Wednesday, May 09, 2012

The Pax Borisannica

This is a guest post by Rev'd Julian Mann:

It was by no means clear back in 2006 when Boris Johnson's book The Dream of Rome was published that he would become the important British political leader that he now is. The book should be read by anyone concerned about the future governance of the United Kingdom because it provides an invaluable insight into how Mr Johnson thinks. He may claim that the book is descriptive of the enduring influence of Roman imperial governance on modern politics rather than prescriptive. But the lyrical tones in which he describes the unifying influence of the Roman empire by contrast with the British speak more eloquently of devotion than detached analysis:
The British approach was essentially communalistic: that is, to acknowledge the insurmountable barriers between the faith groups and to allow them to live in their own structures and with their own hierarchies...The Romans assimilated successfully and created a universal sense of Romanness: and for reasons of racism, religion and cultural prejudice on both sides, the British have failed to create anything like a comparable sense of Britishness, either abroad or, indeed, at home. Now we are dealing with the consequences, in Britain, of adopting that communalistic approach, as the children of our imperial possessions grow up, in our own cities, in a way that is often balkanised and alienated. It was the Roman genius for assimilation - making people want to be Roman - that did the trick for so many centuries (Harper Collins Publishers, London, pp51-52).
That commitment to the Roman process of assimilation is the ideological explanation for Mr Johnson's decision to ban the advertisements on London buses promoting gay conversion. He was entirely sincere when he declared at a hustings before the mayoral election that the ads would be bad for the Christian community in London. He was sincere in that explanation because his worldview demands that the Christian community live in ordered assimilated harmony with the adherents of the other religions and ideologies proliferating in multi-cultural London. He genuinely recoils from the 'communalistic' approach that would allow Christian groups to preach gay conversion in contradiction to the message of inherent homosexuality in some individuals as preached by Stonewall.

The problem for Christians in Pax Borisannica is that the Gospel we proclaim can be socially divisive. It is not our desire that it should be. It is our desire that everyone to whom we preach the good news of the world's only Saviour Jesus Christ will embrace it and be converted. But the practical reality is that not everyone will. When the Gospel comes up against powerful vested interests, as happened when the Apostle Paul preached Christ's message in Ephesus (see Acts 19), social disorder can ensue. Paul's preaching provoked a riot caused by those Ephesians commercially committed to the idolatrous cult of Artemis.

Social disorder can be the price of the free proclamation of God's truth in a fallen world. Pax Borisannica believes that price is too high. That is the fundamental difference between Christianity and Johnsonism.

 Julian Mann is vicar of the Parish Church of the Ascension, Oughtibridge, South Yorkshire.

73 Comments:

Blogger Naomi King said...

Dear Sirs

The Guardian Falsified the results of its poll on Gay Marriage last night.

At 9pm last night I took a screen shot of the poll For abandonment - yes 67.7% - 32.3% no. The poll was announced to finish at 11pm.


I then got in the following email in at 23.07 (after the time the poll closed at 11pm) also with a screen shot showing the figures at the end of the poll had risen to 69.4 % for abandonment of homosexual "marriage" with only 30.6% saying lets carry on.

The Guardian then held the clock from running and I quote from John Holmes what happened next

"At 23:07(i.e. after the poll had officially closed) the result showed 69.4% of people had voted in favour of the Government abandoning their plans to introduce gay marriage, and this figure had been fairly static for at least the previous 20 minutes; then at about 23:24 it started going down by nearly a percentage every 2 minutes, I have captured screen shots of the process if you would like to see them. The Poll was published to finish at 11 pm.

At 23:08 the figures were 69.4% voting yes, and 30.6% no, this was consistent with the results for the preceding several hours and then at approximately 23:20 the figures statrted to change approximately 0.5% for each each and every minute until the poll was finally closed at 24:00, an hour late. At that stage the figures had been altered to 46.4 % in favour of abandonment and 53.6 % against. A complete reversal of the findings in less than half an hour.

I cannot believe that this shift was possible by fair means, and it is my assertion that the Guardian Newspaper has falsified these results. As the Guardian newspaper has a reputation as a left wing liberal, anti Christian, anti traditional moral values, it is conceivable for them to pull such a stunt. I would ask you in the public interest to investigate this result and to make a statement on your findings.

It would seem that because the results of the poll are not in line with the political views of the Guardian Newspaper Group, they are determined to skew the results to ensure that they can either let the poll die a quiet death or even worse show that more people support the Government continuing their campaign to redefine marriage. You may like to launch an investigation into this issue."

Mr Holmes informed the newsdesk of the Daily Mail at 11.47 pm last night and has also made a complaint to the Press Complaints Commission at 00.29 this morning. I endorse his complaint. I will send on copies of the emails to you.

Warmest regards
Naomi

9 May 2012 08:21  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

'Paul's preaching provoked a riot caused by those Ephesians commercially committed to the idolatrous cult of Artemis.'

Well said. In the end, this is the only answer possible. That if politicians, and even people of all political shades adopt something antithetical to Christianity, we have simply to hold true to the same Spirit that inspired Paul that day.

In a sense, Boris was right - not about Rome (either in terms of accuracy or praise) - but about the failure of the "via media" communality (itself something of a historical construction). While we may ourselves tolerate the sound of other voices, we do not countenance their equal claim on the Truth to our own - we no more want to (ultimately) establish a communality than we do to compromise with the Devil. We might view cultures defined by "British commonality" as being easier to prosletyse in, but not an end point to be sought in itself. We can celebrate it, to a point, where we find it, but we have other work to be doing before we put our efforts into fostering its growth.

9 May 2012 08:50  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

@Naomi:

I doubt the Guardian will much care, but well done nonetheless. They're always tinkering with their "polls" or skewing the pitch. Incredibly annoying, and effectively makes them even more unreliable than online polls already are.

9 May 2012 08:52  
Blogger Hereward said...

I think we can be reasonably confident that Christianity will survive the ravages of Johnsonism.

9 May 2012 09:17  
Blogger Preacher said...

Well said Mr Mann.
Paul & the rest of the apostles were obviously not PC & the reactions of many prove it. But they "Turned the World upside down" without bullets, bombs or hatred. The gospel of Jesus Christ & Him Crucified is the Word of God, the sword of the Holy Spirit that pierces to the heart & soul of mankind. Cutting many free from the sins that have held them captive all their lives.
What we need now in the West, is more Christian warriors of the boldness & courage of the first disciples, who will wield this heavenly weapon, not fearing the devil's fury at being robbed of his prey & his searing anger at the wounds he receives.

