and sanctification together into one ongoing process, which leads to confusion about how one is saved.

This is exactly the problem Apostle Paul had with the Galatians! (well worth a read for Catholics)

20 November 2011 at 17:34  
Blogger Albert said...

The trouble Len is that I am aware of the difference between Protestants and Catholics, it’s just that, given your comments so far, I was not clear on the difference between you and Catholics. Giving me this highly articulate, yet generic description hasn’t helped – for reasons you will understand. However, it does help to raise the question of what Catholics do believe.

Catholics on the other hand believe that Christ’s righteousness is imparted to the believer by “grace through faith,”

So far, so good…

but in itself is not sufficient to justify the believer. The believer must “supplement” the righteousness of Christ imparted to him with meritorious works.

But that is precisely what we don’t believe. If Christ’s righteousness is imparted by “grace through faith” there is no need for anything else to be added. Justification just is Christ’s righteousness imparted by “grace through faith”.

While Protestants recognize that works are important, they believe they are the result or fruit of salvation, but never the means to it.

And thus they depart from the teaching of the Lord:

But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return; and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High; for he is kind to the ungrateful and the selfish

and St Paul:

So I thought it necessary to urge the brethren to go on to you before me, and arrange in advance for this gift you have promised, so that it may be ready not as an exaction but as a willing gift. [6] The point is this: he who sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and he who sows bountifully will also reap bountifully. [7] Each one must do as he has made up his mind, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver. [8] And God is able to provide you with every blessing in abundance, so that you may always have enough of everything and may provide in abundance for every good work. [9] As it is written, "He scatters abroad, he gives to the poor; his righteousness endures for ever."

and

He who plants and he who waters are equal, and each shall receive his wages according to his labour. [9] For we are God's fellow workers; you are God's field, God's building. [10] According to the grace of God given to me, like a skilled master builder I laid a foundation, and another man is building upon it. Let each man take care how he builds upon it. [11] For no other foundation can any one lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. [12] Now if any one builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw -- [13] each man's work will become manifest; for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done. [14] If the work which any man has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward.

You write:

Catholics blend justification and sanctification together into one ongoing process, which leads to confusion about how one is saved. This is exactly the problem Apostle Paul had with the Galatians! (well worth a read for Catholics)

That is exactly not the problem Paul had with the Galatians – and yes, we do read Galatians, just as you Protestants presumably read James (you must read it and tremble!).

20 November 2011 at 19:28  
Blogger len said...

Albert, I am not quite sure if you have recently converted to Catholicism and are unsure of the doctrines or perhaps you are a member of a break away faction?.

Roman Catholic doctrine denies justification by faith alone and says:

"If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema" (Council of Trent, Canons on Justification, Canon 9).
"If any one saith, that man is truly absolved from his sins and justified, because he assuredly believed himself absolved and justified; or, that no one is truly justified but he who believes himself justified; and that, by this faith alone, absolution and justification are effected; let him be anathema." (Canon 14).

Regarding the Gospel of James ;

I have no problem with James at all, first of all, when James talks about works he is talking about works done by a man after he is converted. When Paul talks about works in Romans 4:1–5, he is talking about works done by an unsaved man prior to any conversion. That fact alone throws a lot of light on the subject. Paul is speaking of works having absolutely nothing to do with the ground of a sinner's acceptance before God. Works done by a sinner before regeneration and works done by a saint after regeneration are two different things. Works done to merit forgiveness and works done because we have been forgiven are not the same at all. James and Paul are talking about works in an entirely different context. We must keep in mind before conversion and after conversion.

20 November 2011 at 20:15  
Blogger Albert said...

Len,

Roman Catholic doctrine denies justification by faith alone

Where on earth have I said I believe in justification by faith alone? As in scripture, you will not find those words on my lips, except to condemn the doctrine.

when James talks about works he is talking about works done by a man after he is converted

I don't think that is true at all:

Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar? [22] You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by works, [23] and the scripture was fulfilled which says, "Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness"; and he was called the friend of God.
[24] You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.


The two surely go together. For (and here is the Protestant error) the distinction in the Bible is not between faith and works, but between faith and works of the Law. That is, it is between faith and those works which proceed of our own efforts, and not from grace. Hence (and this summarises Catholic teaching perfectly):

For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision is of any avail, but faith working through love

Tell me Len, does a person need to repent in order to receive justification? And is it true that such a person can be simul justus et peccator?

Which is the work of the Law that the NT goes on about most? Is it not circumcision? The act which is performed entirely passively on a baby before (as you keep reminded us about baptism) he has any understanding or choice. How then, in your sense, can this be called a work? Surely, the meaning is we are not justified by being Jewish (i.e. by keeping the works of the Law). The grace of God appeared not through any good works of anyway, but because God was merciful. Thus, there is no need to do the works of the Law in order to be in Christ. No need to be Jewish, no need to be circumcised etc. But to infer from that, that we are justified by faith alone, is not just poor logic, but poor Bible reading.

How do you understand the language - so ubiquitous of reward in the NT?

