The American Spectator

JP| 5.2.11 @ 7:32AM

And lest anyone forget, the empire fell into utter ruin and chaos 3 centuries later. Hordes of Lombards, Goths, Visgoths, Franks, and Huns destroyed civil society and swept away most vestiges of greatness of both Rome and Constantine. On the heels of the babarians came the Muslim attackers, who swept through the Arab Peninsula, Palestine, and North Africa in record time.

The so-called violent legacy of Constantine was utterly destroyed. And with it much of Christiandom. The next 600 years saw the slow, steady revival of Christianity through evangelism. What we call Western Culture came about not through Constantine, but through Rome and its many missionairies. And the path wasn't especially pretty; humans tend to Sin and corruption. But God can work miracles through the imperfection of men. He still does.

Stuart Koehl| 5.2.11 @ 10:06AM

Just how full of it can JP possibly be. In my history class, this would be a definite FAIL. First of all, the barbarian invasions had little impact on the Eastern Empire at all, while in the West, many vestiges of Romanitas continued under the new management. The Empire that Constantine helped to Christianize (one can safely say the process was not completed until the reign of Theodosius the Great) remained Christian, for the barbarians themselves had already been Christianized (albeit of the Arian variety). Only in Britannia did the unreconstructed pagan Angles and Saxons actually displace Christians, but Christianity survived both in the Celtic fringe of Britain and within the boundaries of the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms themselves.

The Huns were an anomaly, an irruption of a steppe confederation led by a charismatic genius (Attila) which did not long survive his demise and which left no lasting mark on Western Europe. Their principal effect was to change the fundamental grand strategy of the Eastern Roman Empire, creating the framework that enabled it to survive for another millennium (see Edward N. Luttwak's "Grand Strategy of the Roman Empire").

Between the end of the barbarian incursions and the arrival of the Muslims, JP overlooks the reign of Justinian the Great, which saw the Roman Empire regain much of the territory it had previously held--including North Africa, Spain, Italy and parts of Gaul. This restoration might have been longer lasting had the entire Mediterranean world not be devastated by the first appearance of bubonic plague in the West--a pandemic far worse than the Black Death of the 14th century: apparently half of the population of Europe died, leaving the Roman Empire with an inadequate demographic base on which to maintain its power.

Even then, the Eastern Empire remained strong enough to defeat the Zoroastrian Persians in a decade-long war at the beginning of the 7th century, a war which left both ancient superpowers exhausted and vulnerable to the explosion of Muslim armies out of Arabia. Yet contrary to JP, the Muslims were kept out of most of Europe, only Spain falling under their long-term control.

JP thus compresses the timeline of late antiquity for polemic purposes, and exaggerates the effects of both the barbarian and Muslim invasions. He does so in an attempt to minimize the importance of the Constantinian settlement, implying that the shape of Western civilization is due largely to missionaries of the Latin Church sent forth by the See of Rome. But by the time Rome got around to doing this, during the Papacy of Gregory the Great, most of Western Europe was already Christianized; missionary activity bore fruit only in Britain, where the work of Augustine of Canterbury succeeded in converting some (but not all) of the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms. Two centuries later, Charlemagne and his successors converted the Saxons, Frisians and Prussians not through peaceful missionary activity, but through a combination of genocide, ethnic cleansing and resettlement. The Livonian Knights were still waging bloody crusades against pagan Prussians, Wends and Letts (as well as Christian Russians) well into the fourteenth century--peaceful conversions, indeed.

JP also ignores the manner in which Constantine, by ceding many of the magisterial functions of the state to the bishops of the Church, and by creating an ecclesiastical structure that mirrored the administrative structure of the Empire, provided the Church, especially in the West, with the wherewithal it needed to step into the vacuum created by the collapse of central secular authority. Without Constantine, the Church would not have taken the place of the Empire in the West, and the area would indeed have descended into darkness. For more on that, see H.A. Drake's "Constantine and the Bishops".

Meanwhile, of course, Constantine's Empire and Constantine's City continued to prosper in the East, overcoming repeated invasions, usurpations, and natural disasters, providing a bulwark to the West against Islam, preserving the legacy of classical civilization (far more Greek manuscripts came to the West via Byzantium than through the Arabic translations of Averroes or the transcriptions of the monks of Iona), and providing the Christian Church with the bulk of its core doctrines.

Richard| 5.2.11 @ 12:19PM

Thank you, Mr. Koehl: Do you have a reading list you would suggest for the non-professional historian. Thanks, Richard

Stuart Koehl| 5.2.11 @ 7:13PM

Dear Richard,

Here are some books I recommend on the subject of Constantine and the history of the early Church:

Paul Stephenson, "Constantine: Roman Emperor, Christian Victor"

H.A. Drake, "Constantine and the Bishops"

Timothy D. Barnes, "Constantine and Eusebius"

J.M. Hussey, "The Orthodox Church in the Byzantine Empire"

W.H.C. Frend, "The Rise of Christianity"

John Meyendorff, "Imperial Unity and Christian Divisions"

Mark Whittow, "The Making of Byzantium, 600-1025"

Jaroslav Pelikan, "The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine, Vol. I, The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition"; and Vol. II, The Spirit of Eastern Christendom"

Edward N. Luttwak, "Grand Strategy of the Byzantine Empire"

John Haldon, "Warfare, State and Society in the Byzantine World, 545-1214"

Warren Treadgold, "A History of the Byzantine State and Society"

Aristeides Papadakis and John Meyendorff, "The Christian East and the Rise of the Papacy"

This is enough for now. I hope you find them edifying.

Occam's Tool| 5.2.11 @ 7:25PM

Thank YOU!

Occam's Tool| 5.2.11 @ 7:31PM

Dear Stu---I have moved that data into my Byzantine history file. Thank you so much.

Stuart Koehl| 5.2.11 @ 7:41PM

Again, those who want to have a civilized conversation or wish for more reading recommendations are invited to message me on my Facebook page.

Frisbee| 5.4.11 @ 9:30PM

David Bentley Hart has a good one: "The Story of Christianity: An Illustrated History of 2000 Years of the Christian Faith". It's only $12 on Amazon.

Stuart Koehl| 5.5.11 @ 7:22PM

I've met David Hart on several occasions and was deeply impressed by his erudition and irenicism--an outstanding example of the best Orthodoxy can be.

Stormzeye| 5.2.11 @ 12:50PM

As a member of the Oriental Orthodox Syriac Church, I find your intellect and analysis to be impressive and confirms my pride in the history of my branch of Christianity. Please give us a good reading list to supplement our knowledge and feed our curiosity. The study of the eastern Christian church has been so neglected in the "salons" of western discourse.

Stuart Koehl| 5.2.11 @ 7:14PM

Please see above. Those who wish to continue this conversation in a more private forum are invited to message my Facebook page.

Tony in Central PA| 5.2.11 @ 8:01PM

Stuart, I think Islam played a far larger role in shaping Christendom than your refutation seems to imply. I'm certainly not an authority on the history of Medieval Europe, but what about Tours ? Imagine if in 732 Charles Martel's badly outnumbered troops had lost, don't you think French and European history would have been radically different ?
I also recall reading about Muslim raiders controlling the passes in the Alps, obtaining tribute from many towns in Italy, occupying Sicily and contesting for control of the Mediterranean over a long period of time that culminated in the stunning Islamic defeat at Lepanto.
The Islamic conquest of Palestine and its continual threat to Europe initiated the Crusades to retake the Holy Land. Don't you think this had a profound effect upon Christendom ?

I get the sense that in this day it has become very fashionable to downplay the conflict between Christendom and Islam for reasons that don't have anything to do with historical accuracy.

Stuart Koehl| 5.2.11 @ 9:15PM

Martel's repulse of the Moorish forces at Tours has an iconic significance in Western history, but as a strategic or military milestone it is vastly overrated. This was not a permanent invading army, but a razzia--what would be called, in the Hundred Years War a "chevauchee"--a mounted raid intended to cut a swath of destruction and collect booty. Martel's strategy was a classic response--shadow the Moors until they were loaded down with booty that inhibited their mobility, then give battle in a manner that forced them to decide between their skins and their loot. The odds were not that disparate: the Franks had maybe 20-25,000 men, the Moors about the same (estimates of 80,000 plus are logistically improbable). The importance of Tours is it marks the beginning of the rise of the Carolingian dynasty. You would hardly believe that similar razzias continued for decades, even centuries to come. The Muslims did not get into the Alpine passes, but did raid coastal Italy for centuries, unitl (wait for it!) the revitalized Byzantine Navy swept them away.

The Near East was conquered by the Arab Muslims by 634--Syria, Palestine, Egypt--all gone, together with North Africa and (a couple of decades on) most of Spain. By the 640s the Arabs were pounding on the gates of Constantinople, but the Byzantines (we can start to think of them that we by this time) held on and pushed them back. By 1025, they had recaptured all of Anatolia, parts of Armenia, and much of Syria, including the great city of Antioch. Through all of this, Jerusalem remained in Muslim hands, though the Byzantines (who were good at diplomacy as well as warfare) managed the lucrative pilgrim trade very nicely. Western Christendom did not care a whit for the Holy Land until after the Battle of Manzikert (1071), when the Byzantines lost most of Anatolia to the Seljuk Turks. The situation did not stabilize until the 1080s, when the Emperor Alexis Comnenus managed to hold and throw back the Turks. But the Byzantines still needed assistance, and so Alexis appealed to Pope Urban II for Western troops to serve as auxiliaries in the Byzantine Army. Instead, Urban called for the First Crusade, which indeed did manage to win back Jerusalem and carve out the Latin Kingdoms of Outremer. But these were strategic culs de sac--there were never going to be enough Frankish troops in the Holy Land to render it secure, and lines of communication back to the west remained tenuous at best--which is why there were six more Crusades. Of course, one of these didn't even get to the Holy Land, but indulged instead in an orgy of looting and rapine in the city of Constantinople worse than anything the Turks did (even in 1453). The result was catastrophic both for Byzantium (which never fully recovered) and for Western Christendom (which destroyed the bulwark keeping the Muslims out of central Europe. In the long term, then, the Crusades made the strategic situation worse for the Christians, and set the stage for the Turkish advance to the gates of Vienna.

Tony in Central PA| 5.2.11 @ 9:35PM

Thanks for the reply, Stuart. I have been trying to learn more about this long and often ill - considered period of history for the past few years and it appears you are the resident authority around here on the subject.

I heard a lecturer describe the periodic occupation of Alpine passes by Muslim raiders. I can't recall the dates. I believe the guy's name is John Bogle.

One other question I'll ask is hypothetical : do you think Western Christendom would have come to the aid of Constantinople shortly before it fell under different circumstances in terms of what was going on at the time within the West ? Or had too much rivalry and distrust poisoned things by that time ?

Stuart Koehl| 5.2.11 @ 9:56PM

Both sides were too estranged for any serious rapprochement. Both sides are at fault in this, but the actions of the Franks and Normans, in conjunction with those of the Latin Church, place the bulk of the onus on the Western side.

Alan Brooks| 5.2.11 @ 10:59AM

This is a bizarre piece from Tooley. Yes Constantine did much for Christianity, but not for Christ. Constantine was devoid of spirituality, he was the tinkling of utterly empty bells.
Tooley misses the forest for the trees.

Stuart Koehl| 5.2.11 @ 11:27AM

"Constantine was devoid of spirituality, he was the tinkling of utterly empty bells."

So much for that "Judge not lest ye be judged" crap, right?

No historian worth his salt would ever say anything so utterly stupid and anachronistic as "Constantine was utterly devoid of spirituality". It shows no feel or sympathy for the time in which Constantine lived.

Alan Brooks| 5.2.11 @ 11:04AM

... I have never read such a well written but disheartening article. It is like a more erudite version of Ben Stein.
Constantine was an absolute reptile- as warm a Christian as Manson.

Stuart Koehl| 5.2.11 @ 11:28AM

And your basis for this magisterial judgment? Just curious, because I see no indication you have any particular expertise in this field.

potkas7| 5.2.11 @ 12:29PM

I'm guessing the source was Edward Gibbon's "Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire." As a writer in the Age of Enlightenment Gibbon's disdain for religion - constantly deprecated as "superstition" throughout his multi-volume work - rendered him unable to appreciate let alone sympathize with the subject of his narrative. Most Westerner's understanding of the Byzantine Empire is based on Gibbon and is, therefore, incomplete and deeply flawed.

Stuart Koehl| 5.2.11 @ 7:15PM

A pity, that, because we live in a veritable renaissance of Byzantine studies, with new and important works published in English every several months.

Alan Brooks| 5.2.11 @ 11:54PM

One brief question: how was Constantine more more ethical than OJ?

Stuart Koehl| 5.3.11 @ 6:37AM

What hath ethics to do with spirituality or the sincerity of Constantine's conversion? Or is this just an attempt to change the subject?

Michael Harding| 5.14.11 @ 8:55PM

"What do ethics have to do with spirituality?" Is that a serious question? All the devotion in the world of totally irrelevant if your love of God is not reflected in your love for even your enemies. You can praise the name of Jesus all day long but if you hate any of your brothers (all of humanity) you will hear "depart from me you workers of iniquity". That's what ethics has to do with sprirituality. One can have ethics and be devoid of spirit but one cannot have spirit without ethical behavior.

mames| 5.3.11 @ 3:32AM

"What we call Western Culture came about not through Constantine, but through Rome and its many missionairies."'

Actually it came from Christianity and was most influential through the reformation and its refutation of the Roman church's collectivism. The Reformation declared that all work was holy when done in the spirit of Christ, that man's relationship with God was given by God through Christ who died for all and therefore all men were of great value. That value was defensible through war as taught by Scripture. Without these values Western culture would not exist. Synthesizing Christianity into the Holy Roman Church - a political tool- along with every pagan religion already included was no gift to the invisible church. Constantine's conversion still remains a serious doubt by many many orthodox Christian historians. His stated reason for conversion is in itself decidedly pagan. If neo anabaptists err in their misguided pacifism, staunch supporters of Roman do greater harm. No, the Church was well established long before Constantine came along so established that it was eclipsing the Holy Roman Church which had existed in its form borrowed from the east complete with its Pontif, a decidedly unbiblical concept. In less than 3 hundred years the little religion grew to be massively influential long before Constantine.

Stuart Koehl| 5.3.11 @ 12:27PM

"Actually it came from Christianity and was most influential through the reformation and its refutation of the Roman church's collectivism."

So, let me get this straight--Western civilization begins in the 16th century, and everything before the--late antiquity, the high Middle Ages and the Renaissance--doesn't count? I could just as easily make the case that the Reformation marks the beginning of the decline of Western civilization, giving birth as it did first to the Age of Reason, then to the Romantic era, and then to modern secularism and postmodernist deconstructionism.

This is why I don't take you seriously. You have the urge to write, but you have nothing to say.

Dee See| 5.2.11 @ 8:12AM

"Remember folks, America was NOT established
on the models of Greece or Rome ---but on the
models of CALVINIST Switzerland and the Netherlands."
-ALAN WATT
(essential online coverage)

Time to get the Arminian BS meisters and
Rockefeller 'social engineers' OUT of our
religious establishments after their half century
plus of bribing infiltration an deliberate
subversion of sound doctrine.

TIME to rediscover CALVIN, and more to the
point, 'to search the scriptures prayerfully
and discern with the spiritual eye'.

WE HAVE BEEN BETRAYED--------unto destruction.

"Religion is the KEY to history."
-Lord Acton

AS every capstone creep knows ---

Stuart Koehl| 5.2.11 @ 10:07AM

Take your meds!

Quartermaster| 5.2.11 @ 7:33PM

I'm afraid he's beyond just meds. A rubber room would be more appropriate.

Clearly the man has no understanding of the influence of Wesleyan Christianity on the founding of the US. The New England States were affected by Calvinism, but the frontier saw more Wesleyan influence as the 18th century wore on and Wesleyans were dominant by 1890 with just one denomination, the Methodists, having a membership of 8 million, the largest denomination at the time.

Calvinists dislike Wesleyan Arminianism because it places the onus of sin upon man, rather than man being a robot predestined from eternity past to sin and damnation. Christianity, on the other hand, offers all men salvation through the sacrifice of Christ on the Cross. Beza's Calvinism, on the other hand, condemns almost all of man kind to damnation with no hope of salvation , unless you are one of those randomly chosen for salvation.

Ryan| 5.3.11 @ 9:03AM

That's an egregious overstatement of Calvinism. We are at fault for our own sin, AND it's no surprise to God. "There are none righteous, not even one."

There's nothing in scripture that makes us out to be worthy in and of ourselves for even desiring salvation.

Romans 9 addresses your point clearly.

" 16 So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy.
17For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "FOR THIS VERY PURPOSE I RAISED YOU UP, TO DEMONSTRATE MY POWER IN YOU, AND THAT MY NAME MIGHT BE PROCLAIMED THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE EARTH."
18So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires.
19 You will say to me then, "Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?"
20 On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, "Why did you make me like this," will it?
21 Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use?
22What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction?

NotALibertarian| 5.3.11 @ 2:45PM

The problem is that Calvinists fail to see that Paul's potter imagery is referring to Jeremiah 18. That's why they misunderstand what "the same lump one vessel for honor and another for dishonour" actually means.

Jeremiah 18 makes it clear that the clay can CHANGE its own doomed fate if it repents, because the potter will remake it into a vessel of honour, "[repenting] of the evil that I thought to do unto them" (Jer.18:8). But because Calvin ignored (or didn't know about) the Jeremiah context, he incorrectly assumed that the "lump" stands for God molding people in the womb, and a dysfunctional reading was borne.

Ryan| 5.3.11 @ 3:50PM

However, who grants repentance? Can I repent without God's hand?

Does the clay surprise God?

Ryan| 5.3.11 @ 3:50PM

However, who grants repentance? Can I repent without God's hand?

Does the clay surprise God?

NotALibertarian| 5.3.11 @ 4:21PM

The choice to repent is not God's. It is the clay's: "If *that nations*, against whom I have pronounced, *turn from their evil*, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them."
The Lord's changing the clay's fate -- its end -- depends entirely on the choice of the clay to repent or to continue doing evil.

That's the irony of the Calvinist reading of Rom. 9. It's the complete opposite of what Paul's was actually saying, as proved by Jeremiah 18. Paul's point was that everyone -- whether Jew or Gentile -- has the opportunity to change their standing, their end now -- if they CHOOSE to believe on Jesus Christ and keep His commandments. Because God will have mercy on whom He will have mercy, and now He will have mercy upon All who (choose to) call on His name in true repentance, both Jews and Gentiles (see Eph. 2).

Margie| 5.3.11 @ 5:00PM

And the second part of that verse says that He hardens the heart of whomever He wills.

God still has to grant the repentance.
Remember Essau.
He sought it with tears.

NotALibertarian| 5.3.11 @ 6:19PM

The second part of that verse seems to be a defense of the Lord's decision to harden the hearts of Jews who rejected Christ, as the first is a defense of the Lord's decision to soften the hearts of (or "call") degenerate, idol-worshipping Gentiles. Calvin wrongly assumed that "whom he will he hardeneth" means God will decide who is saved (in spite of the fact that Pharaoh was never in the running to be saved).

The point is that God "grants repentance" to every unbeliever. He did that when He allowed His Son to die on the cross (and rise again). But the unbeliever must choose to repent. That part isn't God's doing, no matter how well-intentioned the people insisting "it's ALL God!" are.
I do not think that Paul's remarks about Esau in Heb. 12 are relevant to the topic of predestination because they are made as a warning to believers -- that God's willingness to forgive a redeemed, Spirit-filled Christian who has committed gross sin is not assured.

Margie| 5.3.11 @ 10:24PM

But you're assuming all kinds of things there.
First, you're telling God that when He says He hardens the heart of whomever He wills, that He only meant it for the Jews.
When He says "whomever" I think He means "whomever".

Honestly I do not know what Calvin believed, and am not too interested in it.
I only know what Jesus taught, and the Apostles.

"Calvin wrongly assumed that "whom he will he hardeneth" means God will decide who is saved".

But He does decide. As it's written "whoever's name is not written in the Book of Life is destined for the lake of fire.." Rev. 20:15

And as a matter of fact, it says that those whose names aren't written in the book will be in awe at the Anti-Christ when he does his pretended miracles, but that's another subject all together.

There is Scripture that tells us:

"We know that in everything God works for good with those who love Him, who are called according to His purpose.
For those whom He foreknew He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, in order that He might be the first-born among many brethren.
And those whom He predestined He also called; and those whom He called he also justified; and those whom He justified he also glorified." Rom. 8:28-30.

"I do not think that Paul's remarks about Esau in Heb. 12 are relevant to the topic of predestination".
But why not?

"But God's firm foundation stands, bearing this seal: "The Lord knows those who are His," and, "Let every one who names the Name of the Lord depart from iniquity." 2 Tim. 2:19.

Esau could not repent, because God didn't allow it. And that certainly goes to predestination if you ask me. And it certainly was used by Him as an example, as are all things in the Bible.

Then there's the Scripture that says:

"For if we sin deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a fearful prospect of judgment, and a fury of fire which will consume the adversaries." Heb. 10:26 & 27.

So in all, God knows the names of everyone who is in the Book of Life already.
He knows who is going to be finally saved in the end, and He is the one who planned it from before the foundation of the universe.

That is why it is written that it's a fearful thing to fall into the Hands of the Living God, and that though we are saved by His Grace we better not take advantage.

"He who believes in the Son has eternal life; he who does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God rests upon him." Jn. 3:36.

So, it truly isn't "once saved, always saved". Is that what Calvin believed?

"..and you will be hated by all for My Name's sake. But he who endures to the end will be saved." Mk. 13:13.

Ryan| 5.4.11 @ 8:22AM

Technically, it's called "perseverance of the saints," and the concept is that since salvation is entirely a work from God, man cannot undo it.

I Pet 5:8-10 is a good place: "Be of sober spirit, be on the alert. Your adversary, the devil, prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour. But resist him, firm in your faith, knowing that the same experiences of suffering are being accomplished by your brethren who are in the world. After you have suffered for a little while, the God of all grace, who called you to His eternal glory in Christ, will Himself perfect, confirm, strengthen and establish you."

Margie| 5.5.11 @ 12:58AM

Ryan,

I guess what it comes down to is, "You will know them by their fruits". Mt. 7:20.

And if you're His, you'll endure to the end.

I'm going to wrap up my thoughts here with God's thoughts, and exhortation:

"For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only He who now restrains it will do so until he is out of the way. And then the lawless one will be revealed, and the Lord Jesus will slay him with the breath of His mouth and destroy him by His appearing and His coming.

The coming of the lawless one by the activity of Satan will be with all power and with pretended signs and wonders, and with all wicked deception for those who are to perish, because they refused to love the truth and so be saved.

Therefore God sends upon them a strong delusion, to make them believe what is false, so that all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

But we are bound to give thanks to God always for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God chose you from the beginning to be saved, through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth.
To this he called you through our gospel, so that you may obtain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.

So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter." 2 Thess. 2:7-15.

NotALibertarian| 5.5.11 @ 4:23PM

I Pet. (4:17, 18) also states that judgment will begin at the house of God, and that "the righteous scarcely be saved". If it is *all* God, *all* the work of God, why would apostle Peter say it is difficult for the righteous to be saved?

NotALibertarian| 5.5.11 @ 4:15PM

Margie, if you're still out there somewhere:

You seem well-meaning, but I was not "telling God" anything. I was explaining Paul's train of thought, and the way Calvin misinterpreted key passages to twist "predestined" into something it isn't.

Of course God will decide who is saved on the Day of Judgment, but that decision is based on whether men have chosen to believe in and obey His Son -- He's judging what *we* have done: "Who will render to EVERY man according to HIS DEEDS: To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for gl0ry and honour and immortality, eternal life: But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish . . . " Rom. 2:6

One can understand that the Church, in a general sense, was predestined before the foundations of the world without assuming that the individuals that will be included in that Church are predetermined. I would caution you that your interpretation of Rom. 8:29-30 -- the meaning of "called" specifically -- contradicts "For many are called, but few are chosen".

"Choose you this day whom ye will serve" is very clear. God will do His part without fail, but He expects me to do mine, and woe unto me if I fail of the grace of God (Heb. 12:15).

Margie| 5.5.11 @ 6:05PM

NAL,

"but I was not "telling God" anything"
~When you said that God meant only the Jews when He says He hardens the heart of whomever He wills, then you are indeed telling God that that's what He is saying.

Are you now trying to say that this was Paul's train of thought?

Also, the verse you quoted, here it is in the original Greek:

"For He will render to every man according to his works:
to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, He will give eternal life;
but for those who are factious and do not obey the truth, but obey wickedness, there will be wrath and fury." Rom. 2:6-8.

Isn't it interesting to see how God actually spoke, and to know what He means by "works",
And how easy it is to obey Him, according to His own Words?

