Tuesday, October 01, 2013

Theresa May ends the scourge of modern-day slavery


If you happen to be following coverage of the Conservative Party Conference 2013 via the distorting lens of the MSM, you might be forgiven for thinking yesterday was all about the economy and UKIP, with a peppering of Karren Brady (who will soon no doubt be Baroness Brady).

But Home Secretary Theresa May made what was by far the most important speech - only to be completely eclipsed by Bill Cash and Nigel Farage on the Fringe. In her speech on immigration, international terrorism, racism, religious extremism and "getting rid of dangerous foreigners", she spoke of her determination to end modern-day slavery. This is what she said:
I want the NCA to take the fight to criminals of every sort. We’ll be hearing soon from Nicola Blackwood, about her campaign against the sexual exploitation of children, and from Damian Green, who has been leading the Government’s work in this area. But I want to talk now about the exploitation of men, women and children by organised criminal gangs. This appalling crime is known as human trafficking, but we should call it what it is – modern slavery.

That might sound like an exaggeration. But there is increasing evidence – as we’ve seen in Newport recently – that thousands of people in Britain are exploited through forced labour, being pushed into crime and being made to work in the sex industry. They are bought and sold as commodities, they are kept in servitude and they have little chance of escape. Because they are often forced into a life of crime, they fear not just their traffickers but the people who should be there to help them – the police and the authorities.

So modern slavery is taking place in Britain. And its victims are not always foreign nationals brought here by gangs. This year, in Luton, British criminals were sentenced for kidnapping homeless people and forcing them to work in dreadful conditions for no pay. They were beaten if they even talked about escape. They were British people, working for British gangmasters, in Britain – and they were being kept as slaves.

We cannot ignore this evil in our midst. And that is why the Government will soon publish a Modern Slavery Bill. That Bill will bring into a single Act the confusing array of human trafficking offences. It will give the authorities the powers they need to investigate, prosecute and lock up the slave drivers. And it will make sure that there are proper punishments for the perpetrators of these appalling crimes.

The Bill will send the clearest possible message. If you’re involved in this disgusting trade in human beings, you will be arrested, you will be prosecuted – and you will be thrown behind bars.
The Modern Slavery Bill is concerned with the fundamental dignity of the human being: it has been so long needed it is small wonder that Labour never introduced it. When women and children are being trafficked to Britain and forced into slave labour and selling their bodies for sex, it is impossible to imagine the depths of desperation and self-loathing to which they must sink.

Salvation is not only concerned with eschatology and eternity: it can be realised in a believer's 'freedom' and redemption here on earth, as the first-fruits of what we anticipate and hope for. The freedom we have in Christ includes the removal of psychological barriers - liberation from 'the bondage of the will'. St Paul often contrasts the gospel of liberty with the law that binds, because Christ came to deliver us from the incapacity to obey. The law simply reinforces our impotence, rendering us nervous paralytics.

To be free we must be able to respond as we wish. Those who are bound in will or restricted in action may be free in spirit, but they cannot be free to participate in the fullness of the created order: in Christ, we are no longer slaves, but sons and daughters. This means not only that we can do now what we could not do before, but that we may do now what we were not permitted to do before.

Rarely in recent years has a Bill before Parliament been so founded upon a clear scriptural principle - freedom for captives. These modern-day slaves will be liberated from the living death of isolation, depression, shame, abuse and hatred. They will given a new life in creation and a worthy place in community. By this Bill, Theresa May is reinforcing a fundamental Christian ethic and renewing our cultural moral values. She is turning darkness into light by walking in the footsteps of William Wilberforce and giving meaning to the term 'humanity'.

72 Comments:

Blogger Gareth said...

This is another 'declarative' piece of legislation. Unless it is enforced it is no better than toilet paper, and I have scant hope that it will be enforced.

1 October 2013 at 10:05  
Blogger Jay Bee said...

Fine words butter no parsnips.
Especially as we are stuck in the EU with open borders and too sensitive to minority cultural practices.
Vote harvesting propaganda.

1 October 2013 at 10:30  
Blogger John Wrake said...

Your Grace,

Your sentiments in this post are commendable and shared by many, but I question the need for more new legislation.

Slavery was outlawed in this country in the year 1102 by the Council of Westminster. It was banned in Madras in the 18th Century by the Honourable East India Company. It was banned throughout the British Empire in 1833.

What we lack at present is not Law, but Will, Understanding and Enforcement.

While we suffer the follies of multiculturalism, we allow those among us who practise or condone slavery to freely continue this abomination.

It is not the colour of a man's skin which makes him different, but the colour of his thoughts and his philosophy.

John Wrake.

1 October 2013 at 10:33  
Blogger David B said...

If we look at the history of slavery we find that for many centuries Christianity (as a whole) endorsed slavery.

So it is hard to see how a religion that, I keep being told, finds absolute eternal values important could have a fundamental Christian ethic against it.

Of course, though, all those of us with broadly enlightenment values must welcome the bulk of Christians climbing on board, even if some of them were dragged aboard kicking and screaming.

Much the same as slowly Christianity is climbing on board regarding equal rights for adults of either sex, any race, and (except where they infringe on minors or the unwilling) sexual orientation. Some Christians are still kicking and screaming regarding one or more of these, two.

It is hard to see how Christianity as a whole, though certainly some Christians have been deeply involved with in a positive way, can claim the credit regarding any of these basic human aspirations.

David

1 October 2013 at 11:14  
Blogger Albert said...

David B, you are very naughty.

If we look at the history of slavery we find that for many centuries Christianity (as a whole) endorsed slavery.

Slavery largely died out under Christianity, it has been serially re-introduced under secularism. John Wrake has already given Church positions banning it, and the slave trade was condemned by popes from its inception.

Of course, though, all those of us with broadly enlightenment values

Equality is not a secular enlightenment value, owing to the fact that human equality is a meaningless concept - except insofar as it is obviously false, on a naturalistic metaphysic. It's true some enlightenment thinkers borrowed Christian ideas of the value of each person, but such ideas actually make little sense in the secular context.

Much the same as slowly Christianity is climbing on board regarding equal rights for adults of either sex, any race

Where's the inequality?

sexual orientation

Again, no inequality. True we don't accept the liberal view that sexual minorities should be unjustly privileged beyond reason, but that's because we believe in equality not because we oppose it.

It is hard to see how Christianity as a whole, though certainly some Christians have been deeply involved with in a positive way, can claim the credit regarding any of these basic human aspirations.