20 November 2011 at 20:48  
Blogger len said...

Albert, I see you are committing a classic Catholic error here. Those who hold to a Tridentine view of justification, denying that faith alone is sufficient, appeal to James 2:14-26 as their proof text. They state that the Bible never uses the phrase "justification by faith alone," which we grant, but that it does state clearly and emphatically that Abraham was not saved by faith alone. In fact, we are told there that Abraham was "justified by his works." (James 2:14-26) On the surface, it would appear that Paul and James are at odds with one another. Paul teaches that Abraham was justified by faith alone and James appears to be teaching just the opposite, that Abraham was justified by his works. These are two differing views, it seems, and both are appealing to Abraham to 'prove their point'. Strictly speaking, Paul and James are not talking about the same thing. Paul appeals to Genesis 15:6, "Abram believed God and it was reckoned unto him as righteousness." By faith, Abram (Abraham) was justified before God. On the other hand, James appeals to Genesis 22:9-18, a difference of seven chapters! In Genesis 22, God put Abraham to the test, and the authenticity of his faith was manifested (cf. 2 Corinthians 13:5). In Genesis 15, Abraham is justified by his faith. In Genesis 22, Abraham’s faith is justified by his obedience.

James is not answering the question "How can I be saved?", but rather, "How can I know my faith is authentic?" We can see this from the statement in verse 18, "You SAY you have faith". The validation of the claim is given in that same verse, "Show me your faith BY your works." The faith exists already, but is evidenced by the necessary works that follow. My faith doesn’t prove my faith to God. He knows my heart; you don’t. You can see my works but you can’t see my heart. The works are a testimony to me and to you.
There is no refutation of justification by faith alone to be found in James 2, or anywhere else in Scripture, for that matter.

21 November 2011 at 18:54  
Blogger Albert said...

Len,

Those who hold to a Tridentine view of justification, denying that faith alone is sufficient

It's not just Trent, it's the entire tradition. At the time of the Reformation, Protestants, embarrassed by the sheer absence of their doctrine from the history of the Church, and fearful that that absence rather gave the game away that the doctrine is not in the Bible (if their doctrine really is the plain meaning of scripture, why didn't anyone find it there before?), attempted to show that Augustine taught what Luther taught. Protestant scholars seem to have dropped that pretence now. Indeed, McGrath - surely the most thorough Protestant scholar on the subject admits that the doctrine of Trent is simply that of Augustine's a thousand years previously.

appeal to James 2:14-26 as their proof text

Well that's very odd, as in my previous but one comment, I quoted from a variety of sources (including our Lord) which you haven't answered. I only referred to James because you referred to Galatians with the (frankly, rather unlikely) insinuation that perhaps I had not read Galatians. There are plenty of other proof-texts I can appeal to.

Paul teaches that Abraham was justified by faith alone

No he doesn't. Paul teaches that Abraham is justified by faith and not by works of the Law. His justification comes prior to the Law being given, but that does not mean that he isn't genuinely transformed. Hence in the last chapter of Galatians, Paul says "Whatever a man sows, that he will also reap." We are to learn that '"the whole law is fulfilled in one word, "You shall love your neighbour as yourself". Is love merely imputed? We are to "walk by the Spirit"', which means (in addition to the positives Paul lists in 5.22-23) that we are to avoid a whole list of sins, because "as I warned you before, those who do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God." If their salvation was assured by faith alone, that they could be simul justus et peccator such injunctions would be meaningless. Contrast Luther's words: "Be a sinner and sin boldly". How much more of a warning do you need of the doubtful nature of Protestantism - the doctrine isn't in the Bible, so Luther corrupts his text and adds it? Then he wishes to throw out bits of the Bible he doesn't like, then he says "sin boldly" - it's hardly worth mentioning his attitude to bigamy!

Strictly speaking, Paul and James are not talking about the same thing

Your doctrine could be (perhaps) faith without works is dead. But James' teaching is Was not Abraham our father justified by works...You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone. You say works "follow" justification, but James explicitly says justification follows works. (As Catholics we say works follow faith and justification follows both and that all comes from God by grace.) So the only way for you to make James consistent with your doctrine is to drop your present interpretation and suggest James means something different by "justification" from what you mean. But, as should now be clear, on the Catholic understanding, Paul and James are in total agreement and that
faith they both taught, the Catholic Church keeps to this day.

You have also failed to attend to my other passages I gave, and to my question about rewards and the need for repentance, nor have you attended to my contention that the distinction is not between faith and works but faith and works of the Law.

21 November 2011 at 21:58  
Blogger Albert said...

...And Dan, just because you are not posting here, doesn't mean you aren't stalking. Your presence is made all the more creepy by your silence! ;-)

21 November 2011 at 21:59  
Blogger len said...

Albert,
I see you have not read what I posted properly ,you seem to insist on putting the'cart before the horse so to speak'.
I will have another go.
We are justified by faith. That is, we are made righteous in the eyes of God by faith as is amply demonstrated by Romans. However, that faith, if it is true, will result in deeds appropriate to salvation. After all, didn't God say in Eph. 2:8-10, "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, that no one should boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.

