It's not about division. It's not about politics. My concern is how do we come together? LeVar Burton link
Small change in commenting policy
We have had a few visitors to the blog make what Deb and I consider inflammatory statements or unsubstantiated claims. The accusations include words such as lying, wanting to destroy a person, caricaturing a position, etc.
In response to such claims, Deb and I have very occasionally asked for clarification. However, sometimes a person does not respond to our query. We have no wish to pull rank on anyone. Nevertheless, we ask these questions as editors and owners of the blog. We have our reasons for doing so. We are not trying to be mean.
For example, if someone is accused of being a liar, we believe it is in our purview to ask for proof of the lies. If someone did lie, we would take steps to make sure the person does not lie to us again. We never intentionally lie in our posts. But, we can, and do, make mistakes. We take such comments seriously and wish to clear our name or our readers' names. Therefore, we ask for proof.
If we make a mistake, we will correct it. As you know, we have apologized in the past link. So, from this point forward, we expect an answer to our questions regarding serious matters. You do not have to answer if we ask you to describe your favorite taco.
If we do not get a response, we may hold subsequent comments from the individual until we get an answer. We will alert the reader in a comment that we are holding their comments until they respond to our query. If we receive no response, we may delete the original comment that caused our concern. As always, we would be happy to communicate about our decision via email.
We believe that people should answer honest questions. We believe that anyone who comments in the public should do so as well.That debate is ongoing in our last post. So, in keeping with our contention that leaders should answer questions, we ask our readers to do the same. Maybe we can prove that our readers have more guts than some role models of "Biblical Manhood" ® out there.
Scenario 1
What would you think if I started off this post by saying that I think John Calvin was a divisive individual? Then, I launched into my reasons which might include his assertions that the Anabaptists had left the faith link and his denouncements of Michael Servetus as a heretic for his nonTrinitarian theology which led to his death link. (Digression-Did you know that Servetus was the first to describe pulmonary circulation and was a genius in lots of fields? I didn't.)
I can hear it now. There is that non-Calvinist Dee doing her typical screed against the Calvinists. Some of our readers are probably gearing up to *prove* that my sources are not as good as their sources and that I am categorically wrong.
Scenario 2
Dee writes a post on the problems of Martin Luther and claims that he was divisive. I would highlight the problem I have with his support of the princes over the peasants ( We did discuss that here ), his attacks on the Jews and his decision to break with Zwingli over communion. Perhaps the Calvinists would not make peep and might even secretly congratulate me for my perspicuity. But, maybe some Lutherans would be upset with me.
RC Sproul and Divisiveness
Recently, Sproul wrote a post called A Warning About Division in the Church. I agree with the facts and assertions in his entire post! Read that sentence again because I am going to turn the tables a bit. He says that often Christians do not trust one another.
Today, we might say, “He may claim to be a Christian, but he’s not really Reformed so we can’t trust him. Or, he’s not an Episcopalian or a Lutheran like we are, so we can’t trust him.”
He then claims to be the biggest fan of Martin Luther and proceeds to accurately point out Luther's divisive act. In regards to Luther and Zwingli:
After much discussion, they couldn’t agree on the manner in which Christ is present in the Lord’s Supper. Both sides believed that He is present, but the mode of His presence was a matter of dispute.
…The two Reformers could not come to an agreement. But beyond disagreeing, the saddest thing was when Luther turned to Zwingli and said, “You are an andern Geist“—German for “a different spirit.” Luther questioned Zwingli’s Christianity altogether. Thus was introduced the divide between the Lutheran and Reformed wings of the Reformation that exists to this day.
At this point, I have to say, “Shame on you Martin Luther;
Sproul concludes his arguments with the following:
Luther insisted that those who don’t agree with us at every point are really not of Christ
He then excoriates Luther (rightly so) for his divisiveness. Please read the entire post for the development of his arguments.
But Daddy and Son Sproul need to take their own advice.
Yet, Sproul, himself, and his son, have contributed to today's divide between Calvinists and non-Calvinists by saying something similar.
Take this quote from TWW's post in March link
Not long ago, R.C. Sproul, Jr. responded to a question on his website (see below).
Ask RC: Do Arminians go to heaven when they die?
"From one perspective, to even ask this question seems almost ghastly. From another perspective, asking this question seems like surrender. On the one hand, no one believes in justification by having all my theological ducks in a row. On the other hand, many of our fathers saw the divide between Arminian theology and Calvinistic theology as a decisive one. We want to honor our brothers if they are our brothers, and we want to honor our fathers, if they are right on this issue. Better still, we want to be true to the gospel of Jesus Christ.
My own earthly father (ed. Sproul Sr) has been known to answer this question this way- Arminians are Christians, barely."
I believe that Sproul Jr is in a position to speak for his father. Who else would be a better historian? Sproul Sr. has not publicly disagreed with his son on this matter and they both work together. Perhaps this post by Sproul Sr is a way to back away from this uncomfortable statement? If so, he should be a "Biblical Man"® and say so.
Also, in keeping with his expressed wish for unity, I think he could have strengthened his case by presenting a boneheaded example of discordant behavior by somebody in his tribe. ( The word *tribe* is the new *winsome* for the Neo-Cal set. Watch for frequent cameo appearances in YRR publications.)
A Doug Wilson example
Let me jump away from the Sprouls for a minute and give another illustration of insensitivity by Doug Wilson. I did an analysis of a debate between Thabiti Anyabwile and Doug Wilson which dealt with accusations that Wilson's professed views on slavery could be construed as racist. The point here is not to rehash the debate but to demonstrate there are smarter ways to communicate with one another. Remember, Wilson is being critiqued because some have accused him of racism, a charge which he denies. He takes an opportunity to criticize the theology of another pastor. He had tons of pastors to use an an example. Guess who he chooses?
(Me )Wilson believes in progressive revelation. In other words, we get better over time.
(Wilson) Writing Black & Tan was racially insensitive? But so is orthodox Trinitarian theology anywhere in the neighborhood of T.D. Jakes.
In other words, I believe our Christian brothers 500 years from now we look at our behavior now, in the present crisis, with as much consternation as they look at our brothers at the time of the Civil War. History really is a mess.
(Me) My perception:
To compare the horrors of racism to TD Jakes Trinitarian theology (or lack thereof) is insensitive to Anyabwile's discussion. To make matters worse, TD Jakes is also an African American which could lead some to think that Wilson just might have a problem with racial animosity. There are a thousand white preachers he could have quoted to make his point but, no, he had to quote a black guy.
Wilson made two mistakes. He equated the horrors of racism to bad theology. That is dangerous and insensitive. He then chose an African American preacher to demonstrate bad theology when he could have chosen from hundreds of white preachers. He could have made his point very differently. By doing it this way, he alienated many people. This is the type of insensitivity that leads to divisiveness and anger.
