The Anglican Church openly turns against Israel.

Is this not the natural outcome of Reformed theology?

 

No it is not. It is the natural outcome of being anti-semitic. I am of reformed theology and support Israel.

Joseph Botwinick

 

Just looked up Anglicanism on Wikipedia. Based on the description there, I would hardly consider them a true reformed Church, as they are a mix of Roman Catholic and Protestant doctrine.

Joseph Botwinick

 

Yes, that lovely Elizabethan compromise .

 

So if by concience the Church of England considers Israels policies in Palestine to be less than eqiutable and chooses not to support them in thier plans of genocide against the Palestinian people (many of them Christian)I am supposed to condemn them?

 

It Is Absurd To Say Israel
Is Not A Racist State
By Charley Reese
c. 2001 King Features Syndicate
(September 10, 2001)
10-5-1

It was no surprise that the United States and Israel walked out of a United Nations conference on racism as soon as Israel came in for criticism. It is, however, a disgrace. Israel certainly is a racist state. Its own human-rights advocates call it that. The claim that Israel doesn't discriminate against non-Jews is absurd on its face.

Suppose, for example, the U.S. Congress passed a law that said the United States is a Christian, Anglo-Saxon nation and that any Christian, Anglo-Saxon person anywhere in the world is automatically eligible to become a citizen. Do you seriously think the Anti-Defamation League would not have a conniption fit and scream racism?

Well, Israel has such a law for Jews. Thus a Russian Jew, for example, can become a citizen, but a Palestinian driven out of his own country in 1948 cannot return.

Suppose, for another example, a group of wealthy people established the Christian National Fund. This fund would be used to purchase property. Once purchased, the property could never be sold to, rented to or leased to a non-Christian. Would that not be called discrimination? Well, there is such a fund called the Jewish National Fund, which has all of those restrictions on the property it owns. It played a great part in establishing Israel.

And, of course, if American officials routinely issued building permits to Christian Anglo-Saxons while denying them to Jews or other groups, that would be considered racist. And neighborhoods that denied non-Christians an opportunity to buy or rent would likewise be considered racist. All of these forms of discrimination are practiced in Israel against Palestinians.

The language that caused the United States to leave the conference was in a resolution passed by 3,000 non-governmental organizations in 44 regional and interest-based caucuses, according to the Indian Express. Some American news reports have made it seem like it was an Arab-only move. I'd say the United States is definitely in a minority, as it usually is when it defends Israel -- not on the basis of facts, but on the basis of the power of the Zionist lobby in the United States.

Fortunately, a growing number of American Jews are beginning to defy the slanders of the Zionist lobby and speak out against the human-rights abuses Israel inflicts on the Palestinians.

That indeed is the duty of all people of conscience. Acts that would be unacceptable in the United States cannot be condoned simply because they are done by Israelis to Palestinians. That in itself is a racist attitude.

In the meantime, much of the American press is allowing the Israeli government to dictate its language for propaganda purposes. If the Israelis wish to refer to assassinations as "targeted killing," that's their business, but American journalism should call them what they are -- assassinations. Assassination of political opponents, collective punishments inflicted on innocent people, confiscation of property, restriction of movements and employing military engines of destruction against an unarmed population are all considered crimes against humanity. Employing tanks against unarmed demonstrators in the West Bank and Gaza is no different than employing tanks against unarmed demonstrators in Tiananmen Square.

You might want to meditate on why the American reaction is different even though the circumstances are similar.

It is also useful to keep George Washington's warning constantly in mind: "Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence -- I conjure you to believe me, fellow citizens -- the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake; since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government."

Zionism is foreign influence.

 

So instead we are to support the non rascist, liberal minded democracy that is the Palestinian Authority? Pleeeeease!!! Here is an example of present PA thinking.

"A Hamas representative . . . confirmed in an interview in the December 23-26 issue of Wall Street Journal that the organisation plans to re-introduce the jizya tax, a humiliating poll-tax which in classical Islam was enforced on non-Muslims (unless they were willing to convert to Islam). If any refused to pay this tax, the men were to be killed, the women and children enslaved. In the published interview Hassam El-Masalmeh said “We in Hamas intend to implement this tax someday. We say it openly – we welcome everyone to Palestine but only if they agree to live under our rules.”

http://www.barnabasfund.org/zFeb06Up.htm

Funny how they want everyone to live under their rules in Palestine, but seem somehow unable to live under the rules of the host Western countries to which they flock. These people are as rascist and as sectarian as they come, and should be given no succour from the West. How typically Anglican to pander to left-wing political correctness instead of doing the right thing and supporting Israel, which is a benevolent and genuinely free nation. The PA is now officially a terrorist state, (although it has never been anything else) it does not merit our help.

 

They're all a bunch of Christ rejecting racists over there but Israel could go a long way toward solving the problem if they'd follow thier own law. Afterall, they claim to have the truth don't they?
Deu 10:16 Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiffnecked.


