Zwingli was also a murderer

[Thinkingstuff]

I don't have to: the Torah does that.

Well then you come into problems where Jesus ups the bar. Torah doesn't distinguish between things done and things said. Most of the Non-death sin punishments were in relation to certain Levitical laws. For instance we would agree adultary or forenication is a sin that is mortal leading to death yet this is what we have in Ha Torah.

If a man sleeps with a female slave who is promised to another man but who has not been ransomed or given her freedom, there must be due punishment.[a] Yet they are not to be put to death, because she had not been freed.

Yet Jesus says

27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’[a] 28 But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart

Adultary is certainly worthy of death as is fornication

Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another.

29Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,

30Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,

31Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:

32Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death,

So here we see the Lack in Torah when compared to the NT. So, Torah is lacking as a guide.

Guy Fawkes was a Spaniard Jesuit mercenary

He was an English Catholic who rebelled against James protestant rule. He was a mercenary in the Netherlands but in England he was a rebel. A big difference there. You could call him a traitor to the crown and that would be fair. He was not Spanish nor was he a Jesuit.

 

[Nazaroo]

Well then you come into problems where Jesus ups the bar. Torah doesn't distinguish between things done and things said. Most of the Non-death sin punishments were in relation to certain Levitical laws. For instance we would agree adultery or fornication is a sin that is mortal leading to death yet this is what we have in Ha Torah.

You seem confused.
Adultery may be a death-penalty offense if the offended party agrees, but fornication is not.
The law is clear.

Yet Jesus says Adultery is certainly worthy of death as is fornication

No, he doesn't. You are adding to the word of God bigtime.
You've got a mishmash of quotations uncited,
you've thrown them all together,
but you aren't acknowledging their limitations, meaning and contexts.

So here we see the Lack in Torah when compared to the NT. So, Torah is lacking as a guide.

Torah is not lacking: its people who obey it that are lacking.
Your understanding of New Testament teaching is lacking.
Jesus may have raised the bar for Christian standards and behaviour,
but he didn't institute a new death penalty for fornication.

 

[Matt Black]

Naz is into British-Israelitism.

Ah, thanks, that heresy. Rather like the Episcopagan Church, then, definitely not an Anglican then, whatever the lable.

Naz, you asked about Anglican attitudes to mortal -v- venial sins. There's no such distinction in either the 39 Arts or the Prayer Book; the Absolution in the latter covers ALL sins, which contrast with that in the Catholic Mass which only covers venial sins. The nearest example I can find for you in historic Anglicanism is in Cranmer's Homily against drunkenness and gluttony but even that's a stretch. Cranmer does expound on the unforgiveable sin in the Homily on Repentance, wherein it is referred to as an utter falling away from Christ ie: a conscious deliberate repudiation of our salvation in Him.

You may find this comparison between Catholic and Anglican approaches instructive.

 

[Nazaroo]

Naz, you asked about Anglican attitudes to mortal -v- venial sins. There's no such distinction in either the 39 Arts or the Prayer Book;

The 39 articles and the prayerbook don't properly or adequately define Anglicanism, any more than a crayon stick-drawing of a dinosaur by a 5th grader defines evolution.

The history of "Cardinal Newman" is most instructive. Everytime we get an intelligent Anglican, who actually investigates his religion, he either defects to the Roman-Catholics, or tries to drastically alter it.

"It was 18 years after 1815 before anyone pointed out that the formularies of the CofE are not Protestant at all; that its creeds are identical with those of the Roman Church; that bishops were supposed to have a religious function, and not just to sit in the House of Lords and bow down to the Royal Family; and that practices, which Protestants held in horror, such as auricular confession, are advised by the Prayer Book.

When the tractarians [Oxford Movement] drew attention to these and other facts, which were quite undeniable, a large part of the public was outraged. And this is what we should expect; for people do not mind being told what they do not know. They mind being told what they know and will not admit.

In some ways then, the key figure in the history of the church in the 1st half of the century is not Wilberforce or Simeon or Keble, but the anonymous bishop(s) who, on reading Newman's tract on the Apostolic Succession, could not tell whether he held the doctrine or not. Nothing could illustrate more clearly the extent to which the Church had lost sight of its intellectual foundations.