And then He warns us:
"On that Day many will say to Me, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your Name, and cast out demons in your Name, and do many mighty works in your Name?'
And then will I declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from Me, you evildoers.'
"Every one then who hears these words of Mine and does them will be like a wise man who built his house upon the Rock.." Mt. 7:22-24.

So, it all depends on if the works come from faith or not. And we are justified by faith.
You see the difference in the 2?

"For we hold that a man is justified by faith apart from works of law." Rom. 3:28.

"Therefore, since we are justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ." Rom. 5:1.

"..for whatever does not proceed from faith is sin." Rom. 14:23.

You said,
"One can understand that the Church, in a general sense, was predestined before the foundations of the world without assuming that the individuals that will be included in that Church are predetermined. I would caution you that your interpretation of Rom. 8:29-30 -- the meaning of "called" specifically -- contradicts "For many are called, but few are chosen".

First, I did not interpret anything, I quoted what God says, straight out of the Bible. I am assuming He means what He says.

And I didn't assume anything about His Words meaning "a church in general" or otherwise. You are the one assuming. His Words did not say anything about a "church in general", they say what they say. Read them again.

And lastly, you also accuse God of being "contradictory" and accuse Him of meaning 2 different things when you say, "the meaning of "called" specifically -- contradicts "For many are called, but few are chosen".

How does God contradict Himself?
You will have to take this up with Him!
He says this:

"And those whom He predestined He also called; and those whom He called he also justified; and those whom He justified he also glorified." Rom. 8:28-30.

And therefore, He means it!

There is no contradiction for God. When He tells us that many are called, few are chosen~ He knows already who will be saved in the end, and who won't be.
And He knew it from before the "foundation of the world!".

Tony in Central PA| 5.2.11 @ 8:02PM

Calvin ? Christian sharia law ?

Ryan| 5.3.11 @ 9:04AM

Wait, what? How did you get to THAT conclusion?

Doctor Right| 5.2.11 @ 9:32AM

Constantine's convenient "conversion" was the beginning of the modern Roman Catholic Church, a none-too delicate blending of state authority with Christian "messages" thrown in to please the masses...

...Not too different from today, actually...

And 180-degrees from what Christ intended.

bob alou| 5.2.11 @ 9:37AM

Agreed.

Stuart Koehl| 5.2.11 @ 10:08AM

Wrong again, but I tire of lecturing the ignorant on Church history. I am willing to recommend a number of excellent books, but I doubt they would be read. However, if you are interested, reply to this, and I will provide the bibilography.

Doctor Right| 5.2.11 @ 10:19AM

Which part am I wrong on, Stu?

Go ahead...Do your best. Just because I've proved you wrong in the past (repeatedly) doesn't mean that you'll fail here, too.

You're typical answer ("Because the Church says so") isn't really sufficient anymore.

Stuart Koehl| 5.2.11 @ 11:04AM

We could start with your first sentence:

"Constantine's convenient "conversion" was the beginning of the modern Roman Catholic Church"

If anything, Constantine can be seen as one of the founders of the Eastern Orthodox Church, but the Church of Rome had very little to do with Constantine (and don't bring up the Donation of Constantine, which was proven to be a fraud more than five hundred years ago).

"You're typical answer ("Because the Church says so") isn't really sufficient anymore."

MY typical answer? I'm the one producing references and citations, you're the one trying to remember the last Chick Tract you saw. The development of the Catholic Church (defined herein as the Church of Rome and those other Churches in communion with it) emerged gradually over a period of a thousand years. For most of that time, Rome and Constantinople had relatively little to do with each other.

Again, I ask if you are willing to do some reading that involves a bit of intellectual heavy lifting? If you are, I will provide you with books you need to read (none of which are official Catholic publications, few of which are even written by Catholics). If not, then stop wasting my time.

Doctor Right| 5.2.11 @ 11:36AM

I've never seen a "Chick Tract" in my life, Stu...In fact, I had to look it up. I assume you're referring to Jack Chick? Even so, we all have our l'il books, don't we Stu? Some people look to Jack Chick, others stare lovingly into their Catechism whilst they clutch their (non-idolatrous) Rosary Beads!

Heavy lifting? Stu, if you're going to throw that phrase around, you're going to have to accept that those who blindly spit-out doctrinaire positions are the equivalent of 98-lb weaklings when it comes to intellectual debates.

I have a recommendation for you to read: It's called "The Bible"...Since you're a Catholic, you're probably not too familiar with it...And that's by design...But if you really want to grow in wisdom, stature, and learning, I suggest you put aside your catechism and pick one up. You might actually learn something...And please, don't let the fact that there's NO Catholics in it deter you!

Wasting your time? Stu...You're free to disappear anytime you want. In fact, your first post said you had NO time to argue with "the ignorant"...

...I guess it irks you when "the ignorant" neither accept your blatantly false positions AND know more about the Catholic Church than you do...

Ryan| 5.2.11 @ 12:22PM

Stu isn't throwing "catechism" at you. He's throwing history and history books. He's nto arguing theology here, he's arguing history.

Tony in Central PA| 5.2.11 @ 8:12PM

Dr, Right, why do you accept the Bible if it is the product of a Church that, according to your interpretation, had already become hopelessly corrupted before the Canon was closed ?

One other question while I'm at it. Which group of Christian authors would provide a more orthodox explanation of the Faith, those who studied with the actual Apostles and their immediate successors or Protestant reformers some 1500+ years later ?

Ryan| 5.3.11 @ 9:06AM

Ummm...there aren't that many of the students of the Apostles that we have records of. The first century after Christ outside of Acts really isn't all that clear, historically and theologically.

David T| 5.3.11 @ 9:34AM

Ryan--The historical/theological record is actually much clearer than you think. Read The Early Church Fathers by Mike Aquilina for starters. He also blogs on the early church and church history in general. And, of course, Pope Benedict XVI has written some excellent books in this area, based on his weekly studies at the Vatican. I think you'll find, as the creed says, the early church was one, holy, catholic, and apostolic. BTW, your cool, conciliatory tone in these postings is a welcome respite amidst all the heat generated out there...

Ryan| 5.3.11 @ 10:14AM

I try. Can't be convincing if you're mean.

I just like asking questions and making people think.

I agree on a sort of unity in the early Church, but I think that there are times where we believe that they had it all right in the beginning, when that may not necessarily be the case. Paul didn't write to churches that had it all together.

Margie| 5.3.11 @ 12:24PM

But Paul wrote warning us to not believe anything that purported to be from them that wasn't in agreement with what they taught.
The "early church fathers" brought in all kinds of false doctrine, such as prayer to the dead, transubstantiation, as well as church hierarchy. All false and all WRONG.

David T| 5.3.11 @ 12:51PM

Agree--the infant church stumbled and fell quite often but it gradually started to take shape and grow. Things didn't come easily--it took four centuries of rough-and-tumble debate to finally figure out who Christ was, even though Paul had answered the question in the 50's!

Stuart Koehl| 5.3.11 @ 10:35PM

"Ummm...there aren't that many of the students of the Apostles that we have records of."

Quite a few are known: Polycarp of Smyrna, who studied at the feet of the Apostle John; his slightly older contemporary, Ignatios of Antioch, who also knew John; the presbyter and historian Papias, who interviewed all those he could find who had known either Christ or the Apostles, Clement of Rome, who knew Peter and Paul, and who was writing circular letters (encyclicals) on behalf of the Church of Rome before the end of the first century. There are several others whose work is cited by later writers, or whose work has come down to us in fragments. We actually know quite a bit about the sub-apostolic era.

Ryan| 5.4.11 @ 8:23AM

I think that's still a mere handful of people, and doesn't necessarily disprove my point.

One of the other issues is that the problems that Paul and others addressed in the epistles weren't necessarily corrected in that time - gnosticism in particular.

Stuart Koehl| 5.4.11 @ 9:46AM

As opposed to evidence for the Apostolic era, of which we have just the writings of a handful of men--Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, James, Jude and Paul, plus outside witnesses from Josephus and Philo. But even that is more than we have for most persons or events of antiquity that go unquestioned by all.

Margie| 5.5.11 @ 1:49PM

Dr. Right,

Chick Tracts are neat little tracts that Christians hand out that have the words of the gospel of Jesus Christ on them. They may also have drawings on them, I can't remember.. but that's why Stuey Koel doesn't like them.

They contain the Words of God. Not the words of the "early church fathers"~ or the "officially approved church".

Evanston2| 5.2.11 @ 12:12PM

Stuart, Constantine convened the counsel of Nicaea. Both (what would become) the eastern and western churches recognized the results, right? In your view, is Roman Catholicism a spinoff of the Orthodox, vice versa, or neither? Also, how would you best summarize Constantine's role -- were his actions (and the acceptance thereof by "the church") the beginning of the state church, or were there many or different causes? I know these are complicated questions and time is limited for us all, just hope you can summarize your views and perhaps provide some titles or links as you've mentioned.

Ryan| 5.2.11 @ 12:39PM

As an outsider, I would say neither - before 1054 (the Great Schism) both sides had long-standing issues with each other, but considered (and in some ways, still do) each other as part of a single entity.

That's a bit of a nutshell, though.

Constantine may have more legitimacized Christianity both as a personal conviction and the completion of the political reality that Christianity was going to become a dominant force - many people try to separate and oversimplify the two, and not realize that it could be a both/and proposition as well.

As the article says, "Constantine was sincere in faith though still inexact in theology and often savagely politically ambitious, like any successful emperor."

Stuart Koehl| 5.2.11 @ 7:23PM

In my view neither is a spinoff of the other. Both are continuations of the Catholic Orthodox Church of the first millennium. The notion of a universal Church defined as a top-down, pyramidal organization was unknown in the first millennium. Instead, the "Ekklesia Katholike" was defined as a communion of local Churches sharing a common Eucharist. Of those local Churches, some had greater prestige than others. Five of these came to be recognized as "Patriarchal" Churches to which other Churches looked for pastoral guidance and assistance. These Churches were listed in order of precedence as: 1. Old Rome; 2. Constantinople (New Rome); 3. Alexandria; 4. Antioch; 5. Jerusalem. After the Muslim conquest of the 7th century, Rome and Constantinople were by far the most important of the five. These gradually drew apart due to historical and linguistic factors. Over time, each developed a distinctly unique way of expressing theological and ecclesiological concepts, which led to a mutual estrangement and gradual breakdown of communion (which did not end in 1054, and in fact never entirely broke down at all--there was always some degree of intercommunion, sometimes formal, sometimes informal, right down to the present day).

The breaking of communion was mutual; neither Church split from the other because neither was ever "under" the other. Rather, the separation was mutual, and mutually damaging to both.

Quartermaster| 5.2.11 @ 7:41PM

Stuart, my only disagreement would be the timeline. I think the eastern and western churches were splitting within a couple hundred years after Augustine. While both sides like Augustine (I've read Orthodox writers of recent vintage refer to him as "Holy Augustine"), but the theological and ecclesiastical foundation of Roman Catholicism is in Augustine.

This is arguing details, but on the whole you are correct. But, then, i doubt you needed to read that :-)

Stuart Koehl| 5.2.11 @ 7:49PM

I would not disagree with that. The twin crises of the Persian War and the Islamic Conquest caused the Church of Constantinople to turn in upon itself, so that it ceased to be multi-lingual and multicultural and became exclusively Greek in language and theology. This no doubt preserved it, and the Eastern Empire with it, but among the ramifications was a tendency to see its own usages as normative.

The Muslim conquest also disrupted communications with the western half of the Mediterranean, and the Western Church, which was increasingly monolingual, speaking Latin and knowing very little Greek (Pope Gregory I served as Papal Legate in Constantinople for several years--during which time he is reputed to have compiled the Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts that bears his name--but he knew only a few words of Greek). More Greeks knew some Latin, but both sides were rapidly becoming mutually incomprehensible to the other.

While the Latin Church relies very heavily on Augustine, and the Eastern Churches on a wider variety of Fathers, it's not so much Augustine as his later--and less brilliant--commentators who created false dichotomies between Augustine's works and the Greek Fathers. There were also Western Fathers like Vincent of Lerins and John Cassian who disagreed with Augustine's views on original sin and predestination, but even Augustine was reconsidering these at the time of his repose.

Ryan| 5.3.11 @ 9:10AM

I would say that the RCC actually went more in the direction of Jerome rather than Augustine in the end, but that was a later development than the time period we're dealing with.

There's a case that if there wasn't an Augustine, there wouldn't have been a Luther or Calvin.

David T| 5.3.11 @ 10:03AM

Not sure what you mean when you say Rome went more in Jerome's direction. Jerome was more of a bible scholar and a translator than a theologian-philospher.

Ryan| 5.3.11 @ 10:44AM

Eh, there's not out there on that as much as I thought. I think I was under the impression that Jerome was more Aristotlean and Augustine Platonic/neo-Platonic, which lends themselves toward the faith and works arguments.

Anyway, the gist is this: had the RCC followed Augustine closer, there would not have been a need for a Reformation.

David T| 5.3.11 @ 12:56PM

Hmmmmmm...

Margie| 5.3.11 @ 5:02PM

Both Jerome and Augustine were masters in their own minds only.

Have you actually ever read their words?

Ryan| 5.4.11 @ 8:25AM

Like it or not, you owe much to Augustine. No Augustine, no Reformation.

No Reformation, no concept that the Bible can be interpreted outside of Catholic doctrine.

Margie| 5.5.11 @ 12:40AM

I owe nothing to Augustine, the despicable pervert. He was the doctor of persecution of Bible believing Christians in the Catholic church.

If what you're trying to say Ryan, is that we owe him much in the same way as say... we owe Obama for the "purpose" he served in stirring up conservatives to good works, then on THAT I'll agree!
Read what I posted below about a few of the tidbits of perversion Augustine brought to Christianity.

Well, not really to Christianity, but to Catholicism.

Stuart Koehl| 5.5.11 @ 7:25PM

"I owe nothing to Augustine, the despicable pervert. He was the doctor of persecution of Bible believing Christians in the Catholic church"

Who were these "Bible Believing Christians" Augustine allegedly persecuted? Where can I find them in the historical record?

Margie| 5.6.11 @ 1:23AM

I didn't say he personally did the persecuting, but that he was the Dr, of it.

Look it up.

Evanston2| 5.3.11 @ 5:42PM

Stuart, Ryan & Quartermaster, thank you for the answers regarding RCC vs. Orthodox. I was interested in your "take" on Constantine's role and the inter-development of church and state. I believe that historically religion and state have always been intertwined and that the division of church and state instituted by Christ is the exception rather than the rule. Constantine was obviously an important figure, not only in reducing active persecution but in actively promoting Nicaea, etc. So when, if at all, did the RCC and orthodox become state churches?

Stuart Koehl| 5.3.11 @ 9:36PM

In the year 394, the Emperor Theodosios the Great closed all the pagan temples and outlawed blood sacrifices. Since the entire purpose of paganism was propitiation of the Gods through blood sacrifice, that was it for paganism, which rapidly declined. The Empire was from that point officially Christian.

But the Church of Christ was actually a communion of many Churches. each following one of a number of unique liturgical "rites". Thus, e.g., the Churches in Syria followed what is now called the Syrian rite, divided further into that used by the Churches near Antioch (West Syrian) and those around Edessa (East Syrian); the Churches in Egypt and Ethiopia followed the Alexandrine rite; the Churches in Italy followed the Roman and Ambrosian (Milanese rites), those of Gaul the Gallic rite, those in Spain the Mozerabic rite, and so forth. The Byzantine rite is a hybrid that emerged between the 4th and 13th centuries from elements of the Antiochian, Cappodocian, and Jerusalem rites.

Churches which followed the same rite tended to cluster together, each looking to one Church in its region that was larger, richer and more prestigious. These Churches--Rome, Alexandria and Antioch (later joined by Constantinople and Jerusalem) became the five great Patriarchal Churches of the Patristic era.

Administratively, the Church was divided into patriarchates, metropolitan provinces, and dioceses, each of which roughly paralleled the administrative structure of the Empire. Because Rome and Constantinople were the two capitals of the Empire, the Churches of those cities stood first in precedence, exercising a "primacy" over the other Churches around them.

It is important, though, to recognize that primacy was not seen in terms of "jurisdiction". i.e., the ability of one Church to issue commands or directives to another Church. The "34th Canon of the Holy Apostles" (actually compiled in the 4th century laid out the ideal for inter-ecclesial relations: "Let all the bishops defer to he who is first among them, doing nothing extraordinary without his permission; but let he who is first do nothing without the advice and consent of all, that unanimity in the Holy Spirit may prevail for the greater glory of the Trinity". Thus, primacy, understood as moral authority, was held in tension with conciliarity.

This system never worked perfectly in the First Millennium. There were divisions, but unity was upheld as the ideal. Nonetheless, over the course of centuries, the Church of Rome began to think of its primacy more in jurisdictional than moral terms. On more than one occasion, Rome attempted to dictate to other Churches, which resisted until Rome desisted. It was only towards the end of the first millennium that Rome became so detached and estranged from the Eastern Churches that it began to see its own theology, liturgy, spirituality and disciplines as normative for all Churches. It was not until the second millennium that Rome had the power to place its perquisites over the unity of the Church. But even then, the breaking of communion in 1054 was not seen as an irrevocable act, and in fact communion between East and West never entirely ceased right down to the present day (though it became more rare and difficult after the Counter-Reformation).

Stuart Koehl| 5.3.11 @ 9:48PM

To complete this rather long excursus:

From the second millennium onward, the Church of Rome began to perceive itself as the one true Church, fidelity to which was obligatory on all secular rulers. It was not so much that Latin Catholicism was the "state Church" in the West, as that each ruler accepted the authority of the Church in spiritual matters.

In the East, the Orthodox Church was not a "state Church" either before or after the fall of Constantinople. Rather, the Orthodox Church was seen as a commonwealth of Churches in communion with each other, some autonomous or autocephalous, others looking to a patriarchal Church as a center of unity. When Constantinople fell, the Ottomans made the Patriarch of Constantinople responsible for oversight of all Christian subjects of the Sultan, what the Turks called the "Rhum Milet", the "Roman People". As such, they had both spiritual and secular authority, but were themselves subordinate to the Sultan. Outside of the Ottoman Empire, Russia was the largest Orthodox state, and gradually came to see itself as a successor to Constantinople not only in the Orthodox world, but throughout Christendom. Until the sixteenth century, the Byzantine system of symphonia between Church and state persisted within the Russian lands. But from the accession of Ivan IV Grozny, the state's centralizing trend gradually made the Orthodox Church subordinate to the Tsars. This trend was completed under Peter the Great, who (in imitation of German Protestant kingdoms) made the Church part of the government--a true "state Church". As the Ottoman Empire disintegrated from the 18th century onward, more and more Orthodox countries became independent, and began setting up "autocephalous" national Churches because the Church of Constantinople, which normally would have the primacy over all Orthodox Churches, was seen as a captive of the Turks. Today, Orthodoxy is a confederation of many autocephalous and autonomous national Churches, but in most cases these are not "state Churches" in the manner, e.g., of the Church of England, or the Church of Sweden, or the Church of Norway, etc.--membership in which is (or was until lately) mandatory for all subjects, who supported the Church through their taxes.

As for the Catholic Church (meaning, effectively, the Church of Rome and the various "uniate" Churches in communion with it), it was never either a state Church or a national Church, though in many countries the ruler effectively outlawed or imposed civic and economic disabilities on subjects who did not belong to it.

Doctor Right| 5.3.11 @ 5:58AM

"Over time, each developed a distinctly unique way of expressing theological and ecclesiological concepts"

Take out the pseudo-intellectual pretension and what Stu is basically saying is that over time, both churches went apostate in different ways.

Ryan| 5.3.11 @ 9:08AM

Are you willing to throw 1500 years of Christians into hell, then?

Because that sounds like what you're saying.

If that's the case, how could the promise made to Abraham be truly fulfilled?

We all believe something that others would consider "apostate."

Margie| 5.3.11 @ 2:02PM

Right
On.

Margie| 5.3.11 @ 2:02PM

(To Dr. Right).

mames| 5.3.11 @ 3:50AM

The Holy Roman Universal church, if you notice, no where defines itself as exclusively Christian. It did in fact emerge from eastern influences complete with the concept of a Pontif. As the Romans would take in or conquer a people it would brilliantly incorporate their religion into the HRUC as polytheist did not mind the inclusion of other gods into their religion. So it was very Roman to be of any religion because any religion was enveloped into the Roman Church- it was "universal (catholic). When Christianity was enveloped by the Romans, because it was too large to ignore or fight, it lead to all kinds of error including the borrowed concept in maryology(Isis etc), infused grace instead of imputed grace, levels of life after death other than with or separate from Christ such as purgatory and limbo, intercessors (declared saints) other than Christ, Peter as first "pope" and a variety of unbiblical concepts borrowed from the existing pagan religions already a part of the HRUC.

Stuart Koehl| 5.3.11 @ 6:39AM

Out from under what rock do these people crawl?

Margie| 5.3.11 @ 12:28PM

This is what Stuey says to everyone who tells the truth.

Ray Greenway| 5.2.11 @ 11:52AM

Protestism rejects the writings of the Church Fathers, including most who were before Constantine was born. And they totally ignore the Eastern Church's history when they try to say that Constantine created the Roman Catholic Church.

Ryan| 5.2.11 @ 12:09PM

I think that "rejection" is an overstatement here. Even though they don't realize it, there's a lot that we Protestants owe to St. Augustine in particular, as well as several of the councils (such as Nicea) and other issues.

Heck, we've hardly gotten too far and no one has mentioned the Nicene Creed and how it's practically the non-negotiables of the Christian Faith.

Evanston2| 5.2.11 @ 12:22PM

Ryan, absolutely Ray overstates the case. Protestants don't so much "reject" early church history as "ignore" it as being authoritative. Roman Catholics seem to treat such writings as almost deuterocanonical, while most protestant churches would agree with the content of the creeds but they just don't recite them mindlessly (though this practice continues in "mainline"/sideline churches). Regarding the early church "fathers" I've heard their writings mentioned on many occasions, but mostly when the Bible is unclear (that is, on minor points of practical application of doctrine). That said, perhaps Ray has some references/links for us supporting this alleged rejection?

Ryan| 5.2.11 @ 12:41PM

Several of the fundamental offshoots of some of the mainline churches (PCA, Lutheran MO Synod) still recite some Creeds and such, but hold Scripture as the greater authority.

Quartermaster| 5.2.11 @ 7:52PM

Calvin and his followers (Beza, Gill, etc) intensely dislike the Ante-Nicene writers. The Love Augustine, however, because his theology is the foundation of their aberrant teachings.

This is not to say that Augustine is a Proto-Calvinist. He was not. Augustine was more on the lines of James Arminius. Calvin merely borrowed from and carried Augustine to an extreme. The early church would have excluded Calvin as a heretic, and rightfully so.

There are many of us that have read the Ante-Nicene writers and have gained much by doing so. Reading with an open mind to try to learn what they actually taught allows us to recapture much of the spirit of the early. Yes, they accepted that God granted man free will. Without free will there is no reason to accept much of scripture, or even perform missionary work, because if man has no free will, then man is not responsible for himself. The antinomy Calvinists posit (compatiblism) is a contradiction of terms that exists only in the mind of John Calvin's followers in an attempt to reconcile their aberrations with scripture.

Margie| 5.2.11 @ 9:02PM

All I know is what the Bible says. It says that those whom He called He also fore knew and predestined to be His. (Rom. 8:29).

I cannot deny what He says.

But if someone gives one a gift, one can also reject it, I suppose. But if He says those who are His were predestined to be so, who am I to question?

Stuart Koehl| 5.2.11 @ 9:17PM

"All I know is what the Bible says."

Don't flatter yourself, Marge.

Margie| 5.2.11 @ 9:41PM

Stuart,

I can always count on you for your condescension.

Stuart Koehl| 5.2.11 @ 9:57PM

You make it so easy, Marge.

Margie| 5.2.11 @ 10:41PM

Really?
How's that?
Because I expose you for the pompous buffoon that you really are?

Ryan| 5.3.11 @ 9:16AM

I think you're projecting hyper-Calvinistic beliefs into regular Calvinism.

First off, God's big enough that what we see as contradictions (such as missions work conflicting with His command to go and tell) are NOT contradictions in His way of ordering things. It just places too big a limitation on God.

Once you get rid of that, there's a lot that falls into place. God didn't tell us to convince others of the Gospel - He tells us to make disciples. Nowhere does He ask us to be overly convincing.

The problem here is that you have a LOT of the book of Romans in particular to contend with in your above assertions.

Margie| 5.3.11 @ 12:29PM

Just who are you talking to, Ryan?
If me, then you as usual are asserting all kinds of garbage.

NotALibertarian| 5.3.11 @ 2:56PM

Calvinists don't understand the book of Romans. Paul was telling the Romans that the Mosaic Law has no effect on who is elligible to participate in the Kingdom, and why Gentiles are now elligible.