I think I've already answered that. History is an uneven and messy business. But in the end, the West discovers human rights and equality because it believes - from the Bible - in the equality rendered by being made in God's image. Take that away and all you have is raw power. In the end, a Christian is a follower of Jesus, a secularist, if he is intellectually consistent, is a follower of Nietzsche.

1 October 2013 at 11:45  
Blogger Mrs Proudie of Barchester said...

Goodness! They can pass laws which say the Moon is made of green cheese but that does not make it so. Trafficking can be reduced (one dares to say stopped) only if we control our own borders, and this we do not do at present. I have every respect for the intention, but have no idea how this will be made good.

1 October 2013 at 12:14  
Blogger Mrs Proudie of Barchester said...

And whilst we are at it, one would like to know DavidB's thoughts on slavery in the Muslim world, where it is very much practiced. Surely that is a more pressing issue than whatever Christianity did or did not condone in the past.

1 October 2013 at 12:18  
Blogger David B said...

Me naughty!!???

How often have I explained to you that a secularist is simply someone who does not believe that government should favour any one religion above another or above no religion?

And that there are many Christian secularists?

I further note that when the Catholic Church had real power, over monarchs as well as the people as a whole, no action was taken against slavery, or indeed other forms of persecution of indigenous peoples colonised with the blessing of popes by Spain, Portugal et al.

I don't recall reading that the churches took an active role regarding property rights, inheritance rights, voting rights of women( or, indeed, regarding the voting rights of the common man, either).

Nor, in the case of the Catholic church in particular, the human freedom to publish and read such books as anyone wished to, even extending to the Bible in someone's own language!

Nor the rights of women to choose if or when to have children.

Nor pay much regard for peoples wishes to have a drink, to buy or sell things, or play or watch games or sports on a Sunday.

The churches, and particularly the RCC, have a very poor record regarding aspirations to what we generally now see as human rights, historically the more so the more power they have had.

Fortunately the power and influence of the various churches is in decline, though Islam continues to pose a growing threat to the rights of those brought up within the religion in particular, and to the rest of us in general.

David





1 October 2013 at 12:18  
Blogger Martin said...

Do others, like me, find it strange that this government should spend so much of its time on the pseudo right of so called sexual orientation and the destruction of marriage and, almost at the last hour, think to legislate on slavery?

The one who is truly enslaved, the Bible tells us, is the one enslaved in their sin. Among those sins is sexual misbehaviour & the idea that the government should cement that slavery with a mockery of marriage is a wicked thing.

Of course David B is of the opinion that the government should favour his religion, the religion of pretence whose adherents worship their own intellectual prowess in pretending God does not exist. Thus David, you fail to fit your own definition of secularism.

The fact is that OT 'slavery' was a very much different thing from what we regard as slavery & the NT drove very long, very strong nails into the coffin that should hold slavery.

Is it not strange also, that the opponent of slavery sees no problem in the massacre of innocent infants before they have time to draw breath - something the government has failed to uphold even the the limited legal restrictions on

So David, don't be misled, you are a slave as much as any Kunta Kinte may have been. You are enslaved to your sin & doomed to obey it.

1 October 2013 at 12:39  
Blogger David Hussell said...

An excellent post Your Grace, and thank you.

Yes, Ukip activist as I am, concentrating on that, I missed her most significant commitment.

It is good to see that the Home Secretary saying something that all sound people can support.

John Wrake has expressed most of my thoughts regarding our previous strengths, when we were a free standing nation state, and our present hamstrung plight what with the ever greedy, bossy EU and the madness of open borders, and fake multiculturalism leading to a lack of shared values.

And Uncle Brian points with unerring accuracy to the true Biblical, theological roots of our free, equal status as "sons and daughters made in the image of God". Individuals within our various denominational Churches may have erred in the past, and continue to do so, but the Truth and the Light shine on in the darkness, which it always conquers.

1 October 2013 at 12:40  
Blogger David Anderson said...

Did she mention the elephant in the room?

There's a reason why criminals think that Britain is a great place to operate gangs of sex slaves.

It's that which cannot be mentioned by politicians: the climate created is one of the inevitable consequences of consistently following through the ideas of the sexual revolution.

1 October 2013 at 13:03  
Blogger David Anderson said...

> How often have I explained to you that a secularist is simply someone who does not believe that government should favour any one religion above another or above no religion?

The division of ideologies into "religions" (implicitly: bad) and secularism (implicitly: good) is itself a religious doctrine. The idea of secular neutrality has been dead in the water in philosophy for donkey's years. You're raising a corpse. Cut the nonsense about secularism being neutral; tell us why secularism is a much better religion than the other religions.

1 October 2013 at 13:05  
Blogger Jon said...

Mrs Proudie, His Grace's post includes some fairly clear examples of why your posture of counting on the never never of "controlling our borders" to alleviate the pressure to act now is misguided. There are British gangs exploiting British people. It's not just the forrins.

Why allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good? We don't need to leave the EU to change things. It's just that that's what you'd like to see, so that's what you'll make the precursor to action.

And David Anderson - what tripe. Gangs operated in this country before the sexual revolution. Gangs operate in every country. The mafia don't seem to mind that they operate in almost entirely un-reformed Italy. You're as bad as Mrs Proudie, trying to make the story fit your prejudice.

If there truly is a confusing array of legislation, then it should be simplified. And perhaps a banner piece of legislation would announce to the world that the country that did more to end slavery than any other still sees it alive in its midst and is determined to root it out. I'm not one of Ms May's fans, but this is a great piece of news, and one anyone with half an ounce of human decency ought to welcome unreservedly.

1 October 2013 at 13:33  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

David B

The problem is that you define 'neutrality' as 'presuming all religions are equally false." That amounts to a de facto establishment of Secularist presupposition in law. For example. "It's nice that you religionists believe that life begins at conception, but that is a religious concept of which the law can take no notice. We must be neutral in such things. Therefore we shall presume in law that a fetus may be treated as a non-human prior to a certain time lest we trample on human autonomy."

That isn't neutral.

carl

1 October 2013 at 14:40  
Blogger Albert said...

David B,

How often have I explained to you that a secularist is simply someone who does not believe that government should favour any one religion above another or above no religion?