9 May 2012 10:54  
Blogger Mr Integrity said...

Your Grace,
An inspiring post from Julian Mann. I would like to hear more from him. The social upheaval observed when spirit inspired preaching is undertaken is seen as anti-social and un-Christian. We are not world pleasers, we preach so that people may hear and if others are offended, then that is God's and their problem and something we must not fear.

9 May 2012 12:11  
Blogger Naomi King said...

The Guardian Falsified the results of its poll on Gay Marriage last night

The question put by the Guardian was "Should the government abandon plans to introduce gay marriage ? Yes or No ?"

The data to hand is as follows :-

The first time that was reported on the Guardian blog is 10.45am on the 6th May, so let's assume that the count began at 10.00am on that day and ran to 11.pm on the 8th May a total of 61 hours.

One comment on the Guardian blog states that the initial poll was leaning 70-30 in favour of No vote ie that the Government continuing with homosexual "marriage" (we will call them the homosexual vote) until the Yes ie lets abandon homosexual "marriage" vote became aware of the poll's existence and encouraged others to vote Yes (we will call them the Marriage Classic vote).

By nearly 10.38pm on the 8th May the vote had shifted to 30 % - 70% in the opposite direction in favour of Marriage Classic. At 10.38 pm someone at the Guardian stopped the clock that was timing the poll to finish at 11pm, the published finish time. It is what happened in the following 1hr 22minutes which is so damning for the Guardian.

If we assume that 5,000 people voted per hour then the total after 60 hours would be about 300,000 votes of which 70% were Yes (Marriage Classic) ie 210,000 votes, and 30% ie 90,000 were No (Homosexual votes).

In order to sway the results in the hour after the poll had officially closed, approximately 150,000 new voters must have been added to the No Homosexual vote, to change the statistics from 70 % in favour of Marriage Classic back to 46 % ; and to increase the Homosexual no vote from 30% against to 54 % against.

The mathematics is [54% of 450k = 243k; 46% of 450k = 207k]

This enormous alteration in voting patterns does not seem mathematically likely. It means that one and half as many homosexual votes were recorded in the hour after poll closure than were recorded during the 60 hours before poll closure !

I think the Electoral Commission should be approached for their feedback.

9 May 2012 12:42  
Blogger G. Tingey said...

Boris is correct
Religion - all and any religion is socially divisive.
And usuallly based on blackmail, lies and torture.

9 May 2012 13:21  
Blogger Youthpasta said...

No offence, Naomi, but can you leave the homosexuality stuff for threads that specifically relate to it? All this constant, incessant bringing up of the issue in non-related subjects (not to mention ones which only mention homosexuality in passing, like this one) is not particularly edifying. And I say that as a staunch opponent of gay marriage and all the other pro-gay stuff that has been brought in that goes against God.

As to the REAL subject, very well put, Jeremy. The Christian message, as I spoke whilst leading my church Bible study last night, is about transformation, not keeping things nice and tidy. Sometimes it can lead to things working well together (see Acts 2:42-47) and at other times we can have things like at Ephesus, but the Truth must prevail or else we are just wasting our time!

9 May 2012 13:28  
Blogger Jon said...

Reverend, this thread basically suggests that Christians can be free, or perhaps are actually obliged by precedent, to incite violence where the teaching of the Gospel contradicts the established order of the day.

Please explain how this different from islamicist hate groups who preach violence against civilians because they disagree with British foreign policy.

9 May 2012 13:51  
Blogger John Thomas said...

It has always be claimed that America took in everybody, but that they all wanted to be truly American, and all assimilated - and this was at a time when America was truly a Christian place (or at least, wedded to a total Judeo-Christian culture/value system). So assimilation of different cultures does not require a culture of "diversity".
Polls: it has often been said that the sole purpose of opinion polls is to create a desired climate of opinion, rather than simply show it. Who would seriously expect anything else from The Guardian?

9 May 2012 14:01  
Blogger mattghg said...

@Jon,

How in any way does this post or any comments on it suggest that Christians can or should 'incite violence'? What are you talking about?

9 May 2012 14:56  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

@Jon:

Where do you get incitement to riot or violence from? Have you even read Acts 19? - the riot was caused by a response to Christianity, not by Christians, who actually show restraint on the whole (Acts 19:30-31). The city clerk recognised that their behaviour was above reproach: "they have neither robbed temples nor blasphemed our goddess." (Acts 19:37). He concludes:

"As it is, we are in danger of being charged with rioting because of what happened today. In that case we would not be able to account for this commotion, since there is no reason for it" (Acts 19:40).

You ask what the difference is between Islamist incitement to violence and the preaching of the Gospel? Paul preached Christ crucified, and the redemption of sins. He called, as Christ continues to call, men and women away from violence and a "might makes right" mentality.

Far from inciting violence towards others, Christians should preach the Gospel even if it causes them to be the focus of violence. That's the difference: we are called to take the cost of Truth on ourselves. The kinds of men you refer to, seek only to inflict it on others.

9 May 2012 15:05  
Blogger Naomi King said...

The people of the US state of North Carolina yesterday voted in favour of defending the meaning of marriage in the state’s constitution. It is the 32nd time the issue has been voted on in referenda in the US, and the people have voted to back traditional marriage each and every time.

Binding ballot powers are available in a number of US states, but not all. The handful of US states that have redefined marriage have done so only through legislative lobbying or judicial activism – not by the will of the people.

Significantly in yesterday’s vote, Democrat voters backed traditional marriage, just like they did in California when they supported Proposition 8 (a ballot initiative that changed to state’s constitution to protect traditional marriage).

It is widely reported that President Obama has been weighing up whether to support gay marriage as part of his re-election campaign. The result in North Carolina may have convinced him that the issue is a vote-loser, especially amongst Democrat voters.

Perhaps his strategists have also noted David Cameron’s drubbing in the British local elections, and the commentary from backbench MPs that issues like gay marriage have caused the Tories to haemorrhage votes. On both sides of the pond the message is clear: the public don’t like politicians meddling with marriage.