However Catholic Doctrine contradicts the Word of God.
Roman Catholic doctrine denies justification by faith alone and says:

"If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema" (Council of Trent, Canons on Justification, Canon 9).
"If any one saith, that man is truly absolved from his sins and justified, because he assuredly believed himself absolved and justified; or, that no one is truly justified but he who believes himself justified; and that, by this faith alone, absolution and justification are effected; let him be anathema." (Canon 14).
Roman Catholic theology asserts that God's grace is granted through baptism and infused into a person by the Holy Spirit. This then enables him or her to do good works which then are rewarded with heaven. Basically, this is no different than the theology of the cults which maintain that justification is by grace through faith and your works whether it be baptism, going to "the true church," keeping certain laws, receiving the sacraments, or anything else you are required to do. In response, I turn to God's word at Gal.3:1-3:

"You foolish Galatians, who has bewitched you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified? 2This is the only thing I want to find out from you: did you receive the Spirit by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith? 3Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?"
Does not the above scripture clearly state that receiving God's Spirit is by faith and not by what we do? Does it not teach us that we cannot perfect our salvation by the works we do in the flesh? To receive Jesus (John 1:12 ) means to become the temple of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 6:19) which means a person is saved, justified. Is this salvation something we attained through our effort? Of course not! Is it something we maintain through our effort? Not at all. It is given to Christians by God and assured by God because it rests in what God has done and not in anything we have done -- that is why salvation is by faith and not works. If it did rest in anyway in our works, then our salvation could not be secure and we would end up trying to be good enough to get to heaven. That only leads to bondage to the Law and the result is a lack of assurance of salvation, a constant worry that you are not good enough, and a repeated subjection to the Church's teachings and requirements about what you must do to be saved. The only natural effect of such a teaching would be that you can lose your salvation over and over again and that you must perform the necessary requirements of the Catholic church to stay saved.

(Could this all be part of the plan of those who set up the Catholic religious system?)

A response to the Gospel is necessary but this cannot possibly be construed as' works' especially those as specified by the Catholic religious system.
(continued)

21 November 2011 at 23:42  
Blogger len said...

(continued )Salvation is a free gift from God given to us by His awesome Grace and is based upon the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross. Christians receive this by faith because faith is all we have left since my works are excluded, by God, as having anything to do with attaining salvation.

21 November 2011 at 23:45  
Blogger Dodo's Way said...

Albert and le

I'm following this too - but not stalking!

22 November 2011 at 00:51  
Blogger len said...

Apologies to His Grace for straying so far from the original thread but I feel compelled to defend to Gospel.

The Gospel as revealed by Christ and later defined by Paul is in fact very simple but religion has made it very difficult to understand(IMO intentionally) so the 'ordinary mortal' cannot function without the whole paraphernalia of religion which seem to act (in Catholicism) much like the religious system in the Old Covenant.

When God rent the veil in the Temple the old religious system was finished forever.No longer was it necessary to approach God through Priests(and the functions they performed) but Jesus made the way open for ALL to approach God directly through the atonement of Jesus on the Cross at Calvary.We approach God on the basis of what Jesus Christ HAS done rather than works we have performed to supplement our salvation.

Once again apologies Your Grace.

22 November 2011 at 08:12  
Blogger William said...

Dodo

Not stalking but still squawking? :)

22 November 2011 at 10:03  
Blogger William said...

Dodo

Sorry! Couldn't resist. You know how it is.

22 November 2011 at 10:46  
Blogger Albert said...

Len,

I see you have not read what I posted properly ,you seem to insist on putting the'cart before the horse so to speak'.

Well that's ironic, because this is what I said:

the distinction is not between faith and works but faith and works of the Law

and you have replied by quoting Galatians:

You foolish Galatians, who has bewitched you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified? 2This is the only thing I want to find out from you: did you receive the Spirit by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith? 3Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?

So, far from attending to my argument, this passage perfectly illustrates the point I was making against you.

If it did rest in anyway in our works, then our salvation could not be secure and we would end up trying to be good enough to get to heaven.

Before I charge into refuting that, would you please clarify what you mean by "secure"? - there may or may not be disagreement here.

the result is a lack of assurance of salvation, a constant worry that you are not good enough

You mean like Paul in 1 Cor.9.27:

I pommel my body and subdue it, lest after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified?

You go on:

The only natural effect of such a teaching would be that you can lose your salvation over and over again

Are you saying that it is not possible to fall away?

What you need to realise Len, is that the argument in Paul is not between Lutherans and Pelagians, it is between apostolic Christians and Judaising Christians. Hence, the heart of the discussion is over circumcision - hardly a Pelagianising work, but wholly a Judaising work.

Paul's opponents thought that the grace of Christ was somehow owing to them on account of the fact that they had kept the Law (hence everyone needs to keep the Law/be Jewish/be circumcised in order to receive grace). Paul points out that this is quite false - both the example of Abraham and their own experience (Gal.3), shows it to be false. But this does not entail in any sense your doctrine of imputed righteousness.

The conflict you are attributing to the NT is totally anachronistic, since it relies on us accepting late Medieval nominalist philosophy (remember: the only scholastic Luther had any time for, was Ockham).

Now, would you please address yourself to these questions:

does a person need to repent in order to receive justification? And is it true that such a person can be simul justus et peccator?

and attend to the passages that I cited both James and the others.

22 November 2011 at 11:03  
Blogger Albert said...

William,

My comment about stalking was a little joke between me and Dan. It's possible that you've missed the context - but Dodo gets it.

22 November 2011 at 11:04  
Blogger William said...

Albert

I am aware of the context and it was an amusing aside, but thank you for clarifying.