Another writer observed the beginnings of divisive relationships over Calvinism and non-Calvinism in 2006.
From the post at Straight Shot, Dr RC Sproul on Free Will and Salvation link he outlines what he believes are divisive comments.
The new generation of evangelical leaders — those to whom young seminarians look toward for guidance and inspiration — is notably hostile to these moderate elements of the generation past. The likes of a Chuck Colson and Billy Graham would not get invited to speak at the major conferences currently, such as Together for the Gospel, The Gospel Coalition, and Desiring God. If an aspiring evangelical leader today were an inclusivist, evolutionist, affirming of women’s ordination, or ECT-affirming, they would be accused on a number of fronts for diluting the “purity” of the gospel. Thus, it is not surprising to see Tim Challies, one of the most popular Piper-esque bloggers today, criticizing Colson for working “against the Lord’s church” and laboring “for outright sinful causes.” Why? His work with Evangelicals and Catholics Together.
Ed Young Jr: a non-Calvinist insults Calvinists
Now, to round out this discussion, I will show you the other side. I attended Young's church for a short time. I did not like his Bible light sermons and we bolted as soon as we could. (My daughter was sick during this time which made it difficult for us to evaluate alternatives.) Denny Burke published a post Ed Young's Recent Sermon on Reformed Theology in which Ed said the following about Calvinists.
“They pimp God not to reach people who are dying and going to hell.” He also charges reformed Christians with preaching the social gospel, with being more concerned with digging wells in South Africa than with sharing the gospel anywhere.
Yes, after months of personal phone calls, text messages and in-person meetings, I am coming out in a new way, as a friend of Chick-fil-A's president and COO, Dan Cathy, and I am nervous about it. I have come to know him and Chick-fil-A in ways that I would not have thought possible when I first started hearing from LGBT students about their concerns over the chicken chain's giving practices.
For many this news of friendship might be shocking. After all, I am an out, 40-year-old gay man and a lifelong activist for equality. I am also the founder and executive director of Campus Pride, the leading national organization for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender (LGBT) and ally college students. Just seven months ago our organization advanced anational campaign against Chick-fil-A for the millions of dollars it donated to anti-LGBT organizations and divisive political groups that work each day to harm hardworking LGBT young people, adults and our families. I have spent quite some time being angry at and deeply distrustful of Dan Cathy and Chick-fil-A. If he had his way, my husband of 18 years and I would never be legally married.
… Dan and I shared respectful, enduring communication and built trust. His demeanor has always been one of kindness and openness. Even when I continued to directly question his public actions and the funding decisions, Dan embraced the opportunity to have dialogue and hear my perspective. He and I were committed to a better understanding of one another. Our mutual hope was to find common ground if possible, and to build respect no matter what. We learned about each other as people with opposing views, not as opposing people.
…During our meetings I came to see that the Chick-fil-A brand was being used by both sides of the political debate around gay marriage. The repercussion of this was a deep division and polarization that was fueling feelings of hate on all sides. As a result, we agreed to keep the ongoing nature of our meetings private for the time being. The fire needed no more fuel.
…Even as Campus Pride and so many in the community protested Chick-fil-A and its funding of groups like Family Research Council, Eagle Forum and Exodus International, the funding of these groups had already stopped. Dan Cathy and Chick-fil-A could have noted this publicly earlier. Instead, they chose to be patient, to engage in private dialogue, to reach understanding,and to share proof with me when it was official. There was no "caving"; there were no "concessions." There was, in my view, conscience.
Listen very carefully to Shane in this closing comment.
In the end, it is not about eating (or eating a certain chicken sandwich). It is about sitting down at a table together and sharing our views as human beings, engaged in real, respectful, civil dialogue. Dan would probably call this act the biblical definition of hospitality. I would call it human decency. So long as we are all at the same table and talking, does it matter what we call it or what we eat?
To quote Captain Jean Luc Picard:
Make it so!
Lydia's Corner: Nehemiah 1:1-3:14 1 Corinthians 7:1-24 Psalm 31:19-24 Proverbs 21:4
I could have sworn that I saw the emergent types using “tribe” before the neocalvinistas. That said, my information is suspect, because I had to stop reading YRR materials a few years ago because I prefer to avoid sliding any faster down the slippery slope toward hypertension.
Ok, now on to read the rest of your article. 🙂
Josh wrote:
You may be right. YRR types like to stesl stuff from people they find cool but cannot admit it. I keep an eye on YRR writing and will keep everyone posted on the uptick in the use of the word *tribe*®
Hold the phone! Zwingli believed that Christ was present in the Lord’s Supper? That seems like a rather odd thing for R. C. Sproul to say. And he is dead wrong about Luther’s statement to Zwingli. Lutherans never question the legitimacy of professed faith in the Reformed. We question our own selves first. “Of another Spirit” simply refers to, I believe, that Zwingli is marginalizing the theological climax of the church’s worship. Case and point: look at Evangelicalism today (who sides with Zwingli here) and tell us how important communion is, on average.
Most Lutherans do not take offense at the critique of Luther. Most of us join in pointing out his flaws. They’re pretty obvious. Thankfully, none of it was enshrined in 1580, and that’s what matters to us today. And Lutherans do not remotely insist that those who do not agree with us on every point of doctrine are not of Christ. We DO insist that those who do not agree with us are not Lutherans. You would THINK that is fairly common sense. Also, the Lord’s Supper is hardly “any point of doctrine,” but if that’s the way Sproul sees it, you have exhibit 1A of why Luther felt we are on different theological hemispheres.
I know, this has absolutely nothing to do with the actual point of the article. Sorry, couldn’t resist. 😛
My last comment wasn’t supposed to sound like a nitpick. I only wanted to convey my amusement that [it appears] the Calvinistas have borrowed a term from people they tend to dislike. 😀
Now…
Demonizing one’s opponents doesn’t always influence the outcome of a debate – or a culture war – in the way one might prefer. Consider, for example, the rhetoric coming out of the AFA, ADF, FRC, Focus on the Family, and NOM. You know, such things as: LGBT people are universally promiscuous, disease-ridden, mentally ill, child predators, etc. When average people meet LGBT people who are “out” but do not show the aforementioned characteristics, is it any wonder that “the church” (i.e. the conservative evangelical tribe) is losing the culture war?
Will this effect have any bearing on the major divisive issues in the church right now? I can only say that it has for me. After getting to know some Catholics, while I never swam the Tiber, I rejected any hints of the parochial views of Catholicism that Baptist preachers had attempted to instill in me during my youth. None of you will be surprised at what else happened: I became increasingly suspicious of what those preachers had taught about other disputable matters. Maybe they’d have had better success convincing me of their opinions had they stuck to the [trigger word warning] Gospel.
Miguel wrote:
I am so glad you chimed in. Sproul sets himself up as an expert of sorts so it is good to hear from those in the trenches of their *tribe.*
Good to hear from you, Miguel.