9 May 2012 16:52  
Blogger Jon said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

9 May 2012 17:21  
Blogger Jon said...

MattGHG, AIB - I haven't read Acts in years, I'm afraid. However, the following sentence "Social disorder can be the price of the free proclamation of God's truth in a fallen world." wouldn't sound out of context from the mouth of an Islamist, I think you'll agree.

AIB - "That's the difference: we are called to take the cost of Truth on ourselves." I thought Christianity was about putting the cost of your sins on someone else? I don't think Christians pay much for their beliefs in the UK at present. Oh yeah, you can't stop people in civil partnerships from staying in your B&B, or breach your company's uniform code (which you signed up to) with your jewellery. Big whoop.

"Paul's preaching provoked a riot caused by those Ephesians commercially committed to the idolatrous cult of Artemis." If one went to St Peter's or Canterbury and preached against the massive financial interests of the Church, I imagine they would stir up some controversy, and maybe even violence. It sounds like the Good Rev wouldn't have a problem with that.

9 May 2012 17:22  
Blogger Atlas Shrugged said...

G. Tingey said...
Boris is correct
Religion - all and any religion is socially divisive.
And usually based on blackmail, lies and torture.

9 May 2012 13:21

I agree. Theism has been used to divide, blackmail, lie, and torture, but so has Atheism.

Add also to the list nationalism, fascism, racism, sexism, secularism, individual property rights, Marxism and socialism.

Our establishment are now blessed with more excuses to divide the ordinary people from each other, then at any time in the past.

Do you seriously believe that if religion had never existed on this planet everything would be sweetness and light?

I contend that we cannot possibly know for sure, but our common sense should dictate a belief that the human condition would either be roughly the same, or a whole lot worse.

Perhaps we would still be swinging in the trees, or living in caves without the organizational attributes of The Imperial or Roman System, as later represented by The RCC.

The system that controls all sides, and therefore all outcomes.

9 May 2012 17:29  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Absolute rot from Johnson, padre. Allow the Inspector to tell you how it really is…

When the British Empire was in it’s construction, to the end of the nineteenth century, the sense of Britishness was profound. It came from the top, and spread all the way down to the lower classes. All came to an end when (…international…) socialism took hold. We’re all equal now you see. There’s us and those lazy blighters who don’t work and doss around all day. Our very equals thanks to socialism. Of course, far from being equal, the socialists see us all as bad as each other. It’s the principal of the lowest common denominator. That’s why they want to control our lives. Make us better people. Like we were before socialism ever existed.

Now, the interesting thing about socialism is its attitude to foreigners coming in. For some reason, these fellows are deemed incapable of living here without great assistance from – yes, that’s it, politicians. What the politicians are trying to tell us, but would rather hang themselves than utter the words, are that foreigners are lesser people than the indigenous types. One can only guess they assume this because they are black or brown skinned, or maybe it’s just because they are, well, ‘foreign’. This insulting stance will continue because it gives the politicians a raison d’être. In fact, so successful have they been in conning us this is the case, and how absolutely bloody vital they are in that regard, they’ve even been able to give one tiresome people group the boot altogether - the white working class. No time for them, you see.

Foreigners do remarkably well in the UK. Because they do something we haven’t done since the days of the slums. They self help each other in their own group. They are also far better parents than the worst of us are. For example, in the Rochdale child abuse outrage, it was muslim men raping the daughters of our own white trash, not their own or any other ethnic group…

9 May 2012 17:49  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

Naomi

Re G poll

I noticed the same thing.

I wondered why they had not just fixed the results earlier!

Unfortunately I took no screen shots. Glad you did hopefully someone can use them

Phil

9 May 2012 17:53  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

Naomi

Ignore the Pasta Man! Please

Yours and Carl's are by far the most interesting posts

We need to be kept informed and you do a great job

Keep posting!

Phil

9 May 2012 17:58  
Blogger len said...

The Romans 'solved the problem of 'divisive religions 'by assimilating all religions into One 'Universal religion'.

Unfortunately Christianity went into 'the mix and came out something totally different.The 'Christianity'which came out of 'the mix 'was admirably suited for |Caesar`s purpose.The new religion kept everybody happy.The Christians were happy not to be persecuted any more,the pagans were happy because paganism was recognised in the 'new religion', Caesar was happy because he had united his crumbling Empire and he still held power.There were a few pagan statues which were renamed with Christian names, a bit of juggling with pagan feast days to 'Christianise them'and everyone was happy and order was restored .

But where they?
Gods plan to restore Humanity to His original plan and design had been thwarted by people who had agendas of their own to pursue.
Those who remained faithful to Gods plans, to Gods Word, were persecuted, hounded, pursued,tortured and and finally executed because the plans and the will of God was more important to them than their own lives.
Biblical Christianity is as unpopular today as it ever was,those who preach the true Gospel will become increasingly isolated in a hostile World.

The basic fact is that without the true Gospel man is bound to keep repeating the same sins the same mistakes until we literally have a Hell on Earth.

The true Gospel will cause division, it will offend, and fallen man will attempt to silence those who proclaim the Gospel,but the Gospel is the only path to salvation, the path to redemption,for those who seek to remedy the ills of mankind and to liberate themselves from the power of sin.

The time is coming when the' Caesar of Europe'(whoever gains that position) will do as he has done in the past when all religions had to be placed in the Pantheon and only those religions Caesar permitted were allowed to function.
Biblical Christianity will be outlawed as 'too divisive',the wheel will have turned full circle!

9 May 2012 18:20  
Blogger Atlas Shrugged said...

len said...
The Romans 'solved the problem of 'divisive religions' by assimilating all religions into One 'Universal religion'.

No prizes for guessing the name, for we all know what it is.

Our owners are currently 5 / love up in the fourth set, and serving on 3 world championship points.

All they need now is to actuate some kind of apparent second coming and it will be game, set, match, and winner takes all.

9 May 2012 19:02  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

little pope len and Atlas

A real class double-act and so full of .... Well, it's not knowledge or discernment.

They make such good bedfellows - Tweedle Stupid and Tweedle Crazy.

