Friday, March 14, 2014

Q. When is free speech not free speech?



Q. When is free speech not free speech?

A. When it's on a BBC3 programme called 'Free Speech', and the topic is "Britain’s first and we think only gay Muslim drag queen", and the producers decide to broadcast from a mosque.

The short film above was screened to the audience, and then the presenter declared: "We were going to debate that question but today after speaking to the mosque they have expressed deep concerns with having this discussion here. The mosque were happy for us to play that video and we will talk about it on our next programme on March 25th. So we’ll move on to our next question."

Deep concerns?

Since when have the "deep concerns" of the religious inhibited the BBC's fervent advocacy for homomania?

But there wasn't a whimper of objection from the liberals and lefties and equality fanatics who were on the panel (and there was quite a few). And 'Free Speech' is supposedly "the show which makes your voice heard in the national conversation".

Unless, it seems, if you're a homosexual Muslim.

Of course, homophobia within Muslim communities is taboo: everyone knows that Islam isn’t particularly gay-friendly, but our predominantly white, PC, liberal political class won’t even debate the issue. It is the ultimate conflict in the eternal quest for supremacy in the equality hierarchy. Peter Tatchell and his disciples are more than happy to storm the pulpit of Canterbury Cathedral or picket outside Westminster Cathedral, but you tend not to see him knocking on the doors of Finsbury Park Mosque or railing against Muslim homophobia in Leicester, Bradford or Tower Hamlets.

To do so, of course, might be deemed ‘racist’, and white liberals don’t want to be tarnished with that particular brush. Only, it seems, Muslims may challenge the gay-rights zeitgeist without the risk of being called homophobic.

Issues of race, identity and sexuality tend to rouse the passions. When liberalism confronts cultural tradition and religious conformity, political conflict is inevitable. We all know that the Church of England will eventually be crushed (unless it is disestablished), and dissenting Christians will be vilified for their bigotry and intolerance (as His Grace frequently endures). But the ascendant gay lobby ignores the immutable orthodoxy of the Mosque of England at its peril. The MCB is not as benign as the CofE. There is no tolerance of gays or lesbians in any mainstream Muslim community: persecution, torture and even murder (ie 'honour killing') are rife.

If theological opposition to same-sex marriage renders some churches virulently homophobic, then the mosques are manifestly even more so. But their ‘deep concerns’ are, of course,  entirely rational, and their morality revered as a divine duty for the common good. The hypocrisy and inequality are sickening.

The Telegraph asserts: "It’s not the BBC’s job to pander to censorship or prejudice." The Spectator says this "is a good example of why the channel deserves to be shut down". Breitbart London described it as “an excellent example of how and why the BBC fails to do its job properly.” The Guardian, however, simply reports the facts, expressing no editorial view whatsoever.

It really ought to come as no surprise to any reasonable person that the mosque authorities did not want this topic debated and broadcast from their private premises. It is, after all, a place of worship.

But can you imagine the outpouring of BBC-revulsion, Guardian-contempt and lefty-liberal-odium if the 'Free Speech' topic had been same-sex marriage and the censorious host a church?

90 Comments:

Blogger Mrs Proudie of Barchester said...

Goodness, Your Grace - do you still labour under the delusion that the BBC abide by their original charter, that they have principles and ethical standards? I fear they are badly in need of Reformation...

14 March 2014 at 10:19  
Blogger William Lewis said...

Your Grace does well in continually highlighting the contradictions and absurdities that are manifest in the liberal hierarchy of competing rights. An edifice creaking in its sandy foundations.

14 March 2014 at 10:26  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Orwell suggested that doublespeak and doublethink became effective defence mechanisms against reality.

I wonder if such is the case here, or whether - deep down - there is an unspoken recognition of contradictions.

I suppose it depends on whether conscience is a social construct, or a reality.

14 March 2014 at 10:40  
Blogger Len said...

Christians are seen as a 'soft target' by liberals.
The liberals sense of outrage disappears when they have to mix courage with their conviction.
Perhaps liberals could learn a lesson from the persecuted Christians in the middle east many who choose death rather than deny their faith in Christ..

14 March 2014 at 10:50  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

All that money the BBC spent on the Salford centre and they end up paying for space in a mosque to make a programme called 'Free Speech' only for the well integrated Muslims to pull the plug - "Feed My Funny".

Religious intolerance removes free speech from the public square - you couldn't make it up. Hahhahhehe - wheeze - stop it stop it, you're killing me.

What a lark eh Readers!.

14 March 2014 at 11:01  
Blogger Martin said...

Would it have been that many a 'church' would have been happy to have such a debate?

I must admit to some surprise that the mosque were happy to have the video screened but not the debate.

Of course the BBC doesn't actually do debate, they do entertainment, so what they are interested in is effect. Why is it I suspect it was all done for effect?

14 March 2014 at 11:07  
Blogger bluedog said...

Well Your Grace, that settles the matter, your BBC licence fee is now jizya. Until the BBC religious affairs directorate ceases to be the propaganda arm of, as you say the Mosque of England, there is no alternative conclusion to be reached. How will the news be received in the Cabinet, with Warsi in the Crescent corner and Dave in the Star of David corner? Taking a wild stab, Dave will forget everything he said in Jerusalem and kowtow to Warsi.

Slightly off-topic, but a troubling thought has occurred to your communicant. How long before Warsi suggests a parallel and culturally sensitive VC, the Victoria Crescent? Not sure how often that address appears in the London A-Z, but you get the point.

14 March 2014 at 11:54  
Blogger Uncle Brian said...

Someone at the BBC failed to do their job properly. When they arranged with the owners or managers of the mosque to stage a debate there, they evidently failed to negotiate a proper contract setting out terms and conditions. Did it never enter their silly heads that the Muslim authorities might raise objections to the sexual content?

14 March 2014 at 11:55  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Dreadnaught.

Let Ernst re-clarify for you..""Religious intolerance OF ONE PARTICULAR FAITH removes free speech from the public square - you couldn't make it up ()Well, you just did. Hahhahhehe - wheeze - stop it stop it, you're killing me (NO..THEY will!!!).

What a lark eh Readers!.(Only from your myopic view of lumping all together!!!)

Uncle Brian said...

Someone at the BBC failed to do their job properly. When they arranged with the owners or managers of the mosque to stage a debate there, they evidently failed to negotiate a proper contract setting out terms and conditions. Did it never enter their silly heads that the Muslim authorities might raise objections to the sexual content? " As one who has seen a BBC contract that participants must sign for the wonga, Ernst agrees with you..They must have had a redacting spree on the T & C's!!!

Blowers

14 March 2014 at 12:02  
Blogger John Matthews said...

I would point out that it was left liberal people like the national secular society & council of ex-muslims who have been damning the mosque on the radio.

14 March 2014 at 12:03  
Blogger bluedog said...

Uncle Brian @ 11.55, the director of religious affairs at the BBC is one Aaquil Ahmed, a Muslim. You ask, 'Did it never enter their silly heads that the Muslim authorities might raise objections to the sexual content?'. Answer, of course the possibility would have been entertained. Indeed, the Muslim viewers would have expected no other reaction to the question that was asked. This was a sharia compliant programme. Get with it!

14 March 2014 at 12:06  
Blogger 45minutewarning said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

14 March 2014 at 12:09  
Blogger 45minutewarning said...

On a recent tour to the U.S., Pussy Riot were invited by Pamella Geller to repeat their "performance" in a mosque. For some inexplicable reason they declined. Can't think why.

While the "liberals" were making a big fuss about Russia's so-called anti-gay laws (not really anti, just trying to preserve some sense of normailty), the same "liberals" completey ignored the use of the death sentence, for simply being homosexual, in Malawi (a Muslim country).

The so-called "liberals", including the arch-queen himself, have proved themselves to be rank hypocrites on the issue of free speech, and they employ mind-boggling duplicity when it comes to Islam, which is TRULY homophobic.

14 March 2014 at 12:17  
Blogger Uncle Brian said...

Blofeld

Ernst agrees with you..They must have had a redacting spree on the T & C's!!!

You mean the G & T's somehow got in the way of the T & C's?

14 March 2014 at 12:28  
Blogger Manfarang said...

Mrs Proudie
I hope you are keeping your eye on Mr Slope. Imagine he could wind up watching a ladyboy beauty contest at a temple fair in Thailand.