That's why it's so important that Abraham was chosen in uncircumcision. That's why Paul points out that Jacob was chosen for God's purposes before he did any good or evil. Paul's point is that Jewish history has many examples of God ignoring people's lack of Mosaic credentials in using them, and now, God chooses to ignore the fact that Gentiles have no works of (Mosaic) Law of which to boast.

But Calvinists exagerrate Paul's comments about the Mosaic Law to be about any good works -- even Christian obedience to the Holy Spirit -- and end up twisting themselves in knots to explain, "works seem to matter, but actually they don't, see?"

mames| 5.3.11 @ 3:58AM

The creeds are merely a encapsulated version of the doctrines taught by scripture. For instance the Athanasian creed puts greater emphasis on the person of Christ as defined by the Bible because the divinity of Christ was being challenged at that time - and come to think of it it still is which is why it is such a great biblical apologetic.

Stuart Koehl| 5.3.11 @ 6:42AM

You can't extrapolate the Creeds from Scripture alone--one must interpret Scripture in light of the Church's preexisting rule of faith. Both sides in every doctrinal dispute marshaled Scripture in defense of their cause--sometimes using exactly the same verses in diametrically opposite manners.

As for the Athanasian Creed, it's sixth, not fourth century, and has nothing to do with Athanasius or Arianism. But thanks for playing.

Margie| 5.3.11 @ 12:36PM

"one must interpret Scripture in light of the Church's preexisting rule of faith."

What garbage!
From what made up doctrine and in who's sick brain did you get this from?
Scripture interprets Scripture, the Bible interprets itself~
But then you don't actually believe what Scripture actually says, and hate those who stand on it because you choose to believe the phony doctrine taught by men whose consciences were seared.

You outright lie about Christians who post here, and you are despicable for doing that. I posted a verse directly from the original Greek Textus Receptus and you falsely accused me of making it up and changing it.

Because of this you are a liar, and unless you repent of same anything you say is not to be trusted.

God Himself in the Bible tells us this:

"First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God." 2 Pe. 1:20 & 21.

Margie| 5.2.11 @ 9:39PM

To Ray,

There is Protestanism, there is Catholicism, and there are hundreds of denominations.

To the ones not being with any denomination, none whatsoever, and who are called Christian, of which I am, do not agree with anything anyone says, including the early church fathers who were not in agreement with the Scriptures and the writings of the Apostles.

Some of the most vile doctrine came about through these so called fathers~ prayer to the dead, infant baptism. transubstantiation, and others, and are still being taught and followed by Catholics, and of which the Religion has not repented.

Jesus says that in order to be his disciples we must obey His Words.

"Jesus then said to the Jews who had believed in Him, "If you continue in My Word, you are truly My disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free." Jn. 8:31 & 32.

Here is just one link to read about some of them and what they actually taught:

http://www.wayoflife.org/datab.....thers.html

Ryan| 5.3.11 @ 9:20AM

We're all wrong about something.

Margie| 5.3.11 @ 12:38PM

Well, Ryan~ if something is wrong, then you shouldn't listen to it, correct?

Occam's Tool| 5.2.11 @ 6:50PM

Hey, I'm interested. I'll check back.

Anthony M| 5.2.11 @ 11:07AM

Unless you're capable of reading Constantine's mind none of us can answer whether his conversion was real or "convenient". And even if you're a total athiest, a despiser of all things Christian, aren't the tenets of the faith still the best system for a civil society? A people who follow the ten commandments and live by the golden rule are a people who will live in peace and civility with each other. The Christian west has done more for the rights of man than any other people on the face of the planet and whether you like it or not, Constantine was a major part of that.

Margie| 5.2.11 @ 6:04PM

Amen!
And is this the same Constantine who was so pitifully weak that he sought to appease Arius the whacko?

Margie| 5.2.11 @ 6:05PM

My post was in response to what Dr, Right said.

Stuart Koehl| 5.2.11 @ 7:51PM

I most certainly then recommend Margie read both Timothy Barnes' "Constantine and Eusebius" and H.A. Drake's "Constantine and the Bishops" for a rather more accurate account of Constantine's relations both with Athansius and Arius.

Quartermaster| 5.2.11 @ 7:57PM

Constantine exiled Arius because he was a headstrong man who could not be reasoned with. FRom what I can make out, Constantine was pained by the strife that Arius had kicked up in the church. IIRC, Arius was recalled from exile.

IIRC, Eusebius was also an Arian, or at least an Arian sympathizer. Eusebius wrote a Church history that was sanctioned by Constantine.

Stuart Koehl| 5.2.11 @ 9:24PM

Eusebius of Nicomedia was an Arian, not Eusebius of Caesarea, the historian. Arian was exiled because he would not accept the homoousios formula found in the Creed of Nicaea (which is not the same as the Nicene Creed we know today, which is an enlarged and modified version adopted at the Council of Constantinople in 381). Arius was exiled, but some time later, his arch rival Athanasius was also exiled because he insisted on a very narrow construal of the homoousion, reopening the rifts that the deliberately vague formulation of the Creed was intended to heal. Athanasius was thus sent to Trier, but like Arius, later recalled. Like a good father, Constantine desired peace and quiet above all else. As it was, the whole Arian controversy was not settled until the Council of Constantinople adopted the "neo-Nicene theology of the Cappodocian Fathers (Basil the Great, Gregory of Nyssa and Gregory of Nanzianus). Interestingly, this Council was not accepted by the Church of Rome, which did not adopt the modified Creed until the Council of Ephesus in 431. This means, of course, that the three Great Cappodocians technically died out of communion with the Bishop of Rome--but they were forgiven for being "prematurely correct".

Margie| 5.2.11 @ 8:11PM

Actually, I have read is own writings online. There's a ton of history available now.

And I was reading about the early church fathers, and how they went round and round for years and years over church doctrine. I could not believe how Arius was permitted to gain one iota of a foothold concerning anything!

Yet Constantine caved, didn't he?

When men are not born anew (regenerated by God's Holy Spirit from within Jn. 3:3), they truly "cannot see the kingdom of God".

Stuart Koehl| 5.2.11 @ 9:25PM

It's what you don't know you don't know that will trip you up, every time, Marge.

Margie| 5.2.11 @ 9:45PM

Actually Stu,

It's what one THINKS he knows but doesn't really, and cares not to know, that will do worse than trip you up.

Especially the rejection of the Scriptures and the writings of the Apostles in favor of false doctrine and "tradition" taught by men not moved by the Holy Spirit.

Stuart Koehl| 5.2.11 @ 10:00PM

Yawn. But the nice thing about YOUR approach, Marge, is it lets you make it up as you go along. And, unless you're one of those people with bi-polar disorder, you're unlikely to find yourself on the wrong side of Scripture--as interpreted by you.

Congratulations--the ultimate Get Out of Jail Free card.

Margie| 5.2.11 @ 10:39PM

You are really disgusting.
You have nothing but insults.
A good little child to your father, the Devil.

Stuart Koehl| 5.2.11 @ 10:42PM

I'm critiquing your epistemology and exegesis, Marge. You should be able to take that like a big girl, instead of going into a terminal pout.

Margie| 5.2.11 @ 10:58PM

Liar.
You are despicable.
Insulting and demeaning.
What a disgrace.

Stuart Koehl| 5.2.11 @ 11:07PM

I love when you froth at the mouth, Margie. It indicates you're out of arguments, and you look so much like a rabid badger that I am tempted to call animal control and have you put down.

Margie| 5.2.11 @ 11:27PM

Keep proving just exactly who you are.
Agent provocateur, and most despicable.
You have no conscience.
Mock on.
"Do not be deceived; God is not mocked, for whatever a man sows, that he will also reap." Gal. 6:7.

mames| 5.3.11 @ 4:02AM

As one Christian to two other? stop this unChristlike exchange. Stop responding to each other in these disgraceful displays of anger.

Stuart Koehl| 5.3.11 @ 6:44AM

Stop spreading arrant nonsense, and we'll be even.

mames| 5.3.11 @ 5:21PM

The term is errant and the nonsense I spread is solid exegesis where scripture interprets scripture. Each passage of Scripture has only one meaning not many and if objectivity is seen as impossible then there can never be agreement. Solid exegesis demands a faithfulness to the text; it is not captive to some form of precedence.

Margie| 5.3.11 @ 9:39PM

Excellently spoken, mames!
Way to go.

Margie| 5.3.11 @ 12:48PM

Come on, mames. A man here, who behaves as if he is a learned scholar has lied about me in the most horrible way~ and I respond by saying he is despicable, and you are going to lump me in together with that behavior?

That is entirely unfair, mames.

mames| 5.3.11 @ 5:22PM

Maybe responding is unwise. Pearls before pigs and all that.

Doctor Right| 5.3.11 @ 6:19AM

Big words don't hide your blind adherence to an apostate, anti-intellectual philosophy...

You really can't see the forest for the trees, can you?

Margie has run circles around you, but you're unable to see it. You don't even understand the issue because you see everything through the lens of your catechism.

Too funny.

Stuart Koehl| 5.3.11 @ 6:44AM

Running around in circles is usually an indication that a person does not know where she is going.

Doctor Right| 5.3.11 @ 6:09AM

Well, we have to give Stu his due, here.

As a good Catholic, he knows a great deal about "making it up as you go along".

Funny that he would choose to use such an ironic statement against a Christian who uses the Bible for guidance, as opposed to the works of men whose own worldview was obviously tainted by their belief in the primacy of the Catholic Church, the ultimate "make it up as you go along" church that has ever existed.

In your case, Stu, it's not what you don't know you dont know that does you in, it's your long-winded, pretentious cut-and-paste jobs and your childish pomposity...gets you every time.

Margie| 5.3.11 @ 2:24PM

Thank you, sir. (Dr. Right).

Doctor Right| 5.3.11 @ 6:02AM

She's way ahead of you, Stu.

Ryan| 5.3.11 @ 9:25AM

Did Constantine endorse Arius?
Did Arius' ideas really gain traction?
Is allowing someone to return the same as "caving in?"

Stuart Koehl| 5.3.11 @ 10:21AM

Constantine did not endorse Arius or Arianism. He stuck by the Nicene formula to the end. But one has to understand that the theological synthesis was not yet complete. The formula was deliberately vague and open to interpretation, so that there were Nicene-leaning Arians and Arian-leaning Nicenes. It would take another fifty years or so to work out the kinks, mostly through the work of the Cappodocian Fathers. But until then, there were many varieties of Arianism which were pretty mainstream.

Arianism did gain traction in many areas because it was simple to understand: If God is the Father, and Christ is the Son, then God must have existed before Christ, meaning that Christ was, in some way, a "creature". Ordinary people were able to "get" this, and a lot of the learned were attracted to it as well. Scripture gave no direction, since it could be interpreted in both ways (and was). The Nicene party won out because its view encompassed the fundamental teaching of the Tradition--that Jesus Christ was truly God, and that God was one. To accomplish this, the Nicene Creed relied upon a term not found in Scripture (homoousios = of the same essence), and which, in fact, had been condemned for its neo-platonic implications shortly before Nicaea. But even after the Council, a lot of people did not "get" the homoousion. Among those who did not were the Goths, who had been evangelized by Wulfila, a moderate Arian who held that Christ was "homoiousios" (of similar essence) to the Father. Because the Goths were playing an increasingly important role within the Empire, including the Army, their Arianism was tolerated. Later, when Gothic kingdoms supplanted the Western Empire, Arianism prevailed throughout the West and lingered in Spain until the 7th century.

The terms under which both Arius and Athanasius were allowed to return from exile were quite lenient: both were to abide by the Nicene settlement, neither was to stir up dissent within the Church. Like a good father, all Constantine wanted was peace and quiet in the house.

Margie| 5.5.11 @ 12:33AM

The "early church fathers were Catholics who brought in tons of false teachings, claiming themselves all kinds of authority.

For example, Augustine, whom the catholics revere, taught the following UNBIBLICAL and FALSE TEACHINGS.

"Augustine (354-430)

Augustine was polluted with many false doctrines and helped lay the foundation for the formation of the Roman Catholic Church. For this reason Rome has honored Augustine as one of the “doctors of the church.”

1. He was a persecutor and the father of the doctrine of persecution in the Catholic Church.

The historian Neander observed that Augustine’s teaching “contains the germ of the whole system of spiritual despotism, intolerance, and persecution, even to the court of the Inquisition.” Augustine instigated persecutions against the Bible-believing Donatists who were striving to maintain pure churches after the apostolic faith. He interpreted Luke 14:23 (“compel them to come in”) to mean that Christ required the churches to use force against heretics.

2. He was the father of a-millennialism, allegorizing Bible prophecy and teaching that the Catholic Church is the kingdom of God.

3. He taught that the sacraments are the means of saving grace.

4. He was one of the fathers of infant baptism. The ‘council’ of Mela, in Numidia, A.D. 416, composed of merely fifteen persons and presided over by Augustine, decreed: “Also, it is the pleasure of the bishops in order that whoever denies that infants newly born of their mothers, are to be baptized or says that baptism is administered for the remission of their own sins, but not on account of original sin, delivered from Adam, and to be expiated by the laver of regeneration, BE ACCURSED” (Wall, The History of Infant Baptism, I, 265). Augustine thus taught that infants should be baptized and that the baptism took away their sin. He called all who rejected infant baptism “infidels” and “cursed.”

5. He taught that Mary did not commit sin and promoted her worship. He believed Mary played a vital role in salvation (Augustine, Sermon 289, cited in Durant, The Story of Civilization, 1950, IV, p. 69).

6. He believed in purgatory.

7. He accepted the doctrine of “celibacy” for “priests,” supporting the decree of “Pope” Siricius of 387 that ordered that any priest that married or refused to separate from his wife should be disciplined.

8. He exalted the authority of the church over that of the Bible, declaring, “I should not believe the gospel unless I were moved to do so by the authority of the Catholic Church” (quoted by John Paul II, Augustineum Hyponensem, Apostolic Letter, Aug. 28, 1986, www.cin.org/jp2.ency/augustin.html).

9. He believed that the true interpretation of Scripture was derived from the declaration of church councils (Augustine, De Vera Religione, xxiv, p. 45).

10. He interpreted the early chapters of Genesis figuratively (Dave Hunt, “Calvin and Augustine: Two Jonahs Who Sink the Ship,” Debating Calvinism: Five Points, Two Views by Dave Hunt and James White, 2004, p. 230).

11. He taught that God has pre-ordained some for salvation and others for damnation and that the grace of God is irresistible for the true elect. By his own admission, John Calvin in the 16th century derived his TULIP theology on the “sovereignty of God” from Augustine. Calvin said: “If I were inclined to compile a whole volume from Augustine, I could easily show my readers, that I need no words but his” (Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book III, chap. 22).

12. He taught the heresy of apostolic succession from Peter (Hunt, ibid., p. 230)."

David T| 5.5.11 @ 9:35AM

Margie--Great stuff. Thank you so much for this summary of the reasons we rightly revere St. Augustine as a Doctor of the Church and one of the greatest theologian-philosophers of all time.

Margie| 5.5.11 @ 1:53PM

You revere this perversion?
I am sorry for your soul, sir.
May God spare you from the flames of Hell.

Margie| 5.3.11 @ 12:46PM

Ryan,

He did. You can just go and read his own words online. As I mentioned earlier~ there is a wealth of information out there.
There's nothing like reading the very words of these men directly.
And then you can form a well informed and truthful opinion based on Scripture.
I osted just one link, above.
The facts are there for all to see.
These so called early church fathers brought in heresy that is still practiced by these Religions, and have never repented of them. They still teach millions and of people same.
This is why when you tell some Catholics that what they are doing is wrong, they practically have heart attacks and accuse you of insanity. It's because they cannot bear to hear that for all these years they've been taught a huge lie.

Oh, and by the way~ the true early church fFathers were the Apostles.

They were the ones moved by the Holy Spirit and actually appointed stewards of God's Words. Reading and believing only the Words of God as found in the Bible will keep all Christians on the straight and narrow.

JimH| 5.2.11 @ 9:38AM

I am by no means a historian, but I have read a bit. I’m sure that those better informed will let me know the facts. My impression was that Constantine in addition to removing state support of Pagan religions suppressed various versions of what would be now considered heretical versions of Christianity. And in doing so created an official state approved church, this being done for much the same reason as the Chinese Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church under the Soviet Union. It’s a lot easier to keep an eye on and control one official church than a bunch of sometimes squabbling sects. Whatever the early church fathers gained in prestige and safety by this I think they may have lost in credibility and independence. I think this alignment of church leadership with the State weakened the grass roots support of the church and later facilitated the conversion of many to Islam in what had been previously nominal Christian areas. Also as a result I don’t think Christianity as we know it now has much in common with the pre Council of Nicaea Church.

Doctor Right| 5.2.11 @ 9:59AM

By officially "converting" the Roman Empire to a new "religion", Constantine cleverly co-opted Christian messages and themes and merged them with pre-existing Roman-pagan themes to make the change more palatable to Roman citizens and the official Roman priesthood. This was nothing new to the Roman Empire, as for centuries, they had purposefully co-opted some of the customs and practices of conquered peoples and cultures into their own customs to speed-up the assimilation process as the conquered people were absorbed into the Empire.

Thus, as a substitute for the worship of pagan Goddesses (Hera, Juneau, various Wiccan deities, etc), we have the worship (oops...Catholics like to say "veneration" whenever they're called-out on this practice) of Mary, the mother of Jesus. Catholics pray to her, ask her to intercede on their behalf, and name huge cathedrals after her with gaudy, conspicuous names like "The Cathedral of Mary, Queen of the Universe" (Orlando, Florida), all the while simultaneously denying that they've elevated her, in many cases, to a level above that of Christ.

To substitute for the Roman pantheon of Gods and Goddesses, Catholics have the pantheon of "Saints", supposedly normal people who have demonstrated extraordinary supernatural abilities that, combined with their extreme faith and devotion, make them deserving of a special place in heaven, as well as the Prayers of the Faithful for intercession (Catholics - PLEASE don't deny that you pray to the "Saints"...I was raised as a Catholic, so I know of what I speak).

Neither the elevation of Mary (about whom very little is actually known) or the pantheon of Saints is REMOTELY scriptural...In fact, in some cases, it's downright UNscriptural...but since Catholics also elevate their own man-made "traditions" to the level of scripture (also despite warnings in scripture to do so), that falls on deaf ears.

Any study of the Catholic Church from the dark ages through the Middle Ages and into the Renaissance and even the 20th century cannot fail to see the unmistakable intertwining of religion and state authority that is utterly and completely removed from the message of Christ, and as you say, resembles a state-religion not dissimilar to "official" churches often found in authoritarian states.

...I could go on, but I need to save some comments to address the inevitable charges of "bigotry" that will soon be issued from the staunch Catholic apologists on this forum...

Stuart Koehl| 5.2.11 @ 10:22AM

Constantine did not make Christianity the "state religion" of the Roman Empire. That step was taken by his successor Theodosius the Great in 394. All Constantine did was make Christianity a "religio licita", on par with the other cults and sects of the Roman Empire. Constantine, by showing favor to Christians and Christianity, undoubtedly influenced people to convert, but at the start of his reign Christians probably accounted for no more than 10% of the population, and probably for no more than a quarter by the time of his death in 336.

Constantine did not suppress any particular variety of Christianity, but encouraged Christians to settle their differences. His intervention in the Donatist controversy in North Africa came only after appeals from Christian bishops against the use of violence by the Donatists against imperial magistrates. His intervention in calling the Council of Nicaea led to the adoption of a deliberately vague homoousion formula that was thought to be acceptable to all parties. When Arius and his close followers refused to accept what all the other bishops had adopted, they were not killed, but rather deposed from their offices and sent into comfortable exile. When Athanasius, leader of the Nicene party, attempted to impose a more narrow understanding of the homoousion, he, too was exiled (to Trier, oh, the horror!), because Constantine sought harmony, not conflict, within the Church. So unsuccessful was his attempt to impose Nicene Christianity on the Church that Arianism became the dominant form in the East (and in the West, among the Goths) until the calling of the First Council of Constantinople in 381 settled the matter for good.

As for the veneration of Mary, sorry to dash your Evangelical bubble, but it was already widespread by the early 3rd century, and an integral part of Church doctrine long before Constantine. Articles of faith, such as Mary's perpetual virginity and her ability to intercede for the faithful before her Son, were all part of the Christian Tradition before Nicaea. The only Marian doctrine added to the Tradition during the Patristic period was confirmation of Mary's role as "Theotokos", or (literally) God-bearer, as opposed to the competing title of "Christotokos" (Christ-bearer) proposed by Nestorius of Constantinople. The latter was thought to imply that Jesus Christ was somehow not equally God with the Father, and so was rejected. All Marian doctrines are not about Mary, but about Christ. Martin Luther understood that and held to a very high Mariological position indeed.

Luther also believed in the Communion of Saints, and in the intercession of the Saints, which is of course, entirely scriptural, if you happen to have a Bible with all its books.

But, while we are on the subject of ignorance and bigotry, point not to the mote in thy neighbor's eye, ignoring the beam in thine own.

Doctor Right| 5.2.11 @ 10:40AM

Uhhh...Stu???

Just because something is "wide-spread" doesn't make it right. And I never stated that it WASN'T in practice prior to Constantine's "conversion". The fact that it DID exist (so you say) prior to Constantine's conversion is simply more proof of the early apostasy inherent in certain Christian sects.

Stu...Was Mary STILL a virgin after she gave birth to Christ?? Was she still "intact", anatomically speaking? Do you have any proof of this? Any WHY would it matter, anyway? (There's a reason...it's not something you'll appreciate, though...). And did anyone ever tell Jesus's brothers (Mary's OTHER children) that she remained a virgin? How about her husband? Did he know it?

I hate to break it to ya' Stu, but simply because something is an "article of faith" to Catholics doesn't make it true.

Your modus operandi when confronted by the blatant, un-scriptural and un-Christian practices of Catholic Doctrine is to recite...Catholic Doctrine!!! You do realize that this is the intellectual equivalent of "Because I said so", don't you?

In the spirit of giving, here's a link for you:

http://www.commercialappeal.co.....01/221876/

Now that's not idolatrous, is it, Stu? And it's from yesterday!

And please...cite the passage in your Bible (the one that's "complete") that justifies the elevation of "Saints", and their ability to intercede on our behalf...It should be fascinating.

So glad you're too busy to discuss inaccurate Catholic history!

Stuart Koehl| 5.2.11 @ 11:10AM

"Just because something is "wide-spread" doesn't make it right. And I never stated that it WASN'T in practice prior to Constantine's "conversion". The fact that it DID exist (so you say) prior to Constantine's conversion is simply more proof of the early apostasy inherent in certain Christian sects."

Hmmm. Apostasy on what basis? This is what I call the "1500-year Wedgie" doctrine of Evangelical ecclesiology: the Holy Spirit departed the Church after the death of the last Apostle, and did not return until the 16th century, when suddenly, a group of fairly obscure German and French theologians suddenly "got it".

How about this approach: the Church, which predates the composition of the New Testament, is the arbiter of what is and is not the authentic Christian Tradition? That all the ancient apostolic Churches--not just the Church of Rome, but the Eastern Orthodox Churches, the Oriental Orthodox Churches, and the Church of the East (whose development took place outside of the Roman Empire and thus independent of any influence from it) all hold these doctrines in common. These doctrines developed within a century or so of the death of Christ, within the time of living memory of the Apostles, and yet you have the temerity--the shear chutzpah--to suggest that you, a 21st century American who lives in a different culture, and who reads his Bible in the form of a translation of the translation, knows better than they did, who lived in the same culture and could read the Bible in the language in which it was written.

Doctor Right| 5.2.11 @ 11:45AM

"This is what I call the "1500-year Wedgie" doctrine of Evangelical ecclesiology: the Holy Spirit departed the Church after the death of the last Apostle, and did not return until the 16th century, when suddenly, a group of fairly obscure German and French theologians suddenly "got it"."

WHAT are you talking about?

It's more like this:

The early Christians "got it" in the days immediately before and after the death and resurrection of Christ. "It" was lost by those who would distort the Word of God either willfully or through ignorance, but "it" never disappeared from the earth, or from the Church.

Truth did not "reappear"; it was re-asserted by those who knew that the Catholic Church was a false, apostate construct.

Sorry, Stu, but to say that the Catholic Church predates the New Testament is not only false, it's downright illogical.

Oh, sure...Like a good Catholic, you'll try and say that Catholics "created" the New Testament...Nice try, Stu...They did NOT write the letters of Paul, or the Gospels, or the rest of the books.

And if the Catholic Church is the "arbiter of what is and what is not authentic Christian tradition", how did they assume that role? Was it self-appointed? If so, that completely lacks legitimacy, but it nicely explains why what Catholics wrongly assume to be "authentic Christian tradition" seems to mirror Catholic drivel.

Sorry, Stu...But once again, you've struck out. You're incapable of seeing past your own dogma.