How often? As often as we have gone through the fact that "secularism" seems to have a variety of meanings. Though a position of excluding religion seems to be the most prominent in fact and in definition. In any case, the meaning that is required for my post is simply an adoption of a non-religious, and probably naturalistic view point.

In my post I effectively challenged you to come up with a naturalistic reason for believing human beings are equal and have rights. You have not even touched on this, let alone offered a defence of the view that human rights and equality would have arisen as beliefs without the influence of Christianity.

I further note that when the Catholic Church had real power, over monarchs as well as the people as a whole, no action was taken against slavery, or indeed other forms of persecution of indigenous peoples colonised with the blessing of popes by Spain, Portugal et al.

This is hopelessly compromised. By the time Spain and Portugal were powers, the Papacy had lost that kind of power over monarchs. But in any case, the issue is not the sins of this or that member of the clergy - even if it be the Pope himself - but what the Church taught. Moreover, slavery, having been effectively abolished in Europe, was not something people saw, they did not know about it, on the whole.

I don't recall reading that the churches took an active role regarding property rights, inheritance rights, voting rights of women( or, indeed, regarding the voting rights of the common man, either).

I don't know about voting rights for women, I admit, but I am amazed that you don't think the Church had any role in the rest of that. All that says to me is that you are commenting from ignorance and prejudice. Perhaps what you show here is that your reading is too narrow.

Nor, in the case of the Catholic church in particular, the human freedom to publish and read such books as anyone wished to, even extending to the Bible in someone's own language!

All societies censor things. There is no absolute right in this regard. What we are dealing with is whether we agree with a prudential judgement. Certainly, there will have been decisions I would not defend, but also, there will have been circumstances I do not understand.

Nor the rights of women to choose if or when to have children.

What are you talking about?

Nor pay much regard for peoples wishes to have a drink, to buy or sell things, or play or watch games or sports on a Sunday.

Endless shopping on every day of the week is bad for society, individuals and families - that is manifest - it also bad for people's debts. It reflects a failure to understand what it is to be a human being - it reflects a banal view of the human person as simply someone who just consumes. Beyond that, I think you'll find Catholics have been pretty well up there in terms of drinking and playing games on Sundays.

1 October 2013 at 14:55  
Blogger Albert said...

David,

The churches, and particularly the RCC, have a very poor record regarding aspirations to what we generally now see as human rights, historically the more so the more power they have had.

That's just because you have a very ethnocentric view of history. Have you no idea of the role of individuals like Bartolomé de las Casas or Francisco de Vitoria in the development of human rights? And what ground was the Church building on? They inherited a society of infanticide and violence as a spectator sport! It takes time to develop a doctrine of the human person from such base beginnings. It also takes mistakes, in the sense the human rights become most clear, when they are violated, and it takes people to propose practical solutions to show that other injustices will not follow for human rights to become established.

Nevertheless, the greatest violations of human rights came after they had been established - in the modern era, and then not by the Churches, but by you lot! And why were post-Christian ideologies so prone to fall for such violence on such a colossal scale? The answer is clear from what your post does not say: it does not give an account of why people are equal, why they have human rights, and how understanding of rights would have arisen were it not for Christianity.

1 October 2013 at 14:55  
Blogger Mrs Proudie of Barchester said...

Dear Jon, I do assure you my 'posture' is well-concealed beneath a voluminous bustle.

1 October 2013 at 15:19  
Blogger Mrs Proudie of Barchester said...

However, I do agree there are British gangs exploiting British people: I believe they are called the Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties.

1 October 2013 at 15:23  
Blogger Mrs Proudie of Barchester said...

"Why allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good? We don't need to leave the EU to change things. It's just that that's what you'd like to see, so that's what you'll make the precursor to action"

How do you know what I'd like to see? Truly your insight is astonishing...perhaps you can also ascertain what I had for breakfast from reading these few sentences...my my.

1 October 2013 at 15:28  
Blogger gentlemind said...

Surrogacy is slavery. The legal fiction of Sexless Marriage gives adults the right to separate a child from that child's parents. The commodification of the family is the commodification of children. The commodification of children is the commodification of the human being.

1 October 2013 at 15:30  
Blogger David Hussell said...

gentlemind,

Good to see you on these pages, especially with your impeccable logic.

Albert,

Forgive me but I do get tired of the latter day crusading secularists claiming for themselves and their fellow travellers the goods produced by the Christian faith, halting and flawed as us individual Christian surely are. (Do I hear Len about to speak, quite rightly, on that "fallen" point). However as you say, in a world in which all are imperfect, it is the record of the teachings of The Church that truly count. From the moral wasteland of Roman paganism the early post-Constantine Church produced, good fruit, all of which is now under attack; an attack driven by the Enlightenment values of post-Christian Britain, with its "value free" Secularism as the new Creed. People are now mere commodities !

Bring back Wesley !

1 October 2013 at 16:32  
Blogger David Hussell said...

Mrs Proudie,

Do get that bustle under control on these windy autumnal days, decorum please !

1 October 2013 at 16:33  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

Modern day slavery happening in Britain now is the result of too much immigration, of too many differing cultures of which we are totally unable to cope with. They are running rings round us.
Slavery had been almost eradicated here, now it's rearing its ugly head again. That some of it is from British people makes me wonder are they traveller gangs and 1st generation Brits whose parents are foreign? I would think so. And the EU has invited more of this lovely culture to enrich our lives with from next year.
Let's hope Teresa May can act to enforce the laws we have against this as well as make good speeches.

1 October 2013 at 16:35  
Blogger Albert said...

Precisely, David H. We are all fallen, yet somehow out of Church history - a story of sin as much as of grace - emerges a range of beliefs about the value of the individual - even the lowest and the sickest. Given the Christian foundations, it is hardly surprising that as people turn from Christ, that culture is declining too.

Perhaps the weirdest thing is the way in which secularist keep changing their minds all the time. In the 19th Century when European culture was confident, thinkers like Nietzsche complained about Christianity for making people too merciful. As we emerge from the wreckage of the 20th Century - with all its secular wars and unparalleled destruction and cruelty, suddenly it is Christianity that is the villain of the piece.

Secularists really cannot have it both ways. But what is clear is that present evils are developing on the secularists' watch. No one can deny that.

1 October 2013 at 17:00  
Blogger Albert said...

David H,

I'm not sure about bringing back Wesley. I would bring back St Thomas Aquinas and St Francis. Between them they would put our age to shame and set it straight again.

