Comments on: What dominionists would do with gays (disobedient children, sabbath breakers, etc.), Part 3

By: Patrocles

Patrocles — Wed, 30 May 2018 19:34:33 +0000

Imho, Warren came to the central point when he cited Halbrook/Hanson’s critique of pluralism, the underlying fear of being overwhelmed by the seculars and the feeling that “we have to impose our values to others because otherwise they impose our values to us”.
A lot of seculars would underwrite that (only exchanging the ideas
about who is “we” and who is “them”).
It’s quite useless to denounce this position which is grounded in experience. We have to admit that people feel threatened by each other and that cultural pluralism doesn’t work as well as we would hope. Pluralism has to be rethought and reformed so that people haven’t to fear each other.

By: vanmojo

vanmojo — Wed, 30 May 2018 19:34:32 +0000

No! You are not making too much of a “fringe” movement. These people are engaged in a well-organized — and well funded, I might add — war on pluralistic society.
Arguably, the best look we have had at the man behind the curtain has been the “Wedge Document” introduced at trial in the Dover v. Kitzmiller “Intelligent Design” case.
The Discovery institute, in very plain language, lays out a strategy for dismantling pluralistic society and replacing it with a theistic monoculture. The problem is that we are focusing on the potential for theocracy.
These people don’t really want a Taliban-style theocracy. They want a culture where that kind of government would be redundant and unnecessary.
mojo sends

By: Richard Willmer

Richard Willmer — Wed, 30 May 2018 18:54:52 +0000

I think you are looking at the Bible in completely the worng way, Mikhael.
It’s not a kind of scientific/historical ‘text book’, rather a collection of writings showing a journey. The O.T. is about how the First ‘People of God’ groped their way towards an understanding of God. But Christians believe that Christ is the ultimate revelation of God. That said, no person’s understanding of God is complete (or else God would not be God).
What I am about to write is in no way intended to show disrespect to Islam or Muslims – merely it is designed to make a very important theological point.
Islam holds that the Prophet (the person) is the Messenger, and the Quran (the book) is the Message; the Christian understanding in effect is the opposite: the messenger is the (collection of) book(s) – the Bible – and the Message is Christ. One could say that what you are doing is (theologically-speaking) ‘islamifying’ Christianity. OK – so become a Muslim if you want … but please don’t tell us that an apple is an orange!

By: Jayhuck

Jayhuck — Wed, 30 May 2018 18:54:52 +0000

Mikhail,

“The Supreme Judge, by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.”

You realize there was no Scripture, at least in the sense I believe you to be talking about it, the first 3 centuries of the Church, right? There was the Church.

Regarding the Word of God.. The Council of Hippo in 393 AD and the Council of Carthage of 397 AD and later confirmed by Ecumenical council only confirmed what was already set and determined to be Scripture from the earliest days of the Apostles. Besides the many list of canons of Scripture before the 4 century which confirms the same listing of the above three councils but also manuscript copies also confirm the same listing. I have in my collection Aramaic Manuscripts that date back to the 100s and they have the same exact so-called New Testament books that we have today. I know of Aramaic Manuscripts that date back to the early 70s AD that I all the current books except Revelation.

Not entirely accurate. It was through the Church and the Councils that was determined which books would and which ones would not be used in the Bible as you know it today. There were many books in many of the Churches that did not make the cannon.
It sounds like you desire to pick and choose what you like and what you do not like from the councils – even the first seven. If the councils could err than it is logical the Bible could have been made in error, since it was only through the councils that you have the Bible you use today.

Yes everything in the Bible is absolutely 100% correct (In their original language). There are no contradictions except what appears to be a contradiction due to either man not interpreting the Scripture with Scripture and coming up with something different, the translation into another language which has created some contradictions, or manuscript variations and the wrong manuscript is chosen.
I study manuscripts and I have gone through many of the apparent so-called contradictions only find out that either the language was biasely translated wrong into English or the wrong manuscript was chosen when other manuscripts have small variations that agree with the whole of Scriptures (again, Scripture must interpret Scripture).

You need to further your research then because even Biblical scholars acknowledge contradictions in the texts. We have no original Bible books to study from either, only copies of them. I suggest you read that article to which I posted a link above about Biblical errors.
I have found through my studies that there are in fact errors in Scripture, and that the so-called inerrancy of the Bible is a misuse of the term by people of faith who have to profoundly believe the Bible is inerrant or else their faith would topple.

By: Mikhael

Mikhael — Wed, 30 May 2018 18:54:52 +0000

@Jayhuck, Councils are a benefit to the church though not infallible and can err.. For myself I accept the first original seven ecumenical council (The current seventh is not the original seventh, over iconoclasm vs. icondules), the Protestant Ecumenical Council of Dort of 1619, the Westminster Assembly and the Ploughlandhead Declaration of the Covenanted Reformation of 1761.
There are other councils I would accept betwixt them and other I would not. Regarding councils the Westminster Confession says it best:
“The Supreme Judge, by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.”
“For the better government and further edification of the Church, there ought to be such assemblies as are commonly called synods or councils.”
“All synods or councils since the apostles’ times, whether general or particular, may err, and many have erred; therefore they are not to be made the rule of faith or practice, but to be used as a help in both”
Regarding the Word of God.. The Council of Hippo in 393 AD and the Council of Carthage of 397 AD and later confirmed by Ecumenical council only confirmed what was already set and determined to be Scripture from the earliest days of the Apostles. Besides the many list of canons of Scripture before the 4 century which confirms the same listing of the above three councils but also manuscript copies also confirm the same listing. I have in my collection Aramaic Manuscripts that date back to the 100s and they have the same exact so-called New Testament books that we have today. I know of Aramaic Manuscripts that date back to the early 70s AD that I all the current books except Revelation.
Yes everything in the Bible is absolutely 100% correct (In their original language). There are no contradictions except what appears to be a contradiction due to either man not interpreting the Scripture with Scripture and coming up with something different, the translation into another language which has created some contradictions, or manuscript variations and the wrong manuscript is chosen.
I study manuscripts and I have gone through many of the apparent so-called contradictions only find out that either the language was biasely translated wrong into English or the wrong manuscript was chosen when other manuscripts have small variations that agree with the whole of Scriptures (again, Scripture must interpret Scripture).
You do not believe that inerrant is a historical doctrine? If that be the case how does the Westminster Confession of Faith of 1646 state the following:
“The Scriptures, being immediately inspired by God, and by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; so as in all controversies of religion the Church is finally to appeal unto them.”