14 March 2014 at 12:36  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

Blofeld 12.02

Weak ... very weak.

14 March 2014 at 12:39  
Blogger Mrs Proudie of Barchester said...

Dear Manfarang, ah so that is why he has applied for the Anglican Chaplaincy in the Street of the Thousand Delights in Bangkok. The penny drops...

14 March 2014 at 12:55  
Blogger IanCad said...

BBC Radio 4 had a segment on this at about 8:30 this AM.
They gave the mosque spokesman a hard time.

I'm sorry but I hold the BBC in high regard.
It is an institution that caters to the entire community.

Certainly, there are times when I want to throw the radio out of the window; And, Yes! there is a definite stench of leftism in it.
That said, I still hold it up as a national treasure.

You'll only miss it when it's gone.

Perhaps I don't get out enough YG, for the term, "Homomania," is new to me.
Must remember it.

14 March 2014 at 13:04  
Blogger Drastic Plastic said...

All true, your grace. But what consequences will the BBC face? None.

This is not about right and wrong - unsurprising in the age of the Selfish Generation - but about power.

When the churches have and exercise power, in the way that the mosques do, then they will be listened to.

The same goes for right-wing media. At least Guido is trying; his blog can break a career. What about you?

14 March 2014 at 13:05  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Pussy Riot wouldn't have any reason to repeat the performance in a mosque. The point of their (stupid) video was the close and corrupt connection between President For Life Putin and the Russian Orthodox Church. That has nothing to do with Islam.

carl

14 March 2014 at 13:19  
Blogger Mrs Proudie of Barchester said...

Dear Carl Jacobs, indeed, that is how I understood the Pussy Riot Affair.

14 March 2014 at 13:22  
Blogger Mrs Proudie of Barchester said...

Dear Bluedog, did you know that since Victorian times there has been a moslem-version of the Order of the Garter, which replaces the red cross of St George with a crescent? It is only awarded to moslem kings and so on, and then only very sparingly, so I suppose it is an exception.

14 March 2014 at 13:24  
Blogger Manfarang said...

Mrs Proudie
The Church is on the road across from that street- Convent Road.At the Sathorn Road end. However it is in the District of Love-Bang Rak.

14 March 2014 at 13:34  
Blogger Mrs Proudie of Barchester said...

Goodness Manfarang, you sound like a native Bankokian...

14 March 2014 at 13:37  
Blogger Manfarang said...

Mrs Proudie
So the Order of the Garter may have been awarded to some Indian Princes.

14 March 2014 at 13:41  
Blogger Manfarang said...

Mrs Proudie
Yes and tourists have asked for me for directions and then given me a wai
The Church does make an effort for the Karens I am glad to say.

14 March 2014 at 13:46  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

The hypocrisy and inequality are sickening

Faced with the prospect of being on the receiving end of a fatwa, the Left stomachs no end of hypocrisy and inequality. The mere mention of the word ‘fatwa’ and Islam’s rights immediately trump all others. Even if militant homosexuality implemented its own fatwas, I fear the advantage would still lie with Islam—the promise of a tête-à-tête with Tatchell is never going to be as irresistible as the promise of eternal bliss in Paradise.

14 March 2014 at 15:32  
Blogger Albert said...

It is an amusingly thorny one for the liberal. Liberalism is obsessed by homosexuality and Islam. The contradiction of the two must have made their heads hurt.

14 March 2014 at 15:34  
Blogger Mrs Proudie of Barchester said...

Dear Manfarang, no the Garter was not given to the Indian princes - this is because the Indian Empire had two orders of chivalry of its own: the Star of India and the Order of the Indian Empire. Now dear chap, what are you doing in Bangkok? I am intrigued...

14 March 2014 at 15:36  
Blogger Peter Tatchell said...

I have protested many times at Islamist rallies. An example:

Members of the fundamentalist group Hizb ut-Tahrir (HT) threatened to kill me in May 1994 when I and five other activists from OutRage! picketed its 6,000-strong rally at Wembley Arena. It was six of us against 6,000 of them. Despite their numbers, abuse and death threats we made our protest. They said: “We will track you down and kill you.”

We were protesting against HT’s call for the execution of gays and unchaste women and its anti-Hindu and anti-Jewish incitements. For our peaceful protest, we were arrested by the police. No police action was taken against the HT members who threatened to kill us.

Scroll down here to see other examples of when I have challenged and exposed far right Islamists:

http://www.petertatchell.net/religion/index.htm

14 March 2014 at 16:07  
Blogger Mrs Proudie of Barchester said...

Dear Peter, but have you protested inside a mosque, as you did in Canterbury Cathedral? If not, why not? Do you respect Islam more than Christianity, or fear it?

14 March 2014 at 16:25  
Blogger Len said...

Peter Tatchell,
If this indeed he, your courage must be admired for standing for what you believe in in the face of threats to your life.
I do not share your views but I do admire people who are willing to stand up for their beliefs...
As a Christian I believe we must speak the truth in love and I can only hope that will be your experience with Christians..

14 March 2014 at 17:01  
Blogger Rasher Bacon said...

"Aaqil Ahmed will move to the corporation from Channel Four, where he upset Roman Catholic priests by commissioning documentaries that appeared to contain a pro-Islam bias." - Telegraph 11 May 2009

Our host's comment needs answering:

If theological opposition to same-sex marriage renders some churches virulently homophobic, then the mosques are manifestly even more so. But their ‘deep concerns’ are, of course, entirely rational, and their morality revered as a divine duty for the common good. The hypocrisy and inequality are sickening.

Thanks, Peter, for that link. Its academic value is more in the study of pugilism than the underlying issues. For example:

"The Bible is to lesbians and gay men what Mein Kampf is to Jews. Its incitement to kill queers has resulted in a church-endorsed homo holocaust lasting 2,000 years".

Extract from an article in LMMagazine, February 1999


Peter - do stay and have a chat. Mrs Proudie's (16:25) comment is a good place to start - a question that is central to the post.

She also does a great selection of virtual biscuits.


14 March 2014 at 17:18  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Ian lad

"I'm sorry but I hold the BBC in high regard.
It is an institution that caters to the entire community"...So is the NHS and look how crap that has become?

No organisation should be judged on previous glory that they, in current charge, had any part in!!!


"Certainly, there are times (only 'times'?) when I want to throw the radio out of the window; And, Yes! there is a definite stench of leftism in it" (It's become such an embaressment for any fair minded peraon that stench does not quite do the fragrance justice but they don't care and carry on regardless, marxist fashion..Whilst the viewers pay through the nose for views that, rather than investigate and help liberate, only propagandate via foolish licence mandate!! ).


"That said, I still hold it up as a national treasure"

Think that 'Iron Pyrite' is the term that eludes you, dear Ian lad.

Blofeld

14 March 2014 at 17:50  
Blogger Uncle Brian said...

Len said...

Peter Tatchell,

If this indeed he, your courage must be admired for standing for what you believe in in the face of threats to your life.

I do not share your views but I do admire people who are willing to stand up for their beliefs...

As a Christian I believe we must speak the truth in love and I can only hope that will be your experience with Christians..

14 March 2014 17:01


Once again, I fully and unreservedly endorse every word of Len's comment. (Nothing unusual in that, by the way.)

14 March 2014 at 17:54  
Blogger Len said...

'The Bible is to lesbians and gay men what Mein Kampf is to Jews'.

This statement shows a complete lack of understanding of the God of the Bible...(I believe Prof Dawkins has said something along the same lines God being some sort of tyrant etc..).

Pre Christ was the Law which was good if you could keep it but harsh if you broke it..Civil law still exists today if man were not a 'fallen creature' there would be no need for the Law of any sort.But it is only the law which keeps fallen man in check.This is easily provable leave you car and your house unlocked and see what happens!. When we break God``s laws there is a cause and effect and we suffer for it not God!. Spiritual Laws are just as real as natural laws.Imagine someone saying "gravity is just too restricting I do not believe we should obey it"...That person would be taken for a fool.

After Calvary God dealt with man with Grace through Christs atonement..
God Judges no one now all Judgement is done by us as to how we react to Christ...