9 May 2012 19:08  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Atlas. History lesson for you. The Romans adopted one religion, not assimilated everything into one. Your errors are legion, and would take this man too much time for all to be challenged, but couldn't let this one go by...

9 May 2012 19:11  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Last comment should have been addressed to that weasel Len. Atlas is however no better, having repeated the libel...

9 May 2012 19:20  
Blogger bluedog said...

Well if the Rev Julian Mann's analysis is correct, His Grace was mistaken in his support of Boris prior to the mayoral election.

An alternative explanation of Boris' current world view could be that as the Pasha of London he seeks harmony within his sultanate. All faiths are tolerated provided they live in dhimmitude to the Secular Ascendency. In the absence of eunuchs, homosexuals are welcomed because they will not compete with the Pasha for crumpet.

Whoops, this post may appear to portray Boris as an Ottoman potentate, which is not of course the case.

9 May 2012 19:43  
Blogger anna anglican said...

I always thought the Romans ran, well an empire and not Notting Hill! Hasn't the good Vicar ever read about the Jewish wars? The Romans might have been 'liberal' with faiths, in so much as they didn't evangelise like the Christian religion did with the European EMpires, but if you ever threatened Rome...

And even Darth Yo'th Pasta is tiring of Naomi's and others diatribes against the gays- more worried about gays than gays are.

9 May 2012 20:38  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Anna. The reality of the Roman Empire was that you could achieve anything with the short sword...

9 May 2012 20:43  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

Anna

The Roman Empire covered centuries and manifested different forms at different times.

Under Constantine religious tolerance was permitted after 313 and once he converted to Christianity he expected the Church to decide what the faith consisted of. Good politics or a genuine converstion? Who can say and historians are divided on this.

One thing is for sure, under Constantine Christianity flourished and became the single most important faith because of him. God's providential activity, as far as I'm concerned. According to the historically challenged little pope len, it was Satan at work. As for Atlas, who knows what universe he exists in!

9 May 2012 21:30  
Blogger bluedog said...

Naomi King @ 16.52 reports 'It is widely reported that President Obama has been weighing up whether to support gay marriage as part of his re-election campaign. The result in North Carolina may have convinced him that the issue is a vote-loser, especially amongst Democrat voters.'

Back to the drawing-board?

9 May 2012 21:37  
Blogger non mouse said...

Excellent post, Mr. bluedog @ 19:43.

9 May 2012 21:45  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

As far as I know, it was only 45 years ago that inter-racial marriage was allowed in North Carolina. 45 years. Some people argued that their god must have created the races for a reason and so having inter-racial sex and producing mixed-race offspring was against their god's plan.

10 May 2012 03:41  
Blogger Randal Oulton said...

>> The problem for Christians in Pax Borisannica is that the Gospel we proclaim can be socially divisive. It is not our desire that it should be

Nothing new there. There's a good old-fashioned phrase for that, in fact : "ramming your version of religion down everyone else's throats."

10 May 2012 03:44  
Blogger len said...

Randal Oulton,

The Christian Gospel is divisive because it points out the exact spiritual position of man and also points to the only remedy.(Jesus Christ)
Fallen man is full of rebellion and does not like the Truth' presented to Him'(presented to him not rammed to him)and the truth is the only thing that will save fallen man.

There are forms of religion(not Biblical Christianity) which will try and force 'conversions' on people by threats of executions or Inquisitions but these are NOT Biblical Christianity or anywhere near it!.

Jesus said present the Gospel to people if they accept good if not walk away from them.

All Biblical Christians do is present the Gospel the choice thereafter is yours.

10 May 2012 08:01  
Blogger len said...

I think Catholics would do well to research their religion and its origins.For example;

The statues of the 'gods' from the Pantheon are now found in the Vatican Museum with the exception of the great statue of Jupiter, which has been modified, retitled, and seated on a throne in St. Peter's Basilica in Rome as' St. Peter'. Thousands of pilgrims kiss the foot of Jupiter while thinking it is the statue of' Peter'.

Following the conquest of Mesopotamia by the Persians, the Babylonian priesthood fled to Pergamum in Asia Minor. Here they erected the Acropolis temples of Pergamum in honor of the Greek Pantheon, but continued to worship the Babylonian mystery god under the name Saturnus.

The Babylonian mysteries were preserved in the temple of Zeus at Pergamum and transferred to Rome in 133 B.C. The penetration of the religion of Babylon became so general that Rome was called "The New Babylon."

In 133 B.C. the Babylonian solar cult was bequeathed to Rome by Attalus III. There its symbols and forms were incorporated into the cult of Caesar and later into Roman Catholicism.

The Persian sun-god, Mithra, was widely accepted in the Roman world prior to the period of Christian evangelism. Sunday was dedicated to Mithra (lord), receiving the title of "The Lord's Day."


This is merely the' tip of the iceberg'and the roots from which the' Catholic religion 'was formed.

10 May 2012 08:20  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

@Jon: "Social disorder can be the price of the free proclamation of God's truth in a fallen world."

Because people don't like it, not because that's the aim. That's what happened in Ephesus - and it's markedly different from intentionally trampling on someone else's faith (Paul and the Christians explicitly did not do this Acts 19:37), or for calling for people to be beheaded.

"If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all." (Romans 12:18). So far as it depended on Paul, this is what he did in Ephesus. It was the Ephesians who stirred up rioting and dissent.

Given that Julian Mann bases his article explicitly on the example of Ephesus in Acts 19, and given that it is quite explicit about Christians actively seeking to avoid violent confrontation, the exhortation to violence you read in this column is entirely of your own mind.

Christ did indeed die for our sins, and His commission to Christians was to spread His Gospel across the world, and if necessary, to be willing to suffer offense, injury, and death for it. Indeed, Scripture consistently makes it clear that those who do so are blessed for remaining faithful to God under trial.

I agree, Christians don't suffer injury or death for the sake of the Gospel in the UK. They do elsewhere in the world. But I suppose you think they just "have it coming" on account of being like violent Islamists?

10 May 2012 08:56  
Blogger LondonVicar said...

Very much hope Daily Mail publish the screenshots and expose the Guardian for the charlatans they are.

10 May 2012 08:59  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

little pope len said ...

"I think Catholics would do well to research their religion and its origins."

Yes, it started with the promises made to Abraham and the birth of Jesus Christ and reached a high point following His ministry, death and resurrection and on Pentecost.