By: Jayhuck

Jayhuck — Wed, 30 May 2018 18:54:52 +0000

Mikhail,
The Bible is *literally* full of contradictions and problematic verses. I know we’ve been down this road before on this blog but I won’t mind if we have to go there again.
The problem here boils down to how you understand the Bible and what it means to you or your church when talking about how the Bible is the “inspired” Word of God. I think some Christians have taken the historical understanding of the Bible being inspired and somehow turned that into an understanding of the Bible being inerrant which is false. If you understand the Bible to be inerrant, without errors, then your faith is just a little research shy of collapsing.

By: Richard Willmer

Richard Willmer — Wed, 30 May 2018 18:54:52 +0000

*nonetheless*

By: Mikhael

Mikhael — Wed, 30 May 2018 18:54:52 +0000

@Richard, I am glad you used the word “appears”when speaking about the Messiah modifying, or contradicting aspects of what was written. Because that is all it is, a superficial reading of the Messiah’s words and a lack of understanding the Torah and Prophets.
The Messiah always contradicted the “Traditions of the elders”, the “Doctrines and Commandments of men”- the so-called oral law of moses and everything else not found in the Holy Scriptures. The Messiah also corrected incorrect understandings of the Law. Examples of this would be the Sabbath. It was never against Torah to not to heal on the Sabbath nor was it against Torah to provide for basic nourishment. And in fact mercy and acts of necessity was commanded to be done even on the Sabbath. So even here the Messiah brought back the proper understanding of the Sabbath.
His entire discourse on the Sermon on the Mount was in fact bringing back the proper understanding of the law that was given on Mount Sinai that was so badly twisted by the sect of Pharisee. Another example of this would be Divorce. In Deuteronomy 24 it was written that man could put away your wives for sexual uncleanness, i.e. Adultery. Then the sect of Pharisee’s came along and declared that it was written that it was commanded to put away your wives and they did so for every conceived reason. Christ taught the correct understanding, that except for sexual uncleanness it was not permitted to divorce your wives and if you do so then you are by the very act making your wife an adulteress when she becomes another man’s wife and through that act you yourself have been made guilty of adultery because you are the one who made your wife go out by giving a false bill of divorcement.
Christ also taught in the Sermon that the law was not just Physical. That it was also spiritual. To keep your hand from murdering your neighbor was not enough. You can not be angry with a neighbor without a just cause or you are guilty of murder. But the same is true the other away around as well. To deny the physical and deny the spiritual or to deny the spiritual and deny the physical aspects of the law is at the very root Gnosticism. This is the correct understanding of the law of God and it was taught by Christ and it was taught by Christ through Moses. For it was taught that we should love our enemies even in the Torah.
So Christ Magnified the law and made it honorable and confirmed it just as was prophetically said to happen in Isaiah 42:21.
I could go step by step with the Sermon on the Mount and the rest of the words of the Messiah but it would make this post too lengthy. Suffice to say that this is very important. The very core here is important. What is at stake is the very veracity of the Messiah. As I stated previous if the Messiah changed, altered, deleted or added to the Law of God then all His claims of being the Messiah are false and must be thrown out of the window. If Christ then gave a new law, or rule of life, He exceeded His commission, and we must call in question His veracity, as well as His Sincerity, in that declaration of His, Matthew 5. 17, 18, 19. likewise as to what he says, John 12:49, 50. I have not Spoken myself, but the Father which sent me He gave me a Commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak- and I know that His commandment is life everlasting. Whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father said unto Me so I speak. See Deuteronomy. 18:18,19.”

By: Richard Willmer

Richard Willmer — Wed, 30 May 2018 18:54:52 +0000

Hello Jayhuck
Here’s a nice little idea for you: notice how, in the Creation story in Gen.1, God does TWO things on the ‘day six’. Some scholars believe that the original manuscript had God doing one thing on ‘day six’ and one on ‘day seven’, but that the manuscript was altered to ‘justify’ the keeping of the Sabbath (‘God did it, and so should we!’). (Now, of course, a day of rest per week is a jolly good idea – for individuals and for society … but we should not pretend that the person who wrote what is there was ‘God’s personal secretary’ that day! This is a facile notion.)
The whole story is, you, I and many other Christians believe, an allegory – a very good, rich and useful one in its way, but an allegory nontheless.

By: Richard Willmer

Richard Willmer — Wed, 30 May 2018 18:54:52 +0000

You have a point, Patrocles: we are ‘multi-….’, yet we do need some kind of ‘social contract’ (or ‘culture’) that provides a framework that promotes the common good. Many post-industrial societies are in a ‘state of social flux’ at the moment, and this is bound to be unsettling for many. However, history teaches time and again that ‘dominionists’ (or nazis or islamists or similar) do not have ‘the answer’.