22 November 2011 at 11:32  
Blogger William said...

Albert

Speaking of context and if I may slip in a quickie; your quote of 1Cor9:27 seems to imply that you believe that Paul did not know that he was saved. Is that right?

22 November 2011 at 12:54  
Blogger Albert said...

William,

It depends on what you mean by "saved". I think that some Protestants take this term in a sense which is much too narrow to do full justice to the meaning of scripture. If what is meant is that as Paul once had faith, he cannot now fall away from the faith (as I take it justification by faith alone implies) and can be certain, as a result of his having faith, that he will go to heaven, then I think that is very difficult to reconcile with scripture - like 1 Cor 9.27 (but not only that passage).

22 November 2011 at 13:37  
Blogger William said...

Albert

So Paul may or may not have known that he was saved at the time of writing his letter to the Corinthians, but he knew that if he did not get his evangelism right then there was a chance that he could fall away. Is that your interpretation?

22 November 2011 at 14:14  
Blogger Albert said...

William,

but he knew that if he did not get his evangelism right then there was a chance that he could fall away. Is that your interpretation?

Paul doesn't say what the possible reasons are for his being disqualified, but I would have thought the reason you give is excluded by the context.

Now having said that, I think Paul probably did know he would "endure to the end", but that this assurance came from special revelation, rather than from the fact that he had faith, for he says:

Therefore let anyone who thinks that he stands take heed lest he fall. (1 Cor.10.12).

And

Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the Faith by giving heed to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons.

22 November 2011 at 15:29  
Blogger Dodo's Way said...

William
Fish do not squark - especially those of the Rainbow genus! You must have me confused with some other species.

22 November 2011 at 17:08  
Blogger Dodo's Way said...

That's squawk - fish have trouble spelling too.

22 November 2011 at 17:10  
Blogger William said...

Albert

"Paul doesn't say what the possible reasons are for his being disqualified, but I would have thought the reason you give is excluded by the context."

You are right that context is important, but I am surprised by your conclusion. That whole section 1 Cor 9:15-27 pertains to Paul's preaching of the Gospel. It's all about how compelled he is to do this and how he will do anything to win the prize of bringing people to Christ. The final section describes how he sees this as a race that he has to win. He must run it and train for it in such a way as to win. His zeal for the gospel is palpable. The final sentence "No, I strike a blow to my body and make it my slave so that after I have preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified for the prize." clearly also relates to his evangelism.

That aside, however, I do not think that the last sentence has anything to do with Paul fearing that he will "fall away". It seems to me that he is extending the race metaphor. Namely that he wants to win people for Christ and he will do whatever it takes. Straining to win; not wanting to be disqualified - to lose the prize of gaining people for Christ. A prize that does not fade.

Your 1 Tim 4 quote should run further than you let it (context again):

"The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron. They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth. For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, because it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer."

So it seems to be more specific than your original quote; pertaining to hypocritical liars who have strange teachings that forbid people to marry and abstain from certain foods. Another warning against false religious doctrines perhaps?

22 November 2011 at 20:46  
Blogger len said...

Albert ,I have already answered your question about repentance and the need for a response to the Gospel(twice at least.)
I have also answered your question about James(you obviously do not like my answers and would prefer different ones to line up with Catholic Doctrine?.The scriptures I have given you are perfectly clear and you would need help to misunderstand them!.

(Can one lose their salvation?This debate has been going on for hundreds of years and no 'camp' has come up with a decisive answer,some say yes, some say no.
Of course this assumes that one has been' born again'(because of course if that hasn`t happened one isn`t saved anyway)One cannot lose ones salvation BUT one can reject ones salvation, (why anyone would want to do that is beyond me but it could happen.)


We were discussing the different theologies of Bible believing Christians and Catholics which led to your question on Justification, which I have answered comprehensively but not in accord with your Catholic doctrines so you are unhappy with that. I can only say that either Catholicism is wrong or the Word of God is wrong and I know which I shall take as the final authority.

22 November 2011 at 20:53  
Blogger len said...

Albert , One last thought.. we (or possibly Dodo?)were at some point either here or on another thread discussing infant baptism.As this is part of the Catholic(and others) error which dupes many into believing they are Christians (when they are not)I think a short explanation of this un - Biblical practice is required.One reason some religious groups baptize babies instead of those who are old enough to be taught and then to believe is because they believe baptism is–in the New Testament–what circumcision was in the Old Testament. First, there is neither precept nor precedent for the modern practice of infant baptism in all the scriptures, and in fact, this practice is in violation of the scriptures.
Under the New Testament when a person has been taught the gospel, believes that Jesus is the Christ, REPENTS of his/her sins, and is baptized for the remission of sins, then in the act of baptism God performs surgery by cutting off the old man of sin by spiritual circumcision in the process of cleansing one by the precious blood of Jesus Christ, “In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of His grace” (Eph. 1:7).

There are many glaring differences between Catholicism and the Word of God I think we could continue these discussions indefinitely .................

22 November 2011 at 21:12  
Blogger Albert said...

William,

That whole section 1 Cor 9:15-27 pertains to Paul's preaching of the Gospel.