Been reading those whacky sites again, have you? You start this ridiculous statement with a lie - "I think".

All of Christianity shares the same root - do you not know this? There was no Catholic Church or protestant churches.

The early Church assimilated many of the external trappings of pagan religions, not their beliefs or their values. What's in a building, a statue or a date if they are used to bring God's message to those ignorant of Him? This was how Christianity became embedded in the cultures of Europe, a part of the fabric of everyday life.

Let's take a few examples. Sunday is celebrated as the Lord's Day because Christ rose on the first day of the week - not because of some Sun God. And the problem with calling it the Lord's Day is precisely what? Christ is Our Lord. Churches were built on the sites of pagan temples and Holy Days established on pagan days of worship to shift people's ways of worship from false gods to the one, true God. Again, what is the problem with this? Christmas Day is a good example.

Unlike you, the early Church, guided by the Holy Spirit, understood the power of false religions and the barrier they presented to spreading God's mmessage. They were aware that old customs had to be tranformed at the same time as they preached God's word.

Thank God men such as yours were not charged with spreading Christianity. You'd stand in the square, bible in hand (except there wasn't a New Testament) and simply tell people they needed to be "born again". No organised Church to help them to develop their faith. It would all be "faith alone" and "scripture alone". Chaos and confusion would have reigned, just as it is manifesting now with the spread of your system that makes everyman a pope.

There would be no Christianity today without the efforts of those early Christians and you have the gall to bad mouth them!

10 May 2012 09:12  
Blogger MrTinkles said...

@Jon
To claim that the article was advocating the incitement of violence is either ignorant or disingenuous.
The unrest in Acts (as you can't be bothered to read what you criticise) was against the Christians not incited by them.
And you are correct, that Christians in the UK don't suffer nearly as much as those in many countries...but free speech is either free or it's not. While there of course should be laws to prevent the actual advocating of violence, this was clearly not what the writer was saying!
And without wanting to get tied up on the gay thing (there being plenty of others happy to keep that going) neither was the "ex-gay" ad in anyway advocating violence...it just took a contrary position to the prevailing one. And in Boris and Dave's Britain...that is the unforgivable sin.
You seem to be saying that no one should be allowed to say anything that they believe if there is a possibility of social unrest???
You'd fit right in alongside the people who locked up the suffragettes and with modern day Islamists themselves.

10 May 2012 09:20  
Blogger Youthpasta said...

Phil Roberts, I am not asking her not to post as I too enjoy her thoughts (though Carl still rules the roost!). However, this thread has nothing directly to do with gay marriage or homosexuality. It may be a peripheral issue, but so are many others. And all those peripherals are used to make a far broader point as the focus of the post. Therefore, to throw the homosexuality stuff at it before the discussions have even attempted to go in that direction, does her views no favours and also goes a long way to support the views of Dan and others that Christians are obsessed with sex and sexuality. It's just not helpful!

10 May 2012 13:43  
Blogger Preacher said...

Dodo.
The Christian church existed & grew for hundreds of years, despite persecution & suppression it actually prospered. The same is true today.
It's only when men started tinkering with it that the divisions & acrimony began & the church progressed slowly, stuttering along for centuries, with new waves of revival by the Holy Spirit providing short lived impetus, which often devolved into more denominations, provoking more antagonism & division betwixt the dinosaurs of the former group. Who now proclaimed (like their predecessors) that they alone had the truth & that the new group were a heretic cult that had to be eliminated, i.e the Anglican church & Wesley's Methodists (originally a derogatory term).
The same is true today, with people unwilling or unable to search for true Christianity as they have often accepted the claims & the indoctrination of those who say they are special & have greater knowledge than their followers.
There are many honest & God fearing men serving in different churches, but we must exercise discernment & not just follow blindly because of our denominational heritage.

10 May 2012 13:54  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

Preascher

I agree with your general point. However, I continue to follow the Catholic Church because that is what I believe Christ intended when He passed earthly authority, "the keys to the kingdom", to Peter and the Apostles and the Bishops who have succeeded them.

In my opinion, the greatest 'tinkering' was the introduction of the novel concepts of "faith alone" and "scripture alone". Effectively this makes every man an authority unto himself, allowing him to interpret scripture as he chooses.

10 May 2012 16:54  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

Youthpasta

Sorry for my earlier rather sharp remarks

Busy day

Phil

10 May 2012 17:24  
Blogger len said...

Dodo,(10 May 2012 09:12)

been reading my Bible.Try it!.

The concept of being born again(which you disdain) is a command of Jesus not a suggestion!.

10 May 2012 19:49  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

...Used in the foundation times to convert pagans and Jews to Christianity, you fool...

10 May 2012 20:46  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

Can I just say, len, I really like your avatar.

10 May 2012 21:14  
Blogger Unknown said...

OIG - at least Boris wouldn't misuse an apostrophe in its....

I think however, that sometimes I agree with you.

10 May 2012 21:42  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

little pope len

Yes, yes, other people do read the bible. However, it's how its understood that counts.

John 3:5 is a clear reference to Baptism:

"Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."

10 May 2012 22:16  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Well done Unknown, agreeing with Inspector when you can. These are desperate times, you know. Right is presented as wrong, and vice versa. Keep a sensible head and you won’t go wrong...

10 May 2012 22:36  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

11 May 2012 01:13  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

little pope len said ...
" ... been reading my Bible.Try it!."

No doubt. It is your ability to comprehend that is in question.

You say:

"The concept of being born again(which you disdain) is a command of Jesus not a suggestion!"

It is the following nonsense not the words of Jesus I distain:

"If you are born again you have a New Spirit and God who is The Spirit looks at the spirit not the outer condition of Man.

My born again Spirit cannot sin and has no inclination to sin, the power of sin has no attraction to it at all."


I mean, really, do you expect to be taken seriously?

So your spirit cannot sin and it has no inclination to sin. You are a perfect spiritual being. Such humility. But wait, it seems maybe your "outer condition" could still be attracted to evil. However, God just overlooks this because youare "saved". And these sins, despite being evil, do not effect your spirit. Do they effect your soul? Good and evil exist side by side. Salvation can still be yours even though you are not transformed.

Are you serious?

What confused nonsense!

