The American Spectator : Who Decides What Is Evil?

Text Size

Who Decides What Is Evil?

By Michael Johnson on 10.20.11 @ 6:05AM

It turns out that Islamic terrorists are not evil after all, only wicked.

On Evil
By Terry Eagleton
(Yale University Press, 176 pages, $16)

“The devil seems to have all the best tunes,” says Terry Eagleton, paraphrasing a frustrated London pastor from 1844.

No surprise here, Eagleton explains. To fend off the Evil One, we must be virtuous, which means embracing thrift, prudence, chastity, abstinence, sobriety, meekness, obedience and self-discipline. “So it is not hard to see why evil should begin to look like the sexier option.”

By turns, Eagleton goes from serious to witty to ironic and back again in his book On Evil. He attempts to define evil, as opposed to mere wickedness, in a world facing more and more terrorism, mass shootings and — perhaps worst of all — loose language. All this is couched in a sweeping religious and historical context.

Evil vs. wicked — does it matter? Yes, it is a distinction worth thinking about, and for a couple of reasons.

First, because there is a difference. But public rhetoric has become so sloppy and full of guff that clarity can be fogged up and nuances can vanish. Who means what any more?

Second, terms such as evildoers, axis of evil, and Great Satan have the effect of stifling discussion, ending arguments prematurely, hitting us like a “fist in the solar plexus,” as Eagleton puts it. The more senseless an action seems, the more we want to call it evil and change the subject.

And yet he pulls his punches in an offhand comment on 9/11. The anti-Western Islamists might not have gone so far, he suggests, if it weren’t for the Arab world’s sense of “anger and humiliation at the long history of its political abuse by the West.”

“To define Islamic terrorism as evil, in the sense of the word employed in this book, is to refuse to recognize the reality of that wrath. It may well be too late for the kind of political action that might alleviate it. Terrorism now has a deadly momentum of its own,” he warns.

A professor with lecturing credits at Notre Dame, Yale, University of Manchester and the National University of Ireland, Eagleton takes issue with other words as well. He refers to a British security official who called Islamic terrorists psychotic. “One wonders if the man is up to his job,” he writes. “If terrorists really are mad, then they are ignorant of what they are doing and are therefore morally innocent. They should accordingly be nursed with tender care in psychiatric hospitals rather than have their genitals mutilated in secret Moroccan prisons.”

One English critic called Eagleton’s survey of evilness a “dark and steamy Christmas pudding of a book.” I would add that it is best read for its puddingly pleasures than for its rather heavy philosophical and Freudian supporting arguments. He invokes Augustine, Freud, Milton, Voltaire, Kant, Arendt, Kierkegaard, Schopenhauer and Thomas Aquinas (from whom he borrowed his title) in one slim volume.

Eagleton, English-born of Irish extraction and now living in Dublin, is known for his lively, irreverent style and makes good use of his punchline prose here despite a very unfunny subject. He allows himself one personal note. When he told his young son he was writing a book about evil, the boy was impressed. “Wicked,” he said.

In a sense, this book is a reflection on human nature, on good and bad. He meanders through the history of ideas, by the final pages giving me the feeling of having been through a hall of mirrors.

One searches in vain for Eagleton’s blacklist of evildoers. Surely some names come to mind.

But not the English children who clubbed a smaller child to death 16 years ago. They are merely children and therefore “semi-socialized creature.” Not Mao or Stalin. Not Pol Pot. They all had motives, however perverse. Not even Hitler. The Holocaust had the motive of racial purification, disqualifying it for the distinction. Oddly, Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein don’t get a look-in.

Page: 1 2 >

About the Author

Michael Johnson spent 17 years at McGraw-Hill, including six years as a news executive in New York. He now writes from Bordeaux in France. He also spent nine years on the board of the London International Piano Competition.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (146) | Leave a comment Leave a comment

Harry Hunter| 10.20.11 @ 6:34AM

It spunds like that familiar product, a poor book. Why bother publicising it, and not something better?

Alan Brooks| 10.20.11 @ 8:26PM

Actually, America is more evil/wicked-- but much more productive.
We have the bigger guns, too.

Joe| 10.20.11 @ 6:42AM

For it is written, he who leads others morally astray is evil. Either there is objective truth or there is not. Intentions only count for the distant observer. For the person bent down over the pit with a pistol at the base of the neck, things are rather clearer. Intentions be damned. If there is a God, then evil is obvious. If there is no God, then there is only a kind of politically based feeling of ought that will differ from individual to individual unto the death of the weaker.

Alan Brooks| 10.20.11 @ 8:53PM

God is a necessary fiction- to cover up the darwinist nature of existence.

POST American| 10.20.11 @ 6:52AM

----Curious

Judaism, Christianity and Islam, one and all,
before being co-opted by the cultural subversion
ops of deadly sinister Rockefeller
'eck--YOU--men--ick--ALL--ism'
----respected, absolutely, the abomination
status of USURY, sodomy, and extermination of the
unborn.

---Keep reachin' for those 'bennies' kiddies!

-----Keep worshipping those wreck-doms

-------Keep followin' those actuarial psychopaths

-------------------JUST KEEP A GOIN'

Tim the Enchanter| 10.20.11 @ 8:06AM

Huh?

albert constantine jr.| 10.20.11 @ 7:24AM

I'm just a soul whose intentions are good.
Oh Lord, please don't let me be misunderstood.

Tim the Enchanter| 10.20.11 @ 8:07AM

To the rhetorical question that headlines this article, the answer is simple. God.

potkas7| 10.20.11 @ 8:18AM

Rather than the answer, God is the issue. If God is Omnipotent and Omniscient and all-Good, why does he permit Evil to exist? From the Book of Job to the book referenced in this article Man has searched for an understandable answer...so far unsuccessfully.

DTOM| 10.20.11 @ 9:01AM

If you do not believe in God, you will not have found your "understandable answer."

If you do believe in God, you should know that He gives each man free will, the choice to do, to be, good or evil. If God were to eliminate the evil choice, there would be only one option to choose from, which would mean that man does not have a choice, and thus does not have free will.

Ya gotta believe...if you don't you will still be looking and not finding.

P.S. An operational definition of faith I like is: throw all your doubts out the window; what you are left with is faith. Don't Tread On Me.

potkas7| 10.20.11 @ 9:23AM

Sorry, not good enough.

Rabbi Harold Kushner once wrote a book with the provocative title "Why Do Bad Things Happen To Good People?" So why does an innocent child get cancer? Free Will doesn't cover this.

Is Evil a thing in itself or is it, like Aquinas said, the absence of Good?

The existence of Evil is a deep and provocative question. To simply say "You gotta believe" is just ducking the question.

Renaissance Nerd | 10.20.11 @ 4:35PM

You don't know why a child gets cancer. It may be the result of human agency that we simply don't understand yet. It's like people living in an area that regularly over the centuries get pummeled by an earthquake or a tsunami, and they wail when the inevitable happens, 'how can God let this happen to children?' The simple answer is: He didn't. Their parents chose to live in a place and assumed it would never happen to them, and their children suffered the consequences of their actions.

Nearly all human suffering comes from human action and especially ignorance. There are a few areas that are little understood still, but things like the vectors of the Black Death are now not only comprehensible, but actually had a serious impact on how we live our lives to this day. The accumulation of knowledge over time has helped us to know ways to avoid many kinds of suffering. The fact that we still don't understand the precise causes of every disease doesn't mean that they are therefore random meaningless happenstance and any suffering they cause is unjust. What's more, if you look back through the Judeo-Christian canon, you'll notice that the better people are, the more they tend to suffer, the ultimate example being Christ. Suffering often brings growth and understanding that nothing else can. The question is: what is God's purpose? If it's to make sure we all have pleasant lives with cheeseburgers and milkshakes and BMWs then he's failed miserably. If it's to teach us how to become free, so that when we demonstrate we can be faithful in small things He'll be able to trust us with greater things, then He's doing a bang-up job. Assuming that suffering and death are always bad is ridiculous, because one thing is certain, EVERYONE will experience both in their lifetimes. If you posit the existence of a God then you must try to figure out what might motivate creation, rather than presume that human perspective is everything. If you do not believe there could be a God, then all suffering certainly is meaningless, so it is DEFINITELY a bad thing, unless it happens to other people, in which case sympathy is a waste of time as it's just as meaningless as the suffering. It doesn't follow that your lack of belief in God requires other people to accept all the consequential beliefs of your trajectory, such as the ultimate pointlessness of everything, including suffering. If you don't believe in God, then whining about suffering children is cynical in the worst way, because no action or inaction of any human being has any meaning or value whatsoever. Everything is just a flash in the pan, and whether we live like men or die like lemmings is equally trivial.

Free will is the ultimate purpose of the whole universe. If you look at everything with that in mind, many mysteries simply resolve themselves. Naturally you aren't required to believe it, otherwise it wouldn't be free will, would it? As human knowledge accumulates to the point where it's impossible for any 10,000 people to know everything, much less 1 person, it becomes more important to share the load and trade knowledge. That's the principle problem today; too many liars and charlatans, so the necessity of sharing make people overly skeptical about some things, and overly trusting about whatever their 'team' says. So we get the same meaningless arguments over and over because instead of thinking, those on the 'anti-God' team just use the same tired arguments over and over without considering any other possibilities. And of course the same goes for the 'pro-God' party all too often. What we all need to do is embrace freedom and the consequences that come with it, instead of endlessly trying to pretend it doesn't exist so we won't have to be responsible for our actions.

Jeamar37| 10.20.11 @ 7:46PM

An excellent post on theodicy. Agreeing with your arguments do not seem to me to negate a belief in God nor the existence of evil and suffering in this world. Recently I read Rabbi Twertski's comment, "The Divine created the world but left it to man to develop it." Man does have a responsibility for the state of the word and the suffering in it. Various religions provide guides for us to cope with this responsibility.

Margie| 10.23.11 @ 3:13PM

The only real "freedom" Man has is to choose Him OR NOT.

Rich D| 10.21.11 @ 1:37AM

Wrong title giving the wrong impression. It is "WHEN Bad Things..." Big difference.

DTOM| 10.21.11 @ 1:44PM

You also miss the whole point. God made this world and heaven, and everything else. This world is the crappy, yucky 's place. The objective is to exit this world without having sufficiently irritated God that even His Son cannot save you. Your "innocent child" dying may actually have been someone God was in a hurry to have with Him in heaven.

This world is the crappy, dirty, test part of God's creation...

Tina B| 10.20.11 @ 8:55AM

Wrongo pedongo potsticker7.

Millions, billions in fact, have found the answer. Freedom involves choice. Our Creator chose to make us free to love Him, if we chose to do so, and free to reject Him and His love, if we chose to do that.

In this choice, and in man's rejection of God, a choice made by the original man, called Adam, evil entered into the soul of man. God chose to give mankind free will, and man chose to try it his way.

According to Scripture, God had previously given this choice to higher beings He had created, called angelic beings. Some of them, led by one superior and prideful angelic being, named Lucifer, Angel of Light, chose to reject God, seduced Adam through his wife, and the story of evil on earth begins.

You only have to know a few people, maybe only one person, who has been seduced by evil in some form or another, and you can see this working out in lives today. The domino effect at it's finest.

Now, a good reading of the Old and the New Testament, more than once and with a seeking mind, heart and will, gives the reader a choice. This is made most clear in the New Testament., as Christ's life is laid out in the Gospels, and the effects of His life, death and Resurrection from the dead are revealed in the Acts and in the Epistles, the letters of Paul and other Apostles and disciples. It is now about 2,000 years later and people are still finding this is the ANSWER.

To live is Christ and to die is gain. Simple answer really. Apparently too simple for you and many who are prideful and reject God, His Son, His Holy Spirit's indwelling, and His love.

This choice is too important for the likes of many posters here at AS, and we know who we are. We try and reveal Him to the rest of you, sometimes winsomely, sometimes not so much. But we mean well.

Christ died for all to enter into Eternity with God and His angels, and I don't want to see anyone I know, or read of here at AS, to choose to reject Him and ultimately burn in hell. But neither do I want to see evil triumph in this world and the world after. God knows what He is doing, my faith is in Him.

Every last penny will be paid, either by Christ's sacrificial death on the cross for my sins and yours, or by your own death and a hell in Eternity for your rejection of His life and death. Your choice, I've made mine.

"I know whom I have believeth, and am persuaded that He is able, to take that which I've committed, unto Him until that day."

potkas7| 10.20.11 @ 9:37AM

OK, but how does all of this deal with Earthquakes or Plagues? Is this your answer to a parent wondering why her child has cancer? Do you think your explanation would satisfy someone who's family was killed in a terrorist bombing? I'm afraid I don't see how your polemic deals with the question of why Evil exists at all.

Joe| 10.20.11 @ 1:01PM

It is easy to confuse cost and evil. Earthquakes are a cost of a dynamic planet. Sickness and death are a cost of evolution - without which, there are no humans. Evil is a cost of free will as noted above. If there is a God, then evil doesn't win. If there is no God, then the hundreds of millions murdered in the 20th Century (as just a single “for instance”) not only are losers, they didn't count for anything. Their dreams, loves, poetry and vows were nothing more than the buzz of a bug's wings. If there is a God, then the true victims of evil triumph in love and those responsible for their pain and terror may know the truth and the extent of their evil.

Margie| 10.20.11 @ 2:57PM

Tina B,

Well said. BTW~ I've recently found a great voice on radio in the form of a Christian sister named Janet Mefferd. She hosts her own show, late nights out of Cleveland, I believe.
She's excellent.
Heard of her?

Claypoole| 10.20.11 @ 5:34PM

My own bout with cancer seven years ago transformed my lukewarm faith. Ever since, I have been on my knees before my Father and my Savior everyday. The first thing my oncologist said to me after he walked into my hospital room and introduced himself after my surgery was, "This is a miracle." Praise God.

As Malcolm Muggeridge said, "We learn by suffering."

Timothy L. Pennell| 10.20.11 @ 9:47AM

What is EVIL?
I think that the question is best answered, in the same way that: "What defines Pornography" was answered: I can't define it, but, I KNOW IT WHEN I SEE IT.
We all KNOW what Evil is. It is programmed in our DNA. And we know it, when we're doing it.
It's what separates us from the Animals, and the Muslims.

potkas7| 10.20.11 @ 10:04AM

You can do better than this. I'll bet you can easily draw up a list of evil things and giving clear and concise reasons why they should be defined as such. The question is not What is evil, the question is Why does evil exist?