14 March 2014 at 18:11  
Blogger Len said...

When the angels appeared to the shepherds and sang "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will towards men." Luke 2:14.
They were announcing that God was going to deal with men in an entirely different way now that the Messiah was coming into the World.
It was only when the Messiah made atonement for our sins that God could (in His perfect Justice ) deal with us in Grace and Mercy instead of Judgement.
As God is Spirit and outside of time He can attribute Christ`s atonement at Calvary as if it were now to us when we seek Him in repentance.
There is an exchange at the Cross our sinfulness for his Righteousness which happens whenever we come to Christ in honesty and faith...


14 March 2014 at 18:33  
Blogger Rasher Bacon said...

...God has set a time when he will judge the world by the man he has appointed. Not yet.

Taking PT's quote in as measured a way as possible, it could mean:

A) This is how the Bible has been presented to gays inadvertently. That was a mistake which can be rectified if we listen to Professor Linda Woodhead.

B) this is how evil the Bible is (as bad as the ideology imposed on Europe by such as the SA and Ernst Roehm), to such an extent that Christians are only carrying out orders.

I find it easier to deal with B than A, to be honest, and I suspect Mr Tatchell's meaning lay in that point.

The thing I find so hypocritical about the Stonewall position is the advocacy of selective suffering. Risking approbrium or even death to be true to yourself is fine and conveniently increases media coverage. Responding to Christ's words 'let him deny himself, take up his cross and follow me" is repressive and cruel.

Peter - you may have wandered off by now, but I'm sure others would join me in assuring you that we love you unconditionally, as we have been loved.

Sorry if that sentiment isn't found in Mein Kampf.

14 March 2014 at 19:02  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

Carl

"the close and corrupt connection between President For Life Putin and the Russian Orthodox Church"

At least he will soon be able to help restore democracy and help prevent genocide in part of Ukraine at least.

He shows our leaders to be weak and full of nothing but hot air, which they are.

Phil

14 March 2014 at 19:14  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

JM; "I would point out that it was left liberal people like the national secular society & council of ex-muslims who have been damning the mosque on the radio."

Well, quite.

The Radio 4 segment was quite interesting. The duffer from the mosque had to keep repeating that it wasn't what they had expected i.e. a discussion about immigration, and therefore they wouldn't accept the question. He had nothing else to add, really, and that showed him, the mosque, and Islam up quite nicely, to my mind.

14 March 2014 at 19:25  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

Peter Tatchell

Interesting so you were using your freedom of speech to try to restrict others from exercising their freedom of speech. Presumably because what they were saying is unacceptable for anyone to say so it cannot possibly be allowed in the new order.

BTW what age are you currently campaigning for on lowering the age of consent? I cannot remember. Does it still have a one in front of the second number?

Phil



14 March 2014 at 19:26  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Brian: "Did it never enter their silly heads that the Muslim authorities might raise objections to the sexual content?"

Actually, that may well be what they were expecting. That's almost as interesting as a bun fight in its own way.

14 March 2014 at 19:28  
Blogger Uncle Brian said...

DanJo

You mean they set themselves a trap and then fell into it? Isn't that a bit too goofy even for the top brass at the Beeb?

14 March 2014 at 19:48  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Actually, I thinking more of the producers: Mentorn Media.

14 March 2014 at 20:00  
Blogger Uncle Brian said...

Even so . . . Someone at the Beeb gave the producers the go-ahead to stage the debate, and someone at the Beeb failed to ask the obvious question until it was too late, right?

14 March 2014 at 20:05  
Blogger Rodney Dobson said...

Dos it not occur to anybody that the BBC almost certainly expected the Mosque authorities to react as they did?
And so allow said authorities to demonstrate their intolerance of open debate without the BBC themselves being accused of Islamophobia?

14 March 2014 at 21:23  
Blogger Martin said...

Rodney

As I suggested earlier, I suspect the BBC of having aired the video & canceled the debate for effect.

14 March 2014 at 21:55  
Blogger Rodney Dobson said...

Martin -

Sorry - I missed that: and I'm afraid I listened to the brief bit of the 'Today' programme only after making the above comment.
If you believe Terry Sanderson the BBC farms out the production to a body - Mentom Media - which has something of a track record: but it was not clear in the brief interview whether or not Mentom "persecutes" Islam alone. There are, after all, beams in everybody's eyes.
At a more fundamental level nobody has yet found a satisfactory answer to tolerating intolerance: except, I suppose, turning the other cheek (not a popular option in today's quasi-secular society)

14 March 2014 at 22:18  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

All these things naturally follow, do they not.

The perfect 'unbiased' panel of five to show that Aunty is terribly misrepresented as having left-liberal inclinations.. Do guess what sort of people they chose for this Free Speech malarkey?

But you know, biased would mean having to include (1) a left-wing Muslim magazine editor who has called non-Muslims "people of no intelligence" and "cattle" (Perhaps old Ernst can therefore apply for 'Halal' status, should it all turn a bit iffy here?), (2) a left-wing activist whose followers dub as "A self-styled left wing comedian . . . " (Totally beyond that old wacky magic of old Ernst then!!! and as the child Owen Jones had now been grounded by his parents, for staying out late without their permission on This Week that same night, this was all they could get? Same difference!!), (3) a transgender rights activist descried in the annual Pink List as the most influential lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender figure in the UK, (4) a Muslim disillusioned ex-Tory who states herself as "a centrist ex-Tory candidate who has "now left the Conservatives and is currently politically undecided and who campaigns tirelessly for Muslim Hands...With Sharia, that can't be many? Muslim Hands has been a member of the Union of Good and is still listed as one. The Union of Good is a worldwide coalition of charities chaired by global Muslim Brotherhood leader and an all round nice chap called Youssef Qaradawi" and (5) a self loathing Lib Dem baroness who has called for a democratic House of Lords, but has hypocritically taken her seat in the chamber anyway. Typical LibLabCon artist then!!!?

Thurday's 'Free Speech' featured precisely such a cast of characters/chancers on its panel - namely Mehdi Hasan, Heydon Prowse, Paris Lees, Shazia Awan and Susan Kramer.

Didn't need Mystic Meg to guess that one!

15 March 2014 at 01:24  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Unfortunately nobody here has mentioned the pathetic tribute {Cough} Report piece done by good old aunty... 'Suburbia to Syria: The Briton who drove a truck bomb into a prison' by BBC home affairs correspondent Dominic Casciani.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-26518647

Laughably, the comments section has been closed and removed but the majority of readers did not believe the BBC's song and bull about the Islamic 'Hero'.

Here's a brief snapshot of them before they were removed:

"This must be the longest most grovelling obituary I have ever seen for a nutcase that blew himself up. You should be ashamed of yourself BBC, this idiot was no Mandela or Martin Luther King but you have put line after line about how 'he was a good boy, and Imans saying 'the youths are confused ' in order to depict these terrorists as teenagers being a bit naughty. THEY ARE EVIL TERRORISTS !!!"

"This just shows the bbc in their true colours how you can even think of labelling this idiot a hero just shows how low they will go to pander to Islam."

"He represents all that is wrong with this country, how the bbc can peddle this Islamic extremism as good is beyond me. But give it a few years and this is what will be happening in this country we have already seen numerous Muslims attack us in the name of Islam."

"It's so sad that some people have so little in their lives, so very little to live for that blowing themselves up is seen as a good option? Clearly Abdul Waheed Majeed was mentally ill and has been let down by family & friends... The BBC should hang their heads in shame for trying to excuse the actions of Mr Majeed whilst deflecting crtisicism of his brother & family for supporting his actions"

"It is time to drop the political correctness when referring to everyone here as British. I'm surrounded by people who have come here and brought there way of life and there beliefs with them, the government and the BBC just need to put there hands up and say it, stop sugar coating everything. I'm in Birmingham and it's a complex multicultural disaster, people with no understanding of Britain"

"The whole problem with the BBC's coverage of Islam, is that it is so afraid of upsetting "multicultural sensitivities", that it is now a hand wringing apologist for the Islamist nutters that it tries so hard to understand."

Unsurprisingly NONE of these comments - or any of those robustly critical of Islam - makes its way into the 'Editors' Picks'; indeed, none of the 44 'most popular' comments gets chosen by the BBC editors.

However we have the Gold Standard of waffleoonery more to their liking from a aficianado of all things Aunty below...