11 May 2012 01:19  
Blogger Preacher said...

Thank you Dodo.
I consider myself a Spirit filled, 'Born again' believer which you may not agree with. But since becoming a Christian, I've never been a law unto myself & have had to mine the depths of scripture to find the diamonds therein for many years & continue to do so.
No man can ever earn his salvation by works, so grace & faith are essentials to its attainment, e.g
Before my conversion I accepted the teaching of my school that Darwin's evolution theory was a fact, why? Because I trusted the teachers as more learned & educated than myself to tell the truth, & they did, as they knew it & had been taught it by others. But what if the others had learned it from...... & what if the original concept was wrong? the outcome is a self perpetuating error.
You see one cannot trust others, no matter how sincere they are to be right all the time. When I read the Bible's creation account & thought the matter through I realised that my teachers were wrong, sincere but wrong. Since then I've trusted the Bible above the teachings of man. Sola Scripture makes sense, it has to, otherwise the teaching of every church elder is questionable. The Bible is the only source any of us can turn to when we need to resolve an issue in question, an essential to arbitration & discerning truth from error.

Blessings. Preacher.

11 May 2012 09:56  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

@Preacher:

Not a Catholic here myself, but it seems to me that there is a rather fundamental difference between the pedantic meaning of Sola Scriptura and what the majority of Protestants do regarding the authority of the Bible and the teaching they provide.

"Sola Scripture makes sense, it has to, otherwise the teaching of every church elder is questionable."

Actually, what you're describing is very much compatible with the RC line that Scripture is fully authoritative, and that, in union with the continuous transmission of the teachings of the Church, it forms the basis of the authority of the Church today.

You reject the teachings of man - good. As it happens, I think this is an essential part of maintaining the fidelity of Christian witness. But there is a distinction between the teachings of men who make claims based solely on their own authority, and those whose teaching is, as you describe, grounded in Scripture.

To take a central example. Nowhere in Scripture is the Trinity spelled out. There is no explicit description of it, there is no reference to a Triune God. The Trinity is, as a concept, wholly Scriptural, though, arising from the forms and theology expressed in the New Testament, *but* historically, also from the teaching of the Church. Teaching, which you have presumably inherited down the ages, and which I guess is still taught in your congregation today.

There is nothing false or wrong about such teaching, but teaching it is. And it's part of what was foretold about the coming of the Holy Spirit to the Church. The Law is now written on our hearts by Him, and when mature Christians communicate that Law, they are engaging in teaching. Dodo is of course quite right, that this shouldn't mean that just any old teaching is no good. If it contradicts Scripture it should be rejected. If it marks an enormous shift in theology, so that every Christian in our past is rendered erroneous on a matter (usually whether or not something is a sin, or the existence of Hell), or requires the dismissal or even condemnation of Scripture, it too should be fled from, and frankly, the person teaching it should be expelled from the Church.

So to be honest, whilst you affirm Sola Scriptura, I'm not exactly sure that many denominations actually practice it at all. That's not to knock some of the ideas behind it: that we should make Scripture a central part of our lives, that it is authoritative, that teaching that undermines it should be rejected. But the only group that I've encountered who come even close to actually practicing a literal "only scripture" theology are the Jehovah's Witnesses, who reject the Trinity precisely on the basis that it is extra-Scriptural. But they also reject the Holy Spirit as a result, so that it is questionable whether He has been able to write His Law on their hearts.

11 May 2012 12:04  
Blogger Preacher said...

AIB.
Thank you for your response. perhaps the use of 'sola scripture' was not appropriate. But I see that you have got the basis of my communication.
I would love to talk further, but am due at a meeting at 1.00pm.
look forward to more exchanges.

Blessings. Preacher.

11 May 2012 12:41  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

Belfast and Preacher

No Catholic would disagree that scripture is authoritative and central as God's revelation. As pointed out, it is capable of great error in both translation and in comprehension.

Many of the core elements of our Christian faith have developed as our understanding of scripture and its meaning has developed.

It seems to me the central issue is whether the Church has the authority to define its message and develop theology based on it, as opposed to competing, supposedly spirit inspired, egual, 'insights' bandied about by individuals or cults.

Now what does the bible say about this?

11 May 2012 22:23  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

@Dodo:

I'd agree the Church does have that authority.

The only thing I'd dispute with you is the exclusive claim to that mantle that Rome makes.

Rather than get into a spurious denominational slagging match, which I don't agree with anyway (as hopefully my previous posts will have indicated), what about another example? Take the Chinese House Group movement. It's growth, in the absence of missionaries or unbound church institutions (especially beyond the urban areas) can only be described as being caused and led by the Holy Spirit. Now that's not to say that the Chinese Catholic Church isn't also similarly led - I know that they have had similar tests and trials of faith with equally inspiring men and women willing to stand for the Gospel. But one is not the Church whilst the other is not. Where the institutions have been driven away, God yet ministers.

Or was He absent when Catholics were largely driven from England? I'm not talking about whether He blessed divisive and militant persecution, but I'm talking about whether He continued to be the Lord of faithful hearts, and continued to guide those who love Him. You can tell I take a more local view - because I've seen churches of the same denomination where one is spiritually dead, and another alive, where one has teaching that clearly wanders away from what is good, and where another has teaching that is rooted in faith. It's not usually as difficult as you make out to work out which is which. Their fruits are usually a good place to start.

Generally, I tend to agree with much of what the Catholic Church teaches, because it is grounded in a coherent interpretation of Scripture, and most of the time seems to have its roots in the simple question: how can we please the Lord? That's what makes it authoritative. If it ever leaves Scripture, or teaches something, even with the full consent of the Magisterium, that contradicts it, it will not be authoritative.

I would hope and pray that God never permits that to happen, but we have plenty of warnings about abominations in the Temple not to dismiss it as a possibility. If it ever does happen, there will be all the more need for that direct ministry by the Spirit, and for the Law that He writes on our hearts. For that reason, whilst I can accept the authority of the teaching of the Catholic Church, I don't exclusively accept its authority as an institution - because the former is conditional upon its faithfulness. I guess you could use your rebuke of born-again-Grace: it may be sanctified with authority, but it can lose that authority, it is not unconditional upon how it behaves.

12 May 2012 13:15  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

"For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them.”