1 October 2013 at 17:02  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

On occasion, the Inspector finds it illuminating to view an apparent outrage from a different perspective. So, he lies on his back and looks up at it, with its legs slightly apart. This is one such.

“Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury. My client found the alleged victim starving under a bush. He took him in. He fed him, he watered him, he gave him shelter. He also gave him somewhere to live. You would be correct to assume that it was a no star accommodation. But it was many times grander than the bush. He also gave him work to do, lest he idle away his time as he did before. And for all this, my client is called a slaver.”

In the supposed bad old days, the unfortunate would have been the recipient of parish relief. To wit, the workhouse. But of course, we now live in enlightened times, and see the workhouse as the well fed liberal types tell us it was - an evil institution. So your man is left to wander the world at will, and slowly rot away. But we can all sleep soundly at night in the knowledge that whatever happens to him, he has been spared the evil workhouse…





1 October 2013 at 18:15  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

And to follow on…

His Grace . These modern-day slaves will be liberated from the living death of isolation, depression, shame, abuse and hatred. They will given a new life in creation and a worthy place in community.

But for foreign types, why our community, and not the community they came from ? And thus shouldn’t they be repatriated ?

If the UK is turned into a human version of an international animal sanctuary, there’ll be no shortage of chancers making their way over here to claim that sanctuary, and an asylum seekers ticket will be quite unnecessary. Imagine that, they wouldn’t have to destroy their identity documents, as they leave the lorry and hail the next police car.

The bottom line is this. Nobody forced these trafficked people to come here. No, they paid top dollar to arrive. And they knew damn well they were breaking the law. They were not duped, at least give them some credit for that. For the women, they may have been promised jobs as air hostesses, but they knew it could go sour, so they relied on what we all do in the adverse; we put it out of our mind and hope.

Are we supposed to reward such conniving subterfuge ? Do we want people to realise an effective way of staying here for good is to sneak in and temporarily work as a whore ? It will soon get around the world, you know. Is that the Christian way ?

1 October 2013 at 18:16  
Blogger David Hussell said...

Albert,

I'd settle for St Francis and Wesley myself. High theology and philosophy has its place but we are mostly in desperate need of those who know how to take the Gospel of Salvation and the Love of God out to ordinary people in the highways and byways of our Godless land. They would bring a spot of sensible organization to it all as well. But I shan't push the point with you, although we must have Wesley preaching from the tavern and Town Cross alike. Thanks be for all the Saints, and the saints, who have travelled before us and are waiting to greet us.

1 October 2013 at 18:35  
Blogger Albert said...

David H,

Well, the pen is mightier than the sword. To be strong, a society, and the Church needs deep thought. It needs to understand the world around it, it needs to see what it can learn from the world (tested against the standard of Christ) and it needs to see where the world is quite simply, in error. One of the reasons secularism has got a hold of our society is because of the philosophical weakness of our Christian forebears.

So I think, for all the enthusiasm and strength of Francis and Wesley (and I admire them both, although I rather regret the latter didn't follow his brother's advice on breaking with the CofE), I think I would want Aquinas as well.

Between Francis and Wesley I would choose Francis. Francis is famously quoted as saying "Preach the Gospel, and if it's necessary, use words." Wesley used a lot of words. Francis was a living Gospel in himself. I admire Wesley for his preaching, but I admire the life of Francis more. And I think, in an age seeking authenticity, Francis would be a living sermon of tremendous power.

1 October 2013 at 21:06  
Blogger David Hussell said...

Albert,
You are incorrigible ! And immovable. Swim The Tiber and that's what happens to you ( just teasing). You should have been a philosopher. Were you one, professionally, academically I mean ?

Wesley junior had the advantage of a very happy marriage, and so was content to settle down and write hymns, and good things they still are as well. Elder brother preferred the company of a good mare, his saddle and a truly God given gift for oratory. He was a hardy man, only accepting the use of an enclosed carriage, a gift from friends and well wishers in his older years. He covered prodigious distances in the service of His Lord. He appeals to the traveller and adventurer in me.

Now I don't remember us agreeing that this super team "to fix the problem", shall we say, has to be limited to just two great Christians so, as the hour is exceeding late, and I have a peaty whiskey awaiting, I propose that we allow for three in our team, thus so forming a very Christian sort of number for any grouping.

That's my final offer. the price goes up again in the morning ! I always buy at the right price.....

God Bless you.

1 October 2013 at 21:35  
Blogger Martin said...

Hmm, seems to me that Thomas Aquinas and Francis of Assisi (not sure either were saints, that's reserved for those who are born again) would probably fail to tell the gospel which actually need words like sin, death, slavery, mercy & miracle at the very least.

1 October 2013 at 22:06  
Blogger bluedog said...

Jon @ 13.33 says, 'The mafia don't seem to mind that they operate in almost entirely un-reformed Italy.'

And have you noticed that the mafia originates in formerly Islamic occupied Sicily, and has echoes in similarly afflicted Corsica and Sardinia? Somehow the inherent violence of Islam has become imprinted in the society and culture of these former members of the Caliphate. Spain successfully eradicated this tendency. It follows that Islam tightens its grip on the UK, we will see greater gang violence, ultimately affecting the rule of law. How long before Muslim gangs are intimidating and killing jurors or the Bench?

1 October 2013 at 22:23  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

I remain surprised the no one has yet commented on The Inspector' post regarding our "modern slavery." While our tears may flow and our hearts surely bleed for the genuine victims, the reality is that in no time at all there will be ten, then a hundred and then a thousand bogus claimants for every genuine case cluttering up your refugee boards. Mark well that before the ink dries on the new legislation, the swamped adjudicators will be handing out positive boilerplate decisions in favour of any claimant, no matter how unlikely her...and in the interest of equality...his story may be. The result will be that everyone will feel better, thousands of new bureaucrats will join the payrolls and will eventually suckle at the pension packages while the real victims will still remain ignored, unassisted and perhaps in greater danger.

I'm not familiar with your laws, but I could safely wager a part of my anatomy that speedily and properly applied existing legislation and demands for effective policing are perfectly capable of addressing this problem...all without the violins, the bombastic claims and showmanship of this dramatically named Modern Slavery Bill.

2 October 2013 at 03:22  
Blogger David Hussell said...

Martin,

Quite !

