Thank you John. Regretfully the Free church does not stand in the fashion the old presbyterians stood! By no means the issue is ever discussed or reconsidered, with one exception to my knowledge, though most of the churches in Ulster refrain from public ornamentation in their sanctuaries. In this issue the free church follows British Victorian custom without a blink.
Thank you, June, for the link
"Nevertheless the foundation of God stands sure, having this seal, The Lord knows them that are his. And, Let every one that names the name of Christ depart from iniquity."
June A. Nadolny wrote: 1. John . . I would not have expected that from a Free Presbyterian church? ?
2. ... the late Ian Paisley, founder of the FP church formed an alliance with Sean Brady, then Cardinal of the RCC. Being from the states, I confess Ralph and I were ignorant of Paisley's dual role as politician / preacher.
1. John, are you talking about the Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster, or of Scotland?
2. June, can you document that alliance? Thanks Greetings
Cont. Once the mixed ethnicity in the church at Rome is demonstrated the rest falls into place regarding the issues mentioned in chapter 14.
The chapter reveals in hints the ongoing issues that these two ethnicities struggled with and the difficulties represented by their backgrounds and what they stood for. The Jew perturbed with abandoning 'the law', with its ceremonies, days and precepts, while the Gentile felt disturbed with a feeble conscience of meat sacrificed to idols, steaming from their past, hence abstaining from voluntary foods. Of course this explains the lack of harmony, friction, and mutual condemnation, as the two parties quarelled.
Such are the issues dealt in chapter 14. The problem is that we only read the answers to the issues in chapter 14, not necessarily the real problems are spelled out, but while reading between the lines along the context of the whole letter, we can discern the ongoing conflicts.
This is the reason why many affirm and sustain that the verses deal with the struggles of two infant Christian communities in a transitional period.
The book of Romans is uniquely enriching theologically because of this.
Unprofitable Servant wrote: ... written to a mainly Gentile audience ... and there is no indication in the context that ... is anywhere close to rightly dividing the Word of truth
US 1. The letter is written "To *all* that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints" 1:7 This immediately includes Jews and Gentiles, as all believers are called to be saints.
2. Rome was a great urbis extending miles, and in a day of different transport chapter 16 shows that the church in Rome, met at different locations. Divers households are mentioned in v.10&11, while v.3 tells of a fellowship meeting in the house of Jews, Priscilla and Aquila, while in v.15 another is associated with Olympas, Greek name. Yet there was no segregation of the two ethnicities as we see in 16:4 that Gentiles felt in debt to Jew leaders, Aquila and Priscilla.
3. The epistles address issues relevant to ongoing difficulties. E.g. 3:8 cites an allegation, while 6:1 brings the doctrinal explanation to the issue.
4. When reading the book in one sitting one observes a peculiar tug of war asserting the mixed ethnicity of the church, by obvious contrasting concepts, as circumcision versus uncircumcision, under the law against not under law, aluding to Jew v. Gentile.
US, this is what you wrote "Except the book of Romans was written to a mainly Gentile audience in Rome and there is no indication in the context that what sister B had stated is anywhere close to rightly dividing the Word of truth"
1. You imply my take did not divide the word aright. This is discrediting
2. The book is written with Jews and Gentiles in mind, hence the many verses including both as part of the argument sustained
3. The list of names in chapter 16 includes Jewish and Greek names.
4. If it was written mainly to Gentiles how do explain the generous references to OT individuals as Moses, Abraham, or David, and the many quotations from OT as in chapter 15. It appears the writter assumed the receiver to be familiar with such, which the Gentiles would not be perse.
5. Notice the invitation to forbear in 15: ," receive one another" pointing to existing conflict between the OT tradition wishing to retain feasts, and days, while the Gentile background obviously remained indifferent to such.
6.Jews were scattered throughout the different Roman urbis due to commerce, e.g. Priscilla and Aquila mentioned in chapter 16
US, discredinting a person in order to debunk an argument seems easy but is not always successful. Please, examine this excerpt from Romans 2 to see if Romans is mainly directed to Gentiles:
"Behold, thou art called a Jew, and restest in the law, and makest thy boast of God, And knowest his will, and approvest the things that are more excellent, being instructed out of the law; And art confident that thou thyself art a guide of the blind, a light of them which are in darkness, An instructor of the foolish, a teacher of babes, which hast the form of knowledge and of the truth in the law. Thou therefore which teachest another, teachest thou not thyself? thou that preachest a man should not steal, dost thou steal? Thou that sayest a man should not commit adultery, dost thou commit adultery? thou that horrest idols, dost thou commit sacrilege? Thou that makest thy boast of the law, through breaking the law dishonourest thou God? For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you, as it is written. "
Romans 14 deals with the transitional stage from the old covenant ordinances, -say OT feasts, and ceremonies, that became obsolete, - into the coming of the New covenant.
John UK, your first remarks of today are witty. Certainly, nastiness does not pertain to the new nature, neither mocking as "The words of a wise man's mouth are gracious"
As Christ denounced, words identity character.