Tony in Central PA| 5.2.11 @ 8:17PM

And of course, there is zero in the historical record to back up any of this.

Doctor Right| 5.2.11 @ 11:50AM

Here;'s another thought for you, Stu:

If something is apostate, WHY would the Holy Spirit dwell within it?

...Get where I'm going?

Doctor Right| 5.2.11 @ 11:54AM

"These doctrines developed within a century or so of the death of Christ, within the time of living memory of the Apostles"

TO assert that the doctrine of the Catholic Church is synonymous with the early Christian Church, or that it appeared at the time you suggest, is a bald-faced lie.

Sounds like all you've done is rationalize WHY you shouldn't read your Bible, Stu...

You're such a GOOD Catholic.

Ryan| 5.2.11 @ 12:53PM

Were Paul's letters written to Christians who had everything figured out, or to churches with problems?

Did every first century Christian have everything figured out properly?

I'm pretty conservative in my Protestant leanings, but I also recognize history here.

mames| 5.3.11 @ 4:18AM

The theologians you refer to as obscure were in fact very influential which is why the Romans were so concerned with them. They had scholastic and theological "bone a fides" and as a consequence their writings could not be ignored. Their biggest threat to Rome was the their biblical understanding that being attached to any given visible church did not assure salvation but that salvation was given by grace through faith in Christ. And also their translation of the bible into different languages other than Latin.

Rome's reaction to anyone who contested their doctrines was to burn them at the stake. Luther was never free of the Papal bull to arrest and kill him. I will not speak for the double predestination of Calvin nor will I support his violent reactions to those who opposed him. The faith has never grown by violent actions from believers (unbiblical) but it has grown from violent action against it.

Stuart Koehl| 5.3.11 @ 6:45AM

Plenty of burning went on by both sides.

Margie| 5.3.11 @ 12:50PM

Another lie from Stuey here.
Christians never did this. They were the ones being murdered by the Popes and their disgusting henchmen.
History bears witness to this.
You continue to bear false witness.

Anthony M| 5.2.11 @ 11:15AM

What is your problem with Jesus' mother? For crying out loud why do you spend so much time spitting venom at people who want to show respect to the mother of the risen Christ? If some people, in your opinion, show too much veneration to Mary, what is the harm? Do they love God, believe in Jesus and love their neighbor as themselves? No one is forcing anyone to follow the biblical practice of praying for and to the saints, so let's not divide ourselves between Appollos, Paul and Peter, but rather have faith in the risen Christ.

Doctor Right| 5.2.11 @ 11:46AM

I have NO problem with Mary; why would you assume I do?

You don't understand Catholic Doctrine too well, do you?

Stuart Koehl| 5.2.11 @ 10:24AM

"I am by no means a historian, but I have read a bit."

Indeed you aren't, and "a bit" might be a wee exaggeration, no?

bob alou| 5.2.11 @ 10:39AM

You mean the ones where Judith Slays Holofernes or Daniel thwarts the Prophets of Baal? Read them. They still don't justify the intercession of the Saints in the affairs of man. Nothing you can point to scripturally does. As for Mary, she was the mother of Jesus and found favor in God's eyes and deserves respect and veneration according to her high calling. However, the idea that she intercedes on behalf of anyone is scripturally unsupportable. The idea of her perpetual virginity is equally unsupportable unless you are willing to deny the existence of Jesus brothers. It's not bigotry to point out some of the incorrect ideas which the Catholic church fosters. It is your bigotry that causes them to be ignored. Let me ask you this; Do you think the Catholic Church, had it been in a position to do so, would have supported the First Amendment to the Constitution? I seriously doubt it.

David T| 5.2.11 @ 5:40PM

No one can prove the assertion that Jesus had brothers. NT Greek was greatly influenced by the Aramaic that Jesus and the disciples spoke. Aramaic had no word for cousin, so the word for brother was also used for "cousin" or "near kinsman." In translating Aramaic into Greek, it is quite possible that the Aramaic word for brother ("aha") could have been rendered literally for the Greek word for brother ("adelphos"). Another possibility is that Jesus' brothers and sisters were step-siblings from a previous marriage of Joseph. The Protoevangelium of James (circa 120 A.D.) indicates that Joseph was a widower who already had children and was willing to become the guardian of Mary, a consecrated virgin.

Stuart Koehl| 5.2.11 @ 7:29PM

The Tradition of the Christian East, first expressed by the 4th century historian Epiphanius citing the late first century historian Papias, holds that Joseph was an elderly man, a widower at the time he was espoused to Mary, and that the brothers and sisters of the Lord were in fact his step-brothers.

This makes much more sense than Jerome's linguistic argument (favored in the West) that the term "Brothers of the Lord" in fact means cousins because Aramaic has no term for non-sibling relations in the same generation. This ignores that the Gospels and Epistles were written in Greek, which has a perfectly good word for cousins. Jerome was very much concerned with elevating celibacy over marriage, and was the originator of the notion of the "perpetual virginity" of St. Joseph, but that idea is not known in the East.

Quartermaster| 5.2.11 @ 8:12PM

The problem with tradition is that too much of it is legend. It might have been rooted in truth, but there is no way of knowing just how deeply.

The idea of Mary remaining a virgin after the birth of Christ has no foundation in history of scripture. There is nothing in scripture that tells us how old Joseph was when he married Mary either. It should be pointed out, as well, that under Mosaic law Joseph would have been obligated to try to give Mary Children, regardless of his age.

The fact is, Scripture strongly implies that he did meet his marital duties in that regard,

"Then Joseph, being aroused from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord commanded him and took to him his wife, and did not know her till she had brought forth her firstborn Son. And he called His name JESUS. Matthew 1:24,25

The Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox position that Mary remained a virgin after the birth of Christ is excruciatingly unlikely given the culture of the time, and the passage quoted above.

Tony in Central PA| 5.2.11 @ 8:26PM

QM, the translation you provided of Mt 1: 24, 25 is English , of course. The phrase ' ... did not know her till ..." does not exactly mean the same thing in English as it would have in the original. In English, it implies Joseph did know Mary and that she was not a virgin. In the original language, this is not actually implied. I have a good explanation of it in a textbook at my office and I can't get it just now.

Stuart Koehl| 5.2.11 @ 9:28PM

Tell me, when Jesus says, "And I will be with you always, until the ending of the age", does this mean that He will not be with us AFTER the ending of the age?

Behold the problem of knowing Scripture only in translation--or worse, a paraphrase of a translation of a translation.

Margie| 5.2.11 @ 9:59PM

Stuart,

Please include the address of the Bible verse when you post one, out of consideration not only to the readers, but for the Glory of God.

From the original Greek (Textus Receptus):

"..teaching them to observe all things, whatever I commanded you, and behold, I am with you all the days until the completion of the age. Amen." Mt. 28:20.

One will have to immerse themselves in the Bible in order to find out what Jesus meant. It takes some studying. But all the answers are there for us. God is not a God of confusion, but a God of peace. 1 Cor. 14:33.

Stuart Koehl| 5.2.11 @ 10:03PM

So, does Jesus mean He will be with us up to the ending of the age, or will he be there afterwards, too?

What does the word "until" mean here, Marge? Why do you choose to interpret it one way in this verse, and a totally different way in the other verse, other than YOUR desire to have the meaning of Scripture conform to YOUR understanding?

Just why should the the interpretation of a woman who makes Winnie the Pooh look like a mental giant be considered authoritative?

Margie| 5.2.11 @ 10:36PM

OOOh, more demeaning insults from Stuey.
You prove just who you are~ a vile little man.
You are a liar!
I interpreted absolutely nothing.
I posted the original Greek, and you know it! YOU are a scholar, are you not? You KNOW that I posted from the original Greek, don't you?
How vile you are!
I only posted the verse. I did NOT interpreted.
I expect an apology, though I will not hold my breath!

Stuart Koehl| 5.2.11 @ 11:05PM

I do apologize--to Winnie the Pooh. Though you may be a bear of very little brain, Mr. Pooh, and though Pooh logic may be convoluted on the best of days, you are indeed the epitome of insight, rationality and erudition as compared to the inestimable Margie. Moreover, you never gave anyone bad advice, which is more than Marge can say. So, I am sorry indeed that I ever associated such a noble Bear as you with such a harridan as her.

Margie| 5.2.11 @ 11:24PM

Wow. Keep on proving who you are, Stuart.
You see, Occam's Tool~ he is one of them~ he's a Clint/Tim*.
Men like him actually hate the Word of God.
They are so steeped in their own "greatness" which is knowledge and nothing else~ and most of it false when it comes to the will of God~ this is how they treat Bible believing Christians, with utter scorn.

He may know some history~ but he doesn't know God.

And he falsely believes all sorts of teachings that are not Biblical.
In short, he is a liar and a deceiver of the first order.
Beware!

Ryan| 5.3.11 @ 9:29AM

Marge, though the conversation devolved, he asked an honest question here, and you responded with defensiveness rather than looking to see whether you were right or wrong.

Margie| 5.3.11 @ 12:56PM

Spare me, Ryan.
As usual you can be counted on to be complete mush.
When will you wake up and start standing on God's own Words?
Stuey is NOT honest.
I posted Christ's own Words and he accused me a making them up. He is a liar.
He isn't at all interested in an answer, he is a snake.
Yes, a snake!
I posted exactly what Jesus said, from the original Greek Tectus Receptus, and you can see exactly what Jesus says.
I then explained that if anyone wants to know anything further, they need to go and read what Jesus says.
Stuey doesn't like that because he wishes to try and "trip me up" somehow by getting me to argue outside of what the Bible actually says, and I refuse to do that.
So, Ryan, you have a man here who lied about what I wrote (God's own Words), and yet you want to side with him somehow?
Your choice, but if you want to respect a man who behaves in this manner, then I question your integrity.
I think you need to do the same.

Ryan| 5.3.11 @ 1:52PM

No, he was asking you to look at the use of "until" in Matt 1:24-25 and 28:20, and to see how their use was made.
You didn't address it.

Margie| 5.3.11 @ 1:57PM

I did. I said to read what Jesus actually says He means.
You refuse to to listen.

Doctor Right| 5.3.11 @ 6:29AM

Isn't it cute when Catholics get all self -righteous about scripture?? And even then, they only do it to try and prove some bizarre point of Catholic Doctrine...

Margie| 5.3.11 @ 12:57PM

Yeah, cute like a warm fuzzy snake!

David T| 5.2.11 @ 10:14PM

Quartermaster--The perpetual virginity of Mary has been an article of the faith since the time of the catacombs. All the great Fathers of the Church believed it, including St. Augustine, who preached a famous sermon about it: "This gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened, and no man shall pass through it; because the Lord the God of Israel hath entered in by it" (Ezek 44:2). "What means this closed gate in the House of the Lord, except that Mary is to be ever inviolate? What does it mean that 'no man shall pass through it,' save that Joseph shall not know her? And what is this---'The Lord alone enters in and goeth out by it'---except that the Holy Ghost shall impregnate her, and that the Lord of angels shall be born of her? And what means this---'it shall be shut for evermore'---but that Mary is a virgin before His Birth, a virgin in His Birth, and a virgin after His Birth?"  I guess Augustine wasn't a biblical literalist.

Ryan| 5.3.11 @ 9:34AM

I think there are several problems, at least from the Protestant perspective here.

1. It appears scripturally unnecessary that Mary remain a virgin after Christ was born. There really isn't anything that appears to present married virgins as "holier" than anyone else.

2. It appears scripturally unnecessary that Mary be without sin. Christ was the One Who needed to be sinless.

3. Escalation of Mary's status just appears...odd. She DOES have her Blessed role, but outside of the Canon, everything else is a bit too fantastic.

mames| 5.3.11 @ 4:23AM

Mary was simply a tool of God, no more no less. She herself was aware of her sinfulness when she prayed "my Savior is in my womb". Sinless people do not need a Savior. There you have it, not a god, not a angel, not an intercessor between God and man only one person has that role - Jesus The Christ.

Nick| 5.3.11 @ 12:45AM

Bob Alou,

"However, the idea that she intercedes on behalf of anyone is scripturally unsupportable."

At Christ's first recorded miracle, at the wedding in Cana (the Gospel of Saint John, Chapter Two,) Our Lady intercedes on behalf of the bride and groom, does she not?

Ryan| 5.3.11 @ 9:34AM

While alive, yes.

The problem is in Christ's commandment on HOW to pray.

"Our Father" and all that.

Nick| 5.3.11 @ 2:00PM

Ryan,

Bob didn't qualify his statement.

I just showed that the intercession of Our Lady is supported by the Scriptures. Something Bob denied.

Margie| 5.3.11 @ 2:27PM

What scripture?

Ryan| 5.3.11 @ 2:46PM

The intercession while she was alive, which I didn't debate. The discussion is whether or not she does it after she died.

Margie| 5.3.11 @ 3:02PM

I was speaking to Nick.

What Scripture, Nick?

Nick| 5.3.11 @ 4:28PM

Margie,

The Gospel of Saint John, Chapter Two.

Margie| 5.3.11 @ 5:09PM

You are equating the earthly "intercessing" with that of what someone has the power to do when they are dead.

Only Jesus Christ rose from the dead and therefore only He has the power to intercede for us on behalf of the Father.

As it is written:

"For there is one God, and there is one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus,
Who gave Himself as a ransom for all, the testimony to which was borne at the proper time." 1 Tim. 2:5 & 6.

Nick| 5.3.11 @ 5:59PM

Margie,

I am not equating anything.

As I replied to Ryan, I was just showing that Bob Alou's statement was, in fact, wrong.

Here, again, is what Bob wrote:
"However, the idea that she intercedes on behalf of anyone is scripturally unsupportable."
(Emphasis mine.)

Margie| 5.3.11 @ 6:15PM

Nick,

Wise guy, hey? :^).

Okok I got it,

BUT there's a BUT coming...

You DO really believe that Mary, though dead physically still intercedes for you, don't you?

Hmm?

Nick| 5.3.11 @ 6:52PM

Margie,

Physically? No, not physcially.

Prayers are spiritual, i.e. supernatural, not physical. They come from our hearts and thoughts.

Yes, kneeling, bowing, clasping hands together, and speaking the words of the prayer are outward physical actions of what is an inward, spiritual act of the heart and mind.

Unless, were you referring to miracles that are attributed to Our Lady?

Nick| 5.3.11 @ 7:00PM

Margie,

Disregard my reply of 6:52PM. I clearly misread what you were asking. I put a non-existant comma between dead and physically. Sorry.

I think my post of 6:30PM attempts to answer your question, though.

Nick| 5.3.11 @ 6:30PM

Margie,

As it is also written:

"I desire therefore, first of all, that supplications, prayers, intercessions and thanksgivings be made for all men: For kings and for all that are in high station: that we may lead a quiet and a peaceable life in all piety and chastity. For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour, who will have all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth." (Emphasis mine.)
- 1 Timothy 2:1-4

So, it is "good and acceptable" to God for men to make intercessary prayers for others. This does not take away from Christ's role as Mediator between God and men, according to Saint Paul.

And, the prayers of the Saints are offered to God in Heaven:

"And another angel came and stood before the altar, having a golden censer: and there was given to him much incense, that he should offer of the prayers of all saints, upon the golden altar which is before the throne of God. And the smoke of the incense of the prayers of the saints ascended up before God from the hand of the angel." (Emphasis mine.)
- The Book of Revelations, 8:3-4

King David, in Psalm 148, asks the angels and all of creation to give praise to God. If David can ask the angels to pray with him, why can't we?

And, if we can ask the angels to pray with us, why can't we ask the saints in Heaven to pray with us? And, if we can ask the saints in Heaven to pray with us, why can't we ask the saints in Heaven to pray for us?

God Bless!

Margie| 5.3.11 @ 8:27PM

The verse is saying we pray for others, yes. But we are praying TO God for them, not to a dead person.

And there's the rub. We are to pray to the living God, just as it says.

And yes, let everything that breathes praise the LORD! Psalm 150:6.

That isn't treating the beings that praise Him as God though, it is simply giving the praise to Him as God.

The saints in Heaven are powerless, have not even been raised from the dead, and haven't died for the sins of the world. Only Jesus is Lord.

Nick| 5.3.11 @ 11:35PM

Margie,

I agree with almost everything you've written. Again, I'm not using these Scripture quotations to convince you or change your mind.

I'm just trying to show that Catholic Church didn't make-up the Communion of Saints out of whole cloth. That there is some Scriptural basis for this teaching. Albeit, not the interpretation others, like yourself, agree with.

If it "is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour" that we should offer "supplications, prayers, intercessions and thanksgivings [...] for all men," as Saint Paul teaches, is it not reasonable to conclude that we can do the same with our brothers and sisters who have "fallen asleep in Christ," as Paul might put it?

What are those prayers that the saints are offering in chapters 5 and 8 of the Book of Revelation? They're not praying for themselves, they're already in Heaven. So, they must be praying for us, right?

Margie| 5.5.11 @ 12:25AM

"I'm just trying to show that Catholic Church didn't make-up the Communion of Saints out of whole cloth."

Actually Nick, they did.

Probably this "early church father" who made it up, along with these other false teachings:

"Ambrose (339-397)

Ambrose was bishop of Milan, in Italy, from 374-397. Because of his commitment to many early doctrinal heresies, his writings have been appealed to by popes and Catholic councils. Ambrose had a strong influence upon Augustine. The Catholic Church made him a saint and a doctor of the church.

1. Ambrose used the allegorical-mystical method of Bible interpretation, having been influenced by Origen and Philo.

2. He taught that Christians should be devoted to Mary, encouraged monasticism, and believed in prayers to the saints.

3. He believed the church has the power to forgive sins.

4. He believed the Lord’s Supper is a sacrifice of Christ.

5. He taught that virginity is holier than marriage and whenever possible he encouraged young women not to marry. His teaching in this helped pave the way for the Catholic monastic system.

6. He offered prayers for the dead."

ALL of them unbiblical and against the will of God.

Nick| 5.6.11 @ 2:42AM

Margie,

Saint Ambrose didn't make anything up. He just continued the the teachings of Christ, preserved in His Church.

Your own link, which I commented on below, shows that Saints Justin Martyr and Clement of Alexandria taught about Purgatory. Mr. Cloud quotes Heron on Saint Jerome: "[He] 'took a leading and influential part in "opening the floodgates" for the invocation of saints [...]." This is from the same article from which you quote about Saint Ambrose.

Even Saint Polycarp, when he was martyred by the Romans (not the Catholic Church, by the way,) prayed for "[...] all that had at any time come in contact with him [...]." (Martyrdom of Polycarp, Chapter 8.)

Since he was 86 years old when he was killed, many of those whom he had known must have been dead, like Saint John the beloved disciple.

Again, I would ask, what are those prayers that the saints in Heaven are offering to God, in the Book of Revelation?

The Catholic Church says that these prayers are the prayers of the faithful, who invoke the help of those who are asleep in Christ. And I agree.

Nick| 5.3.11 @ 4:27PM

Ryan,

But, I was critiquing a specific statement by Bob, not the discussion as a whole. Bob's statement, which I quoted, is wrong.

Doctor Right| 5.2.11 @ 10:49AM

Father Coughlin would be SO proud of you, Stuart! You've turned-out to be a highly effective propagandist.

Stuart Koehl| 5.2.11 @ 11:11AM

I'm not a Roman Catholic. I'm just smarter than you.

Doctor Right| 5.2.11 @ 11:47AM

In your own universe, I'm sure you are.

I don't think many here would agree, though.

Ryan| 5.2.11 @ 12:29PM

He is certainly coming across as smarter and more Christ-like in his dealings. You're being less academic AND demeaning toward him.

There is no scriptural basis for you to be demeaning.

Doctor Right| 5.2.11 @ 1:04PM

The Catholic Back-Slapping & Mutual Appreciation Society has been called to help Stu...

I guess you overlooked the posts where Stu refers to people with who he disagrees as "ignorant", and proclaims that he's smarter than everyone else?

Christ-like? Uh-huh...

Ryan| 5.2.11 @ 1:25PM

Not the topic, and the question would go to him as well.

Pointing at others doesn't absolve you.

What is your biblical reasoning?

Occam's Tool| 5.2.11 @ 6:56PM

As a general rule, I tend to agree with Dr. Right and Margie, and keep my little Hebraic nose out of Church history---but gang, can we be nice to each other here? This is actually an interesting argument for one completely ignorant of this topic (although I have just bought the Oxford hx of the Byzantine Empire, and am very very slowly working my way through Gibbon...), and I would appreciate more light and less heat so I can follow the arguments better. This is in no way a diminishment of my respect for Dr. Right. References would be appreciated, as my kids are 8 and 7, and homeschooled, and I'm going to be the lecturer on US and World History when we get to it (hence my starting to get texts on certain things which I have not read well in), and I certainly respect you guys.

Stuart Koehl| 5.2.11 @ 7:53PM

I learned to write by reading Gibbon, but I had to unlearn almost everything he taught me about the Byzantine Empire.

Margie| 5.2.11 @ 8:24PM

Dear Occam,

I rejoice that you thirst for true knowledge. You will not get it through Catholic historians.

If you would like to read some historical truth, one book is Martyrs Mirror.

This is an account of the church of Christ from its beginning, and includes how it went wrong, beginning with no less than the "early church fathers" that we are commended to read. It is much better to read what they actually said themselves, than what others said that they said.

Just like it is better to go and read what he Founding fathers of our country actually said, rather than to read what historians have written about them, for we know how that turned out.

And you can also read Foxe's book of Martyrs, and Josephus as well.

The Catholics will holler and scream against these books. Why? Because in them their Religion is revealed, how they put to death those who read the Bible, and rejected the false doctrines brought in by these men who thought they were better than God Himself.

That spirit thrives today amongst some who post here.

Tony in Central PA| 5.2.11 @ 8:35PM

Margie what original works of any of the Church fathers have you personally read ?

Margie| 5.2.11 @ 10:01PM

I've read their words, not their "works."

Quartermaster| 5.2.11 @ 8:14PM

DR, you are showing what has been known as hubris. You are also engaging in what is known as "ad hominem." There are things Stuart has written that are wrong, but you can deal with what is wrong without acting like a wounded clown.

And, you aren't acting Christlike. Even by your own lights.

Stuart Koehl| 5.2.11 @ 9:30PM

"There are things Stuart has written that are wrong, but you can deal with what is wrong without acting like a wounded clown."

I await enlightenment. In what have I been wrong? No sectarian polemics, please.

victor| 5.3.11 @ 2:30AM

Stuart Koohl:
"I'm not a Roman Catholic. I'm just smarter than you."

On the other hand, are you smart enough to be a Roman Catholic?

Stuart Koehl| 5.3.11 @ 6:47AM

Way too smart for that, which is why I am a Greek Catholic.

Margie| 5.3.11 @ 1:02PM

LOL. Really, Stuey?
The I suppose as a Greek you would read from the original Greek Textus Receptus Bible?
Ya know, the one that you accused me of making up, above?
Not too smart.

Stuart Koehl| 5.3.11 @ 1:12PM

As a matter of fact, we do read from the Greek Textus Receptus New Testament, as well as from the Greek Septuagint New Testament. You know, the one the Apostles and Evangelists read and quoted, the one that had ALL the books in it?

You're a very sorry and delusional woman, Marge. It's almost impossible to take you seriously anymore. From now on, I will just treat you as the nuisance that you are, a fly or mosquito to be swatted away, but not someone with whom to engage in a serious, substantive conversation.

Don't get an aneurism responding to this, please.

Margie| 5.3.11 @ 1:55PM

Spoken like the heretic that you are.
This is the exact way that the Popes that murdered Bible believing Christians spoke to them.
They too were all insane, delusional and apostates for standing on God's own Words.
Your father the Devil is pleased with you!

Margie| 5.3.11 @ 3:01PM

If you read from the original Textus Receptus then why did you accuse me of making it up when I posted a verse from it?

What a disingenuous hack.

And what do you mean by saying, "ALL the books in it?"

Ya mean the Apocrypha? Those books that the Catholics added to His Words?

They will receive their reward. You DO know what God says about adding to His Words?

Stuart Koehl| 5.3.11 @ 10:07PM

Too good to pass up, this one.

Marge, you may not be aware, but in the time of Jesus, the canon of the Old Testament--or Scripture, as the Jews called it--was not fixed. Several different collections of sacred books were in use, and all were regarded as inspired and authoritative by different groups of Jews, because Judaism was not monolithic at that time, either.

You may also not know that most Jews could neither read nor speak Hebrew, and so read or listened to Scripture in several different translations, mainly Arabic and Aramaic. And, as we know because archaeologists have recovered so many scrolls and codices over the last half century, there were several of each in circulation simultaneously.

The most common version of Scripture in use was called the Septuagint, a Greek translation compiled in the second century BC (allegedly by a commission of seventy scholars in Alexandria, hence the name Septuagint, or "The Seventy").