Uncle Albert being a fine, upstanding and rather erudite, learned man, whose knowledge seems to know no bounds, is in grave danger of, if I may be so bold as to say so, as missing the point that to offer an alternative to our Big Brother culture of degradation, individual and social decay, one needs speakers, preachers whatever who use very plain English indeed. The point about Wesley is that he could communicate clearly in simple, effective language with the ordinary folk that gathered at crossroads, taverns and the Town Market Cross, and they understood him. The Anglo-Catholic priests of the 19th century did the same thing, relating well with the very ordinary people.
Yes we need the theorists, the theologians, but the fact is that clever, theological arguments will not bring little Johnny, penitent to the foot of His Saviour's Cross. I rest my case.

2 October 2013 at 08:42  
Blogger Len said...

'The wheel' seems to have turned full circle as far as preaching the Gospel as Jesus, the disciples, or Paul preached.There were many martyrs who followed them to whom life was less important than the Truth of God`s Word.
The Gospel is an offence to many (even to some within the faith) and to preach the Gospel in a diluted 'socially acceptable' fashion will render the Gospel void and meaningless.This is part of the problem... Churches run schemes to draw people in which owe more to 'marketing techniques' than the power of the Holy Spirit.
There is a constant attack on Biblical Christianity by evolutionists, Atheists, secularists who see 'Christianity' as the 'final obstacle' to be removed on their path to liberalism(which they call 'freedom.'..for them [at least] to express their wants and desires without hinderance)

The Gospel(in its unadulterated form) is the Wisdom of God and the Power of God....but there is a price that will have to be paid for those brave enough to preach it.

2 October 2013 at 11:17  
Blogger Albert said...

David H,

You should have been a philosopher. Were you one, professionally, academically I mean ?

Kind of you to say, but gosh no. I just read a lot of books and like arguing.

Wesley junior had the advantage of a very happy marriage, and so was content to settle down

It's interesting that you bring that up, because I think that if you bring John Wesley along, I insist that his wife must also come to keep house, because otherwise, Wesley might spend more time at home than in the mission field.

So that's my final offer: St Thomas Aquinas, St Francis, John Wesley, Mrs Wesley. With those four, we could convert the world!

2 October 2013 at 12:16  
Blogger Albert said...

David H,

The point about Wesley is that he could communicate clearly in simple, effective language with the ordinary folk that gathered at crossroads, taverns and the Town Market Cross, and they understood him.

Undeniably. The trouble is longevity. Over 200 years ago Methodism swept Wales. Now where is it? The charisma of a preacher is a dangerous thing if it is not supporter by something else.

2 October 2013 at 12:23  
Blogger Albert said...

Martin,

seems to me that Thomas Aquinas and Francis of Assisi (not sure either were saints, that's reserved for those who are born again) would probably fail to tell the gospel which actually need words like sin, death, slavery, mercy & miracle at the very least.

Be honest, how much Aquinas have you actually read? In fact, if it comes to that, have you actually read any Wesley? My guess is that although you are picking on the Catholics, you would prefer their soteriology to Wesley. Just a thought...

2 October 2013 at 12:25  
Blogger Martin said...

Albert

The fact is that the church of Rome preaches a gospel of works,not grace. Thus those it praises are not those who say you can be saved only by the grace of God with no input from yourself. Indeed, they are condemned. I don't need to read those it praises because I know what those it condemned said. I'm fairly certain they would have condemned Christ Himself.

“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.”

It seems a shame that amidst this mention of the Wesley's that one who did at least as much as the pair of them, who was as great a preacher, is not mentioned. I refer of course to George Whitefield.

2 October 2013 at 14:37  
Blogger Mrs Proudie of Barchester said...

Goodness, dear Albert! Why, I am reading Aquinas on causality at the moment...have to confess though it is Edward Feser's 'Beginners Guide to Aquinas' and it is not easy. I may have to lie down...

2 October 2013 at 14:49  
Blogger Albert said...

Martin,

The fact is that the church of Rome preaches a gospel of works,not grace.

Well that all depends on what you mean. If you mean, the Catholic Church believes we are saved by our good works and not by grace, you are wrong. If you mean the Catholic Church believes faith is completed by works, so that we are justified by works and not by faith alone then yes, we certainly believe that. What's wrong with that?

2 October 2013 at 18:33  
Blogger Albert said...

I'm delighted to hear that, Mrs Proudie!

2 October 2013 at 18:33  
Blogger Len said...

Can a person be saved outside of the Catholic faith Albert by faith in Christ then works ?.

2 October 2013 at 19:09  
Blogger Len said...

The reason I asked the question can 'anyone be saved outside of the Catholic Church 'is because Catholicism is a 'religious system' which claims total authority over all Christians.(This is contrary to scripture and the reason of the split between the Roman and Eastern Churches,also the root cause of the Reformation).Roman Catholicism has devised a 'sacremantal system'which it purports is essential to' gain' salvation.
'The Catechism of the Catholic Church claims that the sacraments are the effective means of grace that is necessary for salvation. In more simplistic terms, the Catholic person must be an active participant in the Church’s physical sacraments in order to receive grace in hopes of earning salvation.'

Of course it is in the Catholic Churches interest to make sure that no one can leave because they need the sacremantal system to prop up their religion.

2 October 2013 at 19:31  
Blogger Albert said...

Len,

Rather than quoting what this or that Protestant website says the Catholic Church says, how about quoting what the Catholic Church says:

"Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it...This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and His Church:
Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience — those too may achieve eternal salvation.

2 October 2013 at 19:46  
Blogger Martin said...

Albert

" If you mean the Catholic Church believes faith is completed by works, so that we are justified by works and not by faith alone then yes, we certainly believe that. What's wrong with that?"

How about:

“For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; [it is] the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast.” (Ephesians 2:8-9 NKJV)

Even the faith the Christian is saved by is given them by God. Works come later, as an expression of our gratitude for the grace of God.

2 October 2013 at 22:42  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Albert and Len

Albert said ..

"Rather than quoting what this or that Protestant website says the Catholic Church says, how about quoting what the Catholic Church says: (But what if its a Pope??)"

"This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and His Church (Roman Cathocism, yes?):
Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church (Roman Catholicism, yes?), but who nevertheless seek God (So you must go after God?, yes) with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience — those too may achieve eternal salvation.

In stark contradiction with..