Oh, and did you really mean to say that Muslim DNA is somehow different from other human's? If so then shouldn't they get a pass for any transgressions they commit since, at a fundamental level , they lack the programming, as you put it, to know the difference between good and evil?

Timothy L. Pennell| 10.20.11 @ 10:14AM

Yeah. That's EXACTLY what I meant to say! It IS programmed in to their DNA. Are you BLIND?
Should they get a PASS? No. We should do, what we do, with any RABID ANIMAL.

potkas7| 10.20.11 @ 10:19AM

Sorry, I obviously made the erroneous assumption I was dealing with a rational being.

David T| 10.20.11 @ 10:34AM

We live in a fallen world cursed by war, famine, pestilence, and death (yes, that includes earthquakes). We fight evil when and where we can and we show mercy to those who have been its innocent victims.

Evil is a mystery. We can't explain it, but we know that when we finally come through this great tribulation, everything will be set right and none of our efforts will have been in vain.

Timothy L. Pennell| 10.20.11 @ 5:19PM

What the Hell are you talking about? Evil is a Mystery? Come again?
. The only "Mystery", is why so many stupid people, seem so eager to DISMISS it. To EXPLAIN it away, blame it on SOCIETY, and make EXCUSES for it, like: "Everybody does it".
You want a Mystery?
Go read David T.

Timothy L. Pennell| 10.20.11 @ 5:19PM

Margie| 10.20.11 @ 8:16PM

Tim:

You said the word Hell. You better stop it before you are accused of not being a Christian.

:^).

ConantheContrarian| 10.20.11 @ 10:38AM

Potkas7 is certainly not the first person who has asked that question. Nor is he the first person to sit on his lazy butt and not consult the writings of at least two thousand years that try to answer that question. It is my guess that Potkas7 is an atheist or agnostic, whose understanding of human nature is derived from an atheistic materialistic worldview. So what would his answer be to a child with cancer? Tough luck, you will be worm food soon.
The real answer as to why there is suffering, why there are pestilences and earthquakes in diverse places, and why there is evil/wickedness is because we live in a fallen world and all of mankind has a fallen nature, inclining us to evil. Potkas7 and others like him reject this as myth and continue to throw up their hands at all this and continue to enjoy their belief that life is an atheistic, dog-eat-dog, shitty world for most, so eat, drink, and be merry for tomorrow we die. Instead of telling us that our answer isn't good enough for you, then give us a better one.
I challenge you to tell me:
1) What is mankind's, my, and your ultimate destiny.
2) Where do morals, morality, and ethics come from?
3) How do I find meaning, purpose in life?
You lazy bastard, answer those questions according to your worldview/philosophy.

Dave| 10.20.11 @ 11:15AM

Silly libs and idiots.

Islamic terrorists are evil because Islam is evil.

Gary| 10.20.11 @ 11:42AM

Evil does exist, and I believe many of the terrorists enjoy what they do and even if every "greivance" was corrected today they would find another excuse to do what they do. How can the modern West address problems of people who are in essence still living int eh 11th century?

Who Knows?| 10.20.11 @ 12:16PM

Evil is live spelled backwards.

I thought everybody knew that.

CalMark| 10.20.11 @ 12:18PM

I see.

So murdering 3,000+ innocent civilians (they were shooting for much more than that) by running hijacked airplanes into skyscrapers isn't evil. It's only wicked.

Murdering tens of millions of people in a brutal dictatorial regime (Hitler, Stalin, Mao) is not evil, only wicked.

Gee, thanks for that insight professor. Now go back to your ivory towers. You have no real business in the real world because for all your alleged brilliance, you have no real concept of evil.

Actually, you are its dupe and unwitting servant. Put THAT in your pipe and smoke it.

Margie| 10.20.11 @ 1:02PM

It is interesting is it not that he can try and make that distinction.
I Just go by what the Bible (God's Own Words) say, and the professor would do well to do the same.
What does the Bible say?

"Take me not off with the wicked, with those who are workers of evil, who speak peace with their neighbors, while mischief is in their hearts." Ps. 28:3.

"Let me not be put to shame, O LORD, for I call on thee; let the wicked be put to shame, let them go dumbfounded to Sheol." Ps. 31:17.

"Evil shall slay the wicked; and those who hate the righteous will be condemned." Ps. 34:21.

"To the choirmaster. A Psalm of David, the servant of the LORD. Transgression speaks to the wicked deep in his heart; there is no fear of God before his eyes." Ps. 36:1.

"For the wicked shall be cut off; but those who wait for the LORD shall possess the land." Ps. 37:9.

Those are just a few Scriptures that show God's Truth concerning wickedness and evil.

If only smart professors would be wise enough to refer to Scripture instead of their own thoughts, how much good could they actually do? They would be promoting God's Reality, and leading their students to His Truth.

Rich Rostrom| 10.20.11 @ 12:32PM

To begin with, "lecturing credits at Notre Dame, Yale, University of Manchester and the National University of Ireland"...

Eagleton is "Distinguished Professor of English Literature" and "Chair within the Department of English and Creative Writing" at Lancaster University, and formerly "Thomas Warton Professor of English Literature" at Oxford and "John Edward Taylor Professor of English Literature" at the University of Manchester.

He has published over 40 books.

He is a regular reviewer for the London Review of Books, and is a frequent contributor to prestigious magazines in Britain and the U.S., such as New Statesman and The Nation.

In short, he's a big noise that gets lots of respect from certain quarters, and he has to be answered.

(He's also a proclaimed Marxist and a flaming apologist for Communism.)

Keith| 10.20.11 @ 12:36PM

Well said Tina B ; Also good questions potkas7 .
Many answers GOD could have for me would be far above my comprehension. Fortunately by simple faith I can apprehend his great love for me as Tina has explained. May I recommend a fine book "The Normal Christian Life" in which author Watchman Nee elaborates to great extent on the eternal purpose of GOD. My hope is many viewing this thread will find peace in The Lord Jesus Christ as I have.

Tina B| 10.20.11 @ 12:41PM

P-7

When you mention earthquakes, plagues and children with cancer, I reply, none of that was God's perfect plan. Choice - freedom - evil will exist. No choice - no freedom - no evil will exist.

If you really want some answers, or just a new world view because your current one involves unresolved evil without an answer, try the wonderful Os Guinness, at this link and for your viewing,, 2 parts, both very helpful to me, and far better than I could do:

http://www.dod.org/Products/If.....D2254.aspx

and God bless you.

Margie| 10.20.11 @ 12:52PM

The Bible (God's Own Words) tells us everything we need to know. It was God's Will that we have it, in order to know His Will.

What is Evil?
He tells us what is is, and who it is who will be refused entrance into His Kingdom:

His Kingdom, which needs no Sun for light, because the Glory of God is its Light, and its Lamp is the Lamp, (Christ Jesus, who died for the Sin of the World, and was raised). (Rev. 21:24).

"He who conquers shall have this heritage, and I will be his God and he shall be my son.
But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the polluted, as for murderers, fornicators, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their lot shall be in the lake that burns with fire and sulphur, which is the second death." Rev. 21:7 & 8.

"But nothing unclean shall enter it, nor any one who practices abomination or falsehood, but only those who are written in the Lamb's Book of Life."
Rev. 21:27.

God gave us all consciences, and a mind and reasoning so that each one of us is able to know what these things mean.
We already know what Evil is, and if we don't know what God wants from us, we can search The Bible and find it out.
None of us will have one single excuse to give when Jesus appears to Judge righteously between the sheep and the goats.
Those who loved Him, and those who rejected Him.
He is worthy. We are not, yet He rescues the godly from terror, and sets our feet upon the Rock.

"Behold, as the eyes of servants look to the hand of their master, as the eyes of a maid to the hand of her mistress, so our eyes look to the LORD our God, till He have mercy upon us." Ps. 123:2.

"So then He has mercy upon whomever He wills, and he hardens the heart of whomever He wills." Rom. 9:18.

"For God has consigned all men to disobedience, that He may have mercy upon all." Rom. 11:32.

I trust in God's mercy, been doing so for almost 40 years.. I have nothing else.
Jesus is Lord.

Tina B| 10.20.11 @ 2:52PM

Margie,

I have missed you, as I was in a black hole (speaking of internet access) for the past 2 weeks and missed reading you and others on AS.

Os Guinness is a Christian child (now 60ish) of medical missionaries, and was born in China during WWII. He does an excellentshort series on the problem of Evil, and, like CS Lewis before him, makes a very complex subject very comprehensible in laymen's terms. Good solid Biblical teaching there too. (or I hope you know I wouldn't recommend it)

In the last few weeks I have retired from teaching, moved homes, kept up with grandchildren's homework and projects, and seen the hand of God in every step of our journey. I too have nothing else, without His mercy. And yes, Jesus is Lord.

Margie| 10.20.11 @ 3:08PM

Tina B.,

I love reading biblically based authors who know Jesus.
I'll look him up, thanks, and Oh yeah, I know you wouldn't recommend him otherwise.

BTW~ Do you know about the reading of Christian books aloud that's on Camping's radio station? (You know I do NOT think Camping is right), but his station has daily readings of the Bible aloud for half an hour both at night and in the day, and the reading aloud of WoNDERFUL Christian authors as well.

Right now, they are reading a book to do with the Reformers in England. Tyndale and others. Fabulous stuff for the Grandchildren to listen too, if not too young!

The station plays the old hymns as well.
Now that Camping's had a stroke, I hope he will truly turn away from his error (s).

Glad to see you back.
If you happen to ever want to chat, my email is: wehavetoomuchstuff@gmail.com
God bless you!

Dave Williams| 10.20.11 @ 2:58PM

Sorry, the bible does NOT tell us everything we need to know...to take only one example, celestial navigation based on the idea that the sun revolves around the earth would quickly be found in practice to be very, very wrong.
Why should we believe the folk tales of a bunch of desert goatherds, when science has shown what they believed to be complete nonsense?

Margie| 10.20.11 @ 3:31PM

Well Dave, it teaches everything we need to know about God's Will for Mankind, that's for sure.

And then, once you become a child of His, by His Spirit, it becomes very personal.

p.s. Science, (truthful science) is in agreement with what's already written in Scripture.

For example, Matter can neither be created nor destroyed, mountains under the Sea, innumerable creatures in the Sea, innumerable grains of sand on the Seashores, the fact that our own bodies contain the same minerals that the Earth does since God created Man out of the Earth, the fact that all the minerals contained in seawater are at a concentration close to that at which they are usually found in man's internal environment. (Our blood plasma).

Those are just a very, very few examples.
And besides, none of us has any excuse for refusing to believe in Him, as the evidence is all around us:

"Ever since the Creation of the World His invisible Nature, namely, his Eternal Power and Deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.." Rom. 1:20.

skip| 10.21.11 @ 3:30PM

You go right ahead and believe what is in essence a faith, a faith that cannot explain what happens when a human sperm fertilizes a human egg, which has occurred billions of times recently, or explain how a black hole can even exist, and there are billions of them right now. I'll stick to the beliefs of those distant desert goatherders, who after all had to actually use their brains on a daily basis or perish.

Unlike you.

Margie| 10.20.11 @ 12:53PM

Sorry, above should read. "The Lamp is the Lamb."

Dai Alanye | 10.20.11 @ 12:59PM

According to Eagleton, "If terrorists really are mad, then they are ignorant of what they are doing and are therefore morally innocent."

Among other criticisms that can be made of his book, he has no true understanding of mental illness. Schizophrenia and othe major brain diseases don't affect only the innocent - some genuinely evil people are also psychotic. Furthermore, severe antisocial behavior - often referred to as psychosis - and mental illness are by no means directly associated.

So Eagleton is an idiot, and his parents were probably idiots as well. Not on the basis of IQ, of course, but in an egotistical belief that he alone can judge right and wrong despite not being adequately informed.

SuffolkVA| 10.20.11 @ 4:41PM

The author of this book says, "Capitalism is a necessary evil, he believes, that "develops the wealth of society to the point where socialism can take it over and reorganize it in the interests of everyone."

What an idiot. I am sorry, but I don't care how intellectual, or anything else, this man is, that statement is like saying that practicing good health habits is a necessary evil because it builds the health necessary to allow one to start smoking. Socialism is a cancer. Only those with no vision fail to see that it NEVER works in the real world. It brings out all the qualities in human beings that lead to large scale penury, tyranny, and destruction. There has never been, and there will never be an exception in any nation large enough to be worth considering. The larger the social unit, the less chance socialism has of working. The nuclear family is the only ideal form of a true socialism. People like Mr. Easgleton are dangerous fools!

Tina B| 10.20.11 @ 5:21PM

Interesting idea, that whole nuclear family thing.

If there were a God, and there is, you would think He might be in love with the whole nuclear family thing. He might have given His Son a nuclear family and record some of their history, oh, that's right, He did.

He might record family geneologies, Oh my! He did that too. He might have put something in His "book of rules" for mankind, oh yeah, the Commandment to "honor thy father and mother so you will live long and wel . . ." God does go there too.

In fact, the family is God's nuclear unit as well. He calls the Church the Bride, and Christ is the Groom, and we await the wedding feast. It is the ultimate expression of love between man and woman, and Christ and His Church.

Wow, what thoughts God has on family. Too bad our nation's current leaders seem to think so little of family these days. They try to redefine it and reinvent it, and then promote millions of yearly abortions, presumably of many babies who could have joined families who would grow to love and care for them.

Crazy world we live in, que nos?

PJ| 10.20.11 @ 5:46PM

If Michael Johnson has accurately summarized Eagleton's book, then I have to conclude it is another example of a dopey philosopher trying to rationalize behavior against a set of no moral standards. Eagleton seems to be a relativist. -----Nothing original.

There are some acts that are intrinsically evil. Even if the intentions are justified or good & whether it is freely done or not will never make the evil action good (It might lessen the doer's culpability.).

The destruction on 9-11 was evil, wicked, satanic,---3 words w/almost the same meaning. (So stop the semantics.) No matter how justified the Islamists were in performing this act, they were wrong & that's that!