Deu 10:17 For the LORD your God [is] God of gods, and Lord of lords, a great God, a mighty, and a terrible, which regardeth not persons, nor taketh reward:


Deu 10:18 He doth execute the judgment of the fatherless and widow, and loveth the stranger, in giving him food and raiment.


Deu 10:19 Love ye therefore the stranger: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt.


Deu 10:20 Thou shalt fear the LORD thy God; him shalt thou serve, and to him shalt thou cleave, and swear by his name.

 

The fact is Palestinians have said “No” to peace with Israel no less than eight times.

1) In 1937, when Britain under the Mandate offered the Peel Commission plan.

2) In 1947, when the UN proposed the establishment of two states in the region one Jewish, one Arab.

3) In 1948, when Israel’s Proclamation of Independence invited the Palestinians to remain in their homes and become equal citizens in the new state.

4) In 1967, when Israel offered to return all the territories conquered in return for peace.

5) In 1978-9, when Israel offered the acceptance of Palestinian autonomy in exchange for peace at Camp David I.

6) In 1993, when Arafat signed the Oslo accords, promised to renounce terrorism and recognise Israel, and then declared on Jordanian television that he had taken the first step in the 1974 plan. This was a thinly veiled reference to the phased plan, according to which any territorial gain was acceptable as a means toward the ultimate goal of Israel’s destruction.

7) In 2000, at Camp David II when Israel accepted the Clinton Plan and the Palestinians did not.

8) In 2001, when Israel’s PM Ehud Barak offered Yasser Arafat East Jerusalem, 97% of the West Bank and 3% compensation from Israel’s territory, in addition to all of Gaza (the Taba Negotiation), and Arafat turned it down without so much as a counteroffer.

Though bombarded with terrorist attacks on its civilian population, Israel still diverts resources to developing and sharing technological advances and man-power in science and rescue operations throughout the world, including the PA. Palestinians have benefited from the supply of water via Israel, health care at the hands of Israeli doctors, the safe passage of humanitarian provisions through Israel etc., Israel helps others. The PA helps itself, as proven when Arafat became the sixth wealthiest man in the world whilst his people starved all around him. Today the PA are seeking his millions, and who did they ask for help? . . . Israel.

With regards the Scriptures you quote: "The scripture hath concluded all under sin." (Gal 3:22). paul goes to great lengths in the early part of Romans to make the very point that Jews and Gentiles, without Christ, are all on the same boat. America is no better morally than Israel, nor indeed is the UK or any other nation. "All have sinned" and on that premise maybe the Anglican church should withdraw its business dealings and charitable works from all peoples. Shame on them.

 

You need to examine the "peace offers". You might change your mind brother. In any case I have no right to bind the concience of any in the matter. As for the USA, the government should stay out of it altogether. We have no dog in the fight. Horrible crimes have been committed by both sides. Taking sides with one or the other only invites trouble for yourself.

 

On this, my brother, we are agreed. Israel is not always right, nor are they always wrong, but for the Anglican church to unilaterally sanction them is IMO absolutely wrong.

 

That could be said of many Reformed groups - infant baptism, clergy/laity, state church, amillennialism etc.,

 

Most Prostestant groups are post-mill. I am A-mill which a historic Baptist position. Of course I would reject the rest of your listed doctrines.

 

Traditionally Presbyterians, Congregationalists, Methodist, and Anglicans are A-mill. These make up the bulk of Protestants on these shores. Of course Roman Catholics are A-mill. Still, I suppose this is a debate for the theology or history sections - we'd better stick to the subject of the OP or we'll get our knuckles rapped!

 

Oh, but we do. Israeli intelligence has helped us greatly through the years and we still depend on them through mutual intelligence efforts between the US and Israel. Israel has been more of a friend to the US in recent years than we have been to them, I am ashamed to say.

Israel continues to provide humanitarian services and JOBS for the Palestinian people even now. This is more than their own filthy government is doing for them. What does Israel get in return? Homicide bombings. And open threats to be driven into the sea and have Palestinians drink their blood.

 

You're just another victim of propaganda. Israel has helped us? Some of the worst spies this country has ever had were Israeli.

 

What does being a-mill have to do with this issue? Oh right, it is because we believe the church is the Israel of God, and we see the present state of Israel as just another country...Of course, that makes us anti-semitic as well.

The Anglican heads,,,heads...have every right to make a political decision. They, frankly, do not speak for me, or all the Anglicans in the world, just in Britain. In Canada, we neither side with Israel nor the Palestinians in this personal dispute. I don't think there will ever be peace in that quarter of the world...except when Jesus comes again.

Cheers,

Jim

 

Not all amillennialists are anti-Semitic, but the majority of those with anti-Semitic views within Christendom are. Reason? Amillennialism lends itself to anti-Semitism, and premillennialism does not.