It was not that the bishops were stupid or uneducated men. It was rather that, taking the everlasting Protestantism of England for granted, and not guessing how soon indifference and worldliness might be replaced by active unbelief, they applied their minds to other questions, and forgot to ask themselves what they were supposed to be." ​

(A. O. J. Cockshut, Religious Controversies in the 19th Century, p.6)

the Absolution in the latter covers ALL sins, which contrast with that in the Catholic Mass which only covers venial sins. The nearest example I can find for you in historic Anglicanism is in Cranmer's Homily against drunkenness and gluttony but even that's a stretch.

This quibble is fascinating, but never explained to anyone during catechismal instruction.

Cranmer does expound on the unforgiveable sin in the Homily on Repentance, wherein it is referred to as an utter falling away from Christ ie: a conscious deliberate repudiation of our salvation in Him.

Thank God Cranmer's muddled thinking doesn't define either Christianity or Anglicanism. He certainly fails here to define the Unforgivable sin.

You may find this comparison between Catholic and Anglican approaches instructive.

Very instructive on the confusion rampant among both Anglicans and RCs.

 

[Matt Black]

The 39 Arts and the Prayer Book are normative for Anglicanism in a way that Newman and the Oxford Movement aren't, despite his special pleading in Tract 90 to the contrary.

 

[Nazaroo]

The 39 Arts and the Prayer Book are normative for Anglicanism in a way that Newman and the Oxford Movement aren't, despite his special pleading in Tract 90 to the contrary.

You are sidestepping.

If you are saying my Anglicanism is not normative, you have to show what is.

The 39 Articles and the PrayerBook CANNOT be normative for Anglicanism anymore, since they have removed them from the pews deliberately and substituted the Alternate Services Book without the 39 Articles.

You keep trying to turn everything backwards.

I'm FOR the 39 Articles and most of the Prayerbook.
(Not the modern faggotry, but the REAL prayerbook, pre 1900.)

The modern church is NOT for the prayerbook,
since they are willing to marry homosexuals,
something which the Prayerbook is a historical witness AGAINST.

In fact, the modern church is not for ANY Christian doctrine.
Its just a group of homosexuals groping to hang onto control of property and money innocently and naively donated by real (dead) Anglicans in their wills, and granted by the Crown.

__________________________________________
I add this footnote, which you have not apparently noticed:
While the Prayerbook is FOR auricular confession (see my quote above), Cranmer is NOT (from your own link):

"Answer to the adversaries which maintain auricular confession: And whereas the adversaries go about to wrest this place [of scripture], for to maintain their auricular confession withall, they are greatly deceived themselves, and do shamefully deceive others: For if this text ought to be understood of auricular confession - then the Priests are as much bound to confess themselves unto the lay people, as the lay people are bound to confess themselves to them. And if to pray is to absolve: then the laity by this place has as great authority to absolve the Priests, as the Priests have to absolve the laity. This did Iohannes Scotus, otherwise called Duns well perceive, who upon this place writes in this [same] manner (Johannes Scotus, Senten. Distinct. 17, quaest.1)."

...so which position is normative for Anglicanism?

 

[Matt Black]

Where in the BCP does it authorise private auricular confession? We have a BCP service in our church and I have never heard it or seen it referred to. The BCP contains the 39 Arts, which expressly state that there are only two sacraments: baptism and the Lord's Supper. They exclude 'penance'.

 

[Nazaroo]

Where in the BCP does it authorise private auricular confession? We have a BCP service in our church and I have never heard it or seen it referred to.

Exactly. You don't know the contents of the Prayerbook, because the "prayerbook" you are using is not the prayerbook, and hasn't been for a 100 years.

 

[Rippon]

I'm FOR the 39 Articles

Are you really?

I'll give some items which you most certainly would have difficulty with. I really don't think you know the Articles as much as you claim you wish for a return to them. A number are quite Calvinistic.

#9 deals with Original Sin

#10 deals with No Free Will

#11 concerns itself with Justification

#17 regards Predestination and election

 

[Rippon]

I don't really know the 39 Articles as well as the hundreds of theologians who have disagreed about their meaning do.

But last time I read them, they seemed sensible to me.

Reminding Naz of what he has said.

 

[Nazaroo]

Exactly. You don't know the contents of the Prayerbook, because the "prayerbook" you are using is not the prayerbook, and hasn't been for a 100 years.