Matthew 18:20

12 May 2012 13:16  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

Belfast
Thank you for your considered and very reasonable answer.

For me the bottom line is that when a number of Churches contradict themselves in understanding Scripture, both cannot be right.

The issue is not about how the Church behaves. God knows, as I've said before, it has behaved dreadfully at times. The issue is whether it has faithfully interpreted and presented God's message of salvation and His means of man gaining this through His Christ.

Throughout its history Christianity has had to resolve many complex theological issues. When matters reach a point where division is damaging the faithful, the Catholic Church holds it is charged with the duty to teach dogmatically and authoritatively. It believes Christ commissioned it to do so and that the Holy Spirit guides it from error.

The Catholic doctrine of the indefectibility of the Church, not the impecabilty of its priesthood, rests on Christ's promise to the Apostle Peter in Matthew 16:18 and excludes the possibility that the Catholic Bishops around the world and the Pope with whom they are in communion would succumb to heresy and fall from office.

12 May 2012 14:11  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

@Dodo:

I wouldn't disagree one bit about the divisiveness of disagreement. One of the greatest failures of Christians is when we persist in division. I don't think any of us can get away from the fact that the Eternal Church is utterly unified in Christ - so that the divisions between East and West, between Protestants and Catholics are not part of God's plan for the Church as a whole.

I'll admit that I've struggled for a long time to work out what God would have us do on that front. The only conclusion I've reached is that it's not me who will be able to reunite the institutions of the Church. But even if that lets me off thinking too hard on world-wide issues, I don't feel that I can escape from resolving rather smaller-scale divisions, of both opinion and theology, between Christians I know and interact with.

Our unity is in Christ - only He died for us (1 Cor 1:10-13). If we are disunited, one or all of us in some way not 'perfected into one', as Christ prayed in Gethsemene (John 17:20-23). Paul gives us the answer as to what we should do when presented with this: "we are no longer to be children, tossed here and there by waves, and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, by craftiness in deceitful scheming; but speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in all aspects into Him, who is the head, even Christ" (Ephesians 4:14-15, my emphasis). It seems to me, then, that unity is as much a way of living with one another as it is a question of right and wrong teaching. That coherence of thought and belief comes through living as Christ commanded us to. It is like the old idea that when all the bishops of the world gathered to decide what was doctrinally true Scripture, they did so with an accord that was a continuation of the inspiration of the Spirit that drove Paul or the Gospel writers.

It's partly a mystical concept - that is, that something of the Kingdom of Heaven is objectively manifest wherever Christians gather in unity in the Lord - but it also has a profoundly practical character. It's a unity that arises within a community that is dedicated to serving the Lord, and serving one another. Where people confess their sins to one another rather than letting them fester as a hidden cause for dispute or hatred. Where people are ruled by kindness, patience, and love in their actions. Where Christ reigns as King.

I realise as I write this, that the Catholic understanding of the sacraments is that they provide just this sort of community. In that sense, I'm not writing anything new to the teachings and practices of the RC Church. But I think perhaps that I would separate the character of those sacraments in some way from their form - not in the sense of insisting on their being only symbolic: Christianity has always been the fusion of the symbolic and the real, of the mystical and the practical - but rather in the sense that just as you may find the Eternal Church in the sacraments of the Catholic Church, you will find those same things in other faithful churches. That even though they don't perhaps practice the liturgy, the reality of confession is present, the flock is fed on the Body of Christ in such a way that no-one could be in any doubt about His presence there.

There are times when I've heard fellow Christians refer to their being "not Catholic", and yet so often, the positions they hold to, even theologically, and the shape of the relationships and actions of members of the church are so close that it makes me want to weep that we could still prefer our division rather than seeing that if we are called by Christ, we are called to His Church, and that He shapes it, perfects it into the unity of His Bride.

12 May 2012 22:14  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

I'm sure the first line of that should have finished with (!)...

12 May 2012 22:17  
Blogger len said...

Just arrived home and seen you refutation of Christianity dodo!.
(11 May 2012 01:19)

I suggested you read your Bible see you still haven`t done it!.


1 John 4:17 >>
By this, love is perfected with us, so that we may have confidence in the day of judgment; because as He is, so also are we in this world.

I hope you realise Dodo that your accusations are directed not at me but at the Lord Jesus Christ(the author of Scripture)

obviously the above statement
'By this, love is perfected with us, so that we may have confidence in the day of judgment; because as He is, so also are we in this world.'

Cannot refer to my soul(mind will and emotions)

And likewise cannot refer to my physical body

So what else is left?

My born again Spirit born from above. John 1:13 >>
' children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God'.

Now Dodo you seem to be saying that the Word of God is nonsense?.

13 May 2012 21:31  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

@len:

We are made in the image of God, therefore I don't see why it can't be referring to our full being, including our physical natures.

The issue that Christ was fully perfect in physical nature is actually a means by which you can test both spirits and teaching (1 John 4:2) - specifically the docetism that the epistle is challenged.

The point really though, isn't that John 1:13 pedantically refers to solely our spirits, or that it refers to solely our bodies, but that the whole section you quote from is about the perfection of Man brought about through Christ's love. In effect, to return us to the status we lost in the Fall.

Incidentally, if you continue into the next chapter the author of 1 John talks about his brother (the same word used to signal fellow members in Christ only a few lines before) committing a sin not worthy of death, and the obligation to pray for him (1 John 5:16-17). Which would appear to throw some doubt on the idea that one who has been born again by accepting the Truth of Jesus Christ (cf. 1 John 5:1-4) cannot ever sin again.

What we do know is that somone who has Christ 'will not keep on sinning' (1 John 5:18, my emphasis, picking up the earlier theme in 1 John 3:9-20); that is that God brings about a transformation within us that leads us away from sin, and allows us, with His strength, to overcome our own sinful natures so that we might bear the fruits of living within His Will.

14 May 2012 09:22  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

*"epistle is challenging" that should read.

Ahem.

14 May 2012 09:23  
Blogger len said...

AIB,

The whole work of sanctification begins with our born -again spirit.