"Responding to a list of questions published in the paper by Mr Scalfari, who is not a Roman Catholic, Francis wrote: “You ask me if the God of the Christians forgives those who don’t believe and who don’t seek ((So you don't have to go after God?, yes) the faith. I start by saying – and this is the fundamental (the most basic foundation) thing – that God’s mercy has no limits if you go to him (So you DO have to go after God?, yes/no)with a sincere and contrite heart. The issue for those who do not believe in God (Is it that Rome itself doesn't know its 'atheist from it evangelical'??) is to obey their conscience. (What if their conscience says there is no god and they believe it as Dawkins and others state..Is the conscience malfunctioning if it does this from the Maker of it"

Further St Paul asserted that all humans have an inner moral conscience given by God. Truth, but this must be linked to another witness, creation (We know what theists think about that matter, do we not!) but even these two together (A double whammy?!) are only used as the basis for condemnation, why they are being sent away, NOT the SALVATION of all mankind, even those who have not been exposed to the OT or the gospel message. Humans are responsible because they have NOT lived up to the best light they have had...Book sent to the Romans my dear Albert, Romans..you know, those chaps that reside over yonder Tiber!!

Blofeld

3 October 2013 at 08:41  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Typo

should read "(We know what Atheists think about that matter, do we not!""

3 October 2013 at 08:44  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

ps

Is their such a thing to a Roman Catholic Pope as an 'Atheist Creationist' as opposed to an Atheist Evolutionist then ?? .

Blofeld

3 October 2013 at 08:46  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

PPS

Let's not even Go to where this means that Muslims are saved by conscience and Creation under Roman Catholic Dogma.

Christ is not the Father's, Son, He didn't did for anyone's sins it was Judas that was crucified, there is no Holy Spirit etc..

By trying to please everyone you pleases no one, least of all The Almighty and thereby blasphemy God's Holy Word and Name!!!

Blofeld

3 October 2013 at 08:59  
Blogger Julia Gasper said...

There was a conference in Oxford last April about this problem (human trafficking) held by Voice For Justice. Hardly anybody bothered to attend.
I was one of the very few...

3 October 2013 at 09:31  
Blogger Julia Gasper said...

The evidence brought at the conference established beyond any doubt that what David says above about the interconnectedness of things is true.
The conference papers were all placed online.

3 October 2013 at 09:35  
Blogger Len said...

'Infallible'Catholic popes have contradicted each other on matters of theology.Two Popes excommunicated each other...One Pope published 'his own version 'of the bible.This is without plunging into the murky depths of Papal history ..so why should I put Catholic 'doctrine' over and above the Word of God..its a ' no brainer'''unless you are a Catholic?.
"Pope francis has recently said In comments likely to enhance his progressive reputation, Pope Francis has written a long, open letter to the founder of La Repubblica newspaper, Eugenio Scalfari, stating that non-believers would be forgiven by God if they followed their consciences."(Source The Independent)
Albert.... do you seriously want me to consider Catholic opinion about the vitally important matters regarding the Gospel?

3 October 2013 at 10:08  
Blogger Len said...

We should make very clear what the Catholic Church says and means about salvation.
Catholics say what seems to be 'the right thing and to use 'the right words ' BUT in Catholicism they have entirely different meanings.

For example Baptism..Catholics believe that infant baptism transforms them(somehow)which is not Biblical.one must repent ..how exactly does an infant repent?.

Grace..meaning unmerited favour. Catholics believe 'graces'are dispensed through the sacremental system by a Priest in 'increments'.
Here we see the great difference between Roman Catholicism and the Biblical Gospel of God`s Grace.In the former 'graces' come from God(through the mediation of Mary)in response to what the Catholic DOES, in the latter Grace comes from God in response to what Christ has done.
So although Catholics are SAYING the same words their meaning is entirely different !.

3 October 2013 at 10:25  
Blogger Albert said...

Martin,

For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; [it is] the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast.” (Ephesians 2:8-9 NKJV)

Even the faith the Christian is saved by is given them by God.


There is nothing there that conflicts with Catholic teaching.

Works come later, as an expression of our gratitude for the grace of God.

That's true as far as it goes as well. But are you saying works do not come before faith in Jesus and justification? Are you saying works do not have a role in justification? I assume you must be or why would you be disagreeing (as I take it you are) with what I wrote earlier:

If you mean the Catholic Church believes faith is completed by works, so that we are justified by works and not by faith alone then yes, we certainly believe that.

3 October 2013 at 14:59  
Blogger Albert said...

Len,

We should make very clear what the Catholic Church says and means about salvation.

I don't have time to address your comments at the moment, but I think even an impartial reader will wonder whether you are the person to make it clear what Catholicism says about salvation. Your track record does not exactly inspire confidence, in this regard!

3 October 2013 at 15:01  
Blogger Martin said...

Albert

For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; [it is] the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast.” (Ephesians 2:8-9 NKJV)

Clearly means that faith comes before works. Works have no role in justification.

3 October 2013 at 22:12  
Blogger non mouse said...

Goodness, Your Grace. Has Ms May been re-reading all her schoolgirl novels - you know, the ones about great Victorian reformers. After all, that was when the world got really aerated over the 'white slave trade.' Funny though, how she's raking over the old chestnuts just when the immigrants have taken over the business: more in practice than in theory.

Btw - to get to something that really has indigenous roots: what's that tartan the ugly bat's wearing? Some sort of Black Watch? In any case, should a modern europhile politica wear anything so British?

4 October 2013 at 00:13  
Blogger Albert said...

Martin,

Clearly means that faith comes before works.

It could mean that, but it is not clear that it must. It certainly excludes anyone being saved by works without grace, but it does not require being saved by faith alone without works. Thus the way is still open for us to say we are justified by works and not by faith alone.

Acts makes this clear:

At Caesare'a there was a man named Cornelius, a centurion of what was known as the Italian Cohort, a devout man who feared God with all his household, gave alms liberally to the people, and prayed constantly to God.
About the ninth hour of the day he saw clearly in a vision an angel of God coming in and saying to him, "Cornelius." And he stared at him in terror, and said, "What is it, Lord?" And he said to him, "Your prayers and your alms have ascended as a memorial before God. And now send men to Joppa, and bring one Simon who is called Peter


The key thing is that "You prayers and your alms have ascended as a memorial before God." But this has happened before he has saving faith, for he has never heard the gospel at this point. On the contrary, it is because of these works, that God is sending Peter to him. Now this clearly does not mean he is saved by works without grace (lest anyone should boast). It just means he is not saved by faith alone, but that he is prepared by his works (done in grace) for justification (which is therefore by works and not by faith alone).