I suppose that's just not how I see it. I think you are being slightly over-directed by the chapter numberings. I would say that 9.24-27 properly relates to chapter 10 (and provides a useful bridge between 9 & 10). Notice the "we" in verse 25? He's referring to them all, and the race is the metaphor for Christian life, he is not talking there about his personal mission as an apostle. Then he goes straight on (chapter 10) to contrast again the "all were baptized into Moses" with the fact that "some were overthrown in the wilderness". He then sets out the snares by which those who think they stand may fall (v. 12) and points out that the stories of the OT "were written down for our instruction" to warn us. It's the same theme as in 9.24 ff. It's not enough to run in the race, you can still fall away.

As for the 1 Tim. passage

So it seems to be more specific than your original quote; pertaining to hypocritical liars who have strange teachings that forbid people to marry and abstain from certain foods. Another warning against false religious doctrines perhaps?

I don't think that's more specific than I said, I think that is exactly what I said. People can fall away from the faith, and thus the concept of once saved, always saved is not that of scripture, I think.

22 November 2011 at 21:20  
Blogger Albert said...

Len,

I have already answered your question about repentance

Where (well okay you have answered the question after you posted that comment, but not before I think)? And where is your response to my question about being justified and a sinner?

I have also answered your question about James

No, it's the other way around - I answered your interpretation of James and am waiting for a response from you (if you don't believe it, try searching for "James" on the page).

The scriptures I have given you are perfectly clear and you would need help to misunderstand them!.

Well, I'll just bat that one back to you - will you attend to my observation about works of the Law?

One cannot lose ones salvation BUT one can reject ones salvation

Is that after one has been justified by faith?

believes that Jesus is the Christ, REPENTS of his/her sins

Now, in the Bible is repentance mere sorrow for sin - an attitude and nothing more, or is it a genuine change?

As this is part of the Catholic(and others) error which dupes

Len, again, I just bat it back. I was a Protestant once remember. I believed in justification by faith alone. I gave up on the doctrine for many reasons, but the principle one was that I found it to be constantly refuted in scripture. Then I discovered that even the passages which I had thought taught the doctrine didn't in fact. When you consider what a dodgy Christian Luther was (I listed a few surprising features earlier) is it not you who has been duped?

So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him,[16] speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures.

Yet for you it's all "perfectly clear". I think you are at best guilty of over-simplification: scripture and God's grace are so much richer than you allow them to be.

22 November 2011 at 21:36  
Blogger Dodo's Way said...

Albert

It might help if you set out in simple terms, if that's possible, the basic Catholic doctrine on justification, sanctification and salvation.

Like you I believe that even when we Grace causes us to repent and turn away from sin and accept Christ, we can still fall and lose paradise.

As I am reading len he seems to be saying that when, through Grace, faith arrives the battle is won.

Is this the significant doctrinal difference?

22 November 2011 at 22:10  
Blogger Albert said...

Dodo,

That's certainly a significant difference between us and some Protestants - though whether it applies to Len is unclear to me at the moment.

The most important difference I think is whether God changes us by his grace, so that when we are justified we really are justified (righteous) or whether, with the Protestants one subscribes to some kind of legal fiction, by which God declares us justified (righteous) when really we are not.

23 November 2011 at 09:56  
Blogger len said...

John R.W. Stott vividly portrays pictures in words when he writes that "Christianity without Christ is a chest without a treasure, a frame without a portrait, a corpse without breath." Are we content to sit idly by and allow "Christian religion" and its empty, sterile theology misrepresent Christianity in such a lifeless and fallacious manner? Now is the time to unashamedly affirm that "Christianity is Christ," and to witness such personally by allowing the resurrection-life of the living Lord Jesus to be "manifested in our mortal bodies" (II Cor. 4:10,11) by the grace of God unto the glory of God(end of quote).......................

Christianity is Christ!.

This is the key to everything!.If all we have is a correct theology(however important)if all we have is 'Church',if all we have is 'our denomination'then we have missed what Christ came to give us.
Christ came to give Himself, and we, through the Grace of God, and through totally identifying with Christ`s death and Resurrection become One Spirit with Him, born again from above.
It is only when we give up all hope of ever being 'good enough'or trying to' earn our salvation 'and throw ourselves totally on God`s mercy that He can(or will) save us.
Salvation is totally a work of God.All else that follows are the fruit of God placing His Spirit within Man`s spirit.

Christ came to give us Life , His Life!.

23 November 2011 at 19:50  
Blogger Albert said...

Len,

Christianity without Christ is a chest without a treasure, a frame without a portrait, a corpse without breath.

Are you presuming to think that I do not believe that?

As for the rest of what you have written, I quote the Council of Trent:

CANON I.-If any one saith, that man may be justified before God by his own works, whether done through the teaching of human nature, or that of the law, without the grace of God through Jesus Christ; let him be anathema.

CANON II.-If any one saith, that the grace of God, through Jesus Christ, is given only for this, that man may be able more easily to live justly, and to merit eternal life, as if, by free will without grace, he were able to do both, though hardly indeed and with difficulty; let him be anathema.