There's only 1 kind of evil act (not 2 as defined by McGinn) however intentions & circumstances can lessen or increase the doer's culpability. Nevertheless the act is still evil.

Another reason not to buy this book, Eagleton seems to do a piss-poor job on his reflection of evil since he doesn't even mention 1 of the most wicked men of the 20th century, Adolph Hitler. Is he kidding or what?

Naturalborn Texicanette| 10.20.11 @ 7:15PM

Fantastic posts!!!!!!!! Have saved them on my word program! Thoroughly enjoyed reading each and every one.

Makes my heart feel so blessed that there are so many out there who love my Lord and Savior!

I would like to recommend a new book by John Eldredge titled "Beautiful Outlaw." Am about halfway through and it is pretty powerful.

Jesus is!!!

Margie| 10.20.11 @ 8:14PM

Thanks for saying that. Jesus loves you, NBT.

Margie| 10.20.11 @ 8:54PM

p.s. Have you ever heard this, speaking of beautiful~

Title: Fairest Lord Jesus:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2r2y3v5LxSI

Tina B| 10.21.11 @ 9:06AM

Hi there Texicanette,

I, too, get spiritually fed every time there is an article on faith topics in AS. The book you are talking about is on my to read list. I mentioned it here in another thread this week. God bless you for reminding ME to rder it.

I heard John Eldridge on Moody Radio this past week, he is in love with Christ and his connections are wonderful, more for me to learn. Margie you'd love him.

POST American| 10.20.11 @ 11:06PM

--------------------BOTTOM LINE---------------------

----Rockefeller 'Council of Churches'

------Freemasonry

--------Sodomy ops

---------'PRO Choice' exterminators

----------Sundry infiltrators and government
spy force 'Clergy Response'

----------CLEAN OUT YOUR CHURCHES!----------

Renaissance Nerd | 10.21.11 @ 9:25AM

Evil is deception that attempts to destroy or limit freedom. It's killing one person so 10 will do what you want; if what you wanted was to kill 11 people then you would've already done it. It's slaughtering a city full of people so everyone around will be too terrified to resist you--deception again. It's telling Black kids that reading books and being a good student is 'acting white' so they never scramble above your level, or get uppity ideas about joining the middle class and (shudder) voting Republican. It's telling people that their whole lives have been already decided by the Fates or the Norns or Karma or Society or Class or Race or Evolution or Psychology, thus limiting their choices by deceptively increasing their ignorance. It's tricking a girl into hopping into bed with 'and I really do love you.' It's getting your lover to murder your husband by pretending to be abused. It's accusing your spouse of child molestation to gain an advantage in the courts. Evil deceives and harms others to one's own perceived benefit. Just like socialism, which always works perfectly at it's real goal, but not it's professed goal. The revolutionary vanguard may pretend it's all about the working class, but the true point is gaining power for themselves.

Wickedness is doing it to yourself, but it usually branches out into evil before too long. Self-deception begets deceivers.

Margie| 10.21.11 @ 11:12AM

You are so right, and that's why God hates liars and throws them into Hell.

Lies and deception are something He will NOT abide.
So many think that they can actually get away with it, but they won't.

"He who conquers shall have this heritage, and I will be his God and he shall be My son.
But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the polluted, as for murderers, fornicators, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their lot shall be in the lake that burns with fire and sulphur, which is the second death." Rev. 21:7 & 8.

Rich D| 10.21.11 @ 10:33AM

Tina B: "Christ died for all to enter into Eternity...":

In Mark 10.45, he says that he gave his life as a ransom for many, not all.

Tina B| 10.21.11 @ 12:20PM

He died FOR all of us, however everyone does NOT ACCEPT His ransom for their life. They choose to follow another way, usually their own way. Unfortunately this is not God's Way, and thus they choose life without Him, and that means Eternity without Him, and there's a consequence for this choice. We Christians happen to call this Hell, Hades, the lake of fire made for Satan and his angels, as well as other names.

Christ refers to Hell in the Gospels, the Epistles refer to Hell. The existence of a place of eternal torment seems a no-brainer for those of us who FREELY CHOOSE to claim this ransom for our lives. This involves giving our lives back to God, and serving Him to the best of our ability, but only with and by His grace and strength in our daily walk.

This means we enter into His Eternity, by way of His death and the resulting ransom of our souls, and sadly, tragically, those who choose NOT to accept this ransom for their individual souls, lose this free gift. (free for us- not free for God, the Father, Son or Holy Spirit) Free for us, freedom for us, why would anyone choose to refuse to accept Him???

Rich D| 10.21.11 @ 12:53PM

For many is not the same as for all. Beware of universalism.

Regarding Hell, the Jews spoke of Sheol, the place of the dead. Jesus spoke of Gahenna (Hebrew Gehinnom), the valley of Hinnom, the place were refuse was burned. It actually meant the second death, and utter destruction to the Jew. Hades is from the Greek 'aides, meaning the "unseen" place, and is the normal translation of the Hebrew Sheol.

Peter spoke of Tartarus, the place where the Titans of Greek mythology were punished, but this was more of an act than a place. The verb used is tartaroo.

John speaks of the lake of fire, into which the grave (i.e., Sheol, or Hell) goes!

Hell in English also mean conceal, or hide. It should not be seen as the place of torment, but the second death.

Tina B| 10.21.11 @ 2:16PM

I admit, I haven't really studied Hell, and all its ramifications. I know much more about what God says about heaven, a much finer subject, don't you agree?

In truth, I spent too many of my years focused on things of the dark side, astrology, reincarnation beliefs, spiritism. It wasn't a large percentage of my life but long enough to know I didn't want any part of it, anymore.

I now read all I can about heaven and try to live the remainder of my days in such a way as to make this destiny appealing as well to those who have the fortune/misfortune of meeting and putting up with me.

Tina B| 10.21.11 @ 2:19PM

Oh, and Rich, if Universalism is the belief that we all end up in heaven (Eternity with Christ) I am in no danger of buying into that. Christ is as He says, "the Way, the Truth and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through. . ." Him. I find that amazingly clear.

Rich D.| 10.21.11 @ 5:53PM

Glad to hear that, and that you are free from old demons. It's just that some (NOT you) interpret "died for all" as a way of do anything and get cheap grace because the price was paid.

Tina B| 10.21.11 @ 9:36PM

Yes, and as you and I know He paid it all, all to Him we owe, sin had left a crimson stain, He washed it white as snow. Thank you, Lord Jesus.

POST American| 10.22.11 @ 12:54AM

USURY is a deviant system, putting this
thing, money, between the simple trade
of goods and labor. It always has been,
always will be.

---------------IT IS ABOMINATION-----------------

It doesn't stop there.

It monetarizes, ie 'counts' ALLLLLL human,
worldly ---even, so it imagines,
'spear--IT---YOU---ALL' reality.

It DENIES the REALITY of the invisible
and the unknown.

It creates a psychopathic 'SO SHALL'
'SIS-stem'.

It HATES the living GOD ----and makes
counter-fits.

It reduces you down to your CON-Sumerian
bottom line ---and feeds you your
'EYE-doll--'IT'--trees',

THEN ------it sends you to Hell ---with giggles.

-------------------IN A NUTSHELL---------------------

------------HUAC meets NUREMBERG 2012--------

Rich D| 10.23.11 @ 12:53AM

Switch to orange juice, please.

Nick| 10.22.11 @ 3:34PM

The first defense in combating evil is to be baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Because baptism is necessary for salvation.

Christ showed how important baptism was by making it His first act of His public ministry (see John 1) and having the disciples baptize, after He explained its necessity to Nicodemus (see John 3.) Christ also said that baptism saves:

"And he said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to the whole creation. He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned." - Mark 16:15-16

Saint Peter, following Christ's teaching, preached the same message:

"Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ [...]." - 1 Peter 3:21

Simon Kephas aslo couldn't have been more clear about the effects of baptism:

"And Peter said to them, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." - Acts 2:38

Saint Paul needed to be baptised, even though he was chosen specifically by Christ to preach His Good News:

"So Anani'as departed and entered the house. And laying his hands on him he said, "Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus who appeared to you on the road by which you came, has sent me that you may regain your sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit.' And immediately something like scales fell from his eyes and he regained his sight. Then he rose and was baptized [...]." - Acts 9:17-18

"And he said, `The God of our fathers appointed you to know his will, to see the Just One and to hear a voice from his mouth; for you will be a witness for him to all men of what you have seen and heard. And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name.'" - Acts 22:14-16

Even the Ethiopian eunuch, after Saint Philip preached the Gospel of Christ to him, knew that he must be baptized:

"Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning with this scripture he told him the good news of Jesus. And as they went along the road they came to some water, and the eunuch said, 'See, here is water! What is to prevent my being baptized?' And he commanded the chariot to stop, and they both went down into the water, Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him." - Acts 8:35-38

Paul also likens baptism to Christ's death on the Cross. Didn't Christ's death save us?

"Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life." - Romans 6:3-4

Paul shows that baptism was promised by God, when he echoes the prophecy of Ezekiel:

"Therefore, brethren, since we have confidence to enter the sanctuary by the blood of Jesus, by the new and living way which he opened for us through the curtain, that is, through his flesh, and since we have a great priest over the house of God, let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water." - Hebrews 10:19-22

"I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. 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." - Ezekiel 36:25-27

Tina B| 10.22.11 @ 7:12PM

Nick, I couldn't agree more. . .
after being baptized as a baby, in the Catholic rite, I came to know my Savior and chose to be immersed as an adult, along with my son, 11 at the time, and loved the way it was done, with the pastor who changed my life. My daughter was immersed in a friends pool, and baptized by the same minister, the Rev. Ralph Maynard, Lutheran minister for a few years, then a missionary to the Dani tribe in Indonesia for 15 years, and my pastor for the next 20 or so in the Christian Missionary Alliance Church. I know baptism is vital, as an outward sign of an inward commitment to love, honor and serve God the Father, Son and Spirit. Thanks for all those Scriptural reminders.

Margie| 10.23.11 @ 2:02PM

Actually Tina B.,

Nick doesn't agree with you. I wonder if he'll say so. He usually doesn't let Scripture get in the way of Catholic teaching.

He believes, falsely and against Scripture, that Baptism IS what saves.

And that John 3:3 is talking about Baptism where Jesus says "unless one is born of water" referring to the flesh, as He later concludes with, "that which is born of the flesh is flesh", and not being born again (of the Spirit).

Catholicism perverts His clear teaching, and does not teach of being born of the Spirit (or regenerated from above as the original Greek says).

This is to make the poor sheep think that Salvation is by Baptism, and they buy it hook line and sinker, not even knowing how evil it truly is.

Nick| 10.23.11 @ 2:47PM

Margie,

I explained all of this to you in a previous thread, perhaps you missed it:

http://spectator.org/archives/.....ent_652430

Baptism is the first act of sanctifying grace that saves Christians. The others are Confirmation, Penance, and most importantly, the Holy Eucharist.

It is through baptism that "original sin is forgiven, and which also forgives any actual sins there may be; it remits all punishment due for these sins; it impresses on the soul the mark of the Christian; it makes us children of God, members of the Church and heirs to heaven, and enables us to receive the other sacraments" (St. Pius X, Catechism, 553).
God Bless!

victor| 10.23.11 @ 2:59PM

Nick,

I have presented the Scriptures that reveal the falsity of Catholicism.

And this entire paragraph is completely unScriptural:

"Baptism is the first act of sanctifying grace that saves Christians. The others are Confirmation, Penance, and most importantly, the Holy Eucharist."

Sadly, you don't care about the Scripture.

I hope you repent.

Margie| 10.23.11 @ 3:05PM

That was me. Hubby & I are sharing the keyboard.
Nick,

The Words of God what real Christians listen to.

"You hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy of you, when he said:
'This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from Me;
in vain do they worship Me, teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.'" Mt. 15:7-9.

Nick| 10.23.11 @ 4:04PM

Margie,

"I have presented the Scriptures that reveal the falsity of Catholicism."

You have never done any such thing. But, I'm a patient man. I'll wait, in vain.

"Sadly, you don't care about the Scripture."

An absurd statement, since you know me better than that.

"I hope you repent."
And, I hope you also repent. We all need forgiveness.
God Bless!

Margie| 10.23.11 @ 7:34PM

You're a blatant liar, Mr. Catholic Man.

I just posted Scripture disproving the false teachings.

And I ALWAYS HAVE DONE SO.

Pervert.

Nick| 10.24.11 @ 12:03AM

Margie,

"I just posted Scripture disproving the false teachings."

Which Scripture would that be? And, which teaching would that be? If you are referring to your posting of Matthew 15:7-9, what teaching of the Catholic Church is supposedly being disproved here?

"And I ALWAYS HAVE DONE SO."

No, you have not. You either copy and paste from others, who get many facts wrong, like Rev. Testa and Mr. Job; assert your mistaken interpretation of Scripture; or, you wrench Scriptures out of context to try to prove your point.

Sometimes, you just paste random Scripture quotations which disprove nothing the Catholic Church teaches, nor, do they refute any point of mine.
God Bless!

Margie| 10.24.11 @ 1:28PM

Like the despicable lying Papists of old: You lie!

I just posted SCRIPTURE to the lies of Catholicism, but you are too BLIND to want to see it.

Of COURSE Christians cut and paste Scripture. As a matter of fact, we revere it, try and live by it, and God Commands it.

Christians follow Scripture.
Catholics follow the Pope.

Your "choice", Nick~ as sadly, you are doing what you are destined to do.

But to blatantly LIE?
Heh, you already have your reward.

Nick| 10.24.11 @ 8:13PM

Margie,

You can't even answer two simple questions.
I asked you to which Scripture were you referring, and, which teachings of the Catholic Church did you supposedly disprove?

Why can't you answer these simple questions?

Nick| 10.23.11 @ 2:27PM

Tina B.,

You are very welcome. I enjoy sharing the Gospel of Christ, whenever I am able. I'm also glad that you see the need for baptism.

I pray that someday you will get to know Christ the Savior even better, by experiencing His Real Presence in the Holy Eucharist. And, that you receive the gifts of the Holy Spirit at Confirmation. These are also vital to every Christian, just as baptism is necessary to wash away the stain of original sin by the power of the Holy Spirit.
God Bless!