This was the Old Testament read by the Apostles and Evangelists. How do we know this? Because in more than 90% of all instances when the New Testament quotes the Old Testament, it comes verbatim from the Septuagint (or LXX, for short).

Now, the LXX contains not only all the books found in the current Hebrew Old Testament (called the Masoretic text), but also all those books called the Apocrypha, or the Deuterocanonicals, or the "Inter-Testamentals". They are all there, always have been. This is the Bible of the Church.

Those of us in the Eastern Churches have been using it without interruption since the first century. In the fourth century, St. Jerome compiled a Latin translation of the Old Testament, called the Vulgate, working from the Hebrew Masoretic text while retaining those books which, in the aftermath of the Jewish War of AD 66-70, the Jewish authorities had rejected, either because they were seen as dangerously apocalyptic or because they were being used by Christian apologists. So the Latin Vulgate is a translation of the Masoretic plus the LXX versions of the Apocrypha.

It is impossible to maintain that the Catholics "added" these books, since these books were present in the Bible the Church received from the Jews and quoted in the New Testament. Rather, it was Martin Luther, who, for his own apologetic reasons, decided to truncate the canon of the Old Testament (and would have done the same to the New Testament if he thought he could have gotten away with it). It is you, Marge, who use an incomplete set of Scriptures. It's a simple, historical fact. The Catholics did not add books (indeed, the Catholics and the Orthodox have essentially the same canon of the Old Testament with slightly different nomenclature and numbering of books), but Protestants did remove books.

By what authority did you do that? Is there a divinely appointed Table of Contents? Or are you not simply deferring to a "tradition of men" when you take away books that were recognized by Christ, the Apostles and the Evangelists?

In any case, you cannot make the claim that the Catholic "added" books to the Bible because such a claim is factually wrong. And, if you persist in doing so, you are perpetuating a falsehood, a lie. You are bearing false witness against another, which, last time I looked, was something unpleasing to God.

Here endeth the lesson.

Margie| 5.5.11 @ 12:20AM

The Apocrypha is not the Words of God, because they were not written by the Apostles.
So nice try.

Here is a link for all to read about these "early church fathers" and their false teachings:

http://www.wayoflife.org/datab.....thers.html

Stuart Koehl| 5.5.11 @ 9:32AM

Ignorant and deluded woman, the apocrypha of which we speak are in the Old Testament, not the New (1, 2 and 3 Maccabbees, Ecclesiastes, Wisdom of Sirach, Wisdom of Solomon, etc.). The Catholic and Orthodox Churches have the same New Testament as everybody else (and had first).

Besides that, please note that neither Mark nor Luke nor James nor Jude were Apostles, so I can assume you don't read their Gospels or their Epistles, or the Acts of the Apostles, either.

But, again, thanks for playing.

Margie| 5.5.11 @ 2:00PM

I misspoke. The Apocrypha was not written by the Spirit of God, and that is why Christians rejected it.

The words in the Apocrypha were not in line with any of the teachings in the Bible.

It is historical fact that these books were not written by men moved by the Holy Spirit. The only "men" who teach such a thing are liars and deceivers such as yourself.

Stuart Koehl| 5.5.11 @ 6:57PM

"I misspoke. The Apocrypha was not written by the Spirit of God, and that is why Christians rejected it."

On what basis do you make this claim, considering:

(a) that Jesus and the Apostles all accepted these books as inspired and authoritative; and

(b) that they were universally part of the ALL Christian scripture for 1500 years?

Not so coincidentally, the canon of Hebrew Scripture that Martin Luther accepted and placed in his German Bible was compiled some 400 years AFTER the Crucifixion and Resurrection of Christ. Is it proper that the Old Testament be younger than the New Testament? And why by what authority did Luther decide to go with the Masoretic Text, anyway? Are you saying that Martin Luther was divinely inspired? How do you know?

Margie| 5.6.11 @ 2:06AM

On what basis do you say that Jesus accepted the Apocrypha? That is an odd claim.

And the reason I know that these books (the Apochrypha) were not inspired by the Holy Spirit is because they didn't even agree with the Scriptures. That's how I know, and that's how all (Bible believing) Christians know.
When I say Christian I mean those "regenerated from above" as in Jn. 3:3.

Only those "borne along" by the Holy Spirit are able to discern the Scriptures, and therefore are also able to discern the things that are not from God.

"The unspiritual man does not receive the gifts of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.
The spiritual man judges all things, but is himself to be judged by no one.
"For who has known the mind of the Lord so as to instruct Him?" But we have the mind of Christ." 1Cor. 2:14-16.

Also~When you say they were part of ALL Christian Scriptures for over 1500 yrs.~ which 1500 yrs. are you talking about?

Nick| 5.6.11 @ 12:44AM

Margie,

Mr. Cloud writes, "We don’t need to study the 'church fathers.'" Why is he afraid of knowledge, I wonder?

Although, he is the first Protestant I've read who admits that the early Church Fathers were, in fact, Catholic, having taught Catholic doctrine.

Thanks for the link!
God Bless!

Margie| 5.6.11 @ 1:37AM

Nick,

I can't speak for Mr. Cloud, but it seems to me he has studied them and posted their writings. Seeing how they were utterly unbiblical I presume he made that statement. Which I agree with.

After realizing the heretical teachings of these men, the only thing they deserve is to be brought down off the shelf to teach others an example of how not to become deluded by false teachers~ whom the Apostles warned us about.

The Apostles being the only church fathers we should be listening to, as they were the only ones appointed by God, as the Bible tells us.

I've posted links over the past few days now where anyone can read these wolves in sheep's clothing's words and learn for themselves.

So, I do not think it is a matter of being afraid of knowledge as you presume to say.

Catholic doctrine is not Christian doctrine, since Christians obey only the Words of God and the Apostles, as Jesus taught us to do.
Catholic doctrine is completely made up by these men who came after them, and is not at all biblical.

Margie| 5.6.11 @ 2:18AM

P.S.
I forgot to say, you're welcome to your thank you, above. And I'm glad that you read the link.

I do not know if Mr. Cloud calls himself a Protestant. One thing I notice is that Catholics like to try and name all Christians who aren't Catholic as Protestants, because they say that we must be "protesting" Catholicism.
Heh, we aren't protesting anything, but we are promoting the true gospel of Jesus Christ~ which isn't what Catholicism teaches.
Catholicism teaches a false gospel~ one based on works and "sacraments" etc.
True Christianity that is in accordance with the Bible teaches Salvation by God's Grace, through faith in Jesus Christ directly~ through an actual spiritual relationship with Him through the Holy Spirit. (Jn. 3:3).

The most horrible teaching they teach is that Grace comes through the "Church" and not through Jesus Himself.
I'm here to say, by the grace of God, that that is a lie.
Jesus is Lord.
Believe in His Words, not man's.
OK~ done preaching.
Good night. :^).

Nick| 5.6.11 @ 2:54AM

Margie,

I only called Mr. Cloud a Protestant because after his name it says, "Fundamental Baptist Information Service." I try to be accurate when I describe people, when I can't ask them directly to describe themselves.

I wasn't trying to imply anything, honest!

David T| 5.2.11 @ 11:01AM

Jim H--Constantine called the Council of Nicea in an attempt to resolve the Arian heresy (Christ was not God) within the Church. Constantine was ambivalent regarding Arianism, but it was in his interest to have an irenic Church--not one divided by controversy. He delivered what we would now call the keynote address, but other than that he played no active role in the council--he let the bishops do their work. They condemned Arianism and promulgated what we now know as the Nicene Creed--God the Father and God the Son are the same substance. When Constantine moved his capital from Rome to Constantinople, he left a political vacuum in Rome. The Church, with mixed results, gradually assumed an increasing political role in the western empire. Many Protestant historians have tried to paint the Catholic Church as Constantine's creation, but honest researchers, like Leithart, know better. As an aside, it is interesting to note that the ideas of freedom and democracy blossomed in Western Europe under the supposedly oppressive Catholic Church. By contrast, the Eastern Church, dominated in the early years by Constantine and his successors, gradually assumed a submissive role in relation to secular government. The effects have been felt down through the centuries as various military/religious conquerers, dictators, and totalitarian political movements have co-opted the Eastern Church.

Stuart Koehl| 5.2.11 @ 11:24AM

"By contrast, the Eastern Church, dominated in the early years by Constantine and his successors, gradually assumed a submissive role in relation to secular government. "

This is equally incorrect. The notion of "caesaropapism" in the Eastern Church (largely a creation of Edward Gibbon) has long since been repudiated modern Byzantinists. The relationship between Church and State in the East can best be described by the Greek word "symphonia"--each institution had its own role in society, which were complementary and mutually supporting. The State existed to defend the Church from external threats and to maintain good order and discipline domestically; the Church supported the state as long as the state acted in accordance with state teachings.

The hallmark of true caesaropapism is the ability of the state to dictate Church doctrine and practice. Throughout the Byzantine period, various emperors repeatedly tried to do so and were invariably foiled by the resistance of the Church--whether it was Arianism, Nestorianism, Monophysitism, Monothelitism, or Iconoclasm. All of these imperially-directed doctrines were invariably overturned, if not by the direct action of the bishops, then by the civil disobedience of the monastics and laity. Even at the very end of the Byzantine period, the Emperors were unable to impose a top-down union with the Church of Rome over the objections of the faithful.

Where you do see caesaropapism is in the Russian Church from the reign of Ivan IV the Terrible, and especially from the reign of Peter the Great, who (in imitation of the German Protestant states he admired so much) abolished the Patriarchate of Moscow and erected the Russian Orthodox Holy Synod in its place as a branch of the Russian civil service, under a secular "procurator" (the last of whom in 1917 was a Russian army General of Cavalry).

By the way, until the 9th century, even the Bishops of Rome had to have their elections ratified by the Emperor in Constantinople. This may have been pro forma, and the time between election and ratification may have been rather extended towards the end of that period as East-West communications broke down, but it remained in place until the elevation of Charlemagne as "Emperor of the Romans".

From that time, the See of Rome was constantly in search of or under the thumb of a secular protector, whether that was the Carolingian Franks, the Hohenstauffens, the Hapsburgs or the Valois--and the Papacy frequently had to dance the tune those powers played, which, if anything, made the Church of Rome more prone to caesaropapism than the Church of Constantinople under Byzantine rule.

David T| 5.2.11 @ 12:35PM

The mere fact that the Roman bishop was known as "Pontifex Maximus" from late 4th century until the Renaissance argues against caesaropapism in the West. Also, one must consider the influence of subordinationism on orthodox (small "o") beliefs in the Eastern Church. Unbalanced trinitarian doctrines led to beliefs that contradicted God's basic attributes, which in turn led to behaviors among the people that upset the trinitarian ideal of equality of nature, but difference in function. So what, you say? Well, would the Declaration of Independence have come out of such a culture? I seriously doubt it.

Ryan| 5.2.11 @ 12:47PM

You're arguing from a simple title, but I think Stu has the results on his side here in his argument.

"Throughout the Byzantine period, various emperors repeatedly tried to do so and were invariably foiled by the resistance of the Church--whether it was Arianism, Nestorianism, Monophysitism, Monothelitism, or Iconoclasm. All of these imperially-directed doctrines were invariably overturned, if not by the direct action of the bishops, then by the civil disobedience of the monastics and laity. "

David T| 5.2.11 @ 1:58PM

Ryan--Sometimes a mere title says much. Why would the Roman bishop be known as Pontifex Maximus if Caesar were supreme? I disagree that caesaropapism was a problem in the West--it was much more evident in the East. And the Eastern bishops (St. Athanasius is an exception) were much more likely to waiver in the face of heresy, especially when confronted by the Nestorians and Monophysitists. Witness the survival of the Coptic Church to this day.

Ryan| 5.2.11 @ 2:08PM

Holding a title is not evidence that such a title has real authority. There were several times where the papacy was practically neutered in its power (remember when a mere child was placed in the position?)

I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying that it doesn't lend strength to your position.

Doctor Right| 5.2.11 @ 3:25PM

Was that mere child infallible, Ryan?

He was the Pope, after all...

If your answer is "No", then that means worldly motivations were behind his ascension to the Papal throne...That his strings were being pulled by others in the hierarchy of the Church who had neither the Church's best interests at heart, NOT that of then body of believers.

That would mean that the "lineage" that Catholics like to prattle about was false...

Careful how you respond...

Ryan| 5.2.11 @ 3:48PM

The thread isn't a debate about legitimacy or infallibility. Try re-reading it.

Doctor Right| 5.2.11 @ 3:27PM

Titles are only meaningful when Catholics say they're meaningful; when they say they're NOT meaningful, then they're not...

Stuart Koehl| 5.2.11 @ 7:35PM

"The mere fact that the Roman bishop was known as "Pontifex Maximus" from late 4th century until the Renaissance argues against caesaropapism in the West"

Actually, the title Pontifex Maximus was one reserved for the Roman Emperor down to the time of Gratian, who ceded it to the Bishop of Rome some time around 383. But it did not become a common title for the Pope until the time of Leo the Great. By then, however, the word "pontifex" had lost its original meaning within the Roman civic religion, and was just a synonym for "priest".

"Also, one must consider the influence of subordinationism on orthodox (small "o") beliefs in the Eastern Church. Unbalanced trinitarian doctrines led to beliefs that contradicted God's basic attributes, which in turn led to behaviors among the people that upset the trinitarian ideal of equality of nature, but difference in function."

I am having trouble following your reasoning because, as an Eastern Christian, I have no idea what you mean by "unbalanced" Trinitarian doctrines or how these "contradict God's basic attributes". You need to define your terms, which I suggest, you do very carefully.

David T| 5.2.11 @ 11:19PM

Perhaps I should have said subordinationism leads to a defective view of the Trinity, which in turn affects a people's religion, culture, politics, etc., and mostly in a bad way--totalitarianism, for instance (see Russian Revolution).

Stuart Koehl| 5.3.11 @ 1:13PM

What is this "defective view of the Trinity" to which you refer. Can you define it, please?

David T| 5.3.11 @ 2:24PM

I guess I’m trying to say that subordinationism—even functional subordinationism—leads to a low view of the Trinity. Instead of three co-equal and co-eternal Persons, you end up with an ontological ranking, of sorts: God the Father first, Jesus the Son second, the Holy Spirit third. This defective view of the Trinity can have profound consequences on religion, culture, politics, etc. For example, the gulf between God and man is bridged only by the God-man, Jesus Christ. If Christ is not fully divine, he is not God’s representative to us. If he is not fully human, he is not our representative before God. The Council at Chalcedon defined Christ as the only link between God and man. Chalcedon, in effect, limited human power by denying the power of salvation to any human agency. Chalcedon meant that our liberty was rooted in Christ, not in the church or the state. A high view of the Trinity exults Christ. Magna Carta and the Declaration of Independence would have been unlikely without such a Trinitarian view. By contrast, a low Trinitarian view--as in subordinationism--leads to humanism and, inevitably, to tyranny.

Stuart Koehl| 5.3.11 @ 10:17PM

"I guess I’m trying to say that subordinationism—even functional subordinationism—leads to a low view of the Trinity. Instead of three co-equal and co-eternal Persons, you end up with an ontological ranking, of sorts: God the Father first, Jesus the Son second, the Holy Spirit third."

If this is how you think the Eastern Churches understand the Trinity you are entirely mistaken. In fact, we reject all forms of subordinationism, for the Trinity consists of three co-essential hypostases, each equally God, each equally distinct, none subordinated to the others but rather in perfect communion, each knowing the other as well as He knows Himself, each deferring to the other according to His charism.

The best book for you to read on this subject is John Meyendorff's "Byzantine Theology", available from SVS Press.

"The Council at Chalcedon defined Christ as the only link between God and man. "

Chalcedon, however, did not deal with Trinitarian theology, but with Christology; moreover, there were three more Ecumenical Councils after Chalcedon, each of which further refined the Christological synthesis. So your argument makes no sense: Chalcedon is not a Trinitarian council.

Even if it was, Chalcedon, like Nicaea I and Constantinople I, are accepted by both the Western and the Orthodox Churches. There is no difference in Trinitarian theology between the West and the East, so your dichotomy is false.

David T| 5.4.11 @ 1:40PM

I think subtle and practical differences in Trinitarian doctrine between East and West had an enormous impact on the culture and politics in each area. Arianism, for example, was much more of a problem in the East. If Christ was not true deity, how could he send the Spirit? Arian subordinationists said the Spirit "proceeded" from the Father only. Rome inserted the filioque in the Nicene Creed to guard against this heresy. The Eastern Church resented this presumption but did not think through the implications with respect to God the Son and the Holy Spirit. The practical result was a weak and unbalanced concept of the Trinity--unity (Oneness of the Father) over diversity (Three co-equal and co-eternal Persons). The East did not develop the Western idea of "sphere authority"--church, state, family--where authority is limited and delegated. Instead, the state became the preeminent authority.

David T| 5.4.11 @ 11:17PM

To add to what I just said: The reason the state took on such a commanding role in the East was because its reach for power wasn't counterbalanced, as in the West, by the enculturated belief that man's liberty was rooted in Christ alone.

Stuart Koehl| 5.5.11 @ 7:07PM

I would advise you to read the 1996 clarification issued by the Pontifical Commission for Promoting Christian Unity, "The Greek and Latin Traditions Regarding the Procession of the Holy Spirit", which can be found here:

http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/PCCUFILQ.HTM

An Orthodox response by Metropolitan John Zizoulis can be found here:

http://www.orthodoxresearchins.....source.htm

The most important thing to realize is there is no substantive difference in the Latin or Orthodox understanding of the Trinity, or of the procession of the Holy Spirit. As the statement of the Pontifical Council says,

"The Catholic Church acknowledges the conciliar, ecumenical, normative and irrevocable value, as expression of the one common faith of the Church and of all Christians, of the Symbol professed in Greek at Constantinople in 381 by the Second Ecumenical Council. No profession of faith peculiar to a particular liturgical tradition can contradict this expression of the faith taught and professed by the undivided Church."

That is to say, the Filioque controversy is over, and the Greeks won. I also don't know of any reputable theologian who would accept your argument about the Filioque preventing "subordinationism" in the Trinity; if anything it does the reverse, making the Spirit subordinate to the Father and the Son. In any case, as I told you (and as you can discover for yourself), the Orthodox understanding of the Trinity as three hypostases in a single essence mitigates against any sort of subordination in the Trinity whatsoever.

Margie| 5.4.11 @ 11:48PM

David T.

It is all so ridiculous and unnecessary!
The Bible tells us exactly Who God is, and exactly how to pray, and Who to pray too.
That Arius guy was an utter fraud. Have you ever read his own words? They are outrageous.
Why Constantine ever gave in to this human refuse is beyond me except for the fact that I know a man doesn't give in to utter heresy unless he enjoys it.

Real Christians do not do this round and round in confusion over "who to believe or who not to believe" ABOUT God. We know that His own Words are found in the Bible and we reject the teachings of ALL men~ no matter how haughty~ if what they teach is unbiblical.

We are warned ALL OVER the Bible about being led astray by the wiles of men who seek to lead others astray.

The truth is that God gave us His own Words in order that we could follow Him closely, keep on the straight and narrow, and actually be able to unite in Him.
But that can't be done unless we agree with what is written.. in the Bible. That's why all the denominations. It isn't His will.

David T| 5.5.11 @ 10:07AM

Yes, Margie, unity in Christ--that's the goal: One, holy, catholic, and apostolic, as the Nicene Creed says.

But the body has warring members.

The problem boil down to this question: By what authority do we believe what we believe? It can't be subjective authority--the individual conscience--because that leads inevitably to disagreement over who's right. It must be the authority of Christ Himself.

That's why I'm a Catholic--if you trace the roots of the Catholic Church you will end up in the Upper Room on the eighth day when Christ breathed the Holy Spirit into the Apostles, thus delegating to them His authority to bind and loose here on earth and to forgive sins.

Margie| 5.5.11 @ 2:06PM

What you "preach" and believe are lies and deception.

The Catholic church is NOT God's church, but the church of God are Christians who believe every Word of God and reject the disgusting false teachings of men.
The only people we are supposed to listen to is God, Jesus, and the men moved by the Holy Spirit.

These men are the true early church fathers, also known as the Apostles.

God's Apostles were chosen by Him and expressly warned us not to listen to ANYTHING not taught by THEM.

These men who came after were wolves in sheep's clothing and what they ADDED to the Words of God they are already burning in Hell for it.

You have been warned by God, by Christ, and by His Holy Spirit speaking through them to reject all false teaching, yet you refuse to listen, and actually enjoy so doing.

"For whoever is ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of him will the Son of man also be ashamed, when he comes in the glory of his Father with the holy angels." Mk. 8:38.

mames| 5.3.11 @ 4:35AM

The Pontif concept came from Persia and was used in the "Roman Church" as early as 753 BC. But grew in power nearing the AD.

Stuart Koehl| 5.3.11 @ 10:25AM

Whatever you are smoking, it is powerful stuff, dude.

David T| 5.3.11 @ 1:16PM

So our view of the Trinity--especially the Person of Christ--has no impact on how we live and how we view our fellow man? Read Trinity and Reality by Ralph A. Smith.

Margie| 5.3.11 @ 1:53PM

God never taught this teaching of "The Trinity". And neither did the Apostles. It is just another attempt to try and put God in a box by these early church Catholics.

Never satisfied with the Words of God as plainly written, they had to make up doctrines in order to satisfy their darkened minds.

From these sam men came hundreds of false teachings. I posted a link here to read their writings. Anyone can read and discover the truth.

David T| 5.3.11 @ 2:28PM

So you don't believe in the Trinity? Oops, forgot--it's not in the Bible.

Margie| 5.3.11 @ 2:56PM

I believe in what the Bible says.
EVERY SINGLE WORD.
Do you?

mames| 5.3.11 @ 5:33PM

The concept of trinity can be seen at Christ's baptism also in the cross references of Christ to The Spirit and The Father and the Father to His son and The Spirit. The church simply gave the concept a name.We can apprehend the concept but we cannot comprehend it. God speaks to us using human language and since the fall we cannot understand him apart from that, we are finite He is not.

Margie| 5.3.11 @ 6:10PM

mames,

If the concept of the Trinity were Biblical, I'd accept it.
But since it isn't, I reject the teaching.
The Catholics teach praying to the Holy Spirit, and that is why they created this doctrine.
It's just plain wrong.

Ryan| 5.4.11 @ 10:15AM

If the Holy Spirit is God, and there's no explicit command to NOT pray to the Spirit, then what is so wrong with that doctrine?

Is that all that is holding you from accepting the word "Trinity" as a description of God?

Margie| 5.4.11 @ 11:34PM

well there you go, Ryan.
You are saying that you choose to believe other than what God actually teaches.
He does NOT teach to pray TO the Holy Spirit.
He teaches us to pray TO Him, through Christ, and by the Spirit.
You choose to believe a lie, and that's too bad, but do NOT have the nerve then to question my integrity in the Lord as I choose to obey His Words, and not the words of the heretical "early church fathers" as some call them.
In truth, the early church fathers were the Apostles.
And they warned us not to listen to anything written or taught by others purporting to be from them.
Jesus says that unless we continue in HIS Words, we cannot be His disciples.
Ryan, it will be a joy for you to turn completely from listening to false teachings once and for all, to stop going back and forth, and get firmly planted in the Word of God~ in Christ Jesus.
I will pray for you.

Margie| 5.4.11 @ 11:40PM

"Is that all that is holding you from accepting the word "Trinity" as a description of God?"

You keep asking me the same question but I explained it to you.

The reason I reject it is it isn't Biblical. God isn't a Trinity, nor did He ever refer to Himself as that, therefore I will not disgrace Him by so doing.
God tells us Who He is in the Bible. He is God. He is the I Am. He is the Creator of the universe and along with Jesu, created everything.
According to the Bible, God sent the Holy Spirit to guide us into the Truth, and without Whom we wouldn't be able to pray.
I refuse to put God in a box, and I refuse to do as the Catholics are falsely taught~ that "the Trinity" is a Thing to be prayed to"!

That is the last time I am going to repeat myself.
God bless you.

David T| 5.5.11 @ 10:13AM

Margie--If you do not believe in the Trinity of the Godhead, you are not a Christian, you are something else. God is a triad--Three-in-One--not a monad, as the Jews and Muslims believe.

Margie| 5.5.11 @ 2:10PM

You so arrogantly judge God and willingly add to His Words?

And do you presume to judge me as not being Christian when it is you who rejects the Words of God Himself and replace them with the false teachings of men?

The Bible is my standard, for therein are His Words, and NOWHERE else are they~ and God tells us Who He is.

Do you seek to blaspheme Him by telling Him Who He is?

Where do you get this authority?

Nowhere does God call Himself "a Triad".

READ YOUR BIBLE AND THEN REPENT.