CANON III.-If any one saith, that without the prevenient inspiration of the Holy Ghost, and without his help, man can believe, hope, love, or be penitent as he ought, so as that the grace of Justification may be bestowed upon him; let him be anathema.


and scripture says:

God judges each one impartially according to his deeds (1 Pet.1.17)

and

Behold, I am coming soon, bringing my recompense, to repay every one for what he has done. Rev.22.12

and

For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive good or evil, according to what he has done in the body.

and

But when you give a feast, invite the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind, and you will be blessed, because they cannot repay you. You will be repaid at the resurrection of the just.

Two passages which show how one can believe works are necessary without undermining the doctrine that Christ is the cause of our salvation:

But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace toward me was not in vain. On the contrary, I worked harder than any of them, though it was not I, but the grace of God which is with me. 1 Cor.15.10

and

Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; for God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.

St Augustine summed up the biblical/Catholic faith when he said:

It is His own gifts that God crowns, not your merits...if they are good, they are God’s gifts, because, as the Apostle James says, “Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights.” In accordance with which John also, the Lord’s forerunner, declares: “A man can receive nothing except it be given him from heaven”—from heaven, of course, because from thence came also the Holy Ghost, when Jesus ascended up on high, led captivity captive, and gave gifts to men. If, then, your good merits are God’s gifts, God does not crown your merits as your merits, but as His own gifts.

23 November 2011 at 22:25  
Blogger Dodo's Way said...

Albert
Excuse me for interupting.

How do the sacraments of Baptism, Confirmation, Reconciliation and the Eucharist fit with your exposition of the necessity for God's Grace?

Are they necessary channels of Grace enabling us to respond? Do they assist us in responding to the offer of Grace?

24 November 2011 at 00:56  
Blogger Albert said...

Dodo,

The sacraments give us grace and enable us to receive more grace and enable us to respond. Baptism, at least, is necessary (all things being equal) for salvation.

Grace is at work in a person before he receives any sacraments (for without grace how could he even request a sacrament?).

One who heard us was a woman named Lydia, from the city of Thyati'ra, a seller of purple goods, who was a worshiper of God. The Lord opened her heart to give heed to what was said by Paul. And when she was baptized, with her household, she besought us, saying, "If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come to my house and stay." And she prevailed upon us. Acts 16.14

Grace came first, then baptism. Nevertheless, baptism is necessary (Trent calls it the instrumental cause of justification):

And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name.' Acts 22.16

Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. Acts 2.38

And the Lord said to me, `Rise, and go into Damascus, and there you will be told all that is appointed for you to do.' And when I could not see because of the brightness of that light, I was led by the hand by those who were with me, and came into Damascus. And one Anani'as, a devout man according to the law, well spoken of by all the Jews who lived there, came to me, and standing by me said to me, `Brother Saul, receive your sight.' And in that very hour I received my sight and saw him. And he said, `The God of our fathers appointed you to know his will, to see the Just One and to hear a voice from his mouth; for you will be a witness for him to all men of what you have seen and heard. And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name.'

24 November 2011 at 14:08  
Blogger len said...

One thing has occurred to me and I don`t mean this as an attempt to condemn anyone.
If someone within the Catholic faith has been born again and has been filled with the Holy Spirit there appears to me to be a problem.

All Scripture is God Breathed.Those who wrote the Bible did it under the instruction of the Holy Spirit.Jesus used Scripture to illustrate points He was making and to rebuke Satan.
The Holy Spirit is God.
The Holy Spirit will not contradict Himself.
'The grass withers and the flowers fall, but the word of our God stands forever.'"(Isaiah 40:8) Jesus is the Word of God, the Word made flesh, He will not contradict Himself. "But the anointing which you have received from Him abides in you, and you do not need that anyone teach you; but as the same anointing teaches you concerning all things, and is true, and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you will abide in Him," (1 John 2:27)


So why is the Holy Spirit not informing Catholics that what they are doing is not according to the Scriptures?.

This is a question which has been puzzling me.

24 November 2011 at 18:12  
Blogger Albert said...

Len,

So why is the Holy Spirit not informing Catholics that what they are doing is not according to the Scriptures?

This admits of an easy answer: because what Catholics are doing is not not in accordance with Scripture.

Therefore, the Holy Spirit does not inform anyone else that what Catholics are doing is not in accordance with scripture.

24 November 2011 at 20:01  
Blogger Dodo's Way said...

Albert, which begs the question as to the actual source of these widespread and divergent attacks on the Church.

24 November 2011 at 21:53  
Blogger Dodo's Way said...

Ps
len, scripture wasn't dictated under instruction, it was inspired. There's a difference.

It needs to be approached with reverence, scholarly understanding and, given its use of poetry, analogy and metaphor, an awareness of it as a totality, with an appreciation of the times it was written in.

24 November 2011 at 21:59  
Blogger len said...

Dodo.