Rich D| 10.22.11 @ 11:38PM

Nick| 10.22.11 @ 3:34PM

"The first defense in combating evil is to be baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Because baptism is necessary for salvation."

That is incorrect because it makes it a gospel of works righteousness. Your salvation is dependent on what Christ did, and not what you do. Baptism is a means. or visible sign of our union of Christ in his death and resurrection. It is Christ who saves, and not the water - it the gracious gift of faith that the effects the change in one's heart, and willing baptism is the response that seals one into the new fellowship with Christ.

Nick continues: 'Simon Kephas aslo couldn't have been more clear about the effects of baptism: "And Peter said to them, "Repent (all of you, plural), and be baptized (you singular) every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your (you plural) sins; and you (plural) shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." - Acts 2:38'

You are putting more into this verse in isolation than it can support. The verbs associated with repentance, forgiveness, and receiving the HS are all plural. Taking the verse in strict grammatical order would imply that sins are forgiven before receiving the HS, which is the exact opposite of what occurs. Not only that, faith is not mentioned, and one cannot be saved without faith.

The other verse that you quote (Mk 16:15-16) makes it obvious that one without belief is condemned regardless of baptism. It does not say that baptism is necessary. Regarding 1 Pet 3:21, he is saying that the water of baptism has a correspondence, but not a perfect one as an antitype to the water that was connected to Noah's salvation. However, it wasn't the water that saved Noah - it was his faith that caused him to build the ark. The water killed! Baptism properly performed in true faith and repentance is a sign of our purification not by washing, but by our response to God.

The Greek word (eperotema) that was translated as "appeal" actually meant your response to the questioner who examined your faith before he baptized you. Baptism is a response to faith.

Water to the ancients was chaos (see Genesis), so baptism into death means dunking so that the person is under control of the water. The word baptizo was used in reference to a sinking ship. Sprinking doesn't cut it.

Finally, it arguably does no good to baptize a baby who is incapable of assent.

Margie| 10.23.11 @ 2:32PM

"The promise to Abraham and his descendants, that they should inherit the world, did not come through the law but through the righteousness of faith...
That is why his faith was "reckoned to him as righteousness".
But the words, "it was reckoned to him," were written not for his sake alone,
but for ours also.
It will be reckoned to us who believe in Him that raised from the dead Jesus our Lord, who was put to death for our trespasses and raised for our justification. Rom. 4:13 & 22-25.

"..because, if you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.
For man believes with his heart and so is justified, and he confesses with his lips and so is saved.
The Scripture says, "No one who believes in Him will be put to shame." Rom. 10:9-11.

And THAT is the true Gospel of Jesus Christ.
Baptism doesn't bring about Salvation, as it is written.
Believing does, and confessing Him with your lips!

Jesus has set us free from phony Religion and its yoke of slavery.
Jesus' Yoke is light. He says so. Mt.11:30.

To what Rich said about Jesus dying for ALL: Jesus died concerning the sins the World, but as it is written above in Rom. 4:24, He died for those who "were to believe in Him." That is, the Elect, the predestined.

As it is written in Jn. 3:17 & 18:

"For God sent the Son into the world, not to condemn the world, but that the world [might] be saved through Him.
He who believes in Him is not condemned; he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the Name of the only Son of God."

"He destined us in love to be His sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of His will.."

And again, here: "we who first hoped in Christ have been destined and appointed to live for the praise of His Glory." Eph. 1:5 & 12.

"..chosen and destined by God the Father and sanctified by the Spirit for obedience to Jesus Christ and for sprinkling with His blood: May Grace and peace be multiplied to you." 1 Pe. 1:12.

"It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the Words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life." Jn. 6:63.

For those who refuse to believe in Him:

"And "A stone that will make men stumble, a Rock that will make them fall"; for they stumble because they disobey the Word, as they were destined to do." 1 Pe. 2:8.

Disobeying the Word makes them stumble.
That's why Jesus IS the Way! Jn. 14:6.

Nick| 10.23.11 @ 3:56PM

Rich D.,

" Your salvation is dependent on what Christ did, and not what you do."

This statement is not completely accurate. All of us can reject Christ, correct? We have to assent to the Will of God. Christ said, "Knock and it will be opened." So, we do have to do something. We must ask God for His Grace and submit to His Will.

It is through God's Graces, the Sacraments, that we are able to be saved. These are free gifts from God, along with Faith, Charity, and Hope. We can not possess the three theological virtues without God's help and power. Without God, we can do nothing. Also, I don't claim that it is the water that saves. It is the ritual of baptism, the gestures, elements, and the prayers, that saves.

"You are putting more into this verse in isolation than it can support."

I don't see how your assertions about verb tenses changes what Saint Peter said, and did, at Pentecost. In fact, I have read that the Greek can be translated to include all that were in the household. Thus, making the literal translation of Acts 2:38: "If you repent, then each one who is a part of you and yours must each be baptized [...].” Again, I don't claim to be an ancient Greek scholar, so, I don't know how accurate this claim may be.

"[Mark 16:15-16] does not say that baptism is necessary."

It doesn't? What am I missing? Christ said those who believed and were baptized would be saved. Faith and baptism are both needed, according to Christ.

"However, it wasn't the water that saved Noah - it was his faith that caused him to build the ark. The water killed!"

Your interpretation is mistaken, this is not what Peter is saying, at all. It was the water that saved Noah and his family from the "wickedness" of mankind, because "all the thought of their heart was bent upon evil at all times" (Genesis 6). The Flood was a type, a prefiguring, of baptism, because it saved Noah by the power of God. Peter explicitly said, "during the building of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were saved through water" (1 Peter 3:20). Was Simon Kephas wrong?

"Sprinking doesn't cut it."

God told Ezekiel to tell the Israelites that He would "sprinkle clean water upon" them, and give them a "new heart" and a "new Spirit." Please, take this up with Him. (Catholics don't sprinkle during baptism, by the way. The priest pours the water over the person's head.)

Finally, I didn't mention infant baptism, once, in my comment. But, I can, if you would like?
God Bless!

Rich D| 10.24.11 @ 9:20PM

Me: " Your salvation is dependent on what Christ did, and not what you do."

Nick: "This statement is not completely accurate. All of us can reject Christ, correct? We have to assent to the Will of God."

Which will? His (1) sovereign will, (2) perceptive will, or (3) will of disposition? You cannot violate the first, and it is revealed to you only after it comes to pass. You can prevent, for example, you hair from growing, nor can you prevent gravity's effect on you.

God's perceptive, or revealed will, such as his commandments you have the power but not the right to break

God's will of disposition is what is pleasing to him. He is pleased when we are obedient and not pleased when we are not.

Now, regarding being saved - which will are you talking about?

Nick: "Christ said, 'Knock and it will be opened." So, we do have to do something. We must ask God for His Grace and submit to His Will.'

You have several things in here that are in different categories. Why would anyone ask for God's Spirit if he didn't already have it? Do atheists ask to be saved? Asking for grace is asking for something for nothing. Again, which will do you think covers these things?

Nick| 10.25.11 @ 4:20PM

Rich D.,

"Which will?"

I guess I meant His will of disposition. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. I meant the plan that God has for all of us. We are all called by God to seek Him and to submit to the plan He has for us (see Acts 17:26-27).

If we reject God, and the plan He has for us, even if we have been baptized, we can lose our salvation.

"You have several things in here that are in different categories."

My only point was that we must cooperate with God's saving grace, because we have free-will to accept it or reject it. Many people ask for God's Grace when they hit rock bottom, by the way, including atheists.

I hope that I'm being clearer. But, if not, please ask for more clarification.
God Bless!

Rich D| 10.24.11 @ 9:24PM

Nick, I didn't say anything about verb tenses - I said something about verb number, i.e., singular or plural.

Nick| 10.25.11 @ 4:29PM

Rich D.,

Yes, you are correct. I apologize for my mistake.

But, I still don't see how the plural or singular changes Saint Peter's message. Or, more importantly, what Simon Kephas did on that first Pentecost, after Christ's Ascension: Baptized 3,o00 souls.

Rich D| 10.26.11 @ 12:36AM

The plural verbs are addressed to a group; no logical temporal order is implied. As I mentioned, faith is not even in the list.

Nick| 10.27.11 @ 1:10AM

I must still be missing something. I don't see how this changes Peter's message. Or, what the Apostles did that day.

They preached the Good News of Jesus Christ in different languages, which they did not know. 3,ooo souls heard the Good News, and believed. The 3,000 were then baptized. This is the formula used throughout the New Testament.

Except when Peter was preaching to Cornelius and his family, in Acts 10:34-48. In this instance, Cornelius' household was sealed and confirmed with the gifts of the Holy Spirit before they were baptized. This was to show Peter, and the other Jews that were with him, that Gentiles were to be full members of Christ's Church.

Rich D| 10.24.11 @ 9:53PM

Me: "[Mark 16:15-16] does not say that baptism is necessary."

Nick: "It doesn't? What am I missing? Christ said those who believed and were baptized would be saved. Faith and baptism are both needed, according to Christ."

First, the verb for belief is and aorist active participle, denoting past completed action. It should be translated "He who has believed" or "having believed and been baptized" (a passive participle, not active, as a result of belief)...

It does not say that person who believes and is not baptized is condemned. What does John 3:16-18 say? What about the thief on the cross? To say that a person who believes and is not baptized is condemned is putting word into scripture that are not there. Baptism is an act of obedience to faith.

John 5:24
New International Version (NIV)
24 “Very truly I tell you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be judged but has crossed over from death to life.

Nick| 10.25.11 @ 4:50PM

Rich D.,

"It does not say that person who believes and is not baptized is condemned."

I didn't claim that it did.

"What about the thief on the cross?"

This is why the Catholic Church teaches the baptism of blood, for martyrs, and the baptism of desire, for those like the Good Thief. These are special circumstances, though.

For those who are instructed in the Faith, and believe, the first step of Christian initiation is baptism, as Christ clearly taught. The tense of the verb believe doesn't change this fact.

Regarding John 3:16-17, Christ is speaking to Nicodemus, a member of the Sanhedrin, and a Pharisee. Christ is explaining that if those who should know better, i.e., the Sanhedrin, Pharisees, and scribes, should reject the Messiah, they will be condemned. Christ had already explained the necessity of baptism to Nicodemus, previously, in John 3:3.

"Baptism is an act of obedience to faith."

On this, we completely agree. Although, maybe not for the same reasons.
God Bless!

Rich D| 10.26.11 @ 12:20AM

Me: "It does not say that person who believes and is not baptized is condemned."

Nick: "I didn't claim that it did."

But if that person is saved, then it is unnecessary. The fact that you agree that it is a response to faith (unless I misunderstand you) means that grace already produced the saving faith. If the response were necessary, then faith would not be by grace. Even Augustine says that faith comes from grace alone, even in those who are adverse to it: "God by his grace turns men's wills to the true faith when they are not only averse to it, but actually adverse. (PL, 45, c. 1025).

His problem was that he knew no Greek, and misunderstood Paul's use of justification and thought that one could become more and more justified.

Nick| 10.27.11 @ 12:58AM

Rich D.,

Yes, I think you are misunderstanding my point. I don't believe that baptism bestows faith on the recipient. Baptism washes away sins by the power of the Holy Spirit.

To repeat what I wrote previously: For those who are instructed in the Faith, and believe, the first step of Christian initiation is baptism, as Christ clearly taught. This is what happened with Philip and the Ethiopian. Philip instructed the eunuch about Christ being the Messiah. The Ethiopian believed that Christ was the Messiah, he had faith. He then asked to be baptized.

I'm sure that Philip also laid his hands on the eunuch, to confirm him in the Holy Spirit, as it specifies in other Scriptures (cf Acts 8:14-17; Acts 19:5-6).

So, under normal circumstances, non-Christians are to be instructed in the Good News of Christ Jesus, and, when they have faith and want to commit themselves to Christ, they are to be baptized, to wash away their sins. Faith comes before baptism. When there is no time to baptize a person who has faith, there is baptism by blood and desire, for martyrs and those like the Good Thief.

If you are wondering how an infant can have faith, and then be baptized, he can't. But, his parents can have the faith. Remember, baptism is to wash away sins. The only sin an infant has is original sin. It is important to remove this stain on one's soul.

This is why Christ began His ministry by getting baptized by John, and ended it by sending the Holy Spirit on Pentecost, after He had Ascended.

The Holy Spirit washes away sins at baptism and He gives His gifts at confirmation. So, an infant benefits from baptism, even though he doesn't have faith, yet. When he attains an age where he can declare his faith (13-14, usually,) he is sealed with the Holy Spirit and receives His gifts. This equips him to do battle in the spiritual warfare he is about to encounter.

Rich D| 10.24.11 @ 10:14PM

Me: "However, it wasn't the water that saved Noah - it was his faith that caused him to build the ark. The water killed!"

Nick: "Your interpretation is mistaken, this is not what Peter is saying, at all. It was the water that saved Noah and his family from the "wickedness" of mankind, because "all the thought of their heart was bent upon evil at all times" (Genesis 6). The Flood was a type, a prefiguring, of baptism, because it saved Noah by the power of God. Peter explicitly said, "during the building of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were saved through water" (1 Peter 3:20). Was Simon Kephas wrong?

No, you are. The Greek word "dia" translated as "through" is the root of "diameter", which means measure through (to the other side of) the circle. It does not mean that water was the saving instrument. It obviously was the destroying instrument, and the ark built by faith saved the lives. One would think that a drowning woman would pray for a boat, and not more water. The antetype match is between the water (chaos) that caused physical death and the water of complete immersion that signifies your death to human will. Coming out of it is the sign of your spiritual rebirth. The water of baptism does not cause your actual death or rebirth. We need to read all of Scripture in context. It is a baptism into Christ's death. It is only a sign of what has already happened to you.

Nick| 10.25.11 @ 5:46PM

Rich D.,

"The Greek word 'dia' translated as 'through' is the root of 'diameter', which means measure through (to the other side of) the circle."

This is an interesting factoid, but, again, it doesn't change Peter's teaching.

"It does not mean that water was the saving instrument."