Wikipedia:

"Historically, the practice of auricular confession was originally a highly controversial one within Anglicanism. When priests began to hear confessions, they responded to criticisms by pointing to the fact that such is explicitly sanctioned in The Order for the Visitation of the Sick in the Book of Common Prayer, which contains the following direction:

Here shall the sick person be moved to make a special Confession of his sins, if he feel his conscience troubled with any weighty matter. After which Confession, the Priest shall absolve him (if he humbly and heartily desire it)
​

Auricular confession within mainstream Anglicanism became accepted in the second half of the 20th century; the 1979 Book of Common Prayer for the Episcopal Church in the USA provides two forms for it in the section "The Reconciliation of a Penitent." Private confession is also envisaged by the canon law of the Church of England, which contains the following, intended to safeguard the Seal of the Confessional:

if any man confess his secret and hidden sins to the minister, for the unburdening of his conscience, and to receive spiritual consolation and ease of mind from him; we...do straitly charge and admonish him, that he does not at any time reveal and make known to any person whatsoever any crime or offence so committed to his trust and secrecy[7]

There is no requirement for private confession, but a common understanding that it may be desirable depending on individual circumstances. An Anglican aphorism regarding the practice is "All may; none must; some should".[8]​

 

[Matt Black]

Naz, when I say 'BCP', I mean the Book of Common Prayer ie: the 1662 version. We still use this, whatever New Agey version TEC might use this week. The confession therein in the liturgy for the visitation of the sick should not be conflated with the Catholic sacrament of penance but is rather an individual substitute for the corporate confession that takes place in church, the sick individual obviously not being able to attend.

 

[Nazaroo]

Are you really?

I'll give some items which you most certainly would have difficulty with. I really don't think you know the Articles as much as you claim you wish for a return to them. A number are quite Calvinistic.

#9 deals with Original Sin

The scriptural basis (of Trollope's interpretation) of the 39 Articles is "In Adam all die." (1st Cor 15:23). He reads this as "a corrupt seed produced a corrupt race...by nature 'the children of wrath' (Eph 2:3), and liable to punishment." (Trollope, Questions and Answers, p. 39, #6 What is the Scriptural Testimony...?)

None of this 'Calvinist'. It is understood (with various nuances) by Roman Catholics, Puritans, Orthodox etc.

Trollope mentions a related heresy, Pelagianism whereby some simply believe that Adam & co. were by nature mortal, that his descendents were not culpable for Adam's sin, that his guilt injured himself alone etc.

Of special interest is "that infants come into the world as innocent as Adam before the Fall".

I personally see this as a separate issue, and not necessarily connected to Original Sin properly defined and expounded. I am not a Pelagian (follower of Pelagius' doctrine or elaborated theories based on his teaching), but I am amenable to this idea.

The propensity, inclination, weakness to fall into sin, even the inevitability to eventually sin, is not the same as committing sin, being a sinner, or being found guilty of sin.

Who knows what Calvin thought, and who cares.

#10 deals with No Free Will

It doesn't say "no free will", but that we would have no personal power to save ourselves without the assistance of the grace of God.
All is grace, even oxygen to breathe is given by grace.
The opportunity to be saved is given by grace.

That is simply not the same as 'total depravity' or 'no free will', or any other perverted Calvinist dogma. It does not in any way support predestination.

#11 concerns itself with Justification

Happy to discuss this sometime.

#17 regards Predestination and election

Actually, the Article states:

"Predestination to life is the everlasting purpose of God, whereby, he has constantly decreed...to deliver ...those whom He has chosen in Christ out of mankind, and to bring them by Christ to everlasting salvation etc. ...

"As ...Predestination and our Election is full of comfort to godly persons...and those who feel in themselves the working of the Spirit...as well because it...confirms their faith of [their] salvation...kindle their love towards God:
[and in complimentary fashion] for carnal persons to have continually before their eyes the sentence of God's Predestination is a most dangerous downfall; whereby the Devil thrusts them into either desperation or unclean living.
Furthermore, we must receive God's promises as ..set forth in Holy Scripture: and..the Will of God is to be followed, [as] declared in the word of God."

Aside from the longwinded gobbledygook, what does the 17th Article actually say?

It says godly people (or those who think they are), get comfort from the belief that they were predestined to salvation, and ungodly people are driven mad by the belief that they are predestined to be lost.

This is a truism, a tautological observation about human beings, godly and ungodly, about stupid people. It says nothing about the truth of the doctrine of Predestination, nor does it expound any particular formulation of it. It does not even vaguely affirm Predestination, and curiously uses capital letters to signal some special meaning for the word, which however is left undefined.

The first two paragraphs of the Article appear to be written by lawyers imbibing in the communion wine, who after much wordiness, have in the end said nothing, and said it brilliantly in their own minds.