Josh wrote:
Thank you for the goos laugh!
@ Miguel:
Yes, it's great to hear from you Miguel! Thanks for your input.
I have been a christian for 36 years. I went to a Baptist (Australian) church where I was baptised in water and when the Pastor and his wife visited a local Pentecostal church and got baptisted in the Spirit, I started getting involved in charismatic churches. I left these churches after a couple of years because their theology was shallow and they focused on experience rather than the gospel. 36 years later, after having spent 15 years in a very patriachal/authoritarian cult-like church which abused its congregation and created divorces and whose elders claimed to literally be Christ I am pretty much done with institutionalised christianity.
So for the last ten years I have been on the internet. I have found fantastic sermons from all sorts of people, fantastic blogs like this one from all sorts of people from all sorts of backgrounds. I have never been able to understand the vitriol which arises from Calvanist/Armenian arguments and frankly I have little patience with them.
I don’t want to dismiss or minimise the issues at stake here, although just about everyone claims that they have the truth and the other guy is going to hell. I read recently in Acts that the people marvelled at the disciples of Jesus who preached such great messages despite the fact that they were neither trained nor educated. I think it is important to remember the matrix from which all denominations and therefore theological standpoints emmanate. Constantine has a lot to answer for.
I am not saying that any of this is easy but Jesus told us to be as little children in order to enter the kingdom of God, yet we persist in making this whole thing so much more complicated than it is.
I belonged to many churches, and Pentecostals are as bone-headed as any other denomination, who believed they had the truth and everyone else was going to hell. The last church I attended had an amalgam of traditions that were conflated into their abhominable doctrines. There were Presbyterians, Brethren, Pentecostal and Baptist mixtures and probably a few more thrown in there. When we left, of our own accord, we were told by a pastor who we had known for decades and had known us before we were married (25 yrs) that we were ‘not of them’, or in other words of another spirit. I would second that motion. Although it was meant as a curse, it was in fact a blessing. I never ever want again to be ‘of’ any other church which is so full of its own virtue that it can’t even look at a book or message written by somebody outside itself.
This is not about denominations or religion, it is a spirit of division.
I would also like to respectfully point out that sitting across the table and discussing your differences has never, and will never, been the answer. It doesn’t work in politics and it has never worked with religion. We need to be careful that we don’t become enamoured with the old Hegelian dialect which has been used to great detriment to the church in the last few years. Some things are going to cause division because they are true, and anyone who does not have the mind of Christ on the issue will be offended. It is better to go back to God in prayer and really nut it out with him, rather than continue on in debate and discussion with somebody who is never going to agree with you. The best you are going to get is polite rhetoric. The basis of all of this is the flesh versus the spirit. The fleshly mind is impressed with itself, puffed up and proud and will not in humility back down for anyone. The spiritual mind is informed by God himself and will act in humility and kindness and in accordance with the Holy Spirit.
My favourite verse at the moment is Romans 12:2
“Do not be conformed to the world but be transformed by the renewing of the mind so that you may prove what is the good, perfect and acceptable will of God.”
In all things we need to know what God is saying, not what the other guy wants to hear.
PS. I hope this doesn’t sound patronising. I understand deeply held beliefs creat a great deal of intensity, not just for others but for the individual. My experience in the church has taught me that some things are just plain wrong and it is not wrong to state that fact. We lost everything when we left the last church and have spent years recovering. We will never again allow somebody else to dictate the truth to us, we have learned to be Bereans. It is emotionally and mentally costly but in the end, spiritual maturity depends on it.
I actually do believe Wartburg has been quite divisive and unkind at times. All posts are generally critical of Evangelicals or Wartburg’s personal whipping boy, C.J. Mahaney.
But that’s Wartburg for you.
Anita wrote:
Boy is that ever true.
@ Seneca: And you can’t keep away, Jimmy. It’s been years. Kissy, kissy.
Seneca:
You are just pathetic that is as kind as I can be at this time of day.
Zwingli believed that the bread and wine of the Eucharist were symbols, while Luther believed in what us sacramental types call “the Real Presence” of Christ in the sacrament. there was no way those two would ever have agreed without major changes on the part of one or the other (or both). I don’t know that they were exactly buddy-buddy (Luther had quite a temper), but i don’t trust Sproul’s retelling. (for one thing, Calvinists tend to see Luther as a kind of proto-Calvin – or, imo, they *seem* to – when he really was not that way at all.)
criticism of Luther is fine with me – there’s a *lot* to criticize!
@Seneca: Bless your heart 😉
@Numo: could you elaborate on what “the Real Presence” means, and how it conflicts with the idea that communion is symbolic? I assume it isn’t just a flattering term for transubstantiation.
@ Garland: wow, you’re making assumptions!
try Googling “Lutheran beliefs on communion”; I’m not inclined to want to help you out on this.
@ Garland: also – it’s complicated, and i’m not really the right person to explain. but there’s more than one denomination that views communion/the Eucharist as a sacrament, and more than one set of beliefs as to what that means.
the rest is on your time, OK?
@ Garland: i do not agree with Catholicism on this, but i felt like “flattering term for transubstantiation” was/is uncalled-for.
I’m surprised at your rather hostile response–I really wasn’t trying to attack you or your beliefs. I don’t know what assumptions you think I was making, except for the obvious one–that what you’re talking about seems to fall somewhere between fully symbolic and fully literal. And maybe I was wrong in that, too? If I just read online, I see some people saying that Lutherans really do believe that the bread literally becomes His flesh and blood. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to ask you to clarify, especially with the way you phrased it. To be perfectly honest, I do take some offense at the use of terms like “the Real Presence”. If you read your post from the perspective of a non-Lutheran, who isn’t familiar with your terminology, you’ve essentially said that “those guys think it’s just a symbol, but we sacramentals know the REAL presence of Christ” (that is, by inference, that they don’t). It smacks of defining one’s perspective as “Biblical.”
And I KNOW that that’s not what you meant, which is why I was hoping you would clarify what it was that you DID mean. I’m honestly curious.
@ Garland: it’s complicated.
i felt that your comment about transubstantiation was a slam against Catholics, for whom I have great respect – but I don’t agree with their beliefs on the Eucharist.
To some extent, it also depends on who you ask – different Lutheran synods 9bodies) are going to say slightly different versions of very similar-sounding things. The Anglican Communion is all over the place on this one, much more so than Lutherans, imo. (On what is meant by “Real Presence” and on what actually happens during communion.)
My apologies for lashing out – without realizing it, you inadvertently hit some nerves. but I’ll just shift the blame to R.C. Sproul, who absolutely hammered them with his “authoritative” view on the disagreements between Luther and Zwingli.
well… I avoided the comment thread on unbaptized babies, partly because I have no stake in it, and partly because of the conflicts and flaming.
I think I’d better hang it up on this one, too, because I am not exactly contributing to good discussion.