It most certainly does. Here are the definitions of di that I found: " (a) gen: through, throughout, by the instrumentality of, (b) acc: through, on account of, by reason of, for the sake of, because of." Source: http://concordances.org/greek/1223.htm

1 Peter 3:20 is also translated as "were saved by water" in the King James and Douay Rheims.

The eight souls were saved by water because the water destroyed the wickedness that surrounded them. Just like baptism destroys original sin, any sins committed up to that point, and the punishment due to committing those sins.

And, just as the Flood only happened once, to eliminate the effects of Adam's sin, i.e., his wicked descendants; baptism only happens once, because we can never be stained with original sin again, once it has been washed away by the Holy Spirit. We can, of course, sin again, repeatedly, and therefore, require forgiveness and penance.

Peter's point is that baptism is not like the Old Testament ritual washing's, which remove only dirt. The water saves, just like it did in Noah's day, because it washes away iniquity. The Flood did it in a physical way, through the invisible power of God. Baptism is also physical, but, it is the power of the Holy Spirit that does the real washing.

I'm curious. What is your position on 1 Peter 3:19-20, "[...] in which he went and preached to the spirits in prison, who formerly did not obey[...] in the days of Noah [...]."

Who are these "spirits [...] who formerly did not obey [...] in the days of Noah"? And what is this "prison" they were in?

I would say that it is Sheol, the abode of the dead, Hades in Greek. Sheol was not Heaven, because Heaven is not a prison. But, Sheol was not Gehenna, the place of damnation, either, because Christ does not preach to the damned.

What is your interpretation, Rich?

Rich D| 10.26.11 @ 12:28AM

The correct translation of "dia" must be in context.If the water "saved", what was the ark for?

Nick| 10.26.11 @ 11:26PM

Rich D.,

The translation is in context. That is why it is rendered that all eight were saved through, or by, water. I thought I explained it rather well, but, Saint Peter expounds on the same theme, here:

"For if God did not spare the angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to pits of nether gloom to be kept until the judgment; if he did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a herald of righteousness, with seven other persons, when he brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly; if by turning the cities of Sodom and Gomor'rah to ashes he condemned them to extinction and made them an example to those who were to be ungodly; and if he rescued righteous Lot, greatly distressed by the licentiousness of the wicked (for by what that righteous man saw and heard as he lived among them, he was vexed in his righteous soul day after day with their lawless deeds), then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from trial, and to keep the unrighteous under punishment until the day of judgment, and especially those who indulge in the lust of defiling passion and despise authority." - 2 Peter 2:4-10

Another example of God using His power to save the righteous is during the Exodus and the parting of the Red Sea, which is also an Old Testament type of baptism. God uses water to save the Israelites from the wickedness of pharaoh:

"I want you to know, brethren, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea [...]." - 1 Cor. 10:1-2

So, Peter, in both of his letters, says that God removes the wicked from among the righteous to keep the righteous from succumbing to temptation, evil, and "lawless deeds." This is why Simon Kephas says that Noah and his family "were saved by water."

It was a gift from God that He told Noah to build the ark. But, all the ark did was save their physical lives. The Flood saved their spiritual lives, by removing the ungodly. Also, God did not give Noah the ark, he and his sons had to build it.If the ark saved them, couldn't someone argue that Noah was saved by his own actions?

Rich D| 10.27.11 @ 1:35AM

Nick: "Also, God did not give Noah the ark, he and his sons had to build it. If the ark saved them, couldn't someone argue that Noah was saved by his own actions?"

Lot's of people argue it, and they are fundamentally wrong. You are not convincing me, ever. Building the ark was a response to faith. The metaphor goes only so far - Noah was not saved to eternal life by water, nor are you by baptism.

Every time you make someone saved by their own actions, you degrade the sacrifice of Christ and grace is no longer grace, period. You will need to choose another word, then. Salvation is a free gift of God. Noah's faith saved him.

Also, nothing you do can in any way obligate God to respond to your behavior with a payment.

Be careful not to get too wrapped up in a few verses.

Nick| 10.27.11 @ 4:25PM

Rich D.,

"Lot's of people argue it, and they are fundamentally wrong."

I'm not arguing this point. I just asked if others might. I had never heard of this argument before, so, I wondered if could be used, that's all.

"Every time you make someone saved by their own actions, you degrade the sacrifice of Christ and grace is no longer grace, period."

That would be true, if I had ever done this. How many times do I have to state that we can do nothing without God. Everything we have, or get, is from God. Including faith and grace. I can't increase my faith on my own. I can only pray for God to increase my faith, and to strengthen me with His Graces.

It is God Who commands us to be baptized, this is why it is obedience. Just like when God commanded Noah to build the ark. Noah obeyed and was saved from the wickedness of his neighbors, by the waters of the Flood. Likewise, Christ commanded baptism so that sins would be washed away by the Holy Spirit. Baptism is a Grace from God that He requires for us to be saved.

"Also, nothing you do can in any way obligate God to respond to your behavior with a payment."

You seem to have my point reversed. That, somehow, because I was baptized, I can demand salvation from God. I have never claimed this. In fact, I wrote the opposite. Salvation can be lost, after baptism, by deliberately sinning. But, to be saved by Christ, baptism is the necessary first step.

Rich D| 10.26.11 @ 12:53AM

Not sure why you want that - however, I will attempt an explanation. The spirits are not humans, but angels. See Jude 6 & 7. They left behind (apoleipo) their spiritual bodies (oiketerio - whatever that is) and did not stay where they were created. He went to tartarus (the verb is tartaroo), the place in Greek mythology where the Titans were sent for punishment.The term was taken over in this passage. Christ did not preach, as you say, but heralded or proclaimed (kerusso), not preached (evangelizo) his victory over death. And, it happened after his spirit was reunited with his resurrected body.

Nick| 10.27.11 @ 12:16AM

Rich D.,

I'm not sure what Jude 6 & 7 has to do with 1 Peter 3:19-20. As my quotation of 2 Peter 2:4, above, shows, Peter (or his scribe) knew perfectly well the word for angel. He uses it three times in both of his epistles.

" Christ did not preach, as you say [...]."

It is not "as [I] say", it is how the RSV translates the verse, among others. And, again, according to the Biblos.com website, kérussó means: I proclaim, herald, preach.

Also, euaggelizó means to proclaim the Good News; eu= "good, well" and angellō= "announce, herald." This is where we get the word Evangelist. ἐκήρυξεν is used twice in the Bible. 1 Peter and Acts 10:37.

But, in my opinion, your distinction is without a difference. Whether Christ proclaimed, preached, announced, or heralded to the spirits in prison, is not that consequential. My questions were who were these spirits, and what was this prison they were in? Your assertion that the spirits were angels is not very convincing, I'm sorry to say.

By the way, Biblos says that oikétérion means a dwelling-place, habitation, abode. Jude 6 & 7 is talking about the 1/3 of the angels who rebelled against God, with Satan, and were cast into Gehenna, Hell. This seems pretty apparent to me.
God Bless!

Rich D| 10.27.11 @ 1:23AM

What was the point of that exercise? The spirits were not being given the good news, and the dwelling place for the spirit was some sort of body. They are called angels in 2 Pt 2:4.

Nick| 10.27.11 @ 4:03PM

Rich D.,

Saint Peter is not talking about angels in 1 Peter 3:19. He uses the word pneuma: wind, breath, spirit. He did not use aggelos, like he did in 2 Pet. 2:4. Jude 6 & 7 has nothing to do with what Peter is talking about, in 1 Pet. 3:19.

The spirits were in prison from the days of Noah. So, they were not angels. They were the souls of the dead, which Christ descended down to preach to them:

"In saying, 'He ascended,' what does it mean but that he had also descended into the lower parts of the earth?" - Eph. 4:9

Also, Christ did preach, or " heralded or proclaimed" the Good News to these spirits, because Peter tells us that He did, in the next chapter:

"For this is why the gospel was preached even to the dead, that though judged in the flesh like men, they might live in the spirit like God." - 1 Pet. 4:6

Your claim that Christ went to "tartarus" is baffling. The abode of the dead was Sheol in Hebrew, Hades in Greek. This was different than Gehenna, or Hell, the place of damnation and the lake of fire.

Rich D| 10.28.11 @ 1:42AM

Still, what is the point of this exercise? The abode of the dead (Sheol) in Hebrew theology is NOT a place of torture or prison. There is no theological argument that can be made that those physically dead have a chance at redemption. There is no point in preaching to the dead who are either saved or not.

There is, however, a case to be made that Jesus would proclaim his victory over death.

Regarding tartarus (or the verb tartaroo), see 2 Peter 2:4. The text says, "For if God angels who missed the mark did not spare but to chains (band or cord) of deep gloom (used only by Peter and Hude) having sent to Tartaros (the underworld in Greek mythology where Titans were sent for punishment, used generically) handed over (same word used for what Judas did to Jesus) into (in the sense of a place or point reached) custody (being guarded over, watched over) for a decision (a sentence rendered by a judge - either positive or negative). This word Tartarosas is a hapax legomenon and is not found in the LXX. It is a pagan term.

Nick| 10.28.11 @ 2:22PM

Rich D.,

"The abode of the dead (Sheol) in Hebrew theology is NOT a place of torture or prison."

Saint Peter doesn't say the spirits are being tortured. He just says that they are in prison.

"There is no point in preaching to the dead who are either saved or not."

So, Peter was wrong when he wrote that the Gospel was preached to the dead? I think he states this rather clearly. Just to refresh your memory:

"For this is why the gospel was preached even to the dead, that though judged in the flesh like men, they might live in the spirit like God." - 1 Pet. 4:6

"Regarding tartarus (or the verb tartaroo), see 2 Peter 2:4."

This is why I was confused. When you first mentioned this "tartarus" we were discussing 1 Pet. 3:19-20. You tried to link it to Jude 6 & 7. When I looked up both of those verses in the Greek, I did not see tartarōsas used in either of them. You didn't mention 2 Pet. 2:4 at all. See why I was confused?

But, again, your explanation doesn't jibe with the Scriptures. It has no basis in what is written in 1st and 2nd Peter or Jude.

In 1 Pet. 3:19-20, Peter says that the pneumasin (spirits) are in phulakē (prison) and that Christ ekēruxen (preached) to them.
A few verses later (1 Pet. 4:6) Simon Kephas repeats that Christ euēngelisthē (preached the good news) to the nekrois (dead.)

In 2 Pet. 2:4, Peter says that the angelōn (angels) were cast into tartarōsas (the lowest pit of Hades, the place of the damned, i.e., Gehenna, Hell.)

In Jude 6 & 7, Saint Jude also relates the fall of the angels, albeit in somewhat different language. He says that the angelous (angels) left their idion oikētērion (proper dwelling, i.e., Heaven) and were kept by Christ in desmois aidiois (eternal chains) in the zophon (gloomy darkness, i.e., Gehenna, Hell.)

2 Peter and Jude are talking about the fallen angels, i.e., demons, who rebelled against God. 1 Peter is talking about the souls in Sheol who were in prison until the gates of Heaven were opened with Christ's Death and Resurrection.

Christ explained this state in His parable about the rich man and the beggar Lazarus (see Luke 16). The rich man is in the abyss (pit) of Hades and condemned. Lazarus is in Abraham's bosom, with the rest of the Old Testament saints.

If, as you claim, Christ was proclaiming His victory over death to the demons and souls of the damned, why didn't Peter use the Greek word for victory, i.e., nikos?
God Bless!

Rich D| 10.29.11 @ 12:30AM

I quit. You haven't answered the question I asked twice now. YOU are wrong - there is NO support in Scripture that the dead have a second chance. If you think that they do, then you will read Scripture to make it support your position. If you want to call it preaching instead of heralding or proclaiming, fine, but that leaves the erroneous impression that it can change the disposition of the dead.

Your insistence that baptism is necessary for salvation is totally wrong. There are many verses that say that grace comes first, then faith, then obedience to faith. Baptism is an act of faith. You are interpreting Acts 2:38 without 2:37, which says that the group was already pierced in their hearts (by whom?), otherwise they wouldn't have put the question to Peter. Neither baptism nor circumcision were ever necessary for salvation.

Sorry.

Nick| 10.29.11 @ 2:19PM

Rich D.,

I'm sorry that you feel this way. But, I did answer your question when I stated that your explanation is not backed-up with what is written in the Scriptures.

"YOU are wrong - there is NO support in Scripture that the dead have a second chance."

I never claimed the dead have a second chance, nor, does the Catholic Church teach such a thing. I believe what Saint Peter wrote, that the spirits were judged in the flesh like men. And, that the Gospel was preached to them, by Christ, so that they might live in the spirit like God. There is no second chance.

"Your insistence that baptism is necessary for salvation is totally wrong."

You keep asserting this, but, cannot prove it from the Scriptures. Peter said that baptism "now saves you." Simon Kephas' words are good enough for me.

"There are many verses that say that grace comes first, then faith, then obedience to faith."

Grace is defined as a favor, or gift, from God. From the Greek charis, a gift or blessing from Christ. Faith is the gift, or grace, from God. Baptism, likewise, is a grace from God, which Christ commanded (Matthew 28:19).

"Neither baptism nor circumcision were ever necessary for salvation."

It's funny that you link baptism and circumcision, because circumcision was another Old Testament type of baptism. Circumcision was a visible, physical sign that separated the Israelites from the rest of the nations, just as baptism puts the mark of Christ on the Christian's soul, separating us from the non-Christians.

And, of course, circumcision was required for infants.

Even though the act of circumcision did not save the individual, it was necessary to be a clean and pious Jew. Because, circumcision was a covenant that God made with Abraham, and his descendants, in the flesh of their foreskin. Salvation only came with advent of the New Covenant, in Blood, of Jesus Christ.

It is interesting to note, that although the act of circumcision did not provide salvation, not getting circumcised could condemn the individual, because of disobedience:

"The male whose flesh of his foreskin shall not be circumcised, that soul shall be destroyed out of his people: because he has broken my covenant." - Genesis 17:14

God Bless!

Rich D| 10.29.11 @ 8:01PM

The question was, "What's the point of this exercise?"