It seems to me that you may be conflating grace, faith and justification, as if they only happen all at once. But as it is, scripture makes it clear they need not happen all at once. Once you remove your Protestant spectacles, you will see that scripture can (and does) say other things.

4 October 2013 at 11:36  
Blogger Len said...

Albert, throwing mud into the waters doesn`t help your case at all.

The Word of God is what is needed to wash clean the' muddying' done by Catholic' additions' and 'interpretations'this was the purpose of the Reformation.

4 October 2013 at 12:57  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Albert.

Again, condemned by the text you quote!!!

The key thing is that "You prayers and your alms have ascended as a memorial before God."

"But this has happened before he has saving faith, for he has never heard the gospel at this point."

Neither had any Jew until Christ proclaimed the work of God in Him or by the testimony of the apostles regarding the Gospel (All Men/Womens are now offered salvation irrespective of Jew or Gentile by knowing who it is that offers it. The promised one.) but are we saying that all believing Jews before Christ walked the earth such as Abraham, Issac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, Joshua..must Ernst go on, were not saved?? WHAT UTTER RUBBISH. SHAME ON YOU FOR CREATING CONFUSION!!!
.
"a devout man who feared God with all his household, gave alms liberally to the people, and prayed constantly to God." This is not some idol worshiping Roman, now is it??

"an angel of God coming in and saying to him, "Cornelius." And he stared at him in terror, and said, "What is it, Lord?" " He did not say "What is it, Apollo?", now did he. He would be classed as an proselyte in the OT and not as a non believer!!

You are a 5th Dan Black Belt in the deceptive arts of Ju Jesuitsu.

Blofeld

4 October 2013 at 13:06  
Blogger Albert said...

Blofeld,

Forgive me, and I'm not being rude but I don't read your posts because I don't know what you are talking about.

I say this, Cornelius did not have saving faith, for saving faith is faith in Jesus - there is no other name by which we can be saved.

4 October 2013 at 13:38  
Blogger Albert said...

Len,

The Word of God is what is needed to wash clean the' muddying' done by Catholic' additions' and 'interpretations'this was the purpose of the Reformation.

So which bit of my post are you disagreeing with?

4 October 2013 at 13:41  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

albert

"Blofeld,

Forgive me, and I'm not being rude but I don't read your posts because I don't know what you are talking about."

Dear fellow, if you think that old Ernst gives a hoot at what you say regarding my offerings, do be assured I correct your nonsense because it only makes sense to those who delight in misleading others in the romish ways of saying one thing to establish commonality but it's meaning is in sharp contradiction with the others you claim commonality with..Justification by Christ and it's eternal benefits and what pertains to being saved. Ernst corrects your tripe on the blog for the lost that may be led astray as if what you say bears relation with the Eternal Truth revealed in the Holy Bible.

"I say this, Cornelius did not have saving faith, for saving faith is faith in Jesus - there is no other name by which we can be saved."

For what does the Scripture say? "And Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness." and "But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness, just as David also speaks of the blessing upon the man to whom God reckons righteousness apart from works:"

God did not change how He saved people in the New Testament. It has always been by faith.

In the case of the OT people, they looked ahead in time to the Messiah (Jesus Christ). We look back to Him and see the cross (Jesus Christ).

Is this comprehensible enough for you or do you still not understand ('Percipio' albertio) what Ernst is saying?

Not an answer to the Romish nonsense spouted about Cornelius , what!. However, you never respond when in error, do you old boy?. Such an old religious opportunist looking to misled for your sects sake, like those name it and claim it types!

Blofeld

4 October 2013 at 14:31  
Blogger Albert said...

Thank you Blofeld, that was a little clearer. Your view is that Cornelius was justified already, before he heard the Gospel? Is that correct?

Even if that is your view, and it is correct, it does not alter my argument. Cornelius is simply an example of the wider teaching, namely that faith is completed by works, so that we are justified by works and not by faith alone then yes. I find it odd that you quibble over my example, rather than the teaching itself.

4 October 2013 at 15:28  
Blogger Albert said...

you never respond when in error, do you old boy?

That sounds like the wife-beating question to me. I would say that I am pretty good at responding - though as I have said, I don't normally read your posts because they are usually rude and confusing.

4 October 2013 at 15:31  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Abraham, Issac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, Joshua.. justified already, before Jesus walked the earth? Correct!. They looked ahead in time to the Messiah (Jesus Christ) and they were justified. We look back to Him and see the cross (Jesus Christ). We are justified.

It's not difficult, now is it?

Blofeld

4 October 2013 at 20:42  
Blogger Albert said...

Blofeld,

Abraham, Issac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, Joshua.. justified already, before Jesus walked the earth?

The key bit here is that this was before Jesus walked the earth. Obviously they could not have faith in Jesus before he was even born - they looked ahead to it, as you say. But that is not the case of Cornelius. He is living after the time of Christ and that makes a difference. He is able to put his faith in Jesus, so for him, it becomes necessary.

As St Paul says:

even we [Paul and his fellow Christian Jews] have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ

So Paul makes clear that even he needed to have faith in Jesus Christ in order to be justified. How much more then a Gentile? So you seem caught between the passages, either you say:

(i) Works cannot come before justification (in which case you contradict Acts 10)

or you say:

(ii) Cornelius, a man living after the crucifixion, was justified by faith even before he had heard the Gospel (in which case you contradict Gal.2).

Indeed, it is obvious that there are many NT passages which clearly teach the need for faith in Christ. We can certainly sign up to those passages without for a moment denying salvation to the Patriarchs. What applies to them does not apply to those after Christ. I find it incredible that you are pursuing the line you are, since it undermines the whole proclamation of salvation, as far as I can see.

And then there is the further problem that the general position I have been giving (faith is completed by works, so that we are justified by works and not by faith alone), is clearly drawn from scripture:

You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by works, 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. You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.

So while you must contradict two of these three passages of scripture, Catholicism maintains and proclaims all three. And I can do it without being rude, like you.