The final paragraph, back to earth, is a simple affirmation of the word of God (the Holy Scriptures), and a recommendation to follow it.

Thus, as a reader, I am amused by the first two paragraphs, and heartily embrace the last one.

I find no trace of Calvin here: however, there is ample evidence of boozing.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Very entertaining but devoid of substance.

 

[WestminsterMan]

Nobody is born innocent. We are all born under the wrath of God. Children are in need of salvation as much as any adult. Salvation is deliverance from sin. Don't you pray for the salvation of young ones?

And that's why many Christians hold to infant baptism. Thanks for pointing that out RIP.

WM

 

[WestminsterMan]

The bible tells us that all sins are mortal sins. Romans 6.23 doesn't say:
"For the wages of some sins is death," but "the wages of sin is death."

The division of sins into mortal sins and venial sins is a Roman Catholic doctrine.

Yet it has a basis in scripture.

1 John 5:16
"If you see any brother or sister commit a sin that does not lead to death, you should pray and God will give them life. I refer to those whose sin does not lead to death. There is a sin that leads to death. I am not saying that you should pray about that."

Some sins do lead to death. If I stub my toe and shout out a choice explitive (a sin), that wouldn't be as serious a murdering a child (a sin).

You may not agree with the doctrine or their interpretation, but it is clearly in scripture.

WM

 

[Thinkingstuff]

You seem confused.
Adultery may be a death-penalty offense if the offended party agrees, but fornication is not.
The law is clear.



No, he doesn't. You are adding to the word of God bigtime.
You've got a mishmash of quotations uncited,
you've thrown them all together,
but you aren't acknowledging their limitations, meaning and contexts.



Torah is not lacking: its people who obey it that are lacking.
Your understanding of New Testament teaching is lacking.
Jesus may have raised the bar for Christian standards and behaviour,
but he didn't institute a new death penalty for fornication.

No mishmash My quote is paul is indicating that those who are fornicators will not have eternal life (mortal sin towards the second death). Torah indicates that a person will not die for fornication. You cannot refuse that the NT says fornicators will not enter the kingdom can you? Then it is contrasted with the Lack of urgency and seriousness in the Torah.
Oy vey!

 

[Nazaroo]

No mishmash My quote is paul is indicating that those who are fornicators will not have eternal life (mortal sin towards the second death). Torah indicates that a person will not die for fornication. You cannot refuse that the NT says fornicators will not enter the kingdom can you? Then it is contrasted with the Lack of urgency and seriousness in the Torah.
Oy vey!

This seems entirely wrongheaded to me.

You are able to distinguish:

(1) adultery from fornication.

(2) the death penalty from other penalties.

(3) the distinction in penalty in the Torah re: adultery vs fornication

(4) the Old Testament from the New Testament

(5) the teaching of Christ from the teaching of Moses

(6) death from life.

(7) the kingdom of heaven from the kingdom of earth.

But you are unable to distinguish:

(1) mortal life (limited to 120 years by God) vs. eternal life.

(2) the reward for obediance to Torah (a long life) vs. the reward for faith and obediance to Christ (eternal life).

(3) the penalty for severe disobediance to Torah (death) vs. the penalty for disobediance to Christ (the Second Death).

(4) laws, precepts, guidelines and instructions for Israelites in the Old Covenant vs. laws, precepts, guidelines and instructions for Christians in the New Covenant.

If you had these things clearly distinguished in your mind, based on the distinctions found in Holy Scripture,
you would not be confusing conditions regarding the New Covenant and Kingdom of Christ with conditions regarding the Old Covenant and life on earth.

You would not be thinking that Christ changed the Torah, when in fact He laid down new conditions for a New Covenant.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

And that's why many Christians hold to infant baptism. Thanks for pointing that out RIP.

WM

you know thats true. Both my Mom, a devout Catholic & my Mother in law a Dutch Reformed both approached me & demanded that their grandson be baptized....... THEY WERE FEARFUL!!! Thats what drove them to have their own children baptized.... FEAR.

 

[WestminsterMan]

you know thats true. Both my Mom, a devout Catholic & my Mother in law a Dutch Reformed both approached me & demanded that their grandson be baptized....... THEY WERE FEARFUL!!! Thats what drove them to have their own children baptized.... FEAR.

My Baptist parents had me baptized at the age of seven. They feared the wrath of my baptist grandmother. Fear may not be the best motivator, but a motivator it is none-the-less.


WM