Quartermaster| 5.2.11 @ 8:19PM

Stu, given your last paragraph, I'd like to see your explanation of the incident of Otto at Canosa. I seriously doubt that Otto would have gone, under the circumstances he did, if the Pope were dancing to the tune of secular nobles. Otto was genuinely in fear of the Pope, and not the other way around.

Stuart Koehl| 5.2.11 @ 9:47PM

You do know how the conflict of Pope Gregory VII Hildebrand and Emperor Henry IV (not Otto) ended, do you not? While Hildebrand could and did play imperial politics by siding with Saxon rebels against Henry, forcing Henry to accept Gregory's position in the investiture controversy, as soon as Henry put down the rebellion he repudiated his agreement with Gregory.

Gregory then excommunicated Henry and (using one of his famous Papal Decretals, declared that he had the power to depose Emperors. The political balance shifting once more, the German princes took advantage of this out to name a new German Emperor. Henry therefore made a hasty recantation, went to Canossa, kneeled in the snow, allowed himself to be flogged, and was absolved by Gregory.

Here's where most Roman Catholics stop reading the story, though.

With his legitimacy restored, Henry rapidly formed an army, dispersed his enemies, and reestablished himself as sole Emperor. Gregory, misinformed about the changing situation, backed the losing Imperial candidate, Rudolph of Swabia, and excommunicated Henry again. But Gregory had gone to the well once too often, and his decree not only failed to garner backing from the nobility, it was seen as an injustice. After Rudolph of Swabia died in 1081, Henry invaded the Papal States at the head of a powerful army and declared Gregory deposed in turn. Henry occupied Rome in 1084, while Gregory retired to Castel St. Angelo, while Henry installed Guibert of Ravenna as Pope Clement III, who promptly crowned Henry as Emperor of the Germans.

Gregory called in a Norman army under Robert Guiscard, which recaptured Rome and liberated the Pope, but the people of Rome, outraged by the behavior of Gregory's Norman saviors, kicked the Pope out of Rome. Going into exile at Monte Cassino (later shifting to Castle Salerno), Henry died in 1085, abandoned by just about everyone.

His last words are reputed to have been, "Dilexi iustitiam et odivi iniquitatem propterea morior in exilio " ("I have loved justice and hated iniquity; therefore, I [now] die in exile.")

Clint| 5.2.11 @ 10:30AM

To The Hammer Wielding Lapsed Catholic, Anti-Catholic Agenda Buffoon Dr. Reich, Everything Catholic Is A Nail.

Doctor Right| 5.2.11 @ 10:42AM

Oh, Clinton...I'm NOT a "lapsed Catholic"...I'm a Christian.

What are you?

Clint| 5.2.11 @ 12:41PM

Oh Dr. Reich.... Your A Lapsed Catholic & A Serial Chronic Anti-Catholic Agenda Freak.

I'm Up In Your Grill.

Doctor Right| 5.2.11 @ 1:18PM

Actually, Clinton, it would appear I'm in your...errrr...grill..? You seem unable to avoid intruding, and you childishly assume that anyone who criticizes the Catholic Church is a bigot.

Oh, well...Maybe you should ask Father O'Flaherty what he thinks about that...But you'd better catch him before 3pm, otherwise, he'll be half-in-the-bag...

Occam's Tool| 5.2.11 @ 7:01PM

Dear Dr. Right:

Don't worry about Clint. He's a cross between a neurosyphilitic camel and a leprous armadillo. Complicated things hurt his wittle malformed head. He also likes to say things like "your mouth is saying things your body can't cash." (Probably true, Clint. But I wonder if it's true for an IMI Desert Eagle? Old age and treachery, Clint, beats youth and stupidity every time. Don't visit me or threaten me, crossbreed.)

But, again, guys, some references for the rest of us? This is an interesting thread.

Doctor Right| 5.2.11 @ 1:20PM

And by the way, if you seek credibility, please try and use proper punctuation.

It's "You're a lapsed Catholic and serial, chronic, anti-Catholic agenda-freak."

Note the correct use of punctuation and capital letters.

Occam's Tool| 5.2.11 @ 7:12PM

Is OK, Dr Right, I'm a Tool Job Israel Firster myself. Congrats. You're not truly initiated into the intelligent TAS community until Clint feebly annoys you. He is also feebly threatening, as well.

Evanston2| 5.2.11 @ 12:26PM

Clint, What is a "lapsed Catholic?"

Clint| 5.2.11 @ 12:44PM

Figure it out Agnostic Asshat

Ryan| 5.2.11 @ 12:50PM

What scriptural basis do you have for such language?

Clint| 5.2.11 @ 1:31PM

We'll just file it under:
Matthew 10:34 "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword."
My keyboard is my sword.

Doctor Right| 5.2.11 @ 1:47PM

That makes sense.

Jesus was talking about how His existence threatened the interpersonal relationships of believers and their friends and family, and how since many would reject His message, believers would sometimes have to make a choice: Christ, or the world (friends and family).

You've misinterpreted that mean that being an "Asshat" (your word) is somehow a Christian imperative.

Misinterpreting scripture for your own purposes?

You ARE a good Catholic!!!

Ryan| 5.2.11 @ 2:12PM

That was Christ. You aren't Him.

Col 3:8 But now you must also rid yourselves of all such things as these: anger, rage, malice, slander, and filthy language from your lips.

Doctor Right| 5.2.11 @ 3:22PM

You're not making sense, Ryan...

I never said I was Christ; how stupid would that be?

Of course, it's equally stupid to try and say I said that, but that's something you'll have to deal with.

Secondly, I'm neither angry, nor full of rage, nor engaging in malice, or slander, or using filthy language...

So WHAT is your point? Do you have one?

Ryan| 5.2.11 @ 3:49PM

Above response was toward Clint. These paragraphs only go in so far...

Evanston2| 5.3.11 @ 5:45PM

Clint, let's reverse the question. How would you describe yourself? A "good Catholic" as Doctor Right says?

Reactionary| 5.2.11 @ 11:04AM

"Leithart thinks Christians of the time were understandably grateful and fulsome in praise for ..."

Fulsome is misued here. It means the opposite of what the author, and apparently the editors, think it means.

Look it up.

Roy| 5.2.11 @ 7:57PM

The author, the editors, and, sadly, a large majority of the reading public.

A bit like "disinterested".

Evanston2| 5.3.11 @ 5:48PM

"Talk about things and nobody cares. Wearing other things that nobody wears."

Kevin Dunn| 5.2.11 @ 11:15AM

Thank you Mark for an interesting article.

NotALibertarian| 5.2.11 @ 11:24AM

"Do violence to no man," John the Baptist told the soldiers who came to him (Lk. 3:14).

"Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you," said Jesus to the multitude (Mt. 5:44).

Paul wrote to the Romans (Ch. 13) that God places worldy men of a sufficient moral caliber in power to keep order in the world by punishing evil. Paul tells Christians (13:1-3;5) to be subject to them (which means not protesting their actions), not to BE them.

These "neo-anabaptists" (we always knew the degenerate Left would try to co-opt the Amish and Mennonites, didn't we?) can grandstand about turning the other cheek all they like, but their alliance is nothing more than the communion of light with darkness, the fellowship of righteousness with unrighteousness (I Cor. 6:14). They don't seem too concerned about these scriptures, though.
Translation: They appear to be political hacks.

Doctor Right| 5.2.11 @ 11:49AM

Stu...anytime you want to try and answer the questions posed to you, let us know, 'kay?

Evanston2| 5.2.11 @ 12:44PM

Doctor Right, I'm with you on matters of doctrine but Stuart has already put a lot of time into his comments here. Let him lay it out, hopefully with references, and validate if you have time on your own. As you've stated, the Bible as the Word of God is above all, but we're talking about distant history here (both time-wise and doctrinally). A lot has happened since Constantine. Roman Catholics will be answerable, as will all of us...every knee will bow. Biblically, I believe we should be concerned with a checklist, behavioral approach to "Christianity" as a sad counterfeit/substitute for genuine worship...a heartfelt reaction to Christ's love. Put another way, for some people "worship" is to think and do what is approved by clergy, while the Bible clearly tells us that worship is loving Him and His Word and acting upon it in sincerity. So while I argue theology here at AmSpec, it is mostly to point out exactly what "Christians" are worshiping. Sadly, as you know, we have many "Christians" in Bible churches as well who are just going through the motions and relying on the "holy men" to tell them what to think and do. It's a sad commentary on all mankind, but after all, it should make us more thankful for God changing our hearts from stone to flesh. That said, thank you for your efforts here.

Doctor Right| 5.2.11 @ 1:11PM

I can't disagree with anything you posted.

However, I will say that the checklist matters. Yes, I'm being somewhat tongue-in-cheek...it's not about getting your box checked-off ("Be nice to the poor" - Check!; "Say a prayer for World peace" - Check!; "Put some money in the contribution bowl" - Check!; etc, etc...). But let's not overlook the fact that a lot of what we as mere humans consider rudimentary and rote is what God has required of us.

To that end, Doctrine matters, because Doctrine can you lead one to or away from the Truth.

False Doctrines and practices, no matter how beautifully they may be presented, remain false.

Occam's Tool| 5.2.11 @ 7:04PM

Guys, again, for us ignorant ones references will help. Dr. Right, you are, as usual, superb. Stu, I would appreciate the references because I will get around to them. My babies are brilliant, and when they get around to high school I will have to go deep.

Stuart Koehl| 5.2.11 @ 10:46PM

Bibliography is above. I can provide more for those who want it.

Evanston2| 5.3.11 @ 5:56PM

Doctor Right, concur. I'm not rejecting doctrine (and to teach that doctrine doesn't matter is itself a doctrine, self-defeating) and I aggressively discuss doctrine more than most Christians. I just hate it when people reduce Christianity to just another behavioral code or self-improvement program: both are less than the Truth. And fall short of the greatest commandments. Thank God that He enables what He commands. Hey, we actually got Clint to quote the Bible today. You never know...

Richard| 5.2.11 @ 12:36PM

What is this childish ankle biting going on here? This could be a fascinating subject. Anyway, Mr. Koehler, give us a bibliography. Thanks.

Doctor Right| 5.2.11 @ 1:15PM

I protest; I've got a good grip on the knee-caps, and am chewing my way towards the synovial disc and the ACL...

Stuart Koehl| 5.2.11 @ 7:36PM

Done above.

Clint| 5.2.11 @ 1:34PM

That's Not all You Chew, Dr. Reich.

Dr.Reich Bites The Bone.

Doctor Right| 5.2.11 @ 1:49PM

Now you're projecting, Clinton...

Homosexual fantasies, perhaps? What a shock! Are you a Priest?

Clint| 5.2.11 @ 4:04PM

Actually, I'm Projectile Puking On Your Face, Fixated Anti-Catholic Obsession Thing.
Real Man Wannabe Perhaps?
What A Smuck! Are You A Mullah ?

Occam's Tool| 5.2.11 @ 7:05PM

Clint, you vicious antisemite, it's "schmuck." Spare us the Yiddishisms. You can't do'em; you're not qualified, although you are a qualified asshat. You are insulting the IMI.

Clint| 5.2.11 @ 7:58PM

Crazed Fanatic Tool Job, You vicious Neo-Chickenhawk Israel Firster Pussy, you are all anxiously fixated on Tea Party Catholic Clint,who like many Tea Party Patriots and Tea Party Co-Favorite Dr.Ron Paul and Tea Party Senator Dr. Rand Paul don't Asskiss or Worship Your Personal False god, Israel.

Take Two Shock Treatments & call Bibi in the morning.

Roy| 5.2.11 @ 8:06PM

Boy, between these two, it's a shame they can't both lose.

Oh wait, they can.

Trigger| 5.2.11 @ 8:14PM

Shut Up Roy,or I'll tell them what you did to me that lonely night , out on the prairie.

Occam's Tool| 5.2.11 @ 7:09PM

Clint, stop chasing the pretty Black Lab chasing the car! She'll only bring you grief---she doesn't want your syphilis.

In case you wonder why an erudite fellow like me goes occasionally schoolboyish here; Clint is just an irresistable target. Stupid, ignorant, and hateful. After I lay into him, my BP goes down.

I am looking very forward to the references, guys. I'm certain I will learn much from both of you.

Clint| 5.2.11 @ 8:08PM

Sorry-Assed Peter Principle Government Excuse for a Shrink, stop pushin' Big Pharma Pills on those poor suckers, who were unfortunate enough to draw You, instead of a competent Shrink.

And stop tryin' to get sloppy seconds on bin Laden's goat, or I'll have my buddy Rick & his SEALS bury You at Sea.

Kevin in Appalachia| 5.2.11 @ 1:49PM

True Christianity is always available. Just get out the New Testaments and study. In Galatians we are warned that the gospel had already been preached and if anything taught in the future was different than that which previously taught is error. Of course mankind has never been satisfied with the simplicity of truth...man always wants to change it...

Margie| 5.2.11 @ 8:31PM

Amen to that, Kevin and God bless you for speaking the Truth.

Clint| 5.2.11 @ 4:32PM

Aaaand You Left Out:

"If the books of the New Testament are inspired, "god-breathed" scripture, then the men who wrote them must have gotten their material from God himself.

To extend this to future teachings of the Church is no big deal to God. After all, Jesus promised that he would be with us till the end of time and that the Holy Spirit would lead the Church into all truth.

Therefore, the Pope and the Magisterium of the Church can be prevented from teaching error in matters of faith and morals by simply sticking to what is revealed to them by God as truth already "loosed" or "bound" in heaven.

For us, this happens in the course of time, but God is outside of time, so what we learn (and here I would say "learn" means to declare formally since all revelation has been given already) in 1854 or 1950 or at some point in the future is already known by God."

Margie| 5.2.11 @ 8:34PM

"To extend this to future teachings of the Church is no big deal to God."

The future teachings of Catholicism had better be to repent of the already false ones in existence. Once they have repented of those, then they can begin teaching from the Scriptures.

So far, they haven't done that.

Clint| 5.2.11 @ 8:57PM

Lapsed Catholic-Anti-Catholic Ax Grinder Crank Lady Sybil-Victor-Margie of The Church of Victor-Margie is back in the building.

Now, tell all the Practicing Jews & Muslims where you say they go when they die & You're done using them for your Agenda.

Margie| 5.2.11 @ 10:07PM

Clint/Tim*

So tell us, are you actually one of the authors here at AmSpec?

I cannot imagine that the moderators and editors would allow your utter vileness with continually filthy language to stick around so freely.

It baffles the mind (of sane people).

Stuart Koehl| 5.2.11 @ 10:47PM

"It baffles the mind (of sane people)."

Someone told you this, Marge? Or did you deduce it by observing sane people?

Margie| 5.2.11 @ 10:51PM

Stuart actually calls himself a Christian.
And this is how he treats other Christians.
Disgusting.

Stuart Koehl| 5.2.11 @ 10:59PM

Well, I'm coming around to the position that YOU are NOT a Christian, because of your heterodox beliefs that contradict the basic tenets of Christianity.

Stuart Koehl| 5.2.11 @ 10:59PM

Did I mention that Christ loves not the whiner?

Margie| 5.2.11 @ 11:09PM

"If any one says, "I love God," and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen, cannot love God whom he has not seen." 1 Jn. 4:20.

Truly~ you prove who you are.

Margie| 5.2.11 @ 11:07PM

Really Stuey?
I stand on the Word of God and you say I am not a Christian?
Just shows how warped you are.
Too bad you consider the Bible such trash, and those who belong to Him as same.
You are truly disgusting.

Margie| 5.2.11 @ 11:18PM

"The basic tenets of Christianity?"

They're in the Bible.

That book you so hate, and despise, and hate and despise anyone who stands on it 100%.

Bill Sundling| 5.2.11 @ 6:42PM

Constantine was a pagan. He made paganized "Christianity" the state religion. Rome had many gods. Catholicism has many patron saints that people pray to. Catholicism has never been true Christianity. If we wait we can see the last pope being declared a god (patron saint, same thing).

Roy| 5.2.11 @ 7:56PM

Don't hold your breath.

Stuart Koehl| 5.2.11 @ 10:48PM

It is truly amazing how people who know so little can pontificate so much, and how resistant to any evidence that contradicts their world view they can be.

Margie| 5.2.11 @ 10:55PM

Thus sayeth the Master Pontificator and one of the most demeaning and condescending of personalities here.

If I didn't know any better, I'd say you are Toddard in your vile snake like spirit~ or perhaps Leo the Great reincarnated.

Stuart Koehl| 5.2.11 @ 11:00PM

And you are a very stupid and spiteful woman who hides her fear of the truth behind a dogmatism stronger than anything proclaimed by any Pope.

Margie| 5.2.11 @ 11:11PM

Really?
I'm stupid according to you~ a despicable man!
And you say this because I take my stand on the Word of God, and not men.
I do not fear the Truth, I love it and speak it always, and that's why you have to excoriate me.
Because you despise it!

Stuart Koehl| 5.3.11 @ 6:49AM

Tace, inepta!

Margie| 5.3.11 @ 1:12PM

Folks,

Now here is the hypocrisy of this "man"~

He accuses me of making up a Bible verse when I quoted it directly from the original Greek Textus Receptus.

He has a problem with lying. He also has a problem with what the Bible actually says, and promotes the "early church fathers" who brought in disgusting heresies not found in the Bible, and indeed AGAINST the Word of God, such as I pointed out earlier, such as prayer to the dead "saints",
infant Baptism, the veneration of Mary, Transubstantiation, and many others.

So, here's the hypocrisy:

He says I'm not a Christian because I reject these false teachings.
Yet what is the definition of a Christian?
One who not only believes, but OBEYS the Words of God.

"For whoever is ashamed of Me and of My Words, of him will the Son of Man be ashamed when He comes in his glory and the glory of the Father and of the Holy Angels." Lk. 9:26.

"He who does not love Me does not keep My Words; and the word which you hear is not Mine but the Father's who sent Me." Jn. 14:24.

Praise His Holy Name!

Stuart Koehl| 5.3.11 @ 1:19PM

"He accuses me of making up a Bible verse when I quoted it directly from the original Greek Textus Receptus."

Unfortunately, Marge's reading comprehension skills are on par with her theological acumen. Go back and look at the thread. I asked her to explain how she deduce the true nature of God in the Holy Trinity from Scripture alone, listing the aspects of God enumerated by the Nicene Creed. Marge responds by a series of proof texts. I asked her to interpret in her own words what the prooftexts mean and to justify her interpretation from Scripture alone. Marge responds by providing a verbatim translation from the Greek Textus Receptus (cribbed from the interlineal Greek-English Study Bible, by the way--I have a copy), which, of course did not respond to my question.

Marge now engages in more misdirection, including a flurry of additional prooftexts designed to expose my iniquity.

Buzzz, buzzz, buzzz, she whizzes around my head like an annoying insect. Would that there was an internet bug zapper.

Margie| 5.3.11 @ 1:41PM

You're a snake.
You accused me of making up the verse I posted.
The Bible is still what I stand on, regardless of the abuse and flurry of insults sent my way by the likes of such a despicable man.

I already said that I refuse to re interpret the Word of God, as you so vainly try to force me to do.

God's own Words are suitable for me, and I believe and OBEY them.

See my post, below.

Stuart Koehl| 5.4.11 @ 7:15AM

To quote the Master, "How long must I put up with you?"

Margie| 5.4.11 @ 11:28PM

Who do you think you are?

Stuart Koehl| 5.5.11 @ 7:08PM

The least of all sinners, but at least one who has done his homework.

Margie| 5.6.11 @ 2:41AM

The least of all sinners? That is interesting since there isn't a shred of humbleness about you.

You cannot say one word to me without taking a swipe.

Stuart Koehl~ you have indeed done your homework, but you have enveloped yourself in and come away with the knowledge of false teachers.

You may know your physical history~ what happened with regards time and dates, but as to the truth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ you are greatly lacking, and it is precisely due to what you've been taught~ Religion~ rather than a relationship with Jesus Himself.

I wonder sir, if you have ever truly humbled yourself and asked God to save you? Have you ever begged for His mercy (we all need it), and asked for the forgiveness of all your sins, and for the Holy Spirit to live inside you?

Have you ever read this, what God actually can do:

"A new heart I will give you, and a new spirit I will put within you; and I will take out of your flesh the heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh.
And I will put My Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in My statutes and be careful to observe My ordinances." Ez. 36:26 & 27.

"Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and for ever." Heb. 13:8.

No Stuart, I have done my homework. I've been studying the Bible for nearly 40 years, intensely, and in fact under one of the Christians who help put together this Interlinear Bible, who worked with Jay P. Green (now with the Lord). Jay P. Green had also co-authored a book entitled "Unholy Hands on the Bible".
Who knows, perhaps you might be interested.

http://www.sgpbooks.com/cubeca.....d_672.html

Clint| 5.2.11 @ 7:09PM

"The veneration of saints, in Latin, cultus, or the "cult of the saints", describes a particular popular devotion to the saints. Although the term "worship" is sometimes used, it is intended in the old-sense meaning to honor or give respect (dulia). According to the Catholic Church, Divine Worship is properly reserved only for God (latria) and never to the saints. They can be asked to intercede or pray for those still on earth,just as one can ask someone on earth to pray for them."

Stuart Koehl| 5.2.11 @ 7:40PM

I would have to add that the cult of the saints is found not only in the Roman Catholic Church, but also in the Eastern Orthodox Churches, the Oriental Orthodox Churches and the Assyrian Church of the East. Martin Luther himself understood the concept of the "communion of saints" and was not opposed either to the veneration of Mary or to intercessory prayers (though he would probably express it as "the saints praying with us"). Many Protestants forget just how Catholic Martin Luther was, or how upset he was with the more radical views of the Reformers, who certainly did not understand Scripture in the same manner as he did.

And therein lies the problem.

Tony in Central PA| 5.2.11 @ 8:33PM

G.K. Chesterton once said modern Protestants wouldn't touch Luther's brand of Christianity with a barge - pole. I see he's still right about that.

Quartermaster| 5.2.11 @ 8:34PM

While Luther did good work, he also did not go far enough. Like Calvin, he went only as far as Augustine. I don't fault him for that, just making an observation.

OTOH, veneration is a word used to dodge what is actually going on. The idea that there is a real difference from worship is a fig leaf. Veneration is a form of worship.

I have no difficulty with the idea of "communion of the saints" as the true church is one through the ages. There is no scriptural support of intercession of the saints, however, or some sort of treasury of merit, as pushed by Papists.

I would agree that other reformers did carry some things to extremes. Calvin is a good example of that. Calvin, however, was balanced by Arminius and later by Wesley. Wesley is about as close to Ante-Nicene Christianity as you will find before the Pentecostals modified his cessationism.

One of the most important lessons one will take from reading the early Patristic writings is how Christianity evolved from late 1st century to the aberrations of Augustine. Augustine never recovered from his Neo-Platonist or Manichean periods and it shows in his theology. It took to John Wesley to flush that nonsense out of the mainstream church. It is still at the core of Calvinism, Lutheranism and Roman Catholicism.

Tony in Central PA| 5.2.11 @ 9:21PM

QM, this post touches on what I see as the continual problem with Protestantism : it is continually morphing at the doctrinal level. The historical reality is that Luther opened a Pandora's Box. Now there are literally tens of thousands of different Protestant denominations, each recommending personal interpretation of Scripture yet at the same time each claiming a different, infallible interpretation. Without any unity or authority, the process of fracturing and fissuring continues.

Ryan| 5.3.11 @ 10:56AM

I'm the Reformed Baptist in this argument, and I'll even admit this to a point (though there aren't many denominations that I am aware of that consider their interpretation "infallible" - usually it's just a denominations' individual hard-liners).

There's the good and bad about the Catholic position. The argument about scripture not being up to individual interpretation holds some weight in general, but when it comes to specifics there are issues where the Catholic Church as the "authority" just doesn't seem to have the right answer when looking at scripture in some aspects.

Case in point: Eucharist/Mass/Lord's Supper as a means of salvation. I don't know that it really makes sense with the Catholic literal understanding, but combined with the rest of scripture it makes more sense for it to be more of a picture of salvation rather than a means of salvation.

Stuart Koehl| 5.3.11 @ 1:20PM

You need to read in on Eastern Christianity, Ryan--most of your questions are answered there.

Margie| 5.3.11 @ 1:36PM

No, Ryan needs to get his head into the Bible, and take his stand on God's own Words, not mysticism and hoity-toity teachings from "on high".

Tony in Central PA| 5.3.11 @ 8:52PM

Ryan, becoming a Catholic was a long and sometimes difficult process for me. Did I mention my wife's a Baptist ? She was a pretty good sport about me converting fifteen years into our marriage. I was pretty much an agnostic when we married. I'd love for her to convert, but I'll love her just the same if she doesn't, and I absolutely wouldn't want her to convert unless it was entirely her desire. Her family was very understanding about the whole thing, too. I'm a blessed man to have my wife and her family. I go to her church often. People there must know I'm Catholic, but I've never once received any of the the insults so casually tossed around on this board.