Again, sorry – I didn’t intend to get so irritated.
For the record, it wasn’t meant as a slam on Catholics. I think it’s a fact of life that transubstantiation is a term that is generally not well regarded in protestant circles, nor one that rolls off the tongue, while the “Real Presence of Christ” is the sort of phrase whose literal meaning no Christian would want to deny, just like “Biblical” or “Gospel-“–its name is inherently flattering.
@ Garland: i think there’s a ton of misinformation and confusion regarding transubstantiation.
@ Anita:
“I would also like to respectfully point out that sitting across the table and discussing your differences has never, and will never, been the answer….
Some things are going to cause division because they are true, and anyone who does not have the mind of Christ on the issue will be offended. It is better to go back to God in prayer and really nut it out with him, rather than continue on in debate and discussion with somebody who is never going to agree with you. The best you are going to get is polite rhetoric.”
++++++++++++++
Think you’re being a bit dogmatic and hyperspiritual here.
While not all disagreements are worth hashing it out, some issues are more personally potent than others. I’d say Shane Windemeyer & Dan Cathy sitting across the table and respectfully hearing each other was absolutely the answer for them personally. And perhaps for their respective causes (although I don’t have knowledge/understanding of the finer aspects of it all).
The point was not agreement but understanding. What they got was far from polite rhetoric — they got kindness, sincerity, mutual respect, reconciliation (agreement not required). No more demonizing. A calming of an inner storm.
I imagine they can sleep better at night. I imagine their personal lives and relationships are healthier because of it. That’s worth tons right there.
@ Miguel:
I would also add that Zwingli’s entire paradigm was very different; he put reason in the driver’s seat (to be fair, I have only read “Ulrich Zwingli 1484-1531: Selected Works” of his writings). This would be similar today to being a post-modernist Christian. Not necessarily bad, but at odds with most of the tradition that came before.
@ Garland: I read about this. He said it is not Transubstantiation. It is like when you put an iron into the fire. The iron does not become the fire but it is infused with the fire. That illustration stuck with me.
elastigirl wrote:
I was quite taken by Shane’s account. This was written from his perspective which was even more touching. Cathy did make some concessions which was unexpected. Stories like this give me hope when I am inclined to become cynical.
There has to be some way to come to working solutions enough to avoid violence.
On the one hand, the NT has lots of warnings about false teachers and how the church must deal with such false teaching. There is nothing wishy-washy or conciliatory about how the NT writers told the churches to deal with false teachers. On the other hand, there is no call to violence in the NT against false teachers, and we must not see problems like currently in the middle east (think Syria right now) develop in this country. Methinks that some people right here in the USA would go all the way to violence as has been done in the past, and religion could be one marker for who is on which side of the conflict.
In order to avoid any problem here I will not name historical names, but we must not see any military commander paid with war horses raised on any episcopal estates to massacre some village thought to be a center of opposing belief on some doctrine, not even soteriology. Do people not think that when words are not violent enough some people will resort to physical violence?
Yesterday the current Walmart weekly ad came to my house. It was a twelve (12) page ad completely given over to “hunting” equipment including one target for practice in the shape of a human for home defense training. But here is the problem. There is already a Gander Mountain store in town, and there are always right many cars in their parking lot. People in this part of the country do hunt, but I fail to see how the deer and/or duck population has increased so much in the past little bit that there needs to be this much emphasis on fire power and camouflage. I think people fear the collapse of our society, and I think that religious fighting does not help us get past this current difficulty.
So what if my next door neighbor on the right believes differently about the eucharist and the neighbor on the left confesses to a priest? We are still neighbors and must live at as many levels of peace with each other as we can. Let the academics earn their keep and argue about these things night and day. Let the academic publishing industry flourish, it contributes to the economy. But let the public troublemakers find some other way to feed their narcissistic needs than stirring up dissent among the brethren. ( I am saying I agree with TWW here.)
If people want religion as a hobby let it be the religion of visiting the widows and orphans and the religion of being unspotted by the world. And for crying out loud, nobody needs a night scope on their weapon or camo cargo pants for their children to do that.
Seneca wrote:
Okay, one question. Why do you keep coming back? You seem to think that everyone here is picking on Mahaney, and YOU, yet you keep coming back and acting hurt and angry. Dude, really? Why bother? There are plenty of OTHER blogs that you’d fit into just fine.
Nancy wrote:
May it be so.
Darcyjo wrote:
This is the key to Seneca/Jimmy. He would not come back unless he, deep down inside, loves us. I know it must be so! He is just embarrassed by his feelings. Real men don’t get gushy….Right, Jimmy?
It’s interesting how the understanding of communion was the first flashpoint of Protestantism. All Protestants disagreed with the Catholic position that communion involved transubstantiation, that is, the bread and the wine actually become the body and blood of Christ (even though they still looked and tasted like bread and wine. All Protestants disagreed with the Catholic position and a fair amount of theology is involved in the dispute as well, but generally the three main Protestant views represented by Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin centered around the relationship of the elements to the sacrament itself.
Luther was actually pretty close to the Catholic view. He denied that the bread and wine became the body and blood of Christ, but said that Christ was present “in, with and under” the bread and wine, what is now called the Real Presence. What exactly Luther meant by “in, with and under” is something of a mystery and Luther was content to leave it at that, asserting that Christ was present in the elements but the elements did not actually become the body and blood of Christ.
Zwingli believed that communion was simply a memorial and symbolic exercise where we are called to pledge our faith in Christ. Luther was appalled by this position that denied the presence of Christ in connection with the elements and said he would rather commune with Catholics than Zwinglians. This dispute between Luther and Zwingli was the primary reason there was very little cooperation between the two camps in their disagreements with Catholicism.
Calvin took something of a middle ground between Luther and Zwingli. While he denied the presence of Christ related to the elements themselves, he argued that Christ was present in a spiritual way in the sacrament and feeds our faith.
So when Protestants right out of chute can’t agree on something as basic as communion, it’s no wonder they have found innumerable other issues to disagree with, sometimes violently, over time.
In fact, it’s somewhat disheartening to know that communion is just one more issue that divides Christianity and is used as a way for many to exclude others from a sacrament of the Christian faith. Witness the number of churches and denominations that practice ‘closed communion’, where being Christian is not enough to receive the sacraments at a particular church, you must not only be a Christian, you need to be the ‘right’ kind of Christian in order to be served communion at that particular church or denomination.
I wish Zwingli had been as magnanomous on the issue of believers baptism. He was very wobbly on that one, agreeing with his students in secret then aligning with the state in the public debate. One of those, Felix Manz was eventually excuted for practicing believers baptism in Zurich.
@ JeffT: err, no – Luther believed that the bread and wine are also the body and blood of Christ, but the way in which that works (mysterious, as you say) is different from the Catholic view.