Rich D| 10.29.11 @ 9:55PM

Jn 3:18 – no baptism
Gal 3:26 – just faith
Gal 3:27 – should be UNTO Christ as it is in vv. 23 & 24
1 Pt 3:21 – the ark was a figure, a type of Christ. Saving baptism is the answer of a good conscience. See verse 18.
Acts 16:31 – belief
Rom 10:9-10, 13 – no baptism
Revelation 1:5 – blood
Col 1;14 – blood
Lk 18:35-43 – no baptism
Eph 1:8 – by the HS
Acts 10 – HS before baptism
Acts 2:41 word received first
Acts 16:30 - belief alone
Eph 2:8-9 – faith alone
1 Cor 6:9-11 – washed by the spirit
1 Cor 1:17 – why was Paul sent? Not to baptize!
Titus 3:5 – not water
Gal 3:11 – life from faith
Jn 6:47 – Christ’s word: belief alone
Rom 10:10 – righteousness from belief

Of course, we have the whole gang evangelized by the Samaritan woman.

#1213 and #1277 are non-scriptural and wrong.

Nick| 10.29.11 @ 11:43PM

Rich D.,

I'm not sure what point I'm supposed to see from this random list of Scripture quotations?

"#1213 and #1277 are non-scriptural and wrong."

I have no idea what you are trying to say, here.
Would you please elaborate a little bit?
God Bless!

Rich D| 10.29.11 @ 11:55PM

They are all about salvation by faith without baptism. The two references are to the RC Catechism passages.

Nick| 10.30.11 @ 6:08PM

Rich D.,

I posted my reply, below, at the end of the thread.

POST American| 10.23.11 @ 12:53AM

-------------------BOTTOM LINE----------------------

Just days ago, 'Christian' tele CON-artist
and, we now learn, 33rd degree Luciferian
Freemason, PAT ROBERTSON, gave a green
light to the dumping of one's spouse with
Alzheimer's.

This is not only prime EUGENICS in the
name of 'X--speediancy' ----a Social Darwinist
Masonic 'fave' ---BUT it spits directly in the
face of Christ's spoken doctrine of 'ONE
man --ONE woman ---ONE life'.

-----------THIS HAS TO BE CALLED OUT-----------

-------Our churches have to be shovelled out--------

----THIS IS A REAL, URGENT and GENUINE
ISSUE.

STOP worshipping your 'bennie' saturated
rectums!

Margie| 10.23.11 @ 2:38PM

So, Pat Robertson is in error. So many are. But genuine Christians don't put their hope and trust in man, exactly because of things like this.. it's idolatry to do so. Whether it's Pat Robertson, Billy Graham, Richard Wurmbrand, a Pope, or any other person other than Christ, you'll be disappointed.

But Jesus NEVER disappoints. He is Faithful and True.

"Be strong and of good courage, do not fear or be in dread of them: for it is the LORD your God who goes with you; He will not fail you or forsake you." Duet. 31:6.

POST American| 10.23.11 @ 10:59PM

--------------------FINAL WORD-----------------------

"DIS--appointment" is NOT the word.

OUTRAGE over the issue of 'in your face'
Masonic and Rockefeller sleaze op INFILTRATION ---------IS the word.

-------WHERE are the issues in this journal????

WE KNOW so many are on rectum 'bennies'
---but STILL ------------WHERE ARE THE ISSUES???

----------------------WHERE?????-----------------------

Nick| 10.30.11 @ 6:07PM

Rich D.,

"They are all about salvation by faith without baptism."

Really? Several of those Scripture passages mention baptism specifically. The others are wrenched out of context and not about baptism to begin with. I will go through your list, one by one:

John 3:18 - Chapter 3 of the Gospel of John begins and ends with baptizing. This is what the whole chapter is about.

Gal. 3:26-27 - Yes, the same word is used, eis, which can be translated as unto or into. It doesn't change the fact that faith is followed by baptism, as I have been saying.

1 Pet. 3:21 - We have been over this, ad nauseum. Verse 18 doesn't change the fact that baptism "now saves you."

Acts 16:31 - And, three verses later, the jailer was baptized, along with the rest of his family.

Romans 10:9-10,13 - Straw man and out of context. I have stated that faith is a gift, or grace, from God that saves. So does baptism. Saint Paul explains this many faceted aspect of salvation in these verses. If you "confess with your lips," and "believe in your heart," and call "upon the name of the Lord," you will be saved.
Plus, since Paul is preaching against the Judaizers throughout his letter to Romans, about the works of the Law, these verses are not about baptism, or, its necessity. They are about the Gentiles being saved apart from works of the Law.

Rev. 1:5 - Out of context. It says we are freed from our sins by Christ's Blood. This is very true. It is not about salvation through baptism, though.

Col. 1:14 - Actually, the word for blood is not used. But, I agree with the interpretation. In the same letter, chapter 2, verses 11-12, Paul explains that Christians are circumcised, not with human hands, but "of Christ;" and that we are "buried with [Christ] in baptism."

Luke 18:35-43 - Just because the blind man's baptism isn't recorded, here, doesn't mean that he was not baptized. This is an account about one of Christ's many signs that He performed to fulfill the prophecies about Him. Citing an absence of evidence, as proof for your contention, requires you to ignore the plethora of examples recorded in the Scriptures.

Eph. 1:8 - Again, out of context. This is an opening greeting to one of Paul's letters, not a teaching on salvation and baptism, per se. Later, in Eph. 4:5, Paul says that there is "one Lord, one faith, one baptism."

Acts 10 - Yes, I cited this Scripture, previously, remember. Baptism was still necessary, was it not?

Acts 2:41 - Again, I previously cited, and explained, this verse.

Acts 16:30 - Asked, and answered, councilor. See, above.

Eph. 2:8-9 - Again, I agree with Paul's words. But, it does not say "faith alone." Faith is one of the many graces we receive from God.

1 Cor. 6:9-11 – This is a direct reference to baptism, in the Triune formula, which Christ commanded. You have washing (or cleansing,) sanctifying, and justifying.

1 Cor. 1:17 – Out of context and doesn't prove that baptism is not necessary. Paul is trying to settle a dispute about whom has authority to teach, not baptism. He says that Christ sent him to preach the Gospel, which would have included baptism, as he plainly states.

Titus 3:5 – Another reference to baptism. Which, as Paul states, is not a "deed done by us in righteousness." Baptism is a grace of God performed by the power of the Holy Spirit, not by men. The Holy Spirit is not in the water. The pouring of the water is the outward sign of a super-natural reality, done in obedience.

Gal 3:11 – Again, Paul is preaching against the Judaizers, who preach justification and righteousness through works of the Law. Baptism is not a work of the Law.

John 6:47 – Yes, and Christ says many times that you must eat His Body and drink His Blood. This is part of the "belief" to which you must accede. Do you believe this command of Christ's? And, this is the Eucharistic discourse. John covered baptism in chapter 3, remember?

Romans 10:10 - Asked, and answered, again.

"The two references are to the RC Catechism passages."

Instead of plucking out these two paragraphs in obscurity, you should read the whole article on baptism. Just look at the footnotes, they are filled with Scripture quotations. Did you not see them? Here is a link:

http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p2s2c1a1.htm

If I missed anything, please let me know.
God Bless!

Rich D| 10.30.11 @ 11:55PM

This is why I said that I would quit. You ignore all verses that say we are saved without baptism and treat the ones that do mention baptism as though they says that baptism is a requirement for salvation, which it is not. There is nothing left to debate. Baptism is a response, a work, not a requirement. The texts that say one is already justified as a gift from the Holy Spirit you ignore, as you also ignore those saved without baptism. You are confusing justification and sanctification. Justification is a one-time event. Sanctification is a process. Furthermore, I have read the Catechism and many Roman Catholic writers.

Nick: "Romans 10:10 - Asked, and answered, again."

You have no answer to this. Vv. 10-13 do not require baptism for salvation - it isn't even mentioned.

I don't see that you will ever give up these false teachings.

Nick| 10.31.11 @ 12:55AM

Rich D.,

How did I ignore anything? I replied to every Scripture verse you supplied. How can you even write such a thing? You are the one who is ignoring my responses.

"Baptism is a response, a work, not a requirement."

Then why did Christ command the Apostles: "Going therefore, teach all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost" (Matthew 28:19)?

Sounds like a requirement to me.

"You are confusing justification and sanctification."

How, exactly, did I do that?

"You have no answer to this. Vv. 10-13 do not require baptism for salvation - it isn't even mentioned."

Yes, I did. I'll repeat it for you:
Romans 10:9-10,13 - Straw man and out of context. I have stated that faith is a gift, or grace, from God that saves. So does baptism. Saint Paul explains this many faceted aspect of salvation in these verses. If you "confess with your lips," and "believe in your heart," and call "upon the name of the Lord," you will be saved.
Plus, since Paul is preaching against the Judaizers throughout his letter to Romans, about the works of the Law, these verses are not about baptism, or, its necessity. They are about the Gentiles being saved apart from works of the Law.

"I don't see that you will ever give up these false teachings."

I won't give them up because they are the Truth and come straight from the Sacred Scriptures.
God Bless!

Rich D| 10.31.11 @ 6:54PM

Me: "Baptism is a response, a work, not a requirement."

Nick: Then why did Christ command the Apostles: "Going therefore, teach all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost" (Matthew 28:19)?

Sounds like a requirement to me."

Yes, but not necessary for salvation. It is a SIGN! If everything he commanded is a requirement, then why haven't you sold everything and given it to the poor?

John 5:24
New International Version (NIV)
24 “Very truly (actually, "amen, amen") I tell you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be judged but has crossed over from death to life.

That's it - no mention of any other requirement, not baptism, not dying your hair, not clicking your heels. Don't add to Jesus's words.

Nick| 10.31.11 @ 11:41PM

Rich D.,

"Yes, but not necessary for salvation."

Except when Christ was about to Ascend to Heaven and said to the Apostles and disciples, "He who believes and is baptized will be saved" (Mark 16:16) and "Going therefore, teach all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost" (Matthew 28:19).

"If everything he commanded is a requirement, then why haven't you sold everything and given it to the poor?"

Did Christ command the Apostles to go to all nations and tell their inhabitants to sell everything and give it to the poor? I must have missed that one. I believe he told the rich man to sell his possessions, to make a point.

"That's it - no mention of any other requirement, not baptism, not dying your hair, not clicking your heels."

I have explained, before, that part of His Word, i.e., the Gospel, was the requirement to be baptized. That is why we see all of the examples of converts getting baptized after they have heard the Good News.

"Don't add to Jesus's words."

I'm doing no such thing. You are ignoring His Words, to be frank, because they don't fit in with your pre-conceived notions.
God Bless!

Rich D| 10.31.11 @ 7:02PM

Nick: "Romans 10:9-10,13 - Straw man and out of context. I have stated that faith is a gift, or grace, from God that saves. So does baptism."

Yes, you have stated it because you follow the teachings of men who have added to God's word. Stating it over and over does not make it true. How "if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved" (NASB) is out of context is beyond belief.

Nick: "Saint Paul explains this many faceted aspect of salvation in these verses."

Another error. Salvation is not many-faceted. It is based on one thing only as Jesus says repeatedly. You are not making stuff up.

Paul: "For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified (NIV)." That's all - just belief!

Nick| 11.1.11 @ 12:45AM

Rich D.,

"Stating it over and over does not make it true."

Which part? That faith saves? Or, that baptism saves? Or, that faith is a grace from God? Or, that baptism's power to forgive sins, through the Holy Spirit, is a grace from God?

"How [...] is out of context is beyond belief."

It is out of context for the reason that I provided. In Romans, Paul is preaching against the Judaizers claim of justification and salvation through works of the Law. Paul never says that baptism is a work of the Law. Paul only mentions baptism twice in Romans: 6:3&4.

"Another error. Salvation is not many-faceted. It is based on one thing only as Jesus says repeatedly."

The error is yours, I'm afraid. Does not Paul list three things that save you, in Romans 10:9? Paul says that if you "confess with your lips," and "believe in your heart," and call "upon the name of the Lord," you will be saved. Paul is not giving an exhaustive list of what is needed for salvation, here. Baptism is another thing that you need for salvation. Along with the Eucharist, Penance, and the laying on of hands (Confirmation.)

"You are not making stuff up."

I agree, I'm NOT making stuff up. Thank you.

"That's all - just belief!"

Show me one place in the New Testament where anyone says that a Christian only needs faith for salvation. It is justification, i.e., sanctifying grace, that is a process. Which leads, hopefully, to salvation. And, Paul says, in Romans 5: 1 & 9, that we are justified by faith and by Christ's blood.

Faith is only the first step, and, it is a gift, or grace, from God. Ignoring the rest is depriving you of everything that Christ taught.
God Bless!

Rich D| 11.1.11 @ 8:43PM

This is hopeless. You obviously lack any serious exegetical skills, and really haven't studied Romans to any great degree. It was not all about Judaizers, and it is precisely the point that baptism is not mentioned in the context of justification. I never said that baptism was a work of the law. I said it was a response by someone who had already received the Holy Spirit.

Have you done any graduate work studying any of these books? All of the verses that do not mention baptism you have either ignored, dismissed out of hand, or twisted the meaning to suit your dogma. The few that do mention baptism, you refuse to bow to the proper interpretation of Greek forms. You apparently rely on Strong's and not BDAG or even Zerwick & Grosvenor. For Romans, try reading Moo. For Paul, try one of several commentaries. Come back in five years.

You final challenge is simply ludicrous - I showed you many verses that do not say that baptism is necessary for salvation. When human action is required, grace is not grace. If you can't grasp that, you will never understand Scripture.

You: "Faith is only the first step, and, it is a gift, or grace, from God. Ignoring the rest is depriving you of everything that Christ taught."

That's skubala (see Paul), as is your blind insistence on non-exhaustive lists! Salvation is from God alone - you have no way to merit it.

You: "It is justification, i.e., sanctifying grace, that is a process. Which leads, hopefully, to salvation."

Justification is sanctifying grace that HOPEFULLY [emphasis mine] leads to salvation? Besides confusing the terms, you don't even have assurance of your own salvation! What a sad life! Have you sold all and given it to the poor? Guess you're doomed, then.

You make Christ a liar.

Nick| 11.2.11 @ 1:24AM

Rich D.,

"[...] and really haven't studied Romans to any great degree."

This is true. But, I have studied it enough to know that Romans and Galatians are Saint Paul's response to the Judaizer's claims about works of the Law. This was settled at the Council of Jerusalem, in Acts 15.