It is significant that you brought up the Eucharist, because more than anything else, it is what brought me to the Catholic Church. I suppose I could provide a long theological explanation of John 6, the significance of Passover foreshadowing its arrival or its roots in the Jewish Todah, but this isn't the forum. If I could only recommend a single book on the subject, I would recommend Scott Hahn's " The Lamb's Supper ". More than any reading recommendations, though, all I can tell you that as far as the Sacraments and especially the Eucharist is " don't knock them 'till you've tried them ".

Margie| 5.3.11 @ 9:33PM

There is no such thing as the Eucharist in the Bible.
Do you even care about that fact?

Tony in Central PA| 5.3.11 @ 9:43PM

Before there was the Bible, there was the Eucharist.

Margie| 5.4.11 @ 1:14PM

There is no such teaching either by Jesus or the Apostles in the Bible.

You will answer to God for choosing to believe a false teaching that is against His.

Tony in Central PA| 5.4.11 @ 9:24PM

I realize this article will be going off the page shortly, but I have a homework assignment for you, Margie. That assignment is to find sola scriptura in the Bible.

Margie| 5.4.11 @ 11:26PM

Tony,
I don't even know what that is.
I do know that God warns us of buying into anything taught by anyone other than Him, and the Apostles.

Now~ YOU explain to me why it is that you choose to rebel against Him, then?

Margie| 5.5.11 @ 1:24AM

No. Before there was a Catholic church, there IS Christ.

"Before Abraham was, I am." Jn. 8:58.

And Jesus ISN'T a wafer!

The false teaching of Transubstantiation was brought about by another genius, another one of these so-called "early church fathers" (the Apostles were the true church fathers).
This guy's name was Irenaeus (c. 125-202).

It is a despicable and unbiblical teaching, never taught by Jesus OR the Apostles.

Tony in Central PA| 5.5.11 @ 10:11PM

Yes, Christ preceded the Church, Margie. When He ascended to The Father after The Resurrection, he left us The Church, not the Bible. God chose to bring forth the Bible from The Church. This seems to anger you.

By what authority, Margie, does the Bible have Revelation, but not the Gospel of Thomas ? By what authority does the Bible have Hebrews and not The Apocalypse of Peter ?

I am reminded of what Jesus said to the woman at the well " You Samaritans worship what you do not understand " ( Jn 4:22 ) when reading your Biblical interpretations. I am left to conclude that you believe the Bible always existed as the only source of revelation. Even so , many of the doctrines you apparently hold seem to derive from a very selective proof texting of certain passages at the expense of the whole. Most prominent among these in this thread is John 6.

It would seem that the revulsion a large number of Jesus' followers felt at hearing His words about the Eucharist continues to this day. John's Gospel records after that day, many of his followers left him and returned to their former ways. If our Lord had been speaking figuratively, he had ample opportunity to clear things up before losing a large number of His followers. He never did. Afterward, Jesus asks his disciples, " You do not want to leave me too, do you ? ". In the second most touching confession of faith, a confused and distraught Peter replies, " Lord, to whom shall we go ?. You have the words of everlasting life. We believe and know that you are the Holy One of God ". It is immediately after this passage that Judas is first identified as the betrayer.
It is beyond reason that an All Good and All Loving God would place something like John 6, the Last Supper narratives or the story of the disciples encountering the Risen Lord on the road to Emmaus if your opinion about the Eucharist is correct. Why would God desire to confuse people into believing something that would cost them their salvation, according to you ? I think that question says more about your personal conception of God than anything else.

Ryan| 5.4.11 @ 8:38AM

I actually know a chunk about the relation to the Passover and such to the Eucharist.

I think that it's one of the reasons I remain Protestant, actually. I really do have a good understanding of the Catholic theology behind it all...and I just don't come to agreeance, not in light of what the rest of scripture regarding grace and works and justification and such shows. I just come to a different conclusion.

Now, I DO believe that there is something "mystical" in a sense about communion, more so than the standard Baptist doctrine and more in line with what Presbyterians hold (I actually attend a PCA church).

Stuart Koehl| 5.4.11 @ 10:01AM

I suppose what Ryan means is he has difficulties with the formal Scholastic definition of the Eucharist normally called "transubstantiation". The Eastern Churches have never gone so far as to try to explain "how" the Gifts offered during the Liturgy are transformed into the Body and Blood of Christ, but we are absolutely insistent that they become what Christ said they were at his Last Supper, through the descent and action of the Holy Spirit. Christ is sacramentally present in the Eucharist. As a Greek Catholic, I believe this explicitly, without accepting the formal doctrine of transubstantiation. Both Martin Luther and John Calvin likewise accepted that Christ is sacramentally present in the Bread and the Wine. Both would be appalled by the notion that the Bread and Wine are just bread and wine, and the Eucharist (the term simply means "Thanksgiving") is nothing more than a "calling to mind".

Eastern Christian views on the Eucharist can be found in an excellent book by Alexander Schmemann called, simply, "The Eucharist".

Ryan| 5.4.11 @ 10:23AM

I don't know that I have a problem with the general idea of "sacramentally present in the Eucharist." I may have issues as to what "in" means, however.

It's more of a matter of whether or not it's efficacious for salvation. Was Christ being super-literal or allegorical when He stated that we must consume His Body and Blood?

From the rest of scripture regarding salvation - grace, repentance, faith, etc, it just doesn't make sense to me that the way to salvation is from eating a literal meal - which falls under Works, and not Grace.

That may be an oversimplification, but that's the argument from this side of the aisle.

Margie| 5.4.11 @ 1:16PM

Stuart Koehl is a liar and chooses to bear false witness against Christians and against Jesus Christ.

Jesus Christ NEVER taught any such doctrine as this.

Margie| 5.2.11 @ 8:41PM

Honestly Stuart, it really doesn't matter what Luther thought or anybody else.

If the Apostles didn't teach it, and it wasn't in the Bible, it should be rejected.

The problem is that unbiblical doctrine crept in to God's churches ever since their beginnings and even during the Apostles lives as we know.

This is why there is all the arguing and different denominations.

One denomination says, "I believe this!' Another says, "Well I believe this way!"

But why aren't they all going to the Bible directly? And why is going to the Bible cause for one to be violently spat upon and cursed and hated?

It is because one values their doctrine above the Scripture, that's why. And that is really sad.

But only the spiritual man can discern the Bible. And therein lies the REAL problem.

"The unspiritual man does not receive the gifts of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned." 1 Cor. 2:14.

Stuart Koehl| 5.2.11 @ 9:53PM

"If the Apostles didn't teach it, and it wasn't in the Bible, it should be rejected."

So, where do you stand on the Nicene Creed. Do you believe that Jesus Christ is "the only-begotten Son of God, born of the Father before all ages, light from light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one essence with the Father, through whom all things were made"? And do you believe in the Holy Spirit, "the Lord and giver of life, who proceeds from the Father, who together with the and the Son is worshipped and glorified, who spoke through the prophets"?

If so, what is your scriptural basis for so doing? If not, how can you consider yourself a Christian?

Margie| 5.2.11 @ 10:22PM

I don't know who you are quoting, but here's what I actually believe. I believe Jesus when He says this:

"I and the Father are One." Jn. 10:30.

"You heard Me say to you, 'I go away, and I will come to you.' If you loved Me, you would have rejoiced, because I go to the Father; for the Father is greater than I." Jn. 14:28.

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God; all things were made through Him, and without Him was not anything made that was made.
In Him was life, and the life was the light of men." Jn. 1:1-4.

And here's what I believe about the Holy Spirit, as it is written:

"And he said to them, "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?" And they said, "No, we have never even heard that there is a Holy Spirit."

And he said, "Into what then were you baptized?" They said, "Into John's baptism."

And Paul said, "John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the One who was to come after him, that is, Jesus."

On hearing this, they were baptized in the Name of the Lord Jesus." Acts 19:2-5.

"And God who knows the heart bore witness to them, giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us.." Acts 15:8.

"Can any one forbid water for baptizing these people who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?" Acts 10:47.

"For the kingdom of God is not food and drink but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit". Rom. 14:17.

"May the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in believing, so that by the power of the Holy Spirit you may abound in hope." Rom. 15:13.

"But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, Whom the Father will send in My Name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you." Jn. 14:26.

Next?

Stuart Koehl| 5.2.11 @ 10:53PM

"I don't know who you are quoting, but here's what I actually believe."

You don't know the Creed of Nicaea-Constantinople, but you claim to be a Christian? Interesting.

""I and the Father are One." Jn. 10:30.

"You heard Me say to you, 'I go away, and I will come to you.' If you loved Me, you would have rejoiced, because I go to the Father; for the Father is greater than I." Jn. 14:28."

So, what does this mean to you? Are the Father and the Son both equally God? If Christ is the Son, did the Father come first? Who suffered upon the Cross, if Christ and the Father are One?

""In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God; all things were made through Him, and without Him was not anything made that was made.
In Him was life, and the life was the light of men." Jn. 1:1-4."

And what does this tell you about the nature of the Divine Logos?

""And God who knows the heart bore witness to them, giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us.." Acts 15:8."

What or Who is the Holy Spirit? What is His relationship to the Father and to the Son?

""But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, Whom the Father will send in My Name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you." Jn. 14:26."

Again, Who or What is the Holy Spirit? Defend your position from Scripture ALONE.

Margie| 5.2.11 @ 11:12PM

"Again, Who or What is the Holy Spirit? Defend your position from Scripture ALONE."

I just did, you imbecile.

Stuart Koehl| 5.3.11 @ 6:53AM

No, you did not. You did not even say attempt to say that. Tossing prooftexts and biblical citations does not reveal how YOU interpret them. And since the fundamental tenet of Margeism is "The Bible means what I say it means", I want you to say, in your own words, who and what is the Logos, and who and what is the Holy Spirit.

Since these were serious questions that occupied the most brilliant minds of late antiquity for centuries, I am curious to know whether your brilliant mind managed to get the right answer, and how it got there.

Margie| 5.4.11 @ 1:24PM

What Stuart calls a brilliant mind is his own which has no moral character. One who lies and bears false witness of Christ and of Christians who follow His Words.

His "brilliant minds" comment is for others who he holds in high regard that are just like him, including these so called "early church fathers" who were heretics and apostates and brought in hundreds of false and disgusting teachings such as Transubstantiation, prayer to the dead, confession to Priests, the veneration of Mary, and hundreds of others.

These are the same false teachings that because other Bible believing Christians rejected them were put to DEATH and TORTURED by the Papacy.

That is right, folks~ the Popes and their henchmen actually did this for centuries.

LOOK IT UP.

And the Catholic Religion has never repented of these teachings, and men like Stuart Koehl still hates Bible believing Christians like me who expose them. His hatred is really toward Christ though.

For as it is written"

"And the King will answer them, 'Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to Me.'" Mt. 25:40.

Ryan| 5.3.11 @ 9:45AM

Don't forget the appearance of all three at the same time...

Matt 3:16 After being baptized, Jesus came up immediately from the water; and behold, the heavens were opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove and lighting on Him,
17and behold, a voice out of the heavens said, "This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well-pleased"

Stuart Koehl| 5.3.11 @ 10:31AM

But who or what does it mean to be the Son of God? Arius had one answer, derived from Scripture. Athanasius had a different one, also derived from Scripture, but dependent on extra-Scriptural concepts and terminology. To use Marge's criteria, Arius was right, and Athanasius was wrong. If Marge is intellectually consistent, she will admit that. But, somewhere deep down, Marge must remember that Arianism is a Bad Thing, so Athanasius must be right, after all, even though he did not rely entirely on Scripture. So Marge trims her interpretation of Scripture to conform with the Nicene Creed, even though the Creed itself is extrascriptural.

Whether she believes it or not, whether she likes it or not, Marge's interpretation of Scripture is not hers but has been influenced by the Tradition of the Church, which is so pervasive that even non-denominational, Bible-Only Christians accept it.

Margie| 5.3.11 @ 1:22PM

Wow. There you go again, lying about me and what I believe.

As I said, I believe Christ's own Words.

I refuse to acknowledge the "early church fathers" when they disagreee with what Jesus actually says.

I refuse to put God in a box, like they did.

Jesus says He and the Father are One.

I believe it.

If you don't understand what He means by that, ask Him.

I am sorry that you are so bewitched and befuddled that you simply cannot grasp the fact that a Christian can actually accept what the Word of God says.

The astonishing is though, that while you so loudly protest to standing on the Word of God Himself and accuse me of interpretation~ it is YOU that is INSISTING that I interpret!

This is what the "men" that you listen to have done. Made up their own Scripture according to their own interpretations, and not what the Bible actually says.

To accuse me of Arianism is laughable! You are so despicable!

And like it or not, what you believe has been so wrongly influenced by these false teachers who even though having been proven false, their teachings are still being taught to this day.

They need to repent, as do you.

Margie| 5.3.11 @ 3:28PM

"Arius had one answer, derived from Scripture."

Wow.

Anyone can read the actual words of Arius. They were "derived" from his own warped mind, and not from Scripture.

Shall I take the trouble to post them here and do your homework once again for you, oh mighty scholar?

Ryan| 5.3.11 @ 3:43PM

If Arius took John 14:28 a bit too literally:"I am going away and I am coming back to you.’ If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I.", his position was almost understandable.

He just didn't give enough due weight to the idea that Christ was uncreated.

Margie| 5.3.11 @ 4:19PM

You obviously haven't read the actual words of Arius, have you, Ryan?

Margie| 5.4.11 @ 1:25PM

"But who or what does it mean to be the Son of God?"

Stuart Koehl has to actually ask this question because he knows Him not.

Margie| 5.3.11 @ 6:06PM

"Don't forget the appearance of all three at the same time..."

Ryan,

Indeed, but the issue is what's contained int he teaching of the Trinity~ see my post below.

Margie| 5.2.11 @ 8:48PM

"And when they say to you, "Consult the mediums and the wizards who chirp and mutter," should not a people consult their God? Should they consult the dead on behalf of the living?
To the teaching and to the testimony! Surely for this word which they speak there is no dawn." Is. 8:19 & 20.

Here you have God's view and His mocking of praying to the dead.
This is another, just one of the thousands, of reasons that Catholicism is not to be followed. Why would anyone do something that God does not approve of?

Clint| 5.2.11 @ 9:12PM

Asked & Answered Yesterday, Lapsed Catholic, Anti-Catholic Serial Chronic Hypocrite Bigot, Apocalyptic Crank Lady Victor-Margie.

See A Religious Counselor & A Psychiatrist.

"Catholics profess faith in the Communion of Saints. This belief separates us from many other Christians who say the Bible condemns talking with the dead. The Catechism agrees, “All forms of divination are to be rejected: recourse to Satan or demons, conjuring up the dead or other practices falsely supposed to ‘unveil’ the future.” CCC 2116 But who says the saints in heaven are dead? The Church says they are alive and living in God’s presence; and Jesus says He is not the God of the dead, but of the living. The ‘dead’ are in hell. We do not seek their help."

Margie| 5.2.11 @ 10:24PM

God mocks praying to the dead, and doesn't like it.
Therefore you are in rebellion toward Him for doing it.

Stuart Koehl| 5.2.11 @ 10:57PM

So, you believe that those who fall asleep in the Lord are dead? Do you not believe that we are surrounded by clouds of witnesses? Do you not believe that those have died yet live? Apparently not--an interesting position for a Christian to hold. But if there is life beyond the grave, can we not ask those who have departed to pray with us, for are they not alive in Christ? And can our prayers to Christ not be of aid and comfort to those who have fallen asleep?

More than anything, your attitude mirrors that of the Sadducees, "who believe not in the resurrection".

Margie| 5.2.11 @ 11:14PM

What a liar you are. My attitude is one of believing every word of God.

Yours is spitting in His Face, along with your disgusting friend here.

What a disgrace.

Stuart Koehl| 5.3.11 @ 6:54AM

Non-responsive answer, Marge. My guess is you never gave the question a thought, or, if you did, arrived at the answer YOU like, not the one Scripture provides.

Ryan| 5.3.11 @ 9:47AM

I'll be nice on my response, one you've probably heard...

I don't know that there's really any scriptural backing that they continue to listen and really intercede on our behalf. Combine that with Jesus' commandment on how to pray ("Our Father") and I think that there's good reasoning for us to pray directly and ask those around us to pray for us.

Stuart Koehl| 5.3.11 @ 10:33AM

And the dead are not around us, too? Who are the "clouds of witnesses" by whom we are surrounded? Why does Paul invoke the Prophets and Martyrs. Why did the Jews likewise pray for the repose of the dead? And don't tell me you don't, because you would be lying.

Ryan| 5.3.11 @ 11:05AM

What do you mean by "repose for the dead?" We probably need to be clear on that meaning before we throw around the accusation of deliberate falsehood.

I'm not sure that Heb 12:1 ("the great cloud of witnesses") can necessarily be interpreted that way; not when we are told directly to pray to the Father in the Lord's Prayer - which, being a directive from Christ, I think bears greater weight here.

We are also told that the Holy Spirit intercedes on our behalf as well.

These are the things which are clearer in scripture than whether or not the Saints are or can intercede for us.

Stuart Koehl| 5.3.11 @ 12:46PM

First, one has to look at how the people living in close proximity to the time of Paul interpreted "clouds of witnesses", and a look at all the ante-Nicene writings from the Didache (late 1st century), the First Epistle of Clement (ditto), the Shepherd of Hermas (late first-early second century), the Epistles of Ignatios of Antioch (early second century), on through Irenaeus of Lyons, Justin Martyr, and Polycarp of Smyrna (late second century) all interpret it to mean the unbreakable bond between the living and the dead. We find, from the first century onward, prayers offered on behalf of the souls of the dead, that they might be led into Paradise, and conversely, petitions to the deceased asking for their intercession on the part of the living. If the soul survives the death of the body, then we are indeed still united to those who are the Body of Christ, even if these have fallen asleep in the Lord (a term Paul himself uses).

Conversely, if you say that the dead are dead, that they cannot help us and we cannot help then, is this not a denial of the Resurrection?

Second, it is important to recognize that there is Scriptural mandate for prayers to the dead, found in 2 Maccabbees--and though Protestants deny the canonical status of this book (along with the other Deuterocanonical books), the fact is the Scriptures known to Jesus, the Disciples and the Evangelists was the Greek Septuagint version, the "Old Testament of the New Testament", More than 90% of all Old Testament citations in the New Testament are verbatim from the LXX, whereas the Masoretic Hebrew version preferred by Luther was compiled between the 4th and 9th centuries AD. Since the authors of the New Testament, being good Jews, accepted the authority of these Deuterocanonical books, there is no way you can repudiate them without seeming to be, well, arbitrary and anachronistic.

The fact is that, with the exception of the Sadducees, who did not believe in the Resurrection at all, all Second Temple Jews did, and all good Second Temple Jews prayed for the repose of the deceased, as Jews continue to do to this day.

Ryan| 5.3.11 @ 2:02PM

I think that relating the inability to help the deceased doesn't really oppose the Resurrection here. We simply can't do much for each other. That's all.

Of course, I'm rejecting the idea of purgatory here as well - for two reasons - one, it isn't in the regular canon, and two, it essentially goes against the idea of Christ's work being completed on the Cross, and that it was sufficient for salvation. I think the position is more theological than otherwise; it simply doesn't fit.

That's probably the primary rejection of the Deuterocanonical books, though the usual argument is that those parts that are quoted in the NT aren't invalid; it's just that the validity of those entire books are in question due to the criteria that the standard 66-book canon rests upon.

Stuart Koehl| 5.3.11 @ 10:23PM

"Of course, I'm rejecting the idea of purgatory here as well - for two reasons - one, it isn't in the regular canon, and two, it essentially goes against the idea of Christ's work being completed on the Cross, and that it was sufficient for salvation. I think the position is more theological than otherwise; it simply doesn't fit."

Well, I am no fan of purgatory myself--it has no place in Eastern Christian theology, being essentially a "theologumenon" (theological speculation) of the medieval Latin Church, an elaboration on the original Tradition of the Church, firmly embedded in Scripture:

1. Those who die in faith require some form of purification to come into the presence of God.
2. Prayers for the departed are efficacious, in just what manner we do not know.
3. The departed who have entered into the presence of God can intercede on our behalf before the throne of Christ.

Everything else is pure speculation.

Ryan| 5.4.11 @ 2:20PM

Not quite sure I understand here...check your grammar/wording.

Do the Eastern Catholics hold that purgatory exists and the three points you made, or is that just more or less exclusive to Western Catholicism? Or are the three points just simply "other" than purgatory?

Stuart Koehl| 5.5.11 @ 7:18PM

No, Eastern Catholics consider that Purgatory is a concept unique to the Latin Church, a development driven by its own internal theologizing and understanding. We do not object to it, but do not follow it ourselves. Like the Orthodox, we prefer not to speculate on what happens after death except that which has been revealed to us.

The three points I noted are the core beliefs (theologia prima) on which all Christians (at least up to the Reformation) were in agreement. Purgatory represents an elaboration of the core beliefs (theologia secunda, or what the Greeks would call "theoria"), an attempt to explain and rationalize these beliefs. As is frequently the case, the theologia secunda of purgatory is historically and culturally conditioned (as, I might point out, is a lot of contemporary Evangelical and non-demoninational doctrine). I personally have no objection to Roman Catholics believing in purgatory (though if you review what the Latin Church now teaches about purgatory, it's been stripped of a lot of its medieval chrome and comes much closer to the three basic points), I just object to them trying to impose it on other Churches that have a different Tradition in that regard.

In fact, when many of the Ukrainian Orthodox entered communion with Rome in 1596 through the "Union of Brest", one of the key clauses in the Treaty of Union was "We will not debate purgatory", meaning that Rome would not impose the doctrine on the Orthodox entering into the Union.

Margie| 5.3.11 @ 1:25PM

Do you really expect a response other than what I gave, to a liar?

I quoted the Scripture, above out of Isaiah that shows God's attitude about prayer to the dead~ yet you choose to ignore it. (Him).

That's what haughty Religious liars do.

Margie| 5.4.11 @ 1:27PM

Stuart Koehl obviously hasn't read the Bible.

He is too busy pontificating and casting out Christians.

albert constantine, jr.| 5.2.11 @ 8:11PM

Hopefully without inviting any of the animosity that the discussion of matters of the faith invites, I'd just like to say that the ancestral namesake emperor is the only Constantine that I'm aware of who had a capital city named after him. When I see the faithful quibbling over dogma and heresy, I am reminded of the example of our Sunni and Shiite brethren, and invoke the question of the ages of the well known religious and human relations scholar Rodney King, who asked "Can't we all just get along?".

Margie| 5.2.11 @ 10:28PM

No, albert~ we cannot all "just get along", At least not for the sake of just getting along when your life is at stake.

What you believe is where you will end up when you die for all of eternity.

Jesus actually died for the sake of right and wrong.

He is worth defending to the death.

Jesus IS the Way, the Truth and the Life. No one comes to the Father, but by Him. (Jn. 14:6).

Sadly, Christians who wish to stick to the traditions and doctrines of men other than what is God breathed, are staunch enemies of His and His children. And it will always be so.

Ryan| 5.3.11 @ 9:48AM

Hey Margie,

What beliefs do you believe a true Christian cannot hold?

Stuart Koehl| 5.3.11 @ 10:33AM

Anything with which Marge disagrees today.

Margie| 5.3.11 @ 1:27PM

Stuey,

You are just sooo ridiculous.

Margie| 5.3.11 @ 1:27PM

Ryan,

Spare me. You ought to know~ you're a Christian, aren't you?

If you are, then don't you read the Bible? Are you just so weak that you cannot take a real stand on His Word and reject the rest?

Ryan| 5.3.11 @ 2:18PM

I want to know how your standards read.

I believe in literal interpretation of scripture. I believe - as many other Christians do - that the idea of the Trinity is upheld by a literal interpretation and that it's pretty clear.

You appear to reject it simply on the matter that the word "Trinity" is not used, that it cannot be Biblical, even though the "operation" of God appears to work in that manner, where more than one part of the Trinity is present at various times.

There are a handful of controversial ideas about how scripture can be LITERALLY interpreted, even using your own standards. We're not even talking Catholicism here.

For instance:
Cessationism
Eschatology/end times theologies (the "rapture" is more derived than explicit an idea)
Salvation of those who died before Christ
Both sides of the Arminian/Calvinist debate - many of whom are conservative, very literalist believers and come out with some radically different ideas

My standards tend to lean toward anyone who preaches Christ and Him crucified as the only sacrifice for sin is more than likely a Christian. That was practically the standard for Paul.

Margie| 5.3.11 @ 2:45PM

My standards are God's standards.
As written in the Bible, as preached by the true early church fathers~ the Apostles.
I do NOT regard the other unbiblical teachings of those who came after.
I believe I've made that clear.
No one can put God in a box, though they've tried.
Why bother with the interpretations of men when God gave us His own Words to go by?

