Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - lapwing

Pages: 1 ... 101 102 [103] 104 105 ... 292
Choose Your Own Topic / Re: Jesus and the cross
« on: August 15, 2014, 10:35:58 PM »
For God the Father, Jesus' death was a sacrifice of a different order from what had gone before and once was enough for all sin. It is what God the Father thinks that counts here. Thank God the death of his Son was "good enough to pay the price of sin".

It was necessary, then, for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these sacrifices, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. 24For Christ did not enter a sanctuary made with human hands that was only a copy of the true one; he entered heaven itself, now to appear for us in God’s presence. 25Nor did he enter heaven to offer himself again and again, the way the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood that is not his own. 26Otherwise Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But he has appeared once for all at the culmination of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself. 27Just as people are destined to die once, and after that to face judgment, 28so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him. Heb 9:23-28 NIV

This thread has touched on other concepts such as Grotius' Governmental Theory:
but this theory falls foul of verses that talk about Christ bearing our sins (although the difference is subtle rather than obvious to me at least).

He himself bore our sins” in his body on the cross, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; “by his wounds you have been healed.” 1 Pet 2:24 NIV


There is a green hill far away,
outside a city wall,
where our dear Lord was crucified
who died to save us all.

We may not know, we cannot tell,
what pains he had to bear,
but we believe it was for us
he hung and suffered there.

He died that we might be forgiven,
he died to make us good,
that we might go at last to heaven,
saved by his precious blood.

There was no other good enough
to pay the price of sin,
he only could unlock the gate
of heaven and let us in.

O dearly, dearly has he loved!
And we must love him too,
and trust in his redeeming blood,
and try his works to do.

sung by King's College Choir:

Choose Your Own Topic / Re: Is this Forum a Waste of Time?
« on: August 15, 2014, 07:28:54 AM »
I've picked up on a lot of good books and resources as well as contemporary issues. Reading books etc (a la Brett) and Socratic style debate to seek an answer are not mutually exclusive but each person must decide how much time they can spare for doing this stuff. And yes the ratio of views to posts is around 10:1 for each post (with much variation between threads) which indicates a significant number of lurkers. Currently there are 47 guests and 22 users online.

Choose Your Own Topic / Different views of healings in South Wales
« on: August 15, 2014, 06:05:41 AM »
There were reports of remarkable healings in a church in Cwmbran, South Wales, last year which I've only just caught up with due to my tardiness in reading magazines. There are different views of the matter:

1. The Big Issue: a secular magazine sold by homeless people on the streets of the UK

2. A sympathetic view from another charismatic church

3. An antipathetic view from a non charismatic source

So who do you trust? Can a putative spiritual healing ever be confirmed satisfactorily?

The Chair of Peter is the visible head of the Church Christ is the invisible head of the Church.
What is the scriptural basis of this apart from the incongruity of a chair being a head?

Choose Your Own Topic / Re: The Roman Catholic Church Is Infallible?
« on: August 15, 2014, 05:07:46 AM »
You wrote:
Catholics still receive the Chalice, what are you talking about?

In the middle ages from the 13th century onwards the chalice was gradually removed from the lips of the laity by the RCC hierarchy. There were very temporary remissions of this practice but they didn't last long e.g. Councils of Basle and Trent. One of the reasons for withdrawing the cup was fear of spillage, as if priests are incapable of spilling! Your answer above indicated you were unaware of this. This was reversed under Vatican II.

Christ is the head of the church, not the pope or even the queen of England.

#76 is a good example of tying Bible passages together based only on individual words rather than looking at each passage in its entirety and on its own merits. Poor hermeneutics.

By doing an online theology course I get free online access to a lot of journals. I sometimes buy Philosophy Now but that's a popular rather than academic journal. I subscribe to natural history journals: Ibis, Bird Study, British Birds and British Wildlife and the magazines of Butterfly Conservation and British Dragonfly Society; BBC History and History magazines, Literary Review and the London Review of Books plus Premier's Christianty magazine but I'm well behind on all of them.

Choose Your Own Topic / Re: The Roman Catholic Church Is Infallible?
« on: August 14, 2014, 08:29:21 AM »
Except there are so many unbiblical beliefs and practises in the RC e.g. denying the Communion cup to the laity:

Catholics still receive the Chalice, what are you talking about?

In the Early Church Communion was ordinarily administered and received under both kinds. That such was the practice mentioned by Paul in I Corinthians 11:28. But side by side in the Early Church there existed the custom of communicating in certain cases under one kind alone e.g. when people took home some of the Eucharist after Sunday worship and communicated during the week and also when the Eucharist was brought to the sick.

By the Middle Ages, the Church had become, like most of European society, increasingly hierarchical. There was much stress on being holy when receiving Communion, and a greatly heightened appreciation of the sufferings of Christ. This meant that all who approached the altar were to be as pure as possible, and inevitably led to the exclusion of the laity from administering the Eucharist, reserving the practice to the clergy. It is difficult to say when the practice of offering the chalice to the people stopped, but it may be presumed that this was part of the way in which Church authorities sought to prevent anything disrespectful happening to the Eucharist; it was also, by this time, that Communion was given only on the tongue.