"If this is such a problem to us maybe we should start arresting the UK citizens that went to fight in the Spanish Civil war? FYI Mr Majeed didn't kill any british nationals and people in this country are free to make their own choices even if you disagree with them."Innit!

Ian Lad, God Bless you, fellow.
However, never give up yer day job and try and find work in Hatton Garden.. You can't tell your 24CT Doubloon from your BBC Biased buffoon?! *Giggles*

15 March 2014 at 01:26  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Ps

Ernst has been bombarded by BBC all day with tributes and programmes on Tony Benn..A man who conflated the term socialism as C O M M U N I S M.

Has Ernst been in a 25 year coma and woke up to find that Mr Wedgewood had been PM sometime between the eighties and nineties hence the tears and sighs of all luvvies left of the nation?

BBC Left Wing Bias..Never Sirrrrrr!

*Giggles and chortles

15 March 2014 at 01:43  
Blogger Len said...

It would seem that one of the objectives of the 'liberals' is to provoke a reaction from' the religious' so that they can condemn religion...
As I mentioned earlier Christianity is seen as a soft target because there will be no kickbacks from bible believing Christians.Of course there will be Christians who will fall into this trap and respond with ' homophobic comments' which gives the gay rights movement exactly they ammunition they are seeking.
Perhaps Peter Tatchell wanted some Christian' anti Gay' remarks for his site?.
Anyway... no secularists seems to want to know that God loves them as the revengeful angry God caricature seems to fit with their philosophy and rebellion against his moral order.

15 March 2014 at 09:34  
Blogger Roy said...

45minutewarning said...

While the "liberals" were making a big fuss about Russia's so-called anti-gay laws (not really anti, just trying to preserve some sense of normailty), the same "liberals" completey ignored the use of the death sentence, for simply being homosexual, in Malawi (a Muslim country).

Malawi is not a Muslim country. It is a predominantly Christian country. While I dislike the pro-gay propaganda that is constantly pumped out by the British government, the BBC, Guardian, etc. I must admit that Christians, especially evangelicals, should be ashamed of the religiously inspired persecution of gays in African countries.

Those countries are ones in which the church is supposed to be growing rapidly. You can hardly blame atheists and agnostics for looking at the persecution of gays in those countries and the prosperity gospel preached by corrupt ministers active in such persecution and saying, "if that is Christianity you can keep it."

15 March 2014 at 09:46  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Len: "Anyway... no secularists seems to want to know that God loves them as the revengeful angry God caricature seems to fit with their philosophy and rebellion against his moral order."

You probably mean atheist rather than secularist, as Christians can advocate a secular State too. But then, atheists don't have a belief in a god anyway so it still doesn't make that much sense.

15 March 2014 at 10:55  
Blogger bluedog said...

Ernsty @ 01.43 laments the BBC's fawning coverage of the late Viscount Stansgate, an Old Etonian to boot.

They did mention that, didn't they?

15 March 2014 at 11:10  
Blogger 45minutewarning said...

Roy

This is the article I was referring to..

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2014/02/muslim-association-of-malawi-calls-for-death-penalty-for-gays

Nothing to do with Christians, this is Sharia law in practice. My question is why are the gay activists so quiet about this genuine homophobia? Why do they make so little noise about Iran, Sudan, Somalia, Nigeria, Mauritania and Saudi Arabia, which already have the death penalty for being homosexual; something which any true Christian deplores?

I'm not accusing atheists for saying "you can keep your Christianity", but I am saying they are hypocritical when it comes to the whole Islamo-homophobic issue.

15 March 2014 at 11:16  
Blogger Martin said...

Shall we face facts, homosexuality, aside from it's moral depravity, is a health hazard. Common sense should tell us that connecting two outputs together is a bad idea. If a state wants to discourage such behaviour it isn't persecution.

15 March 2014 at 12:49  
Blogger Martin said...

DanJO

Remember, everyone knows God exists.

“For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown [it] to them.” (Romans 1:18-19 NKJV)

15 March 2014 at 12:51  
Blogger Len said...

Atheists/ secularists/ agnostics/humanists (have I left anyone out?)
Know (yes know) that God exists.
However He gets in the way of their plans so they deny Him...
God still exists........

15 March 2014 at 13:48  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Martin: "Remember, everyone knows God exists."

Ah yes, because your religious book tells you so. Sheesh. Sometimes I wonder how some of you manage to tie your own shoelaces.

15 March 2014 at 15:54  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

Roy

"I must admit that Christians, especially evangelicals, should be ashamed of the religiously inspired persecution of gays in African countries."

Two questions

Why?

And

What is so special about evangelicals? Do they have a higher (or lower) standard of behaviour to aspire to?


Phil

15 March 2014 at 17:53  
Blogger IanCad said...

Getting back to you Ernst @ 17:50

Any, even the slightest, praise for the BBC seems to leave you both shaken and stirred.

Both it, and the NHS, are easy targets and I see from a later post that you have not forgotten our much maligned health system.

All I can suggest is for you to live in a country which has neither, and to then, instead of critcism, engage in some constructive dialogue as to how to improve both institutions.

May we agree that in both cases there are too many chiefs and too few indians?

I have just listened to a marvelous broadcast:

David Davis on Tony Benn.
A rising star on a faded light?

Here's the link if you so wish:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03zqmw3

You're right. I'd never make it in Hatton Garden. Lordy! I couldn't even afford the camel hair coat!

Bless You Ernesty. Hang in there.

Uncle Brian @ 17:54.

I second your endorsement.

15 March 2014 at 19:44  
Blogger Roy said...

@ Phil,

I'm an evangelical myself. My knowledge of Africa is limited so I could be mistaken, but my impression is that it is evangelicals, not Roman Catholics or liberal Christians, who are most in favour of imprisoning homosexuals and lesbians in Africa, just as it is a certain type of evangelical minister, both in Africa and in the United States, who teach that if you donate money to support the affluent life-style of those ministers you will end up with more money yourself.

15 March 2014 at 19:47  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...


Roy

Goodness Roy

I am sure that there are many "brands" of Christianity who object to homosexuality along with many Muslims.

Agreed liberal Christians are probably thin on the ground in Africa. Especially where there is lawlessness, disease and poverty. I wonder why? The liberal Gospel of "we don't know if the bible is right so believe what you like" offers no hope for the poor and certainly no justice.

Many nights in Africa I prayed deep raw prayers beseeching God to keep my family safe or to heal a friend. Everyone did that I knew.

I tell you what Roy, the African Christians I met, they deserve to be rich and I hope God blesses them. I also pray that the West keeps bullying them over homosexuality. It will only make them stronger

Phil

15 March 2014 at 21:51  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Ian Lad.


"You're right. I'd never make it in Hatton Garden. Lordy! I couldn't even afford the camel hair coat..."Well that's why only fools and horses work..La la la la..lalalalala *Giggles*

Bless You Ernesty. Hang in there."
Trying Ian lad, trying.

A question lad..

Came across this nice rendition of Depth of Mercy y Charles Wesley ;https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXUQfpQzFYc
yet the group withheld they are SDA and even the texted message on video is Ellen G White '3 Angels message' but initialised...EGW.

Why are the SDA so secretive about everything of who they are to their audience and yet still pretend they are like we NON SDA's, with a set of 3 summarised core beliefs (Never come across that ever on any site except those that have something to hide, which aroused me curiosity and let to the 'investigative' approach *Chortles*), not the full ones that would see us obviously greatly separated by the truth stated of SDA truth vs Biblical truth?? http://solemnappeal.com/about-us/

Ernst

15 March 2014 at 23:12  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

ps

Forgive the double negative, of 'never ..ever' Ernst was thinking in Koine greek rather than English, for (strong) emphasis.!!*γέλα*

Ernst the Greek Geek

15 March 2014 at 23:25  
Blogger IanCad said...

Ernst

If I were to adopt cynical mode I could well state that such bloody awful caterwauling should be kept secret.

The writings of Ellen White are very important to SDA's.
Nothing secret about that.

And, how you can assert that a church which has missionary outreach, schools, hospitals and universities world-wide; Is at hand in every disaster (ADRA) and is possibly the world's fastest growing denomination, can be secretive, is, quite frankly, nonsensical.

Further, your harping on about the SDA's being non-biblical is something that you are going to have to show from the King James Bible.

It is another sunny day. I hope your spirits, like mine, will rise with the weather.
Blessings, Ian.