Do not alter (delete or add to) God's Word

"You shall not add to the word which I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you." Deuteronomy 4:2

"Whatever I command you, be careful to observe it; you shall not add to it nor take away from it." Deuteronomy 12:32

"...if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed. For do I now persuade men, or God? Or do I seek to please men? For if I still pleased men, I would not be a bondservant of Christ." Galatians 1:9-10

"For if he who comes preaches another Jesus whom we have not preached, or if you receive a different spirit which you have not received, or a different gospel which you have not accepted, you may well put up with it!" 2 Corinthians 11:4 [I.e. don't tolerate heresy]
"Every word of God is pure; He is a shield to those who put their trust in Him. Do not add to His words, lest He rebuke you, and you be found a liar." Proverbs 30:5-6

"If anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book; and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Book of Life, from the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book." Revelation 22:18-19

"...we have renounced the hidden things of shame, not walking in craftiness nor handling the word of God deceitfully, but by manifestation of the truth, commending ourselves to every man’s conscience in the sight of God." 2 Corinthians 4:2

"....we are not, as so many, peddling the word of God; but as of sincerity, but as from God, we speak in the sight of God in Christ." 2 Corinthians 2:17

25 November 2011 at 08:14  
Blogger Theo said...

Len
I have found your discourse on this thread totally inspiring. Thank you and may God bless you mightily.

25 November 2011 at 10:53  
Blogger Albert said...

Len,

You shall not add to the word which I command you, nor take from it

Quite. But then we Catholics are not the ones adding "alone" to the scripture to make it say, what you have already admitted it does not actually say. Neither are we the ones calling parts of God's word the "epistle of straw", threatening to burn it, and generally trying to omit it from the canon because we don't like what it does say.

Or take this:

You foolish Galatians, who has bewitched you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified? 2This is the only thing I want to find out from you: did you receive the Spirit by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith?

You try to make this say what it doesn't say, whereas we take:

You foolish Galatians, who has bewitched you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified? 2This is the only thing I want to find out from you: did you receive the Spirit by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith?

to mean:

You foolish Galatians, who has bewitched you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified? 2This is the only thing I want to find out from you: did you receive the Spirit by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith?

25 November 2011 at 14:01  
Blogger len said...

Albert, Are we moving on to bible translations?.I presume you refer to Luther, I am not (and never claimed to be) a follower of Luther.

The great majority of the differences between Bible believing Protestants and the RCC do not come from different interpretations of the Bible or different Bibles, but from a difference in what is the "final authority". The Bible must be interpreted in the light of the Bible itself and neither twisted nor set aside to honor the pronouncement of Popes, Councils, or Tradition (2 Thessalonians 2:15; 3:6).
Catholics who read their Bibles will know that many of their practices are un- Biblical. The Christian creed adopted at the Council of Nicaea in 325 (called for and presided over by Constantine) was theologically encouraging, but it was also in this era that the church first accepted such unscriptural ideas as praying for the dead, the veneration of angels and dead saints, the use of images, and the celebration of daily mass. This regression from scripture continued through the Council of Ephesus in 431 A.D., where the worship of Mary became an official doctrine of the church, referring to her as the "Mother of God." And only nine years later in 440, Leo, bishop of Rome was the first to declare himself the successor of St. Peter and laid claim to the role of Universal Bishop, a forerunner of papal authority. While this was widely disputed, Leo commanded that all should obey him on the false notion that he held the primacy of St. Peter.
One reason many of these strange ideas gained accepted credibility was because the Bible was not readily available to the common people, either in print or in translation. They had no idea what the Bible really taught. It was restricted only to priests trained to interpret it as it pleased the church hierarchy. Further, the popes claimed the authority to speak under the unique utterance of "Ex Cathedria," which in effect meant divine inspiration. Their proclamations and decrees carried supreme authority to interpret or overrule Holy Scripture, and to invent whatever doctrines or practices they wished.
In the simplest of terms, the basic difference between Catholics and Protestants is the authority they look to for their beliefs. The Protestant Church generally embraces the Bible as its sole source of authority and faith, while the Catholic Church views the post-biblical traditions of the church and its Popes to have more than equal authority with scripture.

26 November 2011 at 00:24  
Blogger Albert said...

Len,

A few things:

1. Please stop posting comments that are plainly cut & pasted from other websites. There is no need for you to tell me what the differences are between Catholics and Protestants. I know, I have been in both camps. In any case, these generic posts you put up are generally wrong - as I have shown and will show. The people who post them are, at best, ignorant of the Catholic teaching, at worst, liars. Instead of looking to ignorant Protestants to explain what Catholics believe, why not listen to what Catholics actually say? Look at this: "Ex Cathedria" How can you expect such people to understand such terms when they cannot even spell them?

2. the basic difference between Catholics and Protestants is the authority they look to for their beliefs. The Protestant Church generally embraces the Bible as its sole source of authority and faith, while the Catholic Church views the post-biblical traditions of the church and its Popes to have more than equal authority with scripture.

This is simply bogus. The difference between us is not whether we regard the Popes and others has having "more than equal authority with scripture", the issue - as we have discussed at length, and as you should now know - is who is the final authority in interpreting scripture? Is it the individual or the Church? We have seen that your attempts to show it is the individual can be easily falsified by the very passages you appeal to.

3. They had no idea what the Bible really taught

This is utterly hopeless for various reasons. Firstly, yes, of course many people were illiterate and the text was not easily available in the pre-printing era (a reason why the Protestant rejection of tradition cannot be inbuilt into the Christianity, but is simply a result of the invention of the presses), but some people did read the scriptures. Now just think of this Len: they read the scriptures, but they did not find the doctrines you claim are there. They found the teachings which the Catholic Church teaches still. If the Bible really said what you say it says, wouldn't other readers have found is so before Luther? What are you saying about (a) The clarity of scirpture (b) the intelligence of readers over the centuries and (c) the work of the Holy Spirit, when you imply the faith was not taught for 1500 years or so?