Again, this is complicated and all I can suggest is looking to some good Lutheran sources for more, though it’s one of those beliefs that is about mystery and paradox rather than logic.
numo wrote:
Not quite sure what you mean, I thought I reflected Luther’s view fairly accurately – that is, while the elements do not actually become the body and blood of Christ, Christ is present “in,with and under” the bread and wine, so there is a real presence of Christ in connection with the bread and wine, but beyond Christ being “in, with and under” the bread and wine Luther didn’t go any further and was content to leave it at that.
JeffT wrote:
The Neo Cal crowd does that to one another. Mark Dever has stated that he will not allow his buddy, Ligon Duncan, to receive communion in his church because Duncan is in sin for practicing infant baptism.
JeffT wrote:
I do remember that he did say that Christ was “in, with and under” the wine and bread. I think of it as a halfway point.
@ JeffT: theya re both bread and wine and the body and blood of Christ.
You can check that out.
@ dee: your horseshoe analogy (attributed to Luther; not sure if it actually is something he said or wrote) is very good!
there’s all kinds of highly philosophical argument and explanation about transubstantiation vs. Luther’s “sacramental union,” and I freely admit that I pretty much tune out when that starts going. Still, it’s important; also for understanding how the Anglican Communion officially views what goes on in communion, as well as for all of the actual variations in belief by different groups of people/churches that are part of the Anglican Communion. (anglo-Catholics are pretty much more Catholic than Roman Catholics on this one.)
It is a vast topic and not something that’s easily reducible to soundbites or blog comments.
@ dee: maybe 1/4th of the way along is closer to the truth on this one.
@ dee: The LCMS (Lutheran Church Missouri Synod) is famously closed communion (or “close” communion, as they say) and members of other synods are not supposed to take part in communion in their churches.
My synod (ELCA) is pretty much “the table is open to all who believe in Christ as Lord and Savior.”
That’s just one sample of how much this whole thing *still* provokes argument and is, in essence, highly divisive. Also shows that Lutheran are not all of a piece.
numo wrote:
Even more stringent is the Lutheran Wisconsin Synod, where members are instructed NOT to take communion at any church other than another Wisconsin Synod church.
@ JeffT: Reminds me of that old song “We are One in the Sprit” … sort of…..
dee wrote:
Or “One Bread, One Body”
@ Anita:
This is one of the best comments I have read! I couldn’t agree more that there are those who are making the Gospel message WAY TOO COMPLICATED!
Your other points were excellent as well. Thanks so much for chiming in!
Darcyjo wrote:
Mahaney hasn’t been mentioned here in some time. Interesting that Seneca arrives and has to mention him. Me thinks Seneca is Mahaney’s PR guy 😉
@ Darcyjo:
Thanks for challenging Seneca. 🙂
He’d follow C.J. Mahaney off a cliff.
dee wrote:
That is actually true Dee. – grin. Love the girls.
dee wrote:
Why am I reminded of a scene in a sensationalistic book about Roman gladiatorial games? The scene went as follows:
After some Jewish rebellion, a group of Jews are going to be thrown into the arena to be killed by wild beasts of prey. One of the elders demands to see the Master of the Games and is very indignant — “I am a Pharisee and the son of Pharisees! How dare you throw me into the arena alongside this — this — SADDUCEE!”
dee wrote:
Dee, you see the same dynamic in Furry Fandom with Pathological Furry-Haters. They are constantly trolling, denouncing all the “Furverts” and “Furfags” — several years ago one falsely accused me of bestiality in an email harassment campaign, claiming the only reason ANYONE would be a Furry was for the bestiality angle — “TRUTH HURTS, DOESN’T IT? CONFESS! CONFESS! CONFESS!”
Yet these same Pathological Furry Haters troll and comment on the Furry newsgroups, Furry art sites, Furry convention sites. Less than two months after I was able to stop that email harassment, I attended the next FurCon in San Jose — and ran into my accuser there, also attending the con. (Guess he must be into bestiality; after all, he hammered into me that was the ONLY reason any Furvert would attend a FurCon…)
The conclusion is these Pathological Furry Haters are every bit as FURRY as the 400-lb pus-dripping Furverts in an infamous (now defunct) Furry-Hater comic and website, just flipped one-eighty from Total Blind Adoration to Total Blind Hatred.
@ JeffT: They Wisconsin Synod is fundamentalist to a T. Very sad.
I actually do believe that Seneca/ Jimmy has been ‘quite’ divisive and unkind at times. All comments are generally critical of Wartburg/ers or Seneca’s personal whipping boy D.E.E.
But that’s Seneca for you.
I relate to some of the things in the post.
I am very opinionated on some subjects but don’t see a reason to treat someone else like a piece or trash if they don’t share the identical views as myself on religion or politics or on whatever else.
This actually gets me into hot water with almost everyone. I wind up being disliked by my debate opponents as well as people who are supposed to be “on my side.”
For example, I am right wing politically but have defended liberals on conservative/right wing forums who were being harassed and ganged up by other conservatives, so those conservatives turned on me.
I don’t like hypocrisy or unjustified rudeness from anyone, and I don’t care if their view points are the same as mine or not.
But I think a lot of people put ideology above how they treat people.
It’s usually not someone else’s opinions that set me off, but rather their attitude, or how they are treating me and others, while conveying their view.
I saw this news story and thought it might be of interest to folks on this blog:
Family Dog alerts parents Benjamin and Hope Jordan to baby abuser Alexis Khan in Charleston
Even a dog knows it’s not okay for an adult to abuse a baby.
Maybe some adult Christians, the ones who think it’s okay to spank a child with plastic tubes and ties and such, will come to this realization some day.
JeffT wrote:
A Wisconsin Lutheran Church popped up near a newly formed lake to be used as a recreational and water source for the Tyler area near my parent’s home. One Sunday, we decided to visit, and was turned away by an usher because we were “neither members, nor invited by a member.” My late dad’s first words as soon as he got into the car was ” Cult. “
numo wrote:
My MIL attends a LCMS; my husband grew up in that church. Several years ago, we visited my MIL’s church and in the Sunday School class, the teacher spent the first ten minutes of the class explaining who they were and were not in fellowship with. (I wonder what the teacher would have said if we had told him we were members of the Church of Christ!)
Deb wrote:
It would have to be a very small cliff; hopefully with steps cut into it. Otherwise, I don’t think so.
_
K.D. wrote:
No kidding!
About that growth strategy, I want to ask them, “Now how’s that working for you?” On the bright side, I can hope it’s kept away people who might have otherwise been entrapped.
Daisy wrote:
Too bad that some in the faith have baser instincts than dogs.
K.D. wrote:
Now that is one I have never heard before. i think it is time for me to do some reading on this group.
Tina wrote:
I wonder, do you think Jesus is in fellowship with them?
@ dee: Scratch the “in the faith” and substitute disguising themselves as Christian
Josh wrote:
It does help when a group is over the top nutty.