"Have you done any graduate work studying any of these books?"

No, I have not. And, I don't think one has to go to graduate school to be a Christian, or, to know what is written in the Bible. But, thank you for considering that I might have. I also read authors who have doctorates in theology and biblical studies.

"All of the verses that do not mention baptism you have either ignored [...]."

Just because baptism is not listed, doesn't mean that it was not necessary. Other verses say that baptism saves and that it was administered after converts believed. And, Christ commanded the Apostles and disciples to baptize all nations.

"You apparently rely on Strong's and not BDAG or even Zerwick & Grosvenor."

No, I rely on the RSV-CE, Douay-Rheims, Jerusalem Bible, and New American Bible. I use Strong's for Greek definitions because this seems to be the concordance of choice for Protestants.

"You [sic] final challenge is simply ludicrous - I showed you many verses that do not say that baptism is necessary for salvation."

Yes, but, that was not my challenge. I asked you to show me where in the Bible it says that faith is the only thing needed for salvation?

"When human action is required, grace is not grace."

The only human action required is acceptance of God's grace. The Holy Spirit does the rest.

"Salvation is from God alone - you have no way to merit it."

Straw man. I never claim that I could.

"Besides confusing the terms, you don't even have assurance of your own salvation!"

Nobody does, salvation is not guaranteed. It can always be lost, by rejecting God's graces. To believe in the doctrine of "once saved, always saved" is the sin of presumption.

If you were dangling from a precipice (which we all are,) and someone lowered a rope down to you (a gift to help save you,) you would still have to cooperate with this help, in order to be saved. And, you could always let go, and reject this help (grace) you have received, which you have not merited on your own. This is what the Sacraments do for us. They help us reach our destination: Heaven, i.e., seeing God face to face and participating in divine son-ship.

"Have you sold all and given it to the poor?"

No. Have you?

"You make Christ a liar."

This is a rather harsh and unfair comment. I don't think I deserve such an insulting remark. I have treated you with respect throughout all of our discussions. Sharing Sacred Scripture should not be acrimonious, don't you think?
God Bless!

Rich D| 11.5.11 @ 10:08PM

Nick: "I asked you to show me where in the Bible it says that faith is the only thing needed for salvation? (sic)"

R: "When human action is required, grace is not grace."

N: "The only human action required is acceptance of God's grace. The Holy Spirit does the rest."

Now you have contradicted yourself. Acceptance does not require baptism.

R: "Salvation is from God alone - you have no way to merit it."

N: "Straw man. I never claim that I could."

Not a straw man. Baptism to you is a required human act. Any required act (i.e., work), makes grace not grace and God a liar. Then it leads to other heretical works (merit-based) doctrines like infant baptism, limbo, purgatory, and the great abuses that history recorded. Your whole argument boils down to two misinterpreted verses.

And you are the one who insisted that we follow all that Jesus says, so why haven't you sold all and given to the poor? If you can allow context to interpret that, then why not the obvious contexts where baptism is mentioned?

You also disagree with Paul. A person follows the desires of his/her heart when free to choose. We naturally choose evil. Regeneration clearly proceeds faith - without a changed heart, faith will not follow. It is you who have set up a straw man with your distorted interpretation of "alone" in faith alone. Works are the evidence of faith, and not the cause. They are nothing but an outward sign, a testimony to the world, and an act of obedience.

Your rope analogy fails. In grasping it, you already demonstrated your saving faith. Faith and regeneration are coincident.

N: "And, I don't think one has to go to graduate school to be a Christian, or, to know what is written in the Bible."

I didn't say that, but aren't you doing what you accuse me of, setting up a straw man?

Nick| 11.7.11 @ 12:56AM

Rich D.,

"Now you have contradicted yourself. Acceptance does not require baptism."

I have not contradicted myself. Baptism is a grace from God. It is a grace that must be accepted, therefore, it is required.

"Baptism to you is a required human act."

No, it is a required Divine act. The Holy Spirit washes away the sins on our souls, not man. This Divine act is required by God, in the same way that the Temple priests and all the Israelites were required to perform certain acts to forgive sins.

"And you are the one who insisted that we follow all that Jesus says, so why haven't you sold all and given to the poor?"

I see your point, but, Christ hasn't told me to sell everything that I own. He only told the rich man to do this, as far as we know.

"Regeneration clearly proceeds faith - without a changed heart, faith will not follow."

Regeneration is a process that begins with faith and baptism. It is not a one time deal. Can we not reject God's graces? Even after we have received faith?

"Your rope analogy fails."

Grasping the rope is an act, and, is only the first step to being saved. You still have tie the rope around yourself. Then, you have to climb to safety (Heaven.) You are still in peril until you reach salvation. And, at any moment, you can chose to reject the help which has been offered to you. Or, you can make a decision that will result in your demise. I think the analogy works quite well.

"I didn't say that, but aren't you doing what you accuse me of, setting up a straw man?"

No, I am not. Your clear implication was that I don't know what Saint Paul is saying in his letter to the Romans because I haven't studied it at the graduate level. I don't believe this level of study is necessary to know the Word of God.

While some translations are certainly worse than others, I believe that the four that I use are sufficient to convey the original meaning of the texts into standard English. As I heard the well-known theologian, Dr. Scott Hahn, put it, "The best translation of the Bible is the one that you actually read."
God Bless!

Rich D| 11.7.11 @ 1:56AM

" Your clear implication was that I don't know what Saint Paul is saying in his letter to the Romans because I haven't studied it at the graduate level. I don't believe this level of study is necessary to know the Word of God."

Not what I said, and I imply nothing. I CONCLUDE that you have limited understanding of Romans from the way you talk about it.

Nick| 11.7.11 @ 11:16PM

Rich D.,

Your conclusions are nothing but mere assertions, with no refutation or counterpoint presented on your part. How am I wrong about Saint Paul's message in Romans?

Rich D| 11.6.11 @ 1:43PM

Here is where your basic error is - you have taken two difficult verses out of context and in stead of interpreting them in the light of many clear verses, you chose instead to force the superior number clear verses to say what you think the difficult verses say. This is a perverse method. Of course, you would feel guilty going against the same misinterpretations of your sect.

I find it funny and ironic that you would now claim for yourself the right and ability to read Scripture in your native language after centuries of argument against it, withholding of the texts, and persecution and death by heretics like you by your sect. Do they know that you are doing this?

Oh, retire the corrupt Douay-Rheims - it's a translation of a translation (Latin). The RSV is out of date. The NAB uses better sources, except that the Greek is now up to version 27; the NAB uses NA25. The NABRE goes a more overboard in its use of inclusive language.

Nick| 11.7.11 @ 1:26AM

Rich D.,

"Here is where your basic error is - you have taken two difficult verses out of context [...]."

Funny, I was going to write the same thing about you! Ha-ha!
These interpretations are the same as they were almost 2,000 years ago, amongst the early Christians.

"[...] after centuries of argument against it, withholding of the texts, and persecution and death by heretics like you by your sect."

Sorry, never happened. The Catholic Church has endeavored to put the Word of God into the language of the people since before Pope Damasus I had Saint Jerome undertake a new Latin translation of the Bible from the Greek, in the 4th century A.D.

The Church never withheld the Bible from anyone. And, no one was ever persecuted, or put to death, for translating the Sacred Scriptures. It was the heretical ideas they put into their translations that got them into trouble. Not the translating itself. (Even though they were unauthorized.)

"Do they know that you are doing this?"

I don't understand this question. Who are "they"? Also, I've never put anyone to death or persecuted them. I'm not a heretic, either.

"Oh, retire the corrupt Douay-Rheims - it's a translation of a translation (Latin)."

It's very close to the KJV, I have found. The NAB I use is from the 1970's. But, yes, it does use way too much inclusive language. I've heard that the RSV is the closest word-for-word translation available.

This is why I thank God for the Catholic Church. I can trust the translations which She approves. In conjunction with Sacred Tradition, of course. This is why you won't find Scripture Alone, along with Faith Alone, anywhere in the Bible.
God Bless!

Rich D| 11.7.11 @ 9:56AM

Me: "[...] after centuries of argument against it, withholding of the texts, and persecution and death by heretics like you by your sect."

You: The Church never withheld the Bible from anyone. And, no one was ever persecuted, or put to death, for translating the Sacred Scriptures. It was the heretical ideas they put into their translations that got them into trouble. Not the translating itself. (Even though they were unauthorized.)

That doesn't even pass the smell test. Unigenitus? Waldensians? Inquisition? Albignsians? Were they not slaughtered?

What happened to Wycliffe? Hus? Tyndale? Wycliffe's Bibles didn't contain any commentary, and was later faulted only for being slavish to the Latin word order. In fact, they were widely used by clergy who didn't thought that they were anonymous orthodox translations!

The NASB is the closest literal translation.

http://www.apbrown2.net/web/Tr.....nChart.htm

Nick| 11.7.11 @ 11:58PM

Rich D.,

"Were they not slaughtered?"

Were who slaughtered? Waldensians and Albignsians were heretical sects. I am assuming that you are referring to the heretical Jansenistic ideas of Pasquier Quesnel, when you list Unigenitus. The Inquisition is a huge subject, covering many heresies.

But, of the heresies you listed, none had anything to do with translating the Bible into the vernacular.

"What happened to Wycliffe? Hus? Tyndale?"

Wycliff died of natural causes. His translation was not authorized, and he, personally, held heretical ideas, which his followers promoted after his death.

Hus recanted his heretical views, then, he recanted his recantation, and was executed. But, not for translating the Sacred Scriptures.

Tyndale's translation was both unauthorized and had heretical ideas in the commentary. It was his heresy that resulted in his trial and execution, not his unauthorized, and error riddled, translation.

The claim that the Catholic Church tried to chain the Word of God or that She tried to keep lay people from reading the Bible is a complete canard. It is anti-Catholic propaganda left over from the worst of the post-Reformation era.
God Bless!

Nick| 11.8.11 @ 6:53PM

p.s. I meant to mention this in my reply, but, forgot.

Just by coincidence, our conversation was addressed, in part, with the Scripture reading from this past Sunday's Mass, about the wise and foolish maidens:

"Then the kingdom of heaven shall be compared to ten maidens who took their lamps and went to meet the bridegroom.
2 Five of them were foolish, and five were wise.
3 For when the foolish took their lamps, they took no oil with them;
4 but the wise took flasks of oil with their lamps.
5 As the bridegroom was delayed, they all slumbered and slept.
6 But at midnight there was a cry, `Behold, the bridegroom! Come out to meet him.'
7 Then all those maidens rose and trimmed their lamps.
8 And the foolish said to the wise, `Give us some of your oil, for our lamps are going out.'
9 But the wise replied, `Perhaps there will not be enough for us and for you; go rather to the dealers and buy for yourselves.'
10 And while they went to buy, the bridegroom came, and those who were ready went in with him to the marriage feast; and the door was shut.
11 Afterward the other maidens came also, saying, `Lord, lord, open to us.'
12 But he replied, `Truly, I say to you, I do not know you.'
13 Watch therefore, for you know neither the day nor the hour. - Matthew 25:1-13

The lamps represent faith, while the oil represents charity (love.) Having faith without charity is unacceptable to Christ. Charity requires good works. And, my charity cannot be credited to someone else.

It goes without saying that the good works of charity are done only by the grace of God. This is why charity is a theological virtue, along with faith and hope. It is only by the grace of God that we can have any of these three virtues, in their proper and correct form.
God Bless!

Rich D| 11.22.11 @ 9:52AM

"Wycliff died of natural causes. His translation was not authorized, and he, personally, held heretical ideas, which his followers promoted after his death."

Funny man - declared a heretic and dug up to be burned because natural causes beat them.

Yeah, the heretical ideas were that the monastic orders of property-owning beggars are not in Scripture, that they should work for their bread. And just who authorized the authorizers?

And Tyndale? in the 1500s, the Roman sect still did not support any English translation of Scripture - let'em remain ignorant and dependent on our faulty Latin translations.

Nick| 11.30.11 @ 12:57AM

Rich D.,

Wycliff died in A.D. 1384. He wasn't declared an heretic until A.D. 1415. He wasn't exhumed, and his bones burned, until A.D. 1428. Yep, natural causes got him just in time!

Also, you are wrong, his heretical views included denying the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, the Papacy, and Apostolic Succession.

"And just who authorized the authorizers?"

Jesus Christ did, in Matthew 16.

"[...] the Roman sect still did not support any English translation of Scripture [...]."

Again, totally inaccurate.The Venerable Bede started a translation of the Scriptures into Old English, in the 7th century A.D. Aldhelm, also, translated the Psalms and other Scriptures, in the 7th-8th centuries.

A translation of the Lindisfarne Gospels was made in the 10th century A.D., as was the Wessex Gospels. And, there were many others, which are easily found in an internet search.

Wycliff's supposed translation was of the whole Bible, which was a first. It was of the Latin Vulgate, by the way.

It must be remembered, though, that these were hand-written copies of the Scriptures. The printing press hadn't been invented, yet. To have one or two books of the Bible in your possession would have been extremely expensive, let alone the whole Bible.

But, the Catholic Church has always encouraged those who had access to the Scriptures, and the ability to read them, to study them often and earnestly. Always in the light of the Magisterium, of course.

The laity were not forbidden to read the Bible. This is an anti-Catholic calumny that lingers on, from the Reformation era.
God Bless!

Rich D| 12.7.11 @ 1:56PM

This is hopeless. You keep bringing up spirits when I stated that the word in 2 Peter 2:4 is angels. It is. (11/15) Regarding preaching to the dead, the context in Paul is those who are now dead were preached to (when living). You can't twist that into the heretical doctrine of purgatory. I will not engage you anymore about second chances and transferred merit.

Paul's argument about teaching was valid for his time. You cannot say that when a teaching today is contradicted by Scripture.

It is not a straw man that the RCC states that other Christians are not in the fold and that their pastors are not validly ordained. (11/17) You willfully belong to that organization.

Regarding above, the RCC stupidly attacked Tyndale for translating presbuteros as elder (look it up) instead of priest because it challenged their authority.

They attacked his translation of metanoeite as repent instead of the RCC do penance because it undercut their false sacrament. Look it up - it means change one's mind, or think differently (literally) afterwards.