16 March 2014 at 08:32  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

"Ernst

If I were to adopt cynical mode I could well state that such bloody awful caterwauling should be kept secret."Come, come now..Not very christian? *Chortles*

"The writings of Ellen White are very important to SDA's.
Nothing secret about that."Indeed..They define the SDA church's position relative to others such as we 'Babylonians'? via her writings.

"And, how you can assert that a church which has missionary outreach, schools, hospitals and universities world-wide;" Indeed, the SDA Church has done a lot of good in this world and there is much to be applauded for their efforts. Their medical system is second-to-none in the Christian world, and the work they have done for the blind is indeed exceptional.But that is not the point, now is it my lad.

Is at hand in every disaster (ADRA) and is possibly the world's fastest growing denomination, can be secretive, is, quite frankly, nonsensical." Dear fellow but one of the "27 Fundamental Beliefs" of the SDA Church is that Ellen White manifested the gift of prophecy and her writings are "authoritative" for the Adventist Church "and SDA members must state ;
"I accept the Biblical teaching of spiritual gifts, and believe that the gift of prophecy is one of the identifying marks of the remnant church. ... I accept that the Seventh-day Adventist Church is the remnant church of Bible prophecy." Now would you say that the non sda'a hold to this position??
and then "18 The Gift of Prophecy: One of the gifts of the Holy Spirit is prophecy. This gift is an identifying mark of the remnant church and was manifested in the ministry of Ellen. G. White.

As the Lord's messenger, her writings are a continuing and authoritative source of truth which provide for the church comfort, guidance, instruction, and correction.
They also make clear that the Bible is the standard by which all teaching and experience must be tested.

Although the SDA operates much more openly than do the Mormons and JWs, they are still characterised by a commitment to secrecy when it comes to interacting with the public. This is manifested in the way they try to hide their identity when attempting to communicate with non-members.

None of their media ministries identify themselves as being affiliated with the SDA. When one of their prophecy seminars comes to town, the area's mailboxes will be flooded with beautiful, eye-catching, full color brochures that never reveal any SDA connection. Their seminars are always held at a neutral site like a hotel ballroom, and they literally sneak up on the audience with their SDA doctrines.

Their publications do not reveal their SDA origin or affiliation. Either the publisher is not identified or the publisher is a non-descript entity like "Pacific Press" or "Pilgrims' Press."

16 March 2014 at 12:37  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Ellen White's most famous book, The Great Controversy, is often distributed under the title, 'America in Prophecy'. And her name on the title page is often printed as "E. G. White." This is obviously done to hide her gender and to keep her from being easily recognised, as Ernst said with the EGW reference on youtube!.

To conclude regarding the SDA, Dr. Ron Carlson, the man who is considered to be Christendom's foremost expert on the cults today gave a statement about the SDA, and this is what he wrote:

"As you may know, Walter Martin was my mentor and dear friend for 20 years and spoke at my ordination. I was to have lunch with him the day he died in 1989. Walter had a real influence on many of the SDA leaders in the 70's and early 80's seeking to move them to a Biblical position. Many were, and there was hope for the SDA Church.
What has happened in the last 20 years is that nearly 50% of the SDA pastors and leaders who were seeking to move it to an evangelical position have all been 'kicked' out or left the SDA. The people who are now in control have moved the organisation back to following the teachings of Ellen G. White and denying some basic doctrines of Biblical Christianity. In fact, their official position is that if you do not worship on Saturday you are not a Christian and will not go to Heaven. Sunday worship is the mark of the beast. They are clearly today a false Cult."

Your thoughts, Ian?

Blofeld

16 March 2014 at 12:37  
Blogger Manfarang said...

Mrs Proudie
What am I doing in Bangkok?
Well today I noticed a red telephone box has been put up in Victoria Gardens so I thought maybe I will open a little tea shop there and make Battenberg cake available.

16 March 2014 at 12:48  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Ian
Ian

"Further, your harping on about the SDA's being non-biblical is something that you are going to have to show from the King James Bible." I will but I ask of you this first..Show me the investigative judgment declared authorotively by Ellen G White from scripture and I will show the non biblical doctrines of your church!

Ernst, lad.

16 March 2014 at 13:01  
Blogger IanCad said...

Ernesty @ 12:37 wrote:

"--Dr. Ron Carlson, the man who is considered to be Christendom's foremost expert on the cults--"

Yes! He has taken the mantle of those arbiters of orthodoxy Walter Martin and Donald Barnhouse.

Modern inquisitors if I may say so.

Motes and Beams!?
Gnats and Camels!?

The unmitigated gall; the sheer chutzpah!

How dare these devotees of Augustinian Paganism declare who or what is a cult.

They were great winnowers of the Adventist Church. There were many members whose affinity with the world was greater than that with the word and so cheaply gave up their faith.

Today the church has largely returned to its roots and is now dynamic and growing.

You further write: "--In fact, their official position is that if you do not worship on Saturday you are not a Christian and will not go to Heaven. Sunday worship is the mark of the beast. They are clearly today a false Cult."

Ellen White can answer that herself:

"God has children, many of them in the Protestant churches, and a large number in the Catholic churches, who are more true to obey light and to do, to the very best of their knowledge, than a large number among Sabbath keeping Adventists who do not walk in the light."

Now to the "Investigative Judgement":

Clearly biblical; Emphasising the centrality of Jesus Christ to the plan of salavation. Our Saviour, our Advocate, our Judge, our hope.

Entirely contrary to the notion of "Once saved, Always saved," this doctrine declares that, through Christ, He will give us the strength to obey and follow Him. To overcome, to sit with Him in His throne. (Rev. 3:21)

That Christ is our High Priest is taught throughout scripture. He is in the heavenly sanctuary, not one made with hands. (Hebrews 9:14)

The antitype of the Day of Atonement, the pre-Advent judgement offers to us, if our faith is truly anchored in Him, the assurance of salvation on that great day.

Biblical backup? Where to start!

A few only: Lev. 16. (Day of Atonement) Dan. 7:9-27; 8:13,14; 9:24-27; Eze. 4-6. (Times Prophecies)
Hebrews 8:1-5; 9:1-28; (Pretty much the entire book.)
Rev. 14:6, 7; 20:12; 22:12.

16 March 2014 at 16:30  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Now to the "Investigative Judgement": Are you really or are you going to gloss over with a vague brush?

Clearly biblical; Emphasising the centrality of Jesus Christ to the plan of salavation. Our Saviour, our Advocate, our Judge, our hope." A brush then?

"Entirely contrary to the notion of "Once saved, Always saved," this doctrine declares that, through Christ, He will give us the strength to obey and follow Him. To overcome, to sit with Him in His throne. (Rev. 3:21)"

This is NOT what SDA's mean by "Investigative Judgement":

Mrs. White and the Adventist pioneers developed a very unique doctrine that is described as the "Investigative Judgment."

This doctrine teaches that Christ began investigating and judging His people in 1844. He started with the dead believers, and when He is finished with their cases, He will begin judging the living believers near the end of time.

During this Investigative Judgment God either blots out the sins of the believer, or he removes the name of the believer from the Book of Life. When His judgment is complete, the door of probation will be shut and Jesus will return to earth to reward His people according to their works.

This is NOT what you declared above?

In her own words "As the books of record are opened in the Judgment, the lives of all who have believed on Jesus come in review before God. BEGINNING WITH THOSE WHO FIRST LIVED UPON THE EARTH, our Advocate presents the cases of each successive generation, and closes with the living. Every name is mentioned, every case closely investigated. Names are accepted, names rejected." Ellen White, The Great Controversy [1888 edition], p. 483.

But The Lord said "I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep…" John 10:14

and Paul states "The Lord knoweth them that are His" 2 Tim. 2:19

and from same book and page
"How important, then, that every mind contemplate often the solemn scene when the Judgment shall sit and the books shall be opened, when, with Daniel, EVERY INDIVIDUAL MUST STAND IN HIS LOT, at the end of the days."

But The Lord said
"Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears my word and believes him who sent me, HAS eternal life; he does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life." John 5:24

The Bible clearly teaches that Christ's atonement on the cross has perfected (past tense) His children. Christians are not made perfect during the Investigative Judgment period. If we are "in Christ," then we were made perfect 2,000 years ago through Christ's perfect sacrifice on Calvary.