@ dee: I have got to find me one of these churches and attempt to visit.
@ Dee:
Looking up the WELS (and formerly LCMS) relationship to scouting might be a good start.
Anita wrote:
The rest of your post is great but I had to respond to this.
You are wrong, and that statement is completely meaningless Christianese.
Sorry if that sounds rude, but it’s the hard truth. As far as discussion never working… I’ve never witnessed your method working in politics or religion either. I have witnessed it do the exact opposite, many many times.
In politics that method is the standard fare. For instance Obama is savior of all to one side and Satan himself straight from the pits of hell to the other, and never the two shall meet. Hasn’t gotten us anywhere.
Anyway about the story itself…
I guess there is some hope for humanity after all :p
@ Garland:
The Book of Concord is the best place to look; there are searchable PDFs online. In a nutshell, Lutherans believe that when Jesus said “This is my body”, he meant it literally, instead of meaning “This is a symol of my body”. But it is complicated, because Luther writes that the Lord’s body is “in, with, and under” the bread – but the bread is just bread. He sees it as a spiritual truth, not a physical “fact”, something which continues to separate sacramental churches from non. Fwiw, Calvins understanding of the Supper was almost the same, except he believed that in the Lord’s Supper the elect communicant was “lifted up to heaven” to partake of Christ’s body in the spiritual realm, but the differences to me are so nuanced that I sort of lose interest at this point.
@ Nancy:
Nancy I really appreciated this comment. Lots of wisdom to digest.
@ Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist:
I think they had a little too much free time to burn.
This is off topic for the specific thread, but fits in with one of the blog’s main interests.
For all the faults some Christians and churches have for dealing with child abuse after the fact, sometimes Non Christians are just as bad in even defending children to start with, in that here’s one who is laying a groundwork to defend it. (Dawkins is a militant atheist.)
Example:
Richard Dawkins Defends ‘Mild’ Pedophilia, Again and Again
@ K.D.:
Please tell me you are not referring to the Tyler, TX area. The last thing that region needs is another church with cult tendencies.
@ JustSomeGuy: I dunno – being separate from Catholicism was serious business; there was a lot riding on trying to work out what they actually believed/didn’t believe. (More than might seem apparent at 1st blush, though i freely admit that I get lost and lose interest easily when trying to follow even the basic threads of a lot of this stuff.)
The thing is… we’re living almost 500 years after the fact. I think it’s very hard for us to see what they were facing as if it were real (for us); the world is, in many ways, vastly different because of the Reformation (and the development of movable type and printing presses, which happened pretty much in that same time frame).
My mind boggles at the idea of no electricity, ever – no electric lights, ever. to try and put myself in the place of someone who was grappling with religion during that time period – pretty much impossible. (for me, at least.)
@ Hester: Seconded!
Oh, and – WELS and LCMS on so-called “prayer fellowship.” That’s a conflagration that’s never gone out.
JeffT wrote:
I miss hearing my (pastor) dad say, “This is not the table of this congregation. It is not the table of this denomination. This is the Lord’s table, and all who love Him are welcome here.”
A bit off topic but important: Research shows neglect and abuse have adverse effects on children far into adulthood: http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/new-report-finds-that-untreated-the-effects-of-child-abuse-and-neglect-can-last-a-lifetime/2013/09/12/1edc0bdc-1bc7-11e3-82ef-a059e54c49d0_story.html
emr wrote:
Amen!
Anita, you go girl! You spoke the truth and for my money, did it very lovingly.
Daisy wrote:
Is Dawkins sure he “overcame” it completely? Childhood sexual abuse can really mess up your head for life; especially if it happened so young you come to believe that it’s normal.
That sounds like the pedo’s defensive speech at the end of the South Park episode “Cartman joins NAMBLA”. Or the “Everybody’s doing it; don’t be such a PRUDE; it’s only Narrow-Minded Bigots who object” bad pickup line. I wonder if Dawkins is defending his own “proclivities” or is trying to self-treat without admitting to anything.
JustSomeGuy wrote:
As one local afternoon drive-time radio guy put it yesterday, “EVERYTHING’S JIHAD THESE DAYS!”
Not to be too divisive here, but how many hours have Dee and Deb sat at the table to dialogue with pedophiles or child abusers to understand them? To REALLY understand them? How many child abusers do they call friends? Couldn’t they be like Dan Cathy in this regard?
Before you start trying to pick my psyche apart, no I am not a pedophile or sexual abuser. I am making a comparison. It just appears what is good for the goose is good for the gander. Didn’t they crusade to run off a man who paid his debt from his legal residence just a year ago?
Mark
Now I get it… I knew you were a bit angry at us. Are you related?
Why don’t you speak with his neighbors? Or better yet, the neighbor’s children who were harmed? Imagine how lovely it was for those little kids, having their persecutor move back amongst them? Anyone who truly repented would never, ever do such a thing and you know it.
Mark
Dan Cathy talking to a gay activist is not the same thing as dealing with an individual who has a compulision to, and acts on that compulsion to, harm children, irrevocably for the rest of their lives. Gay activists are not pedophiles. And no, I do not wish to sit and really get to know a pedophile. I will leave that up to professional mental health providers who know how to deal with those who want to harm innocent children.
However, I have met with one of the top 10 gay activsts in the world, Justin Lee. I wrote about that here at TWW. Justin would never harm a hair on the head of an innocent child.
Mark
My husband and I are sitting here discussing your comment. We both agree that a gay activist who considers himself married is involved in a consensual relationship between two adults. A pedophile uses his age, size and mental development to overcome a small child in order to establish a sexual relationship which is against the will of a child. I find any comparison of Cathy and the activist to us meeting with a pedophile disturbing, to say the least.
.Mark wrote:
There is so little compassion or understanding for children who have been molested in some quarters that I am in constant astonishment over it.
Not related. Not angry. When I read things like “you need to be like the chicken guy who had conversations with a gay activist,” I just wonder what that is trying to accomplish.
First of all, sexual deviance, whether homosexual or underage, is sin. So yes, there is a comparison. The laws that are changing with regards to homosexuality and marriage which will ultimately bring about changes in laws regarding sex with minors. Why? Because when you loosen your standard of morality, the others sins will follow. There’s already a push to normalize sexual attraction to young children as being another form of sexuality.
If you say that homosexuality is just another legitimate expression of sexuality, then you must also say that about those who want to have sex with minors. Remember, the laws on the age of consent are arbitrary, and vary state by state. Those can change. And I believe eventually will change. I am not in favor of that change, but it is a slippery slope we are on given the climate of acceptance of all expressions of sexuality. Remember, it wasn’t that long ago that homosexuals were considered mentally ill and needed “professional mental health providers who know how to deal with them.”
15 or 20 years from now, when you are forced to accept child sexual attraction as a normal sexuality, will you feel the same way? When society tells you that you are a bigot because you discriminate against this behavior, will you cave in?