Secondly, I read the Bible. I grew up as a Protestant. I rejected the classical doctrines of Protestantism long before I ever thought of becoming a Catholic. My reason: it seemed obvious that these doctrines were not in fact in scripture: they are (very late) human tradition nullifying the word of God. And nothing you have said in this discussion has made them seem any more plausible.

26 November 2011 at 10:07  
Blogger Albert said...

4. Are we moving on to bible translations?.I presume you refer to Luther, I am not (and never claimed to be) a follower of Luther

Not only, I referred directly to your own post and you haven't responded. But as to Luther - yes, I realise you are not a Lutheran. I assume you are some kind of Baptist. But Luther is a useful example, because on the question of justification of faith alone, you and he agree. He couldn't find the teaching in the Bible, and he could find it condemned. Obviously, therefore, this counts strongly against any claim that your position is biblical, or that Protestantism is based on taking the Bible seriously.

5. This regression from scripture continued through the Council of Ephesus in 431 A.D., where the worship of Mary became an official doctrine of the church, referring to her as the "Mother of God."

The doctrine that Mary is "Mother of God" (as I have explained before) is a doctrine about Christ. If Mary is not "Mother of God" then Jesus is not God? Is that what you believe - that Jesus is not God? Is claiming that Jesus is God a regression from scripture in your religion? Let me be clear: if the Protestant websites you cut these things from do not believe Mary is Mother of God, they are not only not Protestants, they are not Christians. No amount of banging on about the Bible will cover up the fact that they do not believe in Jesus. Hopefully, it is their ignorance that is the cause of this error, not a deliberate lack of faith!

There's so much more that I could say, but it seems to fall on stony ground - I have, after all, said most of this before. So let me just finish with this: Len, the Catholic Church is very old. It has seen errors come and go. Each error appealed to the Bible, each error had superficial plausibility, the supporters of each error believed they were right as strongly as you do but they were errors nonetheless. Why should I accept your position as more plausible? It seems, even on your own terms a good deal less plausible than most errors to me.

26 November 2011 at 10:15  
Blogger len said...

Albert, the errors of Catholicism are easily detectable by anyone possessing a Bible and a little time.

In fact there are so many errors and fabrications in Catholic theology that it ends up as a 'different Gospel' altogether from the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

I only hope and pray that those entrapped within the Catholic delusion will have their eyes opened before it is too late!.

26 November 2011 at 16:19  
Blogger Albert said...

Len,

Even if per impossibile the Catholic Church was in error, it would only be possible to tell if one understood what it is the Catholic Church teaches and why. It is clear from our encounters that you do not know this. Equally, it would be necessary to grasp the teaching of scripture, but again, I do not find you teaching what the Bible teaches, only what you have been taught to find in the Bible. Finally, even if it were possible per impossibile to show that Catholicism was not scriptural, that wouldn't show your position was biblical. In fact, given that so much of our history is shared, and that the very categories you use come from Catholicism (hence Eastern Christians think of Protestantism as an eccentric for of Catholicism) if per impossibile the Catholic Church were in error that would provide yet more evidence that you were in error.

26 November 2011 at 20:48  
Blogger len said...

Albert, First point, our history is NOT shared .My 'Church ' has suffered constant persecution from yours.Your 'Church 'is based upon error, mine is based upon Christ.Your Church has tried to destroy all opposition to its heretical teachings.

Catholicism started with error and has piled more errors upon those, until finally the Truth has all but disappeared under piles of 'rubbish'deposited by various Popes , who are and where mere men more interested in wealth and power than the things of God.

As I have said to Dodo on another thread;

Roman Catholicism cannot exist without doing the very thing that Jesus said the Pharisees would go to Hell for,teaching as precepts of God the inventions of men(Matthew 15:9)

27 November 2011 at 11:07  
Blogger Albert said...

Len,

Roman Catholicism cannot exist without doing the very thing that Jesus said the Pharisees would go to Hell for,teaching as precepts of God the inventions of men(Matthew 15:9)

Can you not see that that is exactly what I am accusing you of doing? It's no good just making assertions. Given your assumptions, you must defend your accusations using scripture, and I have to say, your arguments have been weak in that regard.

But don't misunderstand me: I am not attempting to force you by argument into Catholicism. I recognise that you have invested a great deal in not being Catholic - I was there once too. All I want to convince you of is that we Catholics can defend our position with reference to scripture, rather more robustly than you assume. I don't know if I am managing to convince you of that, but if not, then I can only assume it is because you are more interested in not being Catholic than in listening to scripture - which is how you come across, frankly.

Catholicism started with error and has piled more errors upon those, until finally the Truth has all but disappeared under piles of 'rubbish'deposited by various Popes

As you demonstrably do not know what Catholicism teaches you are in no position to make such judgments.

My 'Church ' has suffered constant persecution from yours.

Len, your 'Church' (as you put it) has not existed long enough to have suffered constant persecution - for most of the last 2000 years neither your doctrines, nor your communities existed. As for where there has been persecution, this is cause for shame and repentance on our part. But we have been persecuted by Protestants too - are you ready to admit that was wrong?

27 November 2011 at 13:49  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older