Regarding Wycliffe, his translation was indeed from the Latin, but contained no commentary. I think that you are wrong there. In fact, his Bibles were thought to be heterodox anonymous translations and were used by the clergy. He was falsely charged with inciting the peasant's revolt - that was his "heresy".

Regarding interpreting Scripture in the light of the magisterium - sure, go ahead folks, read Scripture for yourself, but don't think that you can know what it says without checking with us.

Nick| 12.7.11 @ 7:47PM

Rich D.,

I'm not sure to what your first three paragraphs are referring. I see no comments on "11/15" or "11/17." I never claimed that Peter used another word, besides angel, in 2 Peter 2:4; so, again, I don't know what you are talking about. I also never stated that Purgatory was a "second chance" or "transferred merit."

"They attacked his translation of metanoeite as repent [...]."

I think it is fruitless to go over the thousands of translating errors found in Tyndale's version.

"Regarding Wycliffe, his translation was indeed from the Latin, but contained no commentary. I think that you are wrong there."

I never claimed that Wycliff's translation had a commentary. I stated the he held "heretical views" which "included denying the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, the Papacy, and Apostolic Succession."

"Regarding interpreting Scripture in the light of the magisterium - sure, go ahead folks, read Scripture for yourself, but don't think that you can know what it says without checking with us."

Again, you get the teaching of the Catholic Church completely wrong. The Church gives wide latitude in interpreting much of the Sacred Scriptures. In fact, there are very few Scripture verses that the Church says can only be interpreted in only one way.

The Magisterium helps interpret the Word of God as a whole, i.e., the entire Bible. Not one verse here, and two verses there, which are wrenched totally out of context. Both Old and New Testaments have one primary purpose: To point to Christ as the Promised Messiah.
God Bless!

Nick| 12.7.11 @ 7:48PM

p.s. By the way, I responded to your objections, in this thread:

http://spectator.org/archives/.....ent_687182

Rich D| 12.8.11 @ 12:13AM

Nick: p.s. By the way, I responded to your objections, in this thread: "Also, radiocarbon dating, a very inexact science (to say the least,) is NEVER (Emphasis by Rich D) given with margins of error of less than a century."

After I gave you a quote from a respected publication (Radiocarbon", Vol. 37, Number 2, 1995) with a margin of error less than a century, you post that? Apparently, it was more exact 16 years ago than you think it is now! Like I said, you respond, but rarely answer.

Try to catch up. ;-)

Nick| 12.8.11 @ 11:03PM

Rich D.,

You seem to have missed my point. Radiocarbon dating is not reliable for dating things, to begin with. Just because you respect this publication doesn't mean everyone does. The fact that they use a margin of error of less than a century shows that they are suspect.

Rich D| 12.9.11 @ 12:25PM

"You seem to have missed my point. Radiocarbon dating is not reliable for dating things, to begin with. Just because you respect this publication doesn't mean everyone does. The fact that they use a margin of error of less than a century shows that they are suspect."

OK, so discount it. Even if the error is +/-100 years, your argument fails. The city was unoccupied at the time, and was unoccupied for centuries. You don't understand how and why these OT books were written. For a literalist, you sure discount literalism when it comes to things that disagree with your vaunted magisterium. That's sad.

Nick| 12.13.11 @ 7:51PM

Rich D.,

You are still missing my point: Radiocarbon dating is not reliable for dating things, to begin with.

So, your appeal to radiocarbon dating as proof is not reliable evidence, at all. Your claim that Jericho was "unoccupied for centuries" is just another mere assertion on your part.

"For a literalist, you sure discount literalism when it comes to things that disagree with your vaunted magisterium."

Another straw man. When did I ever claim to be a literalist? There is plenty of allegory and metaphor used in the Sacred Scriptures. The Fall of Jericho is not one of them, as far as we know.

Rich D| 12.7.11 @ 11:47PM

I'm not sure to what your first three paragraphs are referring. I see no comments on "11/15" or "11/17".

The one YOU referenced. Have you forgotten already? ;-)

Nick| 12.8.11 @ 11:08PM

Rich D.,

I must have forgotten. I still don't know to what you are referring.

If you would quote my statements, when you attempt to rebut them (like I do with your comments,) it makes it much easier to understand the point you are trying to make.

Rich D| 12.7.11 @ 11:50PM

"I think it is fruitless to go over the thousands of translating errors found in Tyndale's version."
----------
Thousands? Hmmm. Well, those are two that gave them heartburn for political power reasons, and he was right on them. Have you now conveniently retired your Strong's?

Nick| 12.8.11 @ 11:25PM

Rich D.,

Yes, thousands. The bishop of London said that there were over 2,000 errors in the New Testament, alone.

You must have missed my back and forth with Victor about the etymology of the English word priest, in the Spiritual Decay thread, to which I linked, above, yesterday. Priest has its origin in the Greek presbuteros. That's probably only one of the thousands of reasons why the Church authorities had problems with Tyndale's unauthorized translation.

Even King Henry VIII ordered all of Tyndale's error-ridden translations confiscated and burned, because he didn't want those errors spreading throughout his kingdom.

The Catholic Church didn't want them to spread, either. Unfortunately, they did.
God Bless!

Rich D| 12.9.11 @ 3:32PM

"Yes, thousands. The bishop of London said that there were over 2,000 errors in the New Testament, alone.

You must have missed my back and forth with Victor about the etymology of the English word priest, in the Spiritual Decay thread, to which I linked, above, yesterday. Priest has its origin in the Greek presbuteros. That's probably only one of the thousands of reasons why the Church authorities had problems with Tyndale's unauthorized translation."

-----

Yeah, an unbiased source for sure. Oh, and good Henry VIII - a paragon of virtue and of uprightness. He objected to Tyndale's objection to his divorce, but when it was convenient, ordered in 1538 that Bibles in English be placed where all parishioners can read it in order to assert his authority in England over the pope.

The truth is that Tyndale used original texts and upset the political applecart of of those who wanted to keep their power. Your etymology of priest not withstanding, elder is the correct and less ambiguous term. Has your eye doctor diagnosed you with priestlyopia yet?

Yeah, I saw your exchange with Victor. You lost heavily. Here is another one of your blatant falsehoods:

"This, of course, also never happened. Show me one case, just one, of anyone being put to death for reading the Bible in a different language. Or, for unauthorized translating, for that matter."

Unauthorized translations were banned in 119 by Innocent (!) III, and two synods in 1234 outlawed possession. Men and women were burned alive for translating the Bible or helping to print it. The book-burning Bishop Tunstall (Tonstall) and the other evil SOB's lost in the end - almost 90% of Tyndale's wording is in the Authorized Version - so the king's eyes were opened.

Heresy is whatever the gospel-making men of the corrupt RC church says it is.

Nick| 12.13.11 @ 7:37PM

Rich D.,

Sorry that it took so long to respond. I think AmSpec was having trouble with their site.

"Yeah, an unbiased source for sure."

Well, the bishop was alive then, unlike you and me. Also, King Henry ordered Tyndale's translation banned after his break from Rome. So, if someone like Henry VIII could see how error-ridden was Tyndale's terrible translation, why can't you?

"Your etymology of priest not withstanding, elder is the correct and less ambiguous term. "

It is not my etymology, sir. It is from the Etymology Online Dictionary. Several other dictionaries as well. Are you claiming that priest did not come from presbuteros?

"Yeah, I saw your exchange with Victor. You lost heavily."

You must not have seen my exchange with Victor, then.

"Unauthorized translations were banned in 119 [sic] by Innocent (!) III, and two synods in 1234 outlawed possession."

Straw man. I never claimed otherwise. The Catholic Church, as guardian and protector of God's Sacred Word, had every right to authorize qualified translators, and, to ban unauthorized translations. Tyndale was a mediocre scholar. He had no business attempting to translate the Sacred Scriptures.

"Men and women were burned alive for translating the Bible or helping to print it."

A MERE assertion on your part, with no basis in fact. That is why I ask for just ONE case. Apparently you couldn't find one. But, it doesn't stop you from repeating this calumny against the Catholic Church. These kind of falsehoods against the Church are just too good to check, huh?

"Heresy is whatever the gospel-making men of the corrupt RC church says it is."

Don't you do the same?
God Bless!

Nick| 11.2.11 @ 2:20AM

Here is an ecumenical message that I just finished reading, thought you might find it interesting:

http://www.calledtocommunion.c.....on-sunday/

Latest Headlines

Real Immigration Reform Requires Free Markets

Ross Kaminsky|79 comments

Enough With the Bipartisanship

Matt Purple|40 comments

The United States of El Norte

Larry Thornberry|58 comments

Vodka = Vodka = Vodka

Daniel J. Flynn|83 comments

Laying Down My Pen

Quin Hillyer

Tornado Chasers

Claire Healey|32 comments

We Will Remember

Roger Kaplan|25 comments

The Chinese Waltz

George H. Wittman|2 comments

The Spectacle Blog

Updated: NBC News: Holder Personally Approved Fox Reporter Warrant

Ross Kaminsky | 5.24.13

Felonious Attorney General?

Kaylin Bugos | 5.24.13

Did the Boy Scouts Cave to Pressure?

Claire Healey | 5.24.13

BBC World Survey Ranks Israel Near Bottom in Global Popularity

Aaron Goldstein | 5.24.13

Obamacare is a Big and Growing Problem for Democrats

Ross Kaminsky | 5.24.13

Stein on IRS Scandal

Patrick Ryan | 5.24.13

The Restricted Engine

Yogi Love | 5.24.13

Muslim, Er, Youth Riots in Sweden

Aaron Goldstein | 5.24.13

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Pope Culture

By George Sim Johnston

A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck

By P.J. O'Rourke

Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
Dames at Sea

By John Corry
In the Absence of Guns

By Mark Steyn

In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The Metaphysical Martini

By Werner J. Dannhauser
Counting the Costs of Clintonism

By Robert H. Bork

The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
Chuck McHagel

By George Neumayr

It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted

By Douglas Bartholomew
It’s the Best Time of the Year

By Mark Steyn

The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
The Bush Crack-Up

By Brit Hume

Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?

Clip of the Day

H/T to National Review Online

The American Spectator

Buy the Book

Who Decides What Is Evil?

About the Author

Letter to the Editor View all comments (146) | Leave a comment Leave a comment

Harry Hunter| 10.20.11 @ 6:34AM

Alan Brooks| 10.20.11 @ 8:26PM

Joe| 10.20.11 @ 6:42AM

Alan Brooks| 10.20.11 @ 8:53PM

POST American| 10.20.11 @ 6:52AM

Tim the Enchanter| 10.20.11 @ 8:06AM

albert constantine jr.| 10.20.11 @ 7:24AM

Tim the Enchanter| 10.20.11 @ 8:07AM

potkas7| 10.20.11 @ 8:18AM

DTOM| 10.20.11 @ 9:01AM

potkas7| 10.20.11 @ 9:23AM

Renaissance Nerd | 10.20.11 @ 4:35PM

Jeamar37| 10.20.11 @ 7:46PM

Margie| 10.23.11 @ 3:13PM

Rich D| 10.21.11 @ 1:37AM

DTOM| 10.21.11 @ 1:44PM

Tina B| 10.20.11 @ 8:55AM

potkas7| 10.20.11 @ 9:37AM

Joe| 10.20.11 @ 1:01PM

Margie| 10.20.11 @ 2:57PM

Claypoole| 10.20.11 @ 5:34PM

Timothy L. Pennell| 10.20.11 @ 9:47AM

potkas7| 10.20.11 @ 10:04AM

Timothy L. Pennell| 10.20.11 @ 10:14AM

potkas7| 10.20.11 @ 10:19AM

David T| 10.20.11 @ 10:34AM

Timothy L. Pennell| 10.20.11 @ 5:19PM

Timothy L. Pennell| 10.20.11 @ 5:19PM

Margie| 10.20.11 @ 8:16PM

ConantheContrarian| 10.20.11 @ 10:38AM

Dave| 10.20.11 @ 11:15AM

Gary| 10.20.11 @ 11:42AM

Who Knows?| 10.20.11 @ 12:16PM

CalMark| 10.20.11 @ 12:18PM

Margie| 10.20.11 @ 1:02PM

Rich Rostrom| 10.20.11 @ 12:32PM

Keith| 10.20.11 @ 12:36PM

Tina B| 10.20.11 @ 12:41PM

Margie| 10.20.11 @ 12:52PM

Tina B| 10.20.11 @ 2:52PM

Margie| 10.20.11 @ 3:08PM

Dave Williams| 10.20.11 @ 2:58PM

Margie| 10.20.11 @ 3:31PM

skip| 10.21.11 @ 3:30PM

Margie| 10.20.11 @ 12:53PM

Dai Alanye | 10.20.11 @ 12:59PM

SuffolkVA| 10.20.11 @ 4:41PM

Tina B| 10.20.11 @ 5:21PM

PJ| 10.20.11 @ 5:46PM

Naturalborn Texicanette| 10.20.11 @ 7:15PM

Margie| 10.20.11 @ 8:14PM

Margie| 10.20.11 @ 8:54PM

Tina B| 10.21.11 @ 9:06AM

POST American| 10.20.11 @ 11:06PM

Renaissance Nerd | 10.21.11 @ 9:25AM

Margie| 10.21.11 @ 11:12AM

Rich D| 10.21.11 @ 10:33AM

Tina B| 10.21.11 @ 12:20PM

Rich D| 10.21.11 @ 12:53PM

Tina B| 10.21.11 @ 2:16PM

Tina B| 10.21.11 @ 2:19PM

Rich D.| 10.21.11 @ 5:53PM

Tina B| 10.21.11 @ 9:36PM

POST American| 10.22.11 @ 12:54AM

Rich D| 10.23.11 @ 12:53AM

Nick| 10.22.11 @ 3:34PM

Tina B| 10.22.11 @ 7:12PM

Margie| 10.23.11 @ 2:02PM

Nick| 10.23.11 @ 2:47PM

victor| 10.23.11 @ 2:59PM

Margie| 10.23.11 @ 3:05PM

Nick| 10.23.11 @ 4:04PM

Margie| 10.23.11 @ 7:34PM

Nick| 10.24.11 @ 12:03AM

Margie| 10.24.11 @ 1:28PM