"I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment. For *by thy words* thou shalt be justified and *by thy words* thou shalt be condemned"
John UK wrote: If folks think the Reformation was a magical cure for Catholicism, and a wave of a wand produced a perfect church overnight, they need think again.
Sure. There is much simplistic thinking and historical ignorance about, that leads to shallow understanding, practice and belief, often producing as a by product many self-convinced 'doctors' at self-service distortion and manipulating facts.
John UK Surely Presbyterians wishing to completely move away from the falacies of Rome beyond what other reformers have come short, single minded aimed for only one prescribed holy day; when as for today most of the evangelical population forsaking the one prescribed holy day, madly engage in the big festive holiday of the year, which practice certainly adds to no consistent piety as a norm.
Surely Presbyterians took a commendable stand in their day which still holds strong value towards godliness today.
However, as the season comes in a package, there are other of its facets that come short of the glory of God, one being vanity. The sense of acting *in vain* which comes mentioned early in the decalogue, relates to untrue, useless, futile or false purpose. Though there are niceties in the season, as some measure of quality family time or good will towards others for instance, there is much done under futility which is to become short and far from what is true. God is a wholesome being by character, and vain things are short of truth in content, which is what he is by very esence. This escapes those that look for "transgressing sin" in the season, rather than futile sin, which becomes holiness short.
You are departing from truth by following your deceitful reasoning. Your argumentation would not hold any court of justice and shames sound thinking. Resisting truth is a trait of reprobate minds. 2 Timothy 3 Christ's death we are told to remember, not his birth. What you as others are doing is to twist around meaning to catch people in their own words. See previous post below. This does not proceed from pure motives.
"Only fear the LORD, and serve him in *truth* with all your heart:"
US, you were diverting focus in 1/3/19 5:33pm. The matter was not what you state. John's forceful argument had arrived to a climax cornering the opponent into an undeniable place of reason, from which most decided conveniently to vacate through the back door, giving into mutual merry wishes and joking afterwards.
Christ's detractors, out of malice, hang on to his uterances to catch him in fault by his own words, Lk 20:20. This is a diabolical fault, and of this same people it was said that as a practice they eased up their guilty conduct with sanctimonious prayer talk, Mat. 23:13-15. People involved in this present thread, have partaken of the same strategy, and after resisting evidence, they eased by resorting to boasting and joking.
We are partakers of the divine nature if we are truly Christ's, or does the behaviour of some partake of the unregenrate nature displayed by Christ's detractors? This brings into question if such are born from above, not only by mouth, but by the sanctifying Spirit.
If one prefers to keep the season in spite of the evidence presented, fair enough, let him take it and explain so, rather that to affront truth
Sin definition, "him that knows to do good, and does it not, to him it is sin"
John UK wrote: ... here is the list of holy days in the CoE. Now you tell me which one is not sin and ought to be celebrated by all Christians. St Andrew St Thomas Nativity of Christ St Stephen St John Evangelist Innocents' Day Circumcision Epiphany Conversion of St Paul Purification of Virgin Mary St Matthias Annunciation of Our Lady Ash-Wednesday Monday before Easter Tuesday before Easter Wednesday before Easter Thursday before Easter Good Friday Easter Even Monday in Easter Week Tuesday in Easter Week St Mark St Philip and St James Ascension-Day Monday in Whitsun Week Tuesday in Whitsun Week St Barnabas St John Baptist St Peter St James St Bartholomew St Matthew St Michael St Luke St Simon and St St Jude All Saints Thanks
Answer, Regarding what the CofE does; it matters not to me. I'm answerable to God for what I do.
Regretfully, key challenges when coming up to the point are often lightly and conveniently dismissed.
It seems that the concept of sin in the evangelical population is fastly approximating the concept the Pharisees had, that to know what was right from wrong they needed a myriad list of specific regulations, as to how many miles one could walk in a Sabbath day before if was sin, or what measure of depth one could dig before ...
Sin is the transgression of the law, but also we read that whatsoever *is not of faith* is sin.
What commandment did David disobey when sinning against the Lord in censing the children of Israel? Or what commandment had God in mind when Scriptures state that Job sinned not by ascribing God his misfortunes? By the same rule, what commandment an individual is disobeying by adhering to substance abuse? There is no sentence or tittle in Scriptures stating 'thou shalt not take opiods'.
More likely, what John UK had in mind is the spirit of the law, as Jesus had: "I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven."
By adding to God's worship out of our whim we fail to obey the first command of loving him with all our strength, which means saying, "yes, Lord, all in your terms only and what is aiming to honour your intend".
Thanks for offering clarification, sir. Perhaps there are more angles than one from which to assess the whole. Nevertheless, dialogue in good faith is positive to human understanding. (No one of us understands as we should yet, the Scripture states). Yet it has to be agreed that there has been a mixture of many things, from foolish hermeneutics, careless banter, presumption to stuborned closed thinking. But, let's not forget also the gracious and positive interchange. Every blessing.