The Council of Trent referred to the pope the question whether the petition of the German emperor to have the use of the chalice allowed in his dominions be granted; in 1564 Pius IV did grant this permission to some German bishops, provided certain conditions were fulfilled. However, his concession was withdrawn in the following year.

Today, the practice of Communion under bread alone is gaining in popularity throughout Catholicism, but is not yet common in Europe and English-speaking regions.[clarification needed] Regular use of Communion under both kinds requires the permission of the bishop, but bishops in many countries have given blanket authorisation to administer Holy Communion in this way.
from NB: An Irish Catholic journal
The final suppression of intinctio was followed in the thirteenth century by the gradual abolition for the laity of Communion under the species of wine. The desuetude of the chalice was not yet universal in St. Thomas' time (d. 1274): "provide in quibusdam ecclesiis observatur", he says "ut populo sanguis sumendus non detur, sed solum a sacerdote sumatur" (Summa, III, Q. lxxx, a. 12). The Council of Lambeth (1281) directs that wine is to be received by the priest alone, and non-consecrated wine is to be received by the faithful (Mansi, XXIV, 405). It is impossible to say exactly when the new custom became universal or when, by the Church's approval, it acquired the force of law. But such was already the case long the outbreak of the Hussite disturbances, as is clear from the decree of the Council of Constance (see I above). The Council of Basle granted (1433) the use of the chalice to the Calixtines of Bohemia under certain conditions, the chief of which was acknowledgment of Christ's integral presence under either kind. This concession, which had never been approved by any pope, was positively revoked in 1462 by the Nuncio Fantini on the order of Pius II. The Council of Trent while defining the points already mentioned, referred to the pope the decision of the question whether the urgent petition of the German emperor to have the use of the chalice allowed in his dominions be granted; and in 1564 Pius IV authorized some German bishops to permit it in their dioceses, provided certain conditions were fulfilled. But, owing to the inconveniences that were found to result, this concession was withdrawn in the following year. Benedict XIV states (De Missae Sacrif. II, xxii. n. 32) that in his time the kings of France had the privilege of communicating sub utraque at their coronation and on their death-bed. In the eighteenth century the deacon and subdeacon officiating at High Mass in the Church of Saint-Denis, Paris, on Sundays and solemn feasts, and at Cluny on all feasts of obligation, were allowed to receive sub utraque (Benedict XIV, loc. cit.) The only surviving example of this privilege is in the case of the deacon and subdeacon officiating in the solemn Mass of the pope.

Choose Your Own Topic / Re: Question about Papal succession and Peter
« on: August 14, 2014, 08:15:16 AM »
Quote from: Gordy
All the Cathedrals, libraries, monasteries, convents and art that Luther burned, are quite enough.
What personally?

He rejected over a thousand years of scholarship the Apostolic Fathers, the Church fathers and the early Christians to found his new religion.
This is not true of the Reformation. For instance, Calvin planned an in depth study of patristic sources but sadly was not able to complete it. Luther did not reject the New Testament

Luther did not ignore the church fathers but rightly gave priority to the scriptures.

Quote from: Electrofreak
If there was a place where I could go for 2-3 hours a day and do nothing but talk about the bible/Jesus I would.  I have no idea where to go.  I want to do nothing but study and read the bible with other people every day.

For the Bible Study you could join an online Bible College. I'm doing Knowing Your Bible in though I'm sure there will be plenty of others in USA, Canada.

As for churches which take the hard questions seriously, well I'm not an expert on US churches but there does seem to be pretty poor examples of churches but American theological academic study has many first rate writers and I'm so glad they write in English. John Piper's church in Minneapolis may be a good model but I've never been to it. You could look first at local theological colleges rather than churches. Which churches do they go to?


Are you accusing Michael S of hating catholics? His post was arguing strongly against it. ArtD is not a Christian believer. As for not challenging another's theology you're omitting the simple fact that this is an open forum that all comers can read.

No, I was not accusing Michael S of hating Catholics, at all.  We were discussion about Christians as well as non-believers hating Catholics. He thought I was exaggerating the problem and I was using ArtD as an example of Christians hating on Catholics save for the fact that I did not know ArtD was not religious. I was using the post as an example of it.
I am not sure how you got an accusation out of it. I was showing an example of it.

Except it wasn't an example as ArtD is not a believer and I thought that was so obvious you couldn't miss it - I guess I shouldn't assume anything. However, it does mean your example of protestant hatred is not valid and I wonder if you are being excessively defensive - you made a kind of Freudian slip.


Yes, a replacement for the early apostles but still no sign of a progressive 'lineage' of successors.

I provided scriptural evidence of Paul and Timothy installing new clergy such as themselves. For instance, Paul ordain Timothy, who was commanded to ordain others. Showed that Peter 'replaced' Judas in apostleship. That the apostles who ordain others, etc.
So what are you looking for specifically that you are not seeing? A command or prescription to be carried out, what are you looking for?
If the Apostles ordained others, who ordained others, who ordained others who kept doing that from their time until now. What is it you are looking for specifically?