It is stated;

There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. Rom. 8:1

Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him. Rom. 5:9

and Paul emphasises that Christians living in the first century (~50 A.D.) had already received (past tense) the atonement:

...we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement. (Rom. 5:11)

Ellen G White wrote in the Review and Herald, March 22, 1887
"In 1844 our great High Priest entered the most holy place of the heavenly Sanctuary, to begin the work of the investigative Judgment. The cases of the righteous dead have been passing in review before God. When that work shall be completed, judgment is to be pronounced upon the living."

16 March 2014 at 23:13  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Let Ernst state why she was truly, hopelessly wrong...Jesus, as our substitute, was judged in our place on the cross. He paid the price for ALL sin for ALL time.
HIS righteousness has been credited to our account.

The good news of the judgment is that all who believe and trust in the life, death, and resurrection of Christ can say with assurance, "I've been acquitted!"
We have already been judged in Christ. Those who reject the gospel, judge themselves unworthy of eternal life. Those who accept the gospel have passed from death into life and will not enter into the condemnation of judgment (John 5:24).

Ernst, my lad.

ps

1 John 5:13
13 These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God: that ye may know that ye HAVE eternal life...

and

Ephesians 2:8

8 For by grace you HAVE BEEN saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God. The Greek verb for "have been" is este which is in the perfect tense. The perfect tense conveys a completed action.

We are no longer called condemned sinners as Ellen G white states 'Authoritatively' "Are you in Christ? Not if you do not acknowledge yourselves erring, helpless, condemned sinners. Testimonies for the Church, vol. 5, p. 48 but "saints in Christ." (Phil. 1:1; see also 1 Cor. 1:2, Eph. 1:1, Col. 1:2)

Did God or an angel shut the door of Noah's ark?

EGW: ANGEL "An angel is seen by the scoffing multitude descending from heaven clothed with brightness like the lightning. He closes that massive outer door, and takes his course upward to heaven again" (Spiritual Gifts, vol. 3, p. 68, written in 1864).

EGW: GOD "... God had shut it, and God alone could open it" (Patriarchs and Prophets, p. 98, written in 1890).

THE HOLY BIBLE: GOD Gen 7:16
16 The animals going in were male and female of every living thing, as God had commanded Noah. Then the LORD shut him in.

Ellen G white is the only 'authoritative prophet' to have contradicted the Bible and then go on to contradict herself. Priceless!!!

16 March 2014 at 23:15  
Blogger IanCad said...

Ernesty,

A lot to answer here: A disciplined, point by point reply is called for but time and space dictate otherwise; thus the random responses.

All the Adventist sourced quotes Re: Investigative Judgement I agree with.
The "Judgement" is, by definition, investigative. That there is a judgement is a fact which I assume you accept.

Now, the wonderful gospel of John which you have cited, offers blessed assurance and security to those who accept salvation through Christ.
It cannot however, be used as evidence that, having once gained our crown we cannot again lose it. (Rev. 3:11)
Anymore than can Paul's words in Ephesians.
Man can break a covenant.

Again you attempt to assign some desire of secrecy to the denomination.
I don't get it. We most surely do not hide our light under a bushel.
If that was the case the church would not be growing so rapidly.
In fact most of the Revelation Seminars that I've come across are held in SDA churches. Sneaky Huh?

God opened and shut the door of the ark. Did an angel do it?
However it was performed it was by God. The means are not stated.

I'll wrap this up with an EGW quote:

"There is no excuse for anyone in taking the position that all our expositions of scripture are without error. The fact that certain doctrines have been held as truth for many years by our people is not proof that our ideas are infallible. Age will not make error into truth, and truth can afford to be fair. No true doctrine will lose anything by close investigation." (1892)

Keep your spirits up Ernesty, I know things are tough for you right now.
Prayers as always,
Ian.

17 March 2014 at 12:44  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

All the Adventist sourced quotes Re: Investigative Judgement I agree with.
The "Judgement" is, by definition, investigative. That there is a judgement is a fact which I assume you accept."

It is NOT a judgment of believers in Revelation 14 BUT THE WICKED ON THE EARTH!

The Judgment seat of Christ is for reward for obedience for believers and NOT about salvation.

We are there in front of Him BECAUSE we are saved!!!...some will be rewarded much, some little and some not at all but they are NEVER cast out or their name removed from The Book of The Lamb.

How can you loose eternal life at the moment it is given on belief..It is ETERNAL, else it is not! It makes the word Nonsensical.

ETERNAL - perpetual; ceaseless; endless;lasting forever!

It cannot however, be used as evidence that, having once gained our crown we cannot again lose it. (Rev. 3:11)

It is Stephanos NOT Diadema, and is given for successful service, not salvation, and is a reward!

Blowers

17 March 2014 at 23:14  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

There are two Greek words for crown, "diadema" and "stephanos", we find that "diadema", translated accurately "diadem: is symbolic of sovereignty and power, and is used exclusively for denoting honor and exaltation, Our Saviour.

'Stephanos' is different in appearance and not so limited in its usage. It is a garland or wreath twisted out of leaves, pine-shoots, or olive branches, or even an assorted growth of the field. A garland weaved this way made the symbol more noticeable, more intricate, and more meaningful than if it were wreathed out of plain fillet, such as gold.

Figuratively this crown (stephanos) is used in Scripture largely in the realm of remuneration, as a reward for the approved Christian life and service."

The five crowns that can be earned as rewards by the Christian for faithful service are all described by the Greek word "stephanos". The "stephanos" of rejoicing (I Thessalonians 2:19), the "stephanos" of righteousness (II Timothy 4:8), the "stephanos" of glory (I Peter 5:4), the "stephanos" of life (James 1:12), and the "stephanos" of incorruptible (I Corinthians 9:25).

Salvation is received strictly as a gift from God. Eternal life in heaven is a gift, but the rewards are earned. The reward is not for being on the Foundation of Christ (I Corinthians 3:11-15), but for what is built thereon. Notice Dr. C.I. Scofield's distinction: "Salvation is a present possession (Luke 7:50; John 3:36; 6:47), while rewards are a future attainment, to be given at the coming of the Lord (Matthew 16:27; II Timothy 4:8; Revelation 22:12)."

Do not confuse salvation and rewards. They are two distinct things. Forgiveness of sins, salvation and eternal life can never be earned by any of our works. They are the undeserved, unmerited gift of God to all who definitely accept the Lord Jesus Christ as their only hope for reaching heaven (Ephesians 2:8-9; Romans 4:5; Titus 3:5).

We can be assured that the rewards that God offers to the saved for faithful service, will be valuable, and therefore, well worth striving for with all our might. Moses esteemed the rewards "greater riches than the treasures in Egypt" (Hebrews 11:24-26).

Remember, salvation is received by faith and is a present possession. Rewards are a future attainment based on your works.

The Old Covenant was based on man's responsibility. It was conditional. God promised to bless men if they obeyed Him.

The New Covenant is based on God's purpose and grace. The New Covenant is unconditional—it is all of God and His grace. It does not depend on man at all. God is saying what He will do it is unreakale y the person guaranteeing it!!.

The Lord's Testament or Will.
From God's standpoint, it is a covenant, but from the standpoint of the Lord Jesus, it is a testament or a will.

The Bible tells us that the New Covenant is also a "testament" or a will. From God's standpoint, it is a covenant, but from the standpoint of the Lord Jesus, it is a testament or a will.

God the Father has appointed His Son the Heir of all things. The Lord Jesus, in turn, has willed to His believers all the riches of the New Covenant.

17 March 2014 at 23:16  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

In a will here are three parties. First, the testator—the person who makes the will. Next, the beneficiaries—those who receive the inheritance. Finally, there is the executor—the one appointed by the testator to see that the provisions of his will are faithfully carried out.

What you receive under a will is not something that you work for; it is left to you as a gift by another person. But you do not receive it until that person dies.

The Lord Jesus is the testator—the One who has willed His believers an eternal inheritance. At the last supper with His disciples, Jesus took the cup and said, "This is My blood of the new testament, which is shed for many." The Lord Jesus was pointing to His soon death on the cross. He was saying in effect, "This cup represents My blood—My death—which will bring into effect the new covenant for My believers."

The Lord Jesus not only died that the New Covenant might be in effect for His believers, but He rose again from the dead to be the Executor of His will. He is "the Mediator of the New Covenant."