Ezekiel 11:19


19 And I will give them one heart and I will put a new spirit within them; and I will take the stony heart out of their flesh, and will give them a heart of flesh,

Jeremiah 31:33-34


33 "But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel. After those days," says the Lord, "I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

34 And they shall no longer teach every man his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest of them," says the Lord, "for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

The “new birth” is a “spiritual” birth. This spiritual birth is produced by the Holy Spirit of God when a person believes the message of the Gospel, and receives the Lord Jesus Christ by a definite act of faith. When this occurs one is said to be “born of the Spirit” (vs.6). It says in (John 1:12, 13) “As many as received Him (the Lord Jesus Christ), to them gave He power (the right or authority) to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on His Name”. “Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God”.


Salvation is not by good works, not by church membership or infant baptism, not by doing the best you can, but by receiving Jesus Christ as your Savior, by believing in His Name.
“That which is born of the flesh is flesh”. Your physical birth gave you “human nature” and brought you into the flesh and into the world. Physical birth is not enough. You must also have a spiritual birth to enter the kingdom of God. When a person is “born again” they become partakers of the “divine nature”. (2 Peter 1:4).

14 May 2012 20:21  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

little pope len

NO - I am saying your confused and muddled understanding of Christ's message is nonsense.

The "soul" you are now referring to i.e "mind will and emotions" is not what Catholics regard as our immortal souls. More properly, what you have referenced should be described as our conscience and character.

Belfast

I thinke we have to agree to disagree on the Church and on the significance of the priesthood and the sacraments. However,I do agree with your underlying message.

You have also addressed my major objection to the idea of once "born again" salvation is guarenteed.

Catholics believe that justification can be lost and sanctification undone through grevious sin that breaks our relationship with Christ which has to be restored. We Hope for Heaven, through the Holy Spirit's Grace, never take it for granted, and through our own repentance and confession when we sin and regular receipt of His Body and Blood at Mass.

14 May 2012 20:32  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

@Len:

I don't want you thinking that I oppose the idea of being born again. Besides being a term used throughout the New Testament, it seems to me to be an excellent way of expressing the transformational power of Christ. We agree too (Dodo would also concur, I imagine) that salvation is first and foremost through Christ.

All I'm suggesting to you is that the picture you paint of the born-again experience being one of an irrevocable character shift doesn't seem to be borne out in Scripture. There are numerous references to people falling away and being mislead by false teaching or undertaking a sinful life. Some, certainly, never understood Christ (in the Johannine sense) to begin with - but there are others who appear to have taken up sinful activities.

If you'll forgive me, but why else does Paul write some of the epistles? It's very often to warn Christians that they are in danger of being led astray. Consider also the letters to the Seven Churches in Revelation. There's always a definite "if" in Scripture.

Hold firm to Christ, and reject sin. If you put to death your sinful nature you will be saved. If you allow it to resurface, if you do nothing to end its hold over your life, you risk being one of those people Christ warned about: the one's who cry "Lord, Lord" but to whom He will say: "Who are you? I do not know you. Depart from here."

A sobering thought. I'm off to read me Bible and pray :)

15 May 2012 01:26  
Blogger len said...

AIB, I do not believe salvation can be lost but I believe salvation can be rejected.

'I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand.'(John 10:28)

If the desire to indulge in sinful pursuits is more overpowering than following the inward leading of the Spirit then I believe the Heart can become so hardened that one could wilfully reject one`s salvation.

This would be a really tragic situation because the way back would be extremely difficult not because God would reject you but genuine repentance would be extremely difficult unless personal circumstances changed drastically.

The parable of the prodigal son shows the Heart of the Father towards repentant sinners. To keep 'short accounts' with God is important and to be truthful about sinful impulses and desires.The 'flesh'( our human nature not yet under the authority of the holy Spirit) will always try to regain control and it is only the power of the Holy Spirit than can keep the flesh under restraint.

Nice that we can agree on some points.

15 May 2012 18:21  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

I'd agree len that falling away ultimately amounts to a rejection.

In pragmatic terms, I'd have to say that that rejection rarely comes out of nowhere. Anecdotally, it seems to come through two means: the first as a response to a perceived evil being done in Christ's name (some of which may genuinely be evil, such as the abuse scandal, and some of which may be a case of Christian morality clashing with modern morality); the second as a consequence of increasing apathy and increasing dis-engagement with the church (i.e. on the ground, the congregation) and with Christian life in general.

But that's really a psychological explanation for what you wrote here: "If the desire to indulge in sinful pursuits is more overpowering than following the inward leading of the Spirit then I believe the Heart can become so hardened that one could wilfully reject one`s salvation."

15 May 2012 20:38  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

len said ...

"I do not believe salvation can be lost but I believe salvation can be rejected."

It amounts to the same thing! Eitherthe Holy Spirit is allpowerfulor He requires our active and ongoing cooperation.

"If the desire to indulge in sinful pursuits is more overpowering than following the inward leading of the Spirit then I believe the Heart can become so hardened that one could wilfully reject one`s salvation."

A very Catholic position, and I fully agree. The rejection comes through evil killing God's sanctifying Grace in the soul.

" ... the way back would be extremely difficult not because God would reject you but genuine repentance would be extremely difficult unless personal circumstances changed drastically."

That's why the Church and its sacraments are there - ever waiting on the prodigals. The way back is ever present through the wonderful sacrament of Reconciliation and we are strengthened by the Lord's Body and Blood in the Eucharist.

16 May 2012 00:39  
Blogger len said...

Your error is glaringly apparent here Dodo.

You substitute' your Church' for the work of the Holy Spirit.

It is God who draws people to Himself.Why would God draw people to the Catholic religion when it refuses to obey and honour His Word?.

17 May 2012 20:34  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

little pope len

The Catholic Church is the Mystical Body of Christ, established by Him and assurred the protection of the Holy Spirit until the end of time.

Do read your bible; it's in there plain as day.

17 May 2012 21:51  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

Ps

In truth len you reject thevery instruments and chanbnels of Grace God has given to man to sustain him in the struggle against evil.

Having conceeded salvation can be lost through attachment to sin, you have no means of restoring faiyth other than human effort and, as you say, the strength to resist sin has been fatally damaged.

Unless that is one is "born again" and reborn, and reborn, again and again!

17 May 2012 21:57  
Blogger len said...

Dodo

I don`t know if you truly do not understand salvation or are you are being deliberately obtuse?.

20 May 2012 23:00  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older