Apart from replacing Judas these "ordinations" refer to local congregations not the wider church.

Quote from: pat1911
If one holds that opinion then they are ignorant not only of the Catholic church, but the very scripture they claim to hold dear.
If one truly believes that stuff, they are the ones in need of instruction because it's an ignorant, arrogant, narrow minded and petty. Such things do not come from a heart of goodwill, humility and charity. It comes from lofty and self-aggrandizing ego.
But all those adjectives could be levelled at catholics, especially those who claim that only catholics are saved. People have different beliefs. I wouldn't say that catholics who believe that only they are going to heaven as hating me - just that they are sadly mistaken.

And yes, the Apostles wrote more than what is in the Bible.
How well attested are these documents? You don't mean the dubious late gnostic writings such as the Gospel and Acts of Peter?

You don't honestly think that everything that was written back then is in the Bible to which outside of that, nothing was written? The New Testament isn't a collection of all the writings of the Apostles.
No I don't think that but papyrus does not last (except in very dry places such as Qumran and the Egyptian desert). The canonical writings were deliberately preserved by the early church through copying. Other writings by the Apostles (e.g. Paul ordering canvas for tent making) would not have been preserved. I'd like to know more about this.

Where do you get your information? This is patently false. It's a matter of historical fact. The eastern Orthodoxy split away, the Roman Church is the original and is tractable directly to the apostles.
It was the western or Roman church who first excommunicated the eastern church.

On the refusal of Cerularius to accept the demand, the leader of the legation, Cardinal Humbert, excommunicated him, and in return Cerularius excommunicated Cardinal Humbert and the other legates.[2] This was only the first act in a centuries-long process that eventually became a complete schism

Political jealousies and interests intensified the disputes; and at last, after many premonitory symptoms, the final break came in 1054, when Pope Leo IX struck at Michael Cerularius and his followers with an excommunication and when the Patriarch retaliated with a similar excommunication. There had been mutual excommunications before, but they had not resulted in permanent schisms. At the time there seemed possibilities of reconciliation, but the rift grew wider; in particular, the Greeks were bitterly antagonized by such events as the Latin capture of Constantinople in 1204. Western pleas for reunion (on Western terms), such as those at the Council of Lyon (1274) or the Council of Ferrara-Florence (1439), were rejected by the Byzantines. The schism has never been healed.

The Romans excommunicated first!

Choose Your Own Topic / Re: The Roman Catholic Church Is Infallible?
« on: August 14, 2014, 06:43:51 AM »
Quote from: Gordy
Catholics do abide in the word
Except there are so many unbiblical beliefs and practises in the RC e.g. denying the Communion cup to the laity:

For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, 24and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” 25In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.

27So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. 28Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup.

Note that, although this instruction was given initially to Jesus' disciples, Paul now extends this to the whole church at Corinth. Each person should "examine themselves" before partaking but they are then to partake of both elements.

On past experience, Gordy will question my authority for saying this: ignoring the fact that to partake of both elements is normative in the Protestant church - this is not just my belief. Also I wonder if Gordy will actually engage with what the Bible says even though it clearly contradicts RCC belief and practice in this case.

Choose Your Own Topic / Re: Question about Papal succession and Peter
« on: August 14, 2014, 06:08:45 AM »
Off the top of my head (I'm in a Philosophy lecture at the moment, more to come later if needed), proper exegesis would be decided by the historians, the linguists, the philosophers, the philologists etc.

And you seem to be insinuating that it's a free for all in Protestant biblical scholarship, and this is simply not the case. Just as the basics and necessities are decided in Catholicism, and the rest is open for discussion, the same is true for Protestant scholarship. Sure, the odd heretic pops up and tries to argue for something against the basics, but they can be shot down by the same bulk of scholars that have agreed to the main practices and doctrines.


There are differences of opinion within the catholic church as I have shown. The RCC Catechism lists seven gifts of the Spirit, quoting a passage in Isaiah, whereas a charismatic catholic lists nine gifts of the spirit from lists in the NT and proposes there are more. So they don't agree with each other. Now I don't think that is necessarily a bad thing (depending on each case) since the alternative that Gordy puts forward is a rigid conformance to the Catechism which denies the individualism of catholics and is more like the model of a cult like the JWs where everyone has to agree with what the Watchtower etc says or get out - and that is supposed to be unity but in fact is tyranny.


As you say, what Gordy calls private interpretation, is not individuals studying the bible in complete isolation - ignoring centuries of biblical scholarship. Rather one makes use of the fruits of so much biblical study down the centuries - note I'm talking about Bible study rather than personal devotions, quiet times etc.

Given that Gordy seems to be rejecting all Protestant Bible scholarship, I wonder if he would want to have a huge bonfire of all Protestant commentaries etc along the lines of the burning of Luther's books?

Pages: 1 ... 101 102 [103] 104 105 ... 292