He has left us a rich inheritance, and He has the power to see that we receive what belongs to us.

What do we receive under the New Covenant? We receive:

Cleansing from all sins. "...the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanses us from all sin." (1 John 1:7B)

The personal knowledge of God. "...all shall know Me, from the least to the greatest." (Hebrews 8:11)

Deliverance from the power of sin. "Sin shall not have dominion over you: for you are not under the law, but under grace." (Romans 6:14)

The ability to know and do God's will. "I will put My spirit within you, and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you shall keep my judgments and do them."
(Ezekiel 36:27)

Everything in the New Covenant comes to us as a gift; we do not work for it. Nevertheless, we do not automatically come into the good of it. To come into the enjoyment of our inheritance, we must know what is OURS under the New Covenant, we must claim it by FAITH, and we must TRUST the Lord Jesus to bring us into the GOOD of it. The Bible says,

"Now the God of peace. . .make you PERFECT in every good work to DO His will, working IN you that which is well pleasing in His sight, THROUGH Jesus Christ: to whom be glory for ever and ever." (Hebrews 13:20-21)

blowers

"Prayers as always,
Ian."
Most kind and may the Lord show you that Ernst has only got your best eternal destiny at heart, even if you are blinded in falsehood, that the SDA is true and right and gods remnant when he was silent for 1800 years without believers until Miller and EGW arrived with good news, whereas all others wrong, plain apostate and Babylonian to Boot.

Beware of false prophets as much as false popes, who say one thing but deceive others with the lives they led themselves.

If it looks like a rat and smells like a rat, by golly, it is a rat!!

17 March 2014 at 23:27  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

C I Scofield book referenced above in comment

Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth by C.I. Scofield

Chapter 9 SALVATION AND REWARDS.

The New Testament Scriptures contain a doctrine of salvation for the lost, and a doctrine of rewards for the faithful services of the saved; and it is of great importance to the right understanding of the Word that the student shall comprehend the distinction between these. What that distinction is may be seen by carefully noting the following contrasts:

1. Salvation Is a Free Gift.

Jesus answered and said unto her, If thou knewest the gift of God, and who it is that saith to thee, Give Me to drink; thou wouldest have asked of Him, and He would have given thee living water. John 4:10.

Ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters, and he that hath no money; come ye, buy, and eat; yea, come, buy wine and milk without money and without price. Isa. 55:1.

And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely. Rev. 22:17.

For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life, through Jesus Christ our Lord. Rom. 6:23.

For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: not of works lest any man should boast. Eph. 2:8, 9.

But in contrast with the freeness of salvation, note that,

REWARDS ARE EARNED BY WORKS

And whosoever shall give to drink unto one of these little ones a cup of cold water only in the name of a disciple, verily I say unto you, he shall in no wise lose his reward. Matt. 10:42.

I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith: henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness. 2 Tim. 4:7, 8.

And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be. Rev. 22:12.

Know ye not that they which run in a race run all, but one receiveth the prize? So run, that ye may obtain. And every man that striveth for the mastery is temperate in all things. Now they do it to obtain a corruptible crown; but we an incorruptible. 1 Cor 9:24, 25.

And he said unto him, Well, thou good servant: because thou hast been faithful in a very little, have thou authority over ten cities. Luke 19:17.

For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble; every man's work shall be made manifest; for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is. If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire. 1 Cor. 3:11-15.

Fear none of those things which thou shalt suffer: behold, the devil shall cast some of you into prison, that ye may be tried; and ye shall have tribulation ten days: be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee a crown of life Rev. 2:10.

[Not "life" - the Smyrna saints had this - but a "crown of life." Crowns are symbols of rewards - of distinctions earned. It may be remarked that four crowns are mentioned: that of joy, or rejoicing, the reward of ministry (Phil. 4:1; 1 Thess. 2:19); of righteousness, the reward of faithfulness in testimony (2 Tim. 4:8); of life, the reward of faithfulness under trial (James 1:12; Rev. 2:10); and of glory, the reward of faithfulness under suffering. (1 Peter 5:4; Heb. 2:9.)]

Ernsty

18 March 2014 at 00:37  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

2. SALVATION IS A PRESENT POSSESSION

He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life. John 3:36.

Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth My word, and believeth Him that sent Me, hath eternal life, and cometh not into judgment, but hath passed out of death into life. John 5:24. R.V.

Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life. John 6:47.

Who hath saved us, and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace. 2 Tim. 1:9.

And He said to the woman, Thy faith hath saved thee; go in peace. Luke 7:50.

Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost. Titus 3:5.

And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in His Son. 1 John 5:11.

But,

Rewards Are a Future Attainment

For the Son of man shall come in the glory of His Father, with His angels; and then He shall reward every man according to his works. Matt. 16:27.

For thou shalt be recompensed at the resurrection of the just. Luke 14:14.

And, behold, I come quickly; and My reward is with Me, to give every man according as his work shall be. Rev. 22:12.

And when the chief Shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive a crown of glory that fadeth not away. 1 Peter 5:4.

Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give me at that day. 2 Tim. 4:8.

After a long time the Lord of those servants cometh, and reckoneth with them. Matt. 25:19.

God's purpose in promising to reward with heavenly and eternal honors the faithful service of His saints is to win them from the pursuit of earthly riches and pleasures, to sustain them in the fires of persecution, and to encourage them in the exercise of Christian virtues. See Heb. 11:8-10, 24-27; 12:2, 3; Luke 14:12, 14; Matt. 10:41, 42; Heb. 6:10; Col. 3:22-24; Matt. 5:11, 12; John 4:35, 36; Dan. 12:3; Luke 12:35-37; and 2 Tim. 4:8.

Finally, let us heed the warning. - Rev. 3:11.I am coming quickly: cling to that which you already possess, so that your wreath of victory be not taken away from you.

Ernsty

18 March 2014 at 00:39  
Blogger Len said...

I do not believe we can 'lose' our salvation.
But I believe if we keep on sinning willfully once saved we can harden our heart to the extent that we can throw our salvation away.We must of course be saved 'properly' in the first place many claim to be saved but Jesus will say " I never knew you" unless they have been truly 'born again'.
Such is the power and the deception of sin.
Many think that they can control their sinful natures by going through religious rituals but it is only through Christ who defeated the Power of sin at Calvary that we can obtain our victory.
Our sinful natures are held in the place of death on the Cross when we put our total trust in Christ .(nothing else)

18 March 2014 at 09:06  
Blogger IanCad said...

Quite a bible study hereErnst.
It will take time to read and digest and I thank you for it.

Allow me to quickly note that within denominations there is a wide variance in beliefs, particularly on the subjects of salvation and grace.

In general these are rooted in some form of Calvinism.

The extreme variety contends that we have no choice. We are "Elected" and can neither choose to come or leave.

The more moderate hold that while we are free to come we are not free to go.

Now, I hold with those who say that we are free to both enter and leave.
Our Saviour however, gives us the strength, through him, to hold fast.

Let us remember that the Ten Commandments is the "Law of Liberty."

The purpose and centrality of the Decalogue to the Christian faith can only be diminished by those who hold that when we are once saved we are always saved.

18 March 2014 at 09:50  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Ian Lad

"Let us remember that the Ten Commandments is the "Law of Liberty." The Law condemns and does not save anyone..They show the sinners stain on his hand that it can never wash off.

Then you have NOT comprehended the Book of Hebrews is in regards a 'Better' in Christ in all things to believers who were threatening to go back to the 10 Commandments due to persecution... If they, apostles, forbade it, how can we say it is OK as we know better, that it saves better rather than Christ Himself? To try and obey the Law that cannot save is better than Christ who did, can and will.

Are SDA's therefore being persecuted, my lad, and trust in Christ alone frightens you to go back to the Old Covenant of Blessing and Cursing??

Blofeld

18 March 2014 at 13:52  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Ian

"
Allow me to quickly note that within denominations there is a wide variance in beliefs, particularly on the subjects of salvation and grace.

(Dear lad...A brief look at the epistles shows the various churches allowing the need to go with the flow was getting the better of them hence the Apostles wrote to correct such views held by the various churches. They, the Apostles, established the orthodoxy of the Churches, not the other way around!!)