Let’s stand for the Truth and not be brought down to society’s level.
Mark
Good night! You missed my argument. Homosexuality is between consenting adults. Pedophilia is the rape of a child. Pedophilia is against the law and I will not argue the slippery slope. Today, pedophilia is wrong, against the law and those who do so are mentally ill, seriously ill. I would not sit down and have a discussion with an active pedophile because I know my limits. They need professionals dealing with them. If I knew that such a person had molested a child, I would be inclined to punch him out.
Christianity needs a drinking game!
Don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater? DRINK
Gospel? DRINK
Slippery slope? DRINK
….
JustSomeGuy
I believe I do need a drink, come to think of it. 🙂
Dee,
I think we could all learn from Shane Windemeyer’s comment at the end of your post. It’s so much better to live in unity (Psalm 133) with the things that bind us together as humans rather than going to war over the ideas that divide us. Unity does not have to mean lockstep with everything. There will always be those who want the way of the sword to enforce lockstep. But we have the power to over rule them and not heed their war drums. I echo your sentiment: Let it be so
Mark wrote:
Mark, Who is doing that? Think about it for a moment in those terms. Are there leaders in Christendom dumbing down punishment for child molestation? Yes, We can start with CJ Mahaney. Then there was Dee’s church….and so on and on we go.
That is what I meant about us giving them ammunition. If we do not stand on that basic principal of protecting children (not blowing off child molestation with an “I’m sorry) then we have no right pointing fingers. So, where are Al Mohler, Dever and all those guys on protecting child molesters? Why on earth would they defend CJ Mahaney’s shepherding cult methods? Why weren’t they the first ones to say, your method of dealing with that was wrong and we cannot share a stage with you or promote you anymore? You revictimized the victims with your method.
Why? They only defended and promoted him even after all the information one needed was out there.
“15 or 20 years from now, when you are forced to accept child sexual attraction as a normal sexuality, will you feel the same way? When society tells you that you are a bigot because you discriminate against this behavior, will you cave in?”
Mark, did you know what SGM pastors told the parents of a 3 year old who was molested by a 16 year old at SGM? He was only “experimenting”.
So there is already have that attitude in Christendom. If it is only same sex that bothers you, you are missing out on protecting God’s little innocent daughters, too. from predators.
How come Mohler and Dever do not have a problem with this thinking that is systemic with SGM leadership?
In fact, Driscoll has promoted sodomy in marriage. Where was the outrage in Reformed circles? The camels nose is under that tent, too.
Clean up Christendom before you take on the secular left.
I must be missing something here.
Eve’s first mistake was in “dialoguing” with Satan. It has all been down hill from there for all of us.
So why would we think it a good thing to sit down and listen to someone holding up blatant, scripture labeled sin and asking us to understand, affirm, and indeed celebrate it?
If we replaced whatever hot button issue of the day with the roots of idolatry (self can be an idol) and blasphemy, can you imagine saying this:
“Well, as long as it is just consenting adults blaspheming and idol worshipping, and it hurts their feelings if we call that sin, I’ll just give them a forum to explain why they do it, why they can’t/won’t stop it, and why the rest of us should accept it and celebrate it.”
If the church has come to that (by church I mean all believers), then what anon 1 wants is indeed about to happen. God Himself has told us judgment starts with the house or family of God.
A good read on the subject is to look up the Geneva Bible with footnotes on line and read 2 Timothy 2.
It has much to say that directly applies to this posting and the comment stream.
No dialog leads only to ignorance and irrelevance.
Eve’s mistake isn’t that she dialoged with the serpent. Jesus himself dialoged with Satan for quite a while.
Eve’s mistake, and Adam’s, is that they came back with the wrong answer and then ate the fruit.
As far as your statment about homosexuals, I wonder if you are aware how many explained away abombinations you commit daily, such as eating pork, if you eat it.
The only laws Jesus rehashed were some of the ten commandments, but most important are the two… Idol worship would definitely violate one of the two, but homosexuality? Debatable.
I am also compelled to point out that your position is the ever popular Slippery Slope(TM)
linda wrote:
Not sure what I want? To clean up what passes for Christendom because we actually look worse because we do our evil in the Name of Christ? Then yes, of course, but WE have to be the ones who show what it really looks like in action. (Which is a big no no in some circles because “we can’t” do anything) Not sure the institutions can pull it off anymore. I really thought people would have picked up on the fact the culture war has been a huge failure.
1 Corin 5 seems appropriate here…especially the last part.
I have failed to see where anyone has suggested we “celebrate” any sins.
Mark wrote:
Incest wasn’t formally considered to be aberrant until the 60’s when it was finally put into psychology’s DSM. And it was not until those morally decrepit feminists started kicking up their heels that women could finally vote, and eventually freely attend college.
Thus the Great Moral Slide is inaccurate even though its proponents believe they’ve gleaned it from reading history.
In fact, it quickly becomes a device to make people afraid. But perfect love casts out fear. May we give ourselves to this ideology of perfection.
JustSomeGuy wrote:
Well stated.
@ Patrice: Also, I have great faith that the majority of human beings would rise up and speak out against child sex abuse. Well, except for a few members of a certain group who have friends whose churches were involved in coverups.
linda wrote:
I hope you understand that I was trying to point out the difference between raping a helpless child and two consenting adults. This statement was not meant to be a treatise on my views of homosexuality which I have outlined indepth on the blog.
@ Mark: What moral slope has not already been slipped upon. We have had mass murders, Hitler trying to kill of people groups, Rome justifying pedophilia, and on and on. The slope has already been ridden.
What are “two consenting adults”? Ages are arbitrary. Is it rape if the boy is 14 and the girl is 12? In Alabama that isn’t a crime. In New Hampshire, girls can marry at 13 and boys at 14.
I only bring these things up to demonstrate that laws are based on morals and morals are based on societal norms. As someone brought up, incest wasn’t even considered aberrant until the 60s (I say maybe it just wasn’t formally defined as aberrant).
If you think society’s view of pedophilia was always as it exists today, please take a look at history. The same with homosexuality. Sexual sins go hand in hand. If you are for homosexual relationships today because of the changing cultural mindset, then you are opening the door for everything else. Same is true for abortion. You will ultimately have a tacit hand in writing the new laws as the Supreme Court issues rulings that tackle all these issues.
Mark
I have already said that history has marched down the slippery slope for everything you have mentioned. There comes a time when we must decide as a country at what age to enforce a law. If you do not like the age of consent, lobby for a new one. In the meantime, the church can issue its own decrees for its members. Oh, that’s right. They really don’t like dealing with such matters when it involves friends.
There is a time in which we need to allow people to be adults. I cannot control my adult childrens choices but i can when they are little. Once again,a pedophile is a person who has a position of power due to his age raping a child. There is NOT dual consent, not can there be. This is not the same as two consenting adults in a relationship. Sorry.