"Every word of God proves true; He is a Shield to those who take refuge in Him.
Do not add to His Words, lest He rebuke you, and you be found a liar." Prov. 30:5 & 6.

I don't get into the whole, "well this one says this and that one says that~"

I belong to Christ, by the Grace of God.

Some choose to "belong to" the teachings of men.

Remember this?

"For when one says, "I belong to Paul," and another, "I belong to Apol'los," are you not merely men?
What then is Apol'los? What is Paul? Servants through whom you believed, as the Lord assigned to each.
I planted, Apol'los watered, but God gave the growth.
So neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but only God who gives the growth.
He who plants and he who waters are equal, and each shall receive his wages according to his labor.
For we are God's fellow workers; you are God's field, God's building.
According to the Grace of God given to me, like a skilled master builder I laid a foundation, and another man is building upon it. Let each man take care how he builds upon it.
For no other foundation can any one lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ." 1 Cor. 3:4-11.

Ryan| 5.3.11 @ 2:53PM

Here's a specific, then.

Are Trinitarians saved?

How do you explain the three distinct parts of God at Jesus' baptism?

Margie| 5.3.11 @ 3:24PM

Why do you ask me who is saved when you are supposed to be a Christian and know what God says about who and who isn't saved?

Read what He says if you want to know your answers. Why should I do your homework for you?

And Jesus explained everything we need to know about Himself, the Father and the Holy Spirit.

That's also in the Bible.
Read it.

The problem with the teaching of the Trinity is that:

1. It isn't taught by God.

2. There is no praying to the Holy spirit in the entire Bible.

This is a false teaching by Catholicism~ praying TO the Holy Spirit.

Jesus never did, He prayed to the Father. Nowhere does He tell us to pray TO the Holy Spirit, but BY and through Him.

You should know all the verses that tell us how the Holy spirit is the Counsellor and the Comforter and how He intercedes on behalf of God for us.

Nowhere does it say we pray TO Him.

There's a reason why this teaching of "The Trinity" isn't in the Bible, nor was it taught by the Apostles.

If God wanted this to be taught, He would have said so.

So, why ask me to believe in something that isn't there.

Ryan| 5.3.11 @ 3:35PM

Then how is the presence of all three at Jesus' baptism explained?

Ryan| 5.3.11 @ 3:37PM

Specifically:
Is the Father God?
Is Jesus God?
Is the Holy Spirit God?

I could point to verses where the answer is "yes" to all three questions.

Describing those answers as the Trinity is a pretty good description.

Margie| 5.3.11 @ 3:44PM

As I said, nowhere in the Bible does God tell us to pray to the Holy Spirit.

Your contentious spirit will get you nowhere with me.
And you, like the others, completely disregard what I said.

Tell me~ where in the Bible is this teaching and where does God give any examples of praying TO the Holy Spirit, Ryan?

As I said, this is a false teaching created by the early "church fathers" and not taught by God or the Apostles.

God NEVER refers to Himself as a Trinity. Jesus NEVER does, either.

READ HIS WORDS.

Ryan| 5.3.11 @ 4:08PM

One, I never stated anything about praying to the Holy Spirit. It was never part of my questions.
However, there is never unequal weight given to the Holy Spirit in scripture. We are baptized in His name (The name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit); and it's used at the conclusion of Corinthians.
Also, Acts 5:3-4, where Ananias lies to the Holy Spirit AND God.

Two, you never really answered the question about Jesus' baptism. You just state that Jesus explained everything that I need to know. If that's your answer, then...well, okay. It just doesn't fit, because there is a specific instance where all three are present and separate at the same time....and the Bible describes each as God in various places.

Third, does God HAVE to have used the word "Trinity" for it to be applicable to His nature?

Fourth, are Trinitarians saved?

Margie| 5.3.11 @ 4:14PM

Catholicism teaches that there is a Trinity. They teach to pray to this Trinity.
It isn't Biblical.
FOLLOW THE WORDS OF GOD AND NOT MEN.

Ryan| 5.3.11 @ 4:29PM

I am.

It is clear in scripture that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are all one God.

We call this relationship the "Trinity."

Margie| 5.3.11 @ 4:47PM

There is no such teaching as the Trinity anywhere in Scripture.

And nowhere does God teach us to pray to the Holy Spirit.

He teaches to pray to God through Christ, by the Holy Spirit.

The Catholics conjured up this teaching in order to justify praying to the Holy Spirit.

Just as they conjured up praying to the dead, transubstantiation, Popery, canonization, Nuns, Priests, sacraments and catechisms, praying the rosary, and hundreds of other false and unbiblical things.

Oh, and that Grace is given through the church, and not through Christ directly.

You can choose to believe a lie if you wish, and since you do, you will be led astray by the Anti-Christ who is coming with the same deception and in the Name of Christ, performing pretended great signs and wonders, so as to lead astray, if possible~ even the elect. (Mt. 24:24).

"See to it that no one makes a prey of you by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the universe, and not according to Christ.
"For in Him the whole fulness of Deity dwells bodily, and you have come to fulness of life in Him, who is the Head of all rule and authority.
In Him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of flesh in the circumcision of Christ;
and you were buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.
And you, who were dead in trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, having canceled the bond which stood against us with its legal demands; this He set aside, nailing it to the cross.
He disarmed the principalities and powers and made a public example of them, triumphing over them in Him.
Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a sabbath.
These are only a shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ.
Let no one disqualify you, insisting on self-abasement and worship of angels, taking his stand on visions, puffed up without reason by his sensuous mind, and not holding fast to the Head, from whom the whole body, nourished and knit together through its joints and ligaments, grows with a growth that is from God." Col. 2:8-19.

Margie| 5.3.11 @ 4:53PM

Here is a quick study, based on the Scriptures:

http://www.neverthirsty.org/pp.....00417.html

Margie| 5.3.11 @ 4:56PM

Ryan,

My point is, that if you are going to subscribe to a teaching, then you must know what it includes.

If you say you call "it" the Trinity, then you also must buy what is taught by it.

It isn't biblical, and nowhere does God teach us to pray TO the Holy spirit.

A false teaching is a false teaching.

Ryan| 5.4.11 @ 8:45AM

Here are the questions that you haven't answered. I almost wonder if you believe in the concept, just refuse to acknowledge it as such.

Is the Father God?
Is Jesus God?
Is the Holy Spirit God?
Do they exist separately or at the same time?

Margie| 5.4.11 @ 1:10PM

Ryan,

I answered you several times already.
You aren't interested in what the Bible actually says, and what it doesn't say, are you?

You should just change your name to Stuart Koehl.

You already read my answers, did you not?

My answers are in agreement with every Word of God as written in the Bible and spoken by Jesus and the Apostles.

I reject the false teachings made up by some of the earliest apostates that came after them.

Why is it that you aren't satisfied with what is already written in the Bible?

Jesus says that unless you obey His Words you and are ashamed of them that He will say to you "I never knew you".

Look to yourself~ Who are you really obeying?

Ryan| 5.4.11 @ 2:23PM

No, you haven't answered the questions I posted regarding on whether or not the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are all God; and whether or not Trinitarians - a vast majority of people who consider themselves Christians - are saved. Not that I can tell, anyway. Maybe you need to point to which post you made that did.

I guess I was expecting simple yes/no answers. You can even back them up with scripture, so we can see if you are correct.

Margie| 5.4.11 @ 11:21PM

Ryan,

Maybe you need to point out to me exactly why it is that God's own Words concerning Himself as written in the Bible aren't good enough for you.

Perhaps you need to answer the question, Ryan.
Why aren't they?
Hmm?

mames| 5.3.11 @ 5:39PM

The Spirits job is to drive attention to Christ no Himself.

Margie| 5.3.11 @ 6:03PM

Amen, mames.

"Thine, O LORD, is the Greatness, and the Power, and the Glory, and the Victory, and the Majesty; for all that is in the Heavens and in the earth is Thine; Thine is the Kingdom, O LORD, and Thou art exalted as Head above all." 1 Ch. 29:11.

Tony in Central PA| 5.3.11 @ 9:04PM

Ryan, speaking of the Trinity, I was actually surprised last year during a Scripture reading one Sunday that hit me between the eyes. I'd heard it before, but it never registered for some reason. In Gensis, Abraham was visited by the Lord, who appeared to him as three men. So it seems the doctrine of The Trinity is not some Middle Age invention.
Of course, this is amplified in the Gospels with Jesus' instructions to baptize in the name of the Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit.

Margie| 5.3.11 @ 9:30PM

It was a doctrine created by one of the early "church fathers"~

However, the true early church fathers are the Apostles, Jesus Christ being the first fruit of those who have fallen asleep and the Author and Finisher of our faith.

And they did not teach such a doctrine.

Who is Lord to you?

Do you pray to God through Christ and by His Holy Spirit? This is what the Scripture teaches. It does not teach prayer TO the Holy Spirit~ that is not His will according to the Scriptures.

And did you know that the Scripture preached the gospel to Abraham?

Margie| 5.4.11 @ 1:12PM

Ask God, Ryan.

Quartermaster| 5.2.11 @ 8:38PM

Albert, Arminians have tried to get along with the others, but have been mostly unsuccessful in that pursuit, alas. Welsey said that the word "Calvinist" should never be a term of reproach, nor should Arminian. Alas, Calvinists generally see everyone else as heretics and state it loud and long. What they don't realize is they demonstrate the full meaning of the word heretic when they do it. They just stupidly fail to realize they are the heretics when they try to drive their wedge into the church. The current battle among Southern Baptists over Calvinism is a good example of the divisiveness of their theology. Too bad for them that it has no historical roots deeper than Calvin.

Ryan| 5.3.11 @ 9:50AM

Ouch, that hurts, and I have NOT heard that from a Calvinist - more on the other side, actually. Calvinists are the ones that many in the SBC would like to see pushed out, and there aren't that many who are exlusivist - and the ones who are, are crazy to think so.

Richard Baker| 5.3.11 @ 9:15AM

Ah yes, it's Margie again. Folks, she can peer into your souls and sit in God-like judgement, as a result. If you disagree with her then you're in contempt of the Lord. Just ask her and she'll tell you. It's not a Trinity anymore but Quattuor (forgive my rough Latin) with Margie as the fourth in Divinity.

Margie| 5.3.11 @ 1:30PM

Well aren't you sweet?

No, Richard, those who reject the Word of God in exchange for false teachings are the ones who sit in judgment of me.

You, as usual, have it backwards!

But you are in the darkness and cannot see where you are going.

I hope you repent before you die.

Jacob R| 5.3.11 @ 12:24PM

Stuart,

You're obviously very intelligent on this matter.

But you seem to get on a roll and then too excited about what you're going to say next to step back for a moment. You make good points but the East and the West were equally reliant on each other. Perhaps you need to reread some of those great books you mention if you think Rome didn't have anything to do with converting the Angles and Saxons!
You think Charlemagne arose, not from Greco-Roman, but from Anglo-Saxon culture? Am I mistaken, was he the Holy Saxon Emperor?
Did his grandfather beat back the Muslims to defend paganism?
Before anyone was Christian it was already hard to separate Germanic cultures from the Romans who conquered half of them. By the time of the people you speak of there were constantly evolving loyalties and centers of power, but it was one big mish mash, not some laboratory environment where you can take the influence of Rome and place it apart from the influence of the Germanic cultures and then decide who gets credit for what.

You've obviously got all the facts, to be a truly good history professor though you need to think more about how humanity actually works. (When I was earning my history major I noticed that almost every one of my professors possessed a preternatural command of the facts, but little to no common sense on how things would have actually happened. They were always more concerned with proving a point (that's what brings home the bacon I guess) than with giving us an insight into the blurred and uneven lines of humanity (the true purpose of history!)

Stuart Koehl| 5.3.11 @ 12:54PM

"Perhaps you need to reread some of those great books you mention if you think Rome didn't have anything to do with converting the Angles and Saxons!"

You weren't reading me closely. I specifically cited the work of Augustine of Canterbury as an exception to the rule--though note that the Romano-Celtic population of Britain was Christian before, during and after the Saxon conquest, and Christian churches are found in Saxon territory before Augustine's mission.

"You think Charlemagne arose, not from Greco-Roman, but from Anglo-Saxon culture? Am I mistaken, was he the Holy Saxon Emperor?"

I did not comment on that at all, but in fact, Charlemagne was a Frank, and the culture of his court in his capital of Aachen was more Germanic than Roman. Charlemagne's fetish for all things Roman arose from his attempt to legitimize his rule by linking it to the Roman Empire--which, in the late 8th/early 9th century, still existed, its capital being Constantinople.

"Did his grandfather beat back the Muslims to defend paganism?"

Read more closely again: I said that the barbarians, with the exceptions of fringe tribes like the Saxons, the Frisians, the Prussians and the Wends, had already been Christianized for several centuries before the time of Gregory the Great.

Beyond that, I don't see much merit in your argument, which is rambling and incoherent. If you didn't bother to read what I wrote, how can I be sure you bothered to read your history texts?

Mark30339| 5.3.11 @ 1:08PM

What was it that made the downtrodden yet inspired people of "The Way" so relentlessly admirable to the pagan Romans who tortured them? And what is it about Rome and Constantine that began transforming "The Way" into an institution that launched Crusades, the Inquisitions, and the corrupt craving of power and property? I am not here to praise Constantine, but to bury him. Yet I have no choice to embrace the consequences of Constantine while supporting the Church's quest to be a virtuous power in the world -- and while challenging the Church to rediscover "The Way" of the catacomb Christians.

Margie| 5.3.11 @ 1:44PM

Note to the regualrs here:

For the second time, I asked if Clint/Tim* was one of the authors here at AmSpec.

And for the second time, he flew away after that.

Interesting how no matter what ever else I ever say to this despicable creature, he hurls the insults and vile abuse at me, but when asked that question~ he disappears.

I shall ask it again.

"The wicked flee when no one pursues, but the righteous are bold as a lion." Prov. 28:1.

Margie| 5.3.11 @ 2:51PM

"I appeal to you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree and that there be no dissensions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment.
For it has been reported to me by Chlo'e's people that there is quarreling among you, my brethren.
What I mean is that each one of you says, "I belong to Paul," or "I belong to Apol'los," or "I belong to Cephas," or "I belong to Christ."
Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?
I am thankful that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Ga'ius;
lest any one should say that you were baptized in my name.
(I did baptize also the household of Steph'anas. Beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized any one else.)
For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.
For the Word of the Cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the Power of God.
For it is written, "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the cleverness of the clever I will thwart." 1 Cor 1:10-19.

Even Paul took no glory to himself, but preached Christ crucified.
How much more ought we to do the same?

Nick| 5.3.11 @ 4:37PM

I know how to settle this question once and for all:

The Christian sect with the most members....WINS!
Guess which Church that is? Ha-ha!

Just trying to lighten up the conversation a bit!

Margie| 5.3.11 @ 5:19PM

Nick,

Sects are the problem.

If there weren't sects, there would be no division.

That' s why I stick to what's actually written in the Scriptures and reject all else.

If Jesus says that those who love Him are those who obey His Words, isn't it what we ought to unite in, and not the teachings of men?

Numbers mean nothing.

Jesus says many are called but few are chosen, and the Apostles warned us of not following the traditions taught by men, but to listen only to what He and the Apostles taught.

Howe are we to even be considered belonging to Him if we so easily allow ourselves to entertain unScriptural teachings?

Nick| 5.3.11 @ 5:51PM

Margie,

I was just joking!

I replied to your questions about the Peter/rock controversy, in the thread on AmSpecBlog, by the way.

God Bless!

Margie| 5.3.11 @ 5:59PM

Nick,

I know you were, but somebody's got to be serious around here. :^).

I'll go read it.. now I have to remember exactly where it was though.

Nick| 5.3.11 @ 6:38PM

Margie,

If you can't remember, it is here:

http://spectator.org/blog/2011.....y#comments

Ken (Old Texican)| 5.3.11 @ 9:57PM

Stuart, Margie, Nick,
Thank you all.

Stu, did you go to Baylor?

Well spoken history lessons above. Thank you.

Stuart Koehl| 5.3.11 @ 10:29PM

"Stu, did you go to Baylor?"

No. Georgetown. I was nominally Jewish back then. Good thing, too--exposure to the Jesuits caused a lot of my Roman Catholic classmates to abandon their faith. Mostly the Jebbies just ticked me off in the same way as Margie. Like her, they thought they were smarter than God.

Margie| 5.3.11 @ 10:58PM

Actually Stuey baby~ it's the ones like you who replace the Words of God with the "Traditions of Men" that think they're smarter than God.

Liars whose consciences are seared.
Mock on, creep.

John II| 5.4.11 @ 1:00AM

Figured you to be a product of the Jebs, Stu.

For the record, though, and going on nearly two generations now--with numerous personal exceptions amounting to a kind of bloodless martyrdom--the Jesuits are no longer a Roman Catholic religious order, and their colleges and universities are no longer Catholic (as defined by the apostolic constitution Ex Corde Ecclesia in 1990).

In another generation, given the current arithmetic, they will no longer exist. They are simply dying out, along with the religious identity their institutions have abandoned. It's all very strange, and very sad; and it ain't pretty.

Nick| 5.4.11 @ 1:42AM

Hi, John II!

Not all of them.
Father Mitch Pacwa is an S.J., and he is very old school. No flim-flam with this servant of Christ.

With God all things are possible.

Nick| 5.4.11 @ 1:48AM

Your main point is well taken, though.

John II| 5.4.11 @ 10:00AM

"With God all things are possible."

Yes--including the brilliant and indomitably gracious Fr. Robert Spitzer, S.J., among several others less well known. As one of those others once told me, with a shrug: "Oh well, Christ promised he will be with the Church forever--not with any particular religious order."

But I think I covered that point with the "martyrdom" remark.

And now back to "Pork Chop Hill" (1959), in which Gregory Peck does a plausible rendition of grace in the face of defeat and the apparently hopeless.

Stuart Koehl| 5.4.11 @ 7:19AM

I keep telling people that Georgetown is a Jesuit, not Catholic school. Haven't sent them a dime since I graduated.

Someone once introduced me to a priest whom he happily described as "a Jesuit AND a Catholic"--there are still a few of them out there. Still, if the Society vanished, I would shed no tears.

Margie| 5.4.11 @ 1:35PM

You're not welcome, Ken.
In the same breath you thank me, and for what? Did I represent the truth according to the Bible or not?
In the same breath you thank this disgraceful man, Stuart Koehl who accuses me of heresy and lied as to my character and intentions?

Way to go. I do not accept your thanks.

Dee See| 5.4.11 @ 7:40AM

"Take your meds" = submit to Rockefeller EUGENICS control.

YOU KNOW IT'S TRUE

Julia K.| 5.4.11 @ 9:14AM

Interesting. I would not group the Evangelical Left along with the neo-Anabaptists. They are both coming out of what was known as the Emergent movement, but both their primary thinkers and their followers have since widely diverged in terms of focus. The disagreement over Yoder is central: is "Constantinianism" itself bad (neo-Anabaptism), or is the secular government only bad because its policies are immoral, thus it's important to change those policies (Evangelical Left)?

Jim Wallis and Sojourners, who are part of the Evangelical Left, are indeed not separatists, and do advocate big government. I wouldn't call them neo-Anabaptists, and I wouldn't call Stanley Hauerwas Evangelical Left. There is an overlap with pacifism, although I would guess that it is not as typical of the Evangelical Left as of the actual neo-Anabaptists, and the way each group advocates pacifism is different.

Last year I read a set of conference notes entitled "'Emergent' is dead, and the leftovers have gone to the Christian Left, neo-Anabaptism, and neo-Puritanism." It claims that the "Emergent" movement that developed in 1989-2006 has by this point fractured into those three different movements. I'll summarize it along with my impressions since the style, as lecture notes, makes it hard to read.

The Christian Left has roots in abolitionism, Martin Luther King, and anti-Vietnam war activism, and speaks about social justice. They are politically engaged and liberal. They emphasize the Beatitudes and Old Testament exhortations toward taking care of the poor. Prominent figures are Jim Wallis, John Perkins, Tony Campolo, Brian McLaren, and Ron Sider.

The neo-Anabaptists have roots in John Howard Yoder, Alasdair MacIntyre, and Augustine, and speak about the Church being Church. They are politically withdrawalist and pacifist. They want the Church to be a distinct public sphere from civil government, which is tainted by the world and unable to support a specifically Christian moral system. They want the Church, unallied with government, to take the initiative to act and solve problems. But, they are wary of structural power even within the Church. Unlike their Anabaptist roots, they emphasize Incarnation and Eucharist. Prominent figures are Stanley Hauerwas, Shane Claiborne, James McClendon, and Michael Cartwright.

The neo-Puritans have roots in John Calvin and are focused mainly on evangelism and planting churches. They have a very Calvinist view of salvation and also a concern for the poor. They are short-term thinkers rather than trying to discuss and change culture or the ecclesial economy (economy in the sense of household management). They are politically conservative. Overall, their ideas are difficult to distinguish from already existing ideas of mainstream evangelical Protestantism. Prominent figures are Mark Driscoll, John Piper, and David Platt.

Link to those conference notes:
http://gratefultothedead.wordp.....uritanism/

I later read this very thoughtful description of the strengths and shortcomings of "neo-Augustinians," whom I would place in the "neo-Anabaptist" camp because they advocate the Church as an independent public.
http://www.leaderu.com/ftissue.....benne.html

Ryan| 5.4.11 @ 10:30AM

Neo-Puritans? Interesting description. You would probably classify me as one.

As to the short-term thinking argument, I would say that doesn't fit. We believe that the only real change in Culture is through the spread of the Gospel. Changing laws and government is meaningless if the hearts of men are not changed first. Cultural change is an end, not a means.

Margie| 5.4.11 @ 1:32PM

Just who is "we" Ryan?

There are Christians who believe only the Words of the God of the Bible, written by the Apostles who were moved by His Holy Spirit and appointed by God.

You choose to believe the false teachings of the apostate early church fathers and accuse Christians who do not believe them and question the authenticity of same.

There are Christians and then there are haughty phony so called Christians.

Don't lump me in with your ilk.

Ryan| 5.4.11 @ 2:29PM

Review everything that I posted above Margie.

I never insulted you or called you names. I mostly just asked questions and challenged your ways of thinking. That's it.

I never questioned your salvation. That's between you and God. That more or less falls in a proper use of the "judge not, lest you be judged." I MIGHT have alluded to it because of your views on the Trinity.

I also didn't mention you, nor intended to mention you in the above post.

Margie| 5.4.11 @ 11:17PM

Oh yeah, Ryan.
You only "questioned whether or not I actually believed in God".
Blaah.
Bye bye.

Julia K.| 5.4.11 @ 9:14AM

It wouldn't let me post more than two links at once, so here's the final link I wanted to post, describing in clear terms Hauerwas' roots in MacIntyre and Yoder, and some practical issues arising from that.
http://replay.web.archive.org/.....ian-mafia/

Nick| 5.5.11 @ 12:34AM

Margie,

Did you get a chance to read my replies, concerning Kephas/Rock, in the other thread, yet?

God Bless!

p.s. From Ann Coulter, the best line of the year: "If Americans can handle Hillary Clinton's ankles, they can handle this photo [of dead Usama]."
Ha-ha!

Margie| 5.5.11 @ 1:06AM

Nick,
I have to go back there again. I went back yesterday & posted more to you but haven't gone back again.
I have been thinking about what you wrote, and looking into it.

But guess what I found? I will go there tomorrow to tell you. It has to with the verse. "having bound in Heaven"... very interesting point.
But that's for tomorrow. I am up too late!!

p.s. Ann Coulter is funny, and that's a good one.
Did you see what I posted earlier?
I wondered if Obama was going to be handing out autographed pictures of Osama's dead body.

After all, he is taking all the credit.
badumpbump.
~Night.

Nick| 5.6.11 @ 3:14AM

Margie,

Good one!
Ha-ha!

Hope you get a chance to get to my posts, on the other thread. I'm interested in your thoughts.

God Bless!

Anna| 6.20.11 @ 10:08PM

Yeah ,, Hahaha , you are right . welcome to visit www.sexdollusa.com    .cheapest price and best serviser will be your best choise.our Adult toys

cheap vibrator| 6.23.11 @ 3:40AM

Yeah ,, Hahaha , you are right .www.cheapcigarettesshop.com，welcome to visit www.sexdollusa.com .online cigarettes

cheap vibrator| 6.23.11 @ 3:40AM

Yeah ,, Hahaha , you are right .www.cheapcigarettesshop.com，welcome to visit www.sexdollusa.com .online cigarettes

cheap vibrator| 6.23.11 @ 3:42AM

Yeah ,, Hahaha , you are right . www.cheapcigarettesshop.com welcome to visit www.sexdollusa.com

Matt Stone| 9.3.11 @ 12:29PM

You're mistakenly conflating the Evangelical Left and Neo-Anabaptism. While there is an overlap they are not the same. Not every Christian pacifist is a Neo-Anabaptist.