In general these are rooted in some form of Calvinism.(Not so Lad, there are many free churches that disagree as Ernst has a congruous view of salvation and grace different from rome or calvinists and the RCC holds some distinctly opposite views to Calvinism. These are largely furnished by Popes and men such as Luther, Calvin, etc. Ernst is like William Tyndale, he is neither Calvinist or Arminian in views, but a Biblicist believing Congruent)

The extreme variety contends that we have no choice. We are "Elected" and can neither choose to come or leave.

The more moderate hold that while we are free to come we are not free to go.

(Ernst says the congruous way is the third biblical view, that we are free to come and we never want to leave and He ensures this by promise as I have shown above from Scripture!)

Now, I hold with those who say that we are free to both enter and leave.(You are therefore like Rome..It is some grace and lots of works to establish a final salvation position??)

Our Saviour however, gives us the strength, through him, to hold fast.(He says no such thing except from the mouth of Popes, Reformed priests and Ellen G White!!)"

Blowers

18 March 2014 at 14:09  
Blogger IanCad said...

What!!??
Your last paragraph is wholly incorrect.

"I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me"
Philippians 4:13.

And where, O where, do you get the idea that we think that works have any part in the plan of salvation?
It is entirely the works of Christ.

There is no merit in us.

Another quote may stay your belabouring this point:

(Rats!! Still can't copy and paste.)

EGW again: "Let the subject be made distinct and plain that it is not possible to effect anything in our standing before God or in the gift of God through creature merit.
Should faith and works purchase the gift of salvation for anyone, then the Creator is under obligation to the creature.
Here is an opportunity for falsehood to be accepted as truth.
If any man can merit salvation by anything he may do, then he is in the same position as the Catholic to do pennance for his sins.
Salvation, then is partly of debt that may be earned as wages. If man cannot, by any of his good works, merit salvation, then it must be wholly of grace, received by man as a sinner because he receives and believes in Jesus.
It is wholly a free gift. Justification by faith is beyond controversy. And all this controversy is ended, as soon as the matter is settled that the merits of fallen man in his good works can never procure eternal life for him."


I'm sorry to burden you with such a long quote Ernst but I really do believe that you misunderstand our teachings.

18 March 2014 at 15:07  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Seventh-day Adventists claim to be people of the Bible and that their beliefs are supported by Scripture. They reject the Roman Catholic Church beliefs such as, praying to Mary and the saints, the confessional, rosary, holy water, the Pope as head of the church, etc.
They reject Joseph Smith and his book of Mormon, they reject Mary Baker Eddy and her book Science and Health with Keys to Scripture.
They reject the Jehovah’s Witnesses, which have the Watchtower to guide them. SDA’s reject all beliefs that cannot be supported by the Bible.

The strange paradox is, that the SDA church accepts Ellen White's additions to the Bible and her contradictions without question as you do, Ian lad.. And then, like any other cult, expects members to do likewise. The SDA church insists all these additions and contradictions came straight from God, thus making God a part of their deception. OUTRAGEOUS!

Did Ellen White claim infallibility for the Testimonies she wrote?

Yes

"Yet, now when I send you a testimony of warning and reproof, many of you declare it to be merely the opinion of Sister White. You thereby insulted the Spirit of God." (Testimonies, Vol. 5, p.64).

"In these letters which I write, in the testimonies I bear, I am presenting to you that which the Lord has presented to me. I do not write one article in the paper expressing merely my own ideas. They are what God has opened before me in vision, the precious rays of light shining from the throne." (Testimonies, Vol. 5, p.67).

"If you lessen the confidence of God’s people in the testimonies He has sent them, you are rebelling against God as were Korah, Dathan, and Abiram." (Testimonies , Vol.5, p.66).

"The Testimonies are of the Spirit of God, or of the devil. In arraying yourself against the servants of God you are doing a work either for God or for the devil." (Testimonies, Vol. 4, p.230).
Then we have this beauty of addition, fully inspired by God, mind you, per the above infallible testimonies...Benny Hinn and his cohorts can learn much from EGW with 'Touch not the Lord's anointed' threat?

DID JUDAS HAVE A CONVICTION TO CONFESS HIS SIN? (Remember Ian, none of this nonsense below here here is Biblical!!)

EGW — (1898) YES: "When the Saviour’s hands were bathing those soiled feet, and wiping them with the towel, the heart of Judas thrilled through and through with the impulse then and there to confess his sin." (Desire of Ages p.645).

EGW — (1902) NO: "As Christ celebrated this ordinance with His disciples, conviction came to the hearts of all save Judas." (Evangelism p.275).

Note: God and Ellen G White said yes in 1898 and God and Ellen G White changed their minds in 1902 and said no. This kind of Yeah But, No But, inspiration is very hard to keep up with, don't you think.
I am thankful that the prophets of the Bible did not have this problem, perhaps the divine prophet line was clearer back then in the OT than in 1898 and 1902??.

Christians accept the writing of the prophets, Samuel, Jeremiah, etc as inspired by God and their writings as Holy Scripture. To follow what the SDA Church tells its members, then those who believe that Ellen White is inspired would have to regard her writings as Scripture, the same way, as they do the Bible prophets.
But the church tells them her writings are not "an addition to the canon of Scripture!"

Does this confuse you Ian, because I can't get me simple little noggin round it? If you understand how it is possible Ian Lad, please explain it to me as I am completely bamboozled by it all or am I meant to be?!

Earnestly Ernst

18 March 2014 at 21:43  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

ps

CAN WE SAY WE ARE SAVED RIGHT NOW BY CHRIST'S GRACE?

EGW — NO: "Those who accept the Saviour, however sincere their conversion, should never be taught to say or feel that they are saved. Those who accept Christ, and in their first confidence say, I am saved, are in danger of trusting to themselves." (Christ's Object Lessons, p. 155).

BIBLE — YES: "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life." (John 5:24).

"These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may KNOW that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God." (1 John 5:13).

Ian, the reason the apostle John wrote his letter was to ASSURE (guarantee, promise) the believers that they HAD eternal life.

I quote the Holy Bible and you quote EGW. Can you not see something very wrong here?

18 March 2014 at 21:46  
Blogger IanCad said...

It's my bedtime Ernst.

I have to say that you are cherry-picking and tending not to quote fully.

The first two paragraphs of your last post hit me right away.
Bear with me--the rest of the passage reads as follows:

"---I am saved, are in danger of trusting to themselves. They lose sight of their own weakness and their constant need of divine strength. They are unprepared for Satan's devices, and under temptation many, like Peter, fall into the very depths of sin. We are admonished, "Let him that thinketh he standeth, take heed lest he fall" 1 Corinthians 10:12
Our only safety is is in constant distrust of self, and dependence on Christ."


Again, in James 1:12: "Only he who endures the trial will receive the crown of life"

You cannot interpret the gospel of John without heed to the rest of scripture.
Particularly the Book of James.

And; What are you talking about??
I've quoted the bible in this debate.
Are you not reading my responses.

That's all for tonight.
Sleep Well
Ian

18 March 2014 at 22:37  
Blogger IanCad said...

Hey! Ernst,

I see on a later thread that you have a job interview coming up.

A calm spirit, an easy mind, a quiet confidence.

Got just the ticket for you; another EGW quote!!

"The faithful discharge of today's duties is the best preparation for tomorrow's trials. Do not gather all tomorrow's liabilities and cares and add them to the burden of today. "Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof." (Matthew 6:34)

Remember now; go easy on the tea and coffee, clean your fingernails.
Position yourself so that you have to turn your head slightly to address the inquisitor.
Keep your copy of "The Sun" out of sight and don't forget the deodorant.

You will have Hg's flock rooting for you.
I hope it goes well.
Ian

19 March 2014 at 08:55  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Remember now; go easy on the tea and coffee (Ernst has a weak bladder so that is a prerequisite, my lad!)), clean your fingernails (Will be trimmed and cleaned. Check!).
Position yourself so that you have to turn your head slightly to address the inquisitor (ooh me back, me back *Giggles*).
Keep your copy of "The Sun" out of sight and don't forget the deodorant(Only use that rag for wiping me botty on the potty and Mum's the word with the other *sniggers*).

You will have Hg's flock rooting for you (Could anyone ask for me?).
I hope it goes well (Ta lad).

Ian

Blowers

19 March 2014 at 21:37  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older