4 October 2013 at 21:30  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

"Cornelius is simply an example of the wider teaching (there is no wider teaching here that can be used to ballast Romes false statement of limited salvation of Christ's cross plus then what we do, We are either eternally saved as He stated He does when we believe or we are lost..there is no middle ground here), namely that faith is completed by works (Works are seen as following faith visibly to others, not as a part of justification), so that we are justified by works (we are not and the Bible says so relentlessly) and not by faith alone then yes (We are justified by the work of Christ once and for all time and faith is given by God in Him. We may trust Him by Who He is, what He says and what He has done. He is a God that delights in keeping His promises to we who trust fully in Him and not in ourselves). I find it odd that you quibble over my example, rather than the teaching itself. (The example is no example at all as Ernst has shown but you, because of Romish dogma and not the facts laid our by the author you quote, cannot see. You see what is not there as do the name it and claim it lot.Aah..the teaching itself. So Christ is like a Father teaching his son to ride a bike without stablisers on for the first time. Christ pushes us off, we peddle but then the wobble comes on and we tumble to the floor. Christ races up to us, puts us back on and pushes us off again until we fall off again, Hopefully we will learn to ride that bike on our own until we get to the end of the road yes??? Here is the problem with this. He tells us He never lets go of the seat and even if He did His Father is holding the3 seat also and the Holy Spirit is on the bike with us encouraging us continually. The road we are going along is perilous and it would be irresponsible for Christ, The father or Holy Spirit to leave us to our own devices and the natural consequence if They did.

John 6:37-40
John 6:37-40

King James Version (KJV)

37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.

38 For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.

39 And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I SHOULD LOSE NOTHING, but should raise it up again at the last day.

40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have EVERLASTING life: and I WILL raise him up at the last day.

John 10:27-30

27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:

28 And I give unto them ETERNAL LIFE; and they shall NEVER perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.

29 My Father, which gave them me, is GREATER than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.

30 I and my Father are one.


There, now isn't that easy to understand or does that produce a reaction in you like Garlic and a Cross to Count Dracula.

Off you go my fella and do a bit more learning of the subjects you raise, I know it may be a less than ideal analogy that old Ernst has used but it's sufficient to deal with the very poor dogma generated by silly Romish theology not based on the scriptures!!)

Ernst Blofeld

4 October 2013 at 22:00  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

"The key bit here is that this was before Jesus walked the earth. Obviously they could not have faith in Jesus before he was even born - they looked ahead to it, as you say. But that is not the case of Cornelius. He is living after the time of Christ and that makes a difference.(No where does it state or imply that Cornelius had ever heard of Jesus or rejected this knowledge. You cannot reject what you do not know that has become more than a promise of a messiah but the living fulfillment of that promise arrival!!!) He is able to put his faith in Jesus, so for him, it becomes necessary."(So from the moment that Christ is born until His death there are no true believers to the God of Israel or accepted as righteous by Him under the terms of the Old Covenant. Correct?)

The principle subject of Acts chapter 10, if read in full, is not so much the conversion of Cornelius as the CONVERSION of PETER.

Blofeld

4 October 2013 at 23:07  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

We learn that Cornelius was a god fearer. These were Gentiles who loved the God of Israel; they were sympathetic to and supportive of the Jewish faith. Yet they stopped short of becoming full Jews.

And he prayed to God always: Because of the way the life and heart of Cornelius is described, we see a man who obviously had a real relationship with God which the almighty was about to clarify for his household and for Peter.

He specifically said to Peter he was praying (at the ninth hour I prayed in my house) This was a customary time of prayer for Jews (3.00 in the afternoon).

Cornelius, the god fearer, obeys God’s command and sends for Peter.

Corneliusthen called two of his household servants and a devout soldier: Apparently, the faith of Cornelius was very contagious and there were those of his household and under his command who also honored the God of Israel because of this faith.

Then we have Peter an Apostle and Believer of the Gospel.

And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat. But Peter said, Not so, Lord; Peter’s response was both absurd and yet typical of us and unfortunately Peter at that time.
He said “no” to his Lord.
The only legitimate answer to a request from our Lord is “yes", is it not.” On that day, it seemed that Cornelius was more responsive to God than Peter was.

Rise, Peter; kill, and eat..This was done three times. Peter was to regard this declaration as important as we are too from it's inclusion.

Now consider Cornelius had sent his servants to get a man he had never met, so that he could meet this unknown man.
He only knew that the man was a pious Jew, who by tradition would have nothing to do with a Gentile such as Cornelius. Despite all that, we are told Cornelius was waiting for them in 'faith'.

Cornelius met him and fell down at his feet and worshipped him. Peter corrected Cornelius by saying, “Stand up; I myself am also a man.”
(In your cathedral there is a huge statue of Peter, where people come and kiss the toe of the statue. Ernst wishes that St Peter would visit the cathedral named after him and kindly correct such people)

Then Peter opened his mouth and said: “In truth I perceive that God shows no partiality. But in every nation whoever FEARS and works RIGHTEOUSNESS is ACCEPTED by Him. The word which God sent to the children of Israel, preaching peace through Jesus Christ; He is Lord of all; that word you know (Messiah), which was proclaimed throughout all Judea, and began from Galilee after the baptism which John preached: how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power, who went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, for God was with Him. And we are witnesses of all things which He did both in the land of the Jews and in Jerusalem, whom they killed by hanging on a tree. Him God raised up on the third day, and showed Him openly, not to all the people, but to witnesses chosen before by God, even to us who ate and drank with Him after He arose from the dead. And He commanded us to preach to the people, and to testify that it is He who was ordained by God to be Judge of the living and the dead. To Him all the prophets witness that (Messiah), through His name, whoever believes in Him will receive remission of sins.”

Note it carefully,old boy. WHOEVER believes! Jew or Gentile; slave or free; white or black; good or wicked; rich or poor – whoever believes.

The Lord was building His church which is distinctive from the OT saints. The true once for all sacrifice had arrived and the abolition of animal sacrifices had come for remission of sins.

Blofeld

4 October 2013 at 23:15  
Blogger Albert said...

Ernst,

You are as mad as box of frogs. You do not know how to use paragraphs or quotations. Consequently, most of what you say is impenetrable. However, odd sentences jump off the page which show that you have not understood the arguments I have given let alone answered them. For example,

So from the moment that Christ is born until His death there are no true believers to the God of Israel or accepted as righteous by Him under the terms of the Old Covenant. Correct?

For the most part, your posts appear to be (and I haven't even looked at the third) an argument against the scripture I quoted. As usual you avoid answering direct questions (at least, that's how it appears, I genuinely find your written style impenetrable). You constantly attribute to me things I have not said (but which you think I must have said), and you do the same with the Bible. And yet you always conclude your posts with an offensive tail.

5 October 2013 at 09:03  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older