Dee you can’t argue with a slippery sloper, if it gets too dry they throw some more oil on it.
dee wrote:
Yes! And that’s interesting because you are saying that the laws of God, written on every human heart, hold stable over time since God carries creation in His/Her hands.
I don’t understand those who believe that without becoming a Christian, a human is just a pile o’ crap. Logically, then, they must also think that everything non-believers do is a pointless mess at every level, including learning in the sciences and social sciences. And that is obviously not correct.
The “world” is a lot less frightful than they think. Even though this earth is riddled with evil, God is also everywhere. Which makes life more of an adventure than a terror, thank God! 🙂
Mark wrote:
Mark, first you quibble. (At what age oh at what age? Therefore impossible!)
Then you make as if I didn’t write that incest wasn’t “formally” considered aberrant until the 60’s. And you state it.
Then you assert that when there’s one kind of sexual sin, there’re all of them. Which makes little sense when you consider, for eg, that incest was widespread in the Western 19th century (even if “not approved”) and homosexuality wasn’t at all ok.
You simply repeat the Moral Slide Theory, which a number of us here have already considered and decided to discard. It’s not that there is no such thing—if an individual can’t find a solid moral center, and then does something that is wrong, it will become progressively easier for him to do more things that are wrong. But the problem is not the “slide”, as such. The problem is that he has an inadequate moral center.
And that this sometimes happens at the individual level does not automatically mean it also happens at the societal level.
Empires in decline exhibit a particular form of decay and focusing on sexual mores, which may or may not be a telling indicator, is to miss the central points which history tells us about them.
“Is it rape if the boy is 14 and the girl is 12? In Alabama that isn’t a crime. In New Hampshire, girls can marry at 13 and boys at 14….As someone brought up, incest wasn’t even considered aberrant until the 60s (I say maybe it just wasn’t formally defined as aberrant)….Sexual sins go hand in hand. If you are for homosexual relationships today because of the changing cultural mindset, then you are opening the door for everything else.”
Mark, lets think this through. First of all, as far as I know, rape is a crime in every state. If it is not a crime in any of our 50 states, please tell us which ones. It is even a crime to rape your wife, btw.
Consent is key here, Mark.
Are you sure a 13 year old girl and 14 year old boy don’t have to get permission from their parents/guardian to marry in NH? What is the age they are allowed to drop out of school? In my state, it is 16 and they have to get permission to marry up until age 18.
I don’t see anywhere in the Bible that “consenting adults” is a pretext for sin.
Leviticus 19:
Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable.
Do not have sexual relations with an animal and defile yourself with it. A woman must not present herself to an animal to have sexual relations with it; that is a perversion.
Romans 1:
For this reason [idolatry] God gave them up to passions of dishonor; for even their females exchanged the natural use for that which is contrary to nature, and likewise also the males, having left the natural use of the female, were inflamed by their lust for one another, males with males, committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the recompense which was fitting for their error.
Consenting adults = anything goes?
I guess homosexual marriage is an advancement not a slide? There’s a constant ebb and flow with morality and laws. I am just saying that if you accept homosexuality as another legitimate expression of sexuality, then you are also contributing to the relaxing of laws with regards to pedophiles. Maybe not today, or tomorrow, but 10-15 years from now.
Mark
You misunderstand me nd I am beginning to think you are either refusing to hear me or you just cannot comprehend the difference between rape and consent.
I have been perfectly clear about my thoughts on homosexuality/homosexual behavior. My comment does not hinge on the sin issue which is something entirely different. The reason pedophilia is so heinous is that it is one person overpowering another person who is not in a position to escape and is in a position to be manipulated by the person with the power. It is against their will. It is rape, repeat, rape.
Homosexualy behavvior is between two consenting adults, each of whom will need to take up their behavior with the Almighty should they choose to do so. But since it is consensual, it is not rape. Homsexuals are not raping each other just as two consenting adults of different genders are not raping each other.
How you could say that I am advocating “anything goes” is beyond me! Read my posts on the matter. I have covered the whole issue and understand Romans, Leviticus, et al so you do not need to keep repeating it.
(note to anyone who just pops in and sees this post, I in no way endorse the extremely immoral sin of pedophilia, I am simply making mark take his own slippery slope medicine)
Mark wrote:
You should really stop treading the slippery slope. Watch this:
Historically, the most pedophilic societies have also been the most hardcore against homosexuality. That includes holy holy holy divine god-state ancient Israel. Pedophila and incest and even rape have been rampant and many times encouraged in almost all societies through history until the present, especially the further back you go. All the while homosexuality has not been tolerated really at all.
-Therefore-
Restriction of pedophilia leads inevitably to toleration of homosexuality. Pedophilia is obviously not sin because Leviticus (and the entire bible) says nothing explicitly against it. So we need to let the righteous pedophiles run rampant, because they keep away the evil homosexuals.
Slip on that slope, son.
Don’t you see how ridiculous that sounds? Yet you are saying the same thing in essence.
@ JustSomeGuy: Darn that was good. Thank you for the warning!!! 🙂
@ JustSomeGuy:
Justsomeguy, And they were Patriarchal societies to boot where women and children were of less value.
Dang my spelling is bad….
@ Mark: I have to admit that I have a hard time understanding what you are doing in this dialogue. You started off miffed off at me because a few of us convinced a long time molester of young children that it was not in the interests of the children he harmed for him to move back on the same street within striking range of his former victims. Any repentant criminal would get that argument. Yet you are mad that we did convince him to leave the street.
Now, you are arguing the homosexual thing to within an inch of your life. Somehow, I do not feel we are having a dialogue but a bait and switch. Could you please try to show that you understand the comments of those who respond to you? I would also ask that you read my posts on homosexuality before you tell me what I think on the matter.
Mark wrote:
Mark, are you aware of the deep arrogance of insisting that your particular set of Christian principles must be obeyed by all humans in our society? Not even God does that. He/She doesn’t come down to deny-by-command those who insistently sin, much less respond in concert with our own personal ideas of what is sin. God lets us grow, wheat with tares. And Paul told us that it is not our business to evaluate outsiders but only between ourselves.
If God treats us that openly and if crotchety old Paul recognized our limits, why do you want to be God’s enforcer?
@ Patrice:
Maybe Mark feels God isn’t/doesn’t/can’t care for people himself?
@ Bridget:
I thought that for several years and it was dreadful! The only good thing about it was to find out it wasn’t true. I hope it isn’t so for him.
@ Patrice:
Me too . . . hope it isn’t so.
“Da proverbial House O’ Gawd Hath Nose Trouble, Perhaps?”
nahhhhhhhhhhh…
(grin)
What ever gave you dat idea?!?
hahahahahaha
*
Patrice wrote:
–
Profound, Indeed!
Brovo!
😉
—