mrs proudie
Uncategorized

Church of Sweden: God is not ‘Lord’ or ‘He’, but It is Father and Mother, Brother and Sister

Goodness! I’m sure you are all waiting to hear the latest gossip doing the rounds in the salons and dinner parties of Barchester. Much was discussed at the banquet at Courcy Castle on Thursday evening.

I shall begin with Scandinavia, where the lunatic feminazi organisation still calling itself the Church of Sweden has decided to stop referring to God as ‘Lord’ or ‘He’, and has suggested it is now permissible to refer to ‘It’ as both ‘Father and Mother, Brother and Sister’. It is patriarchy and hierarchy they object to, which is somewhat paradoxical for a Christian church. With crosses removed and prayer spaces provided for Muslims, this hollowed-out Marxist coven working towards the Transgenderisation of Christ shows the way for future reform of the Church of England in its ceaseless struggle to appear relevant to those who couldn’t care less. One would be shocked if one had not become numb to the sheer and utter nonsense coming from our Nordic cousins for the last fifty years.

There are not enough lamp posts in Europe to properly deal with the degenerates that bestride the continent spouting poison. I know, I know… a little vitriolic perhaps, but sincerely meant.

After many years of dancing the Mobster Quadrille, the question of Comrade Mugombi’s ‘Will he, won’t he…?’ has been answered: the old mass-murderer and Marxist megalomaniac has resigned. “Off with his head,” they cried… Oh how the people cheered… until they realised it was nothing more than a coup within the ruling party and the ‘Boss That is to Come’ is just as bad as the old one. One hopes the ex-president is brought to book, tried for his crimes and duly punished, but it is more likely he’ll pop up working for one of Mr. Blair’s international peace-keeping Quartet-playing globalist scam-o-thons. Plus ça change… as the Frenchies say.

One was truly horrified to read of the gender-bending advice to teachers offered by the government’s Children’s Mental Brainwashing Commissar, Natasha Deviant, MBE. Our children must no longer be referred to as ‘boys’ and ‘girls’ as this unspeakable insensitivity reminds them of their gender, something the creatures that rule us would prefer they’d forget. It is part of a new Education Strategy entitled, ‘Believing Six Impossible Things Before Breakfast: Steps Towards a Progressive Future’.

Clearly this psycho-babbler’s gong stands for ‘Mendacious Bullshit Enforcer’.

Suddenly I see a clear case for the restoration of tarring and feathering to deal with these deranged and dangerous poltroons, these Trotskyite Termagants and Alinskyite Advancers. Any teacher found purveying such nonsense at Dr. Wortle’s School will find transportation to the colonies the very least sanction they can expect!

Throwing money at problems is a government’s way of playing ostrich. We have seen this tactic used to ‘solve’ inner-city knife-crime, bearded-savage terrorism, and now as a strategy in the so-called Brexit negotiations. I was interested to hear the views of Sir Abraham Haphazzard on the matter when he dined at The Palace earlier this week.

“Alas, dear lady, these things are extremely complicated. It is a long-established precedent and principle of governance since the days of the Saxon to pay Danegeld,” he opined, fiddling with his Dundrearies.

“But, Sir Abraham, paying Danegeld didn’t work. The Danes kept coming back for more.”

“Indeed they did, Mrs. Proudie, and by doing so we kept open the channels of communication, just as Mrs. Dismay is doing now.”

“That’s just nonsense,” I retorted.

“As indeed is the very idea that government has the best interests of its people at heart,” he replied.

There’s so much to look forward to as Christmas approaches, don’t you agree my dears? Christmas trees and street decorations will soon appear in every town and village not beset by rabid Antifa-loons; seasonal cards of good cheer drop onto the doormat (if the postal unions don’t strike), and our ISIS friends busily plan their festive explosions and Christian-culling extravaganzas. Already, the authorities are rehearsing the now-traditional mantras, ‘Nothing to do with Islam’, and ‘Lessons will be learnt’, whilst piano players across the land brush up on John Lennon’s ‘Imagine’.

Apropos of the above, the Archdeacon raised the alarm this week when he and Mr. Slope espied a couple of shady customers wandering around the Market Place where workmen were preparing to raise the Barchester Christmas Tree, a gift from Mr. Trollope every year.

“You there! Yes, you! What the blazes do you think you are doing?” shouted the Archdeacon across the square.

“Please do not think for one moment, honourable sir, that we are looking for nooks and crannies in which to conceal our high explosives. Such a thing should not cross your mind for an instant,” said the first wallah, who clearly did not come from Shropshire.

“And what is that you are concealing in your trousers?” questioned Mr. Slope, backing off for the first time in his life.

“Oh, please be thinking I am just happy to see you, but do not imagine, I implore you, that it is a scimitar or any other such sharp and deadly device. Good gracious no…” said the second fellow.

“What kind of an Anglican idiot do you take me for?’ roared the Archdeacon. “From your own mouths you condemn yourselves – Slope, go and fetch the police immediately, whilst I fend off these blackguards with my trusty brolly.”

At this point the first ruffian whipped off his hat, wig and false beard. It was Inspector Cuffem.

“No need for that, Archdeacon, for as you see, the local constabulary is already here.”

Needless to say, the second fellow turned out to be Constable Knapweed.

“Evening all,” he said, adjusting his truncheon.

“Explain yourselves, gentlemen,” said the Archdeacon.

It turned out this was a Home Office initiative – Operation Forever Amber – to test the observational powers of the general public. With police resources finite and more than three quarters of available manpower working on hate-crime communications, the government are keen to shuffle off responsibility for civil protection to John Bull and his wife. Having created the problem in the first place, politicians want to wash their hands of the whole business. Not so much a pilot-project as a Pilate-project.

Speaking of initiatives, the Lambeth directive on inclusion has hardened conservative hearts in Barchester, and my Lord the Bishop has wisely declined the invitation to attend the Anglican-Satanist-Wiccan Symposium at Dawkins-Astaroth College, Cambridge, entitled, ‘Outreach to Lucifer: the horns of a dilemma?’ In my opinion (and the Bishop agrees with me) things have gone too far…

So, as the Charlotte Russe of traditional gender identity meets the steam hammer of third-wave feminism and the stale aftershave of biological truth evaporates in the hothouse of Frankfurt Scholasticism, it is time for me to slip away to Carols at St. Viagra’s, a festive gathering organised by the rector with the help of Mr. Slope and featuring the Joanna Southcott Boxerettes, the Muggletonian Madrigal Minstrels, and the Bevindon Go-Ahead Lesbian Nose Flute Ensemble. It should prove interesting. Until next week…

  • Father David

    Alas Sweden shews the shape of things to come unless the Church of England “gets real” and pulls its gaiters up! I’m sure however, of one thing that naught will be allowed in the Diocese of Barchester except the BCP and the AV where God is both He and Father. Is that offer of a Barchester living still on the cards please Mrs. P?

    • Mrs Proudie of Barchester

      Indeed it is, dear reverend sir…the well-endowed parish of St. Moribund-juxta-Bedlam is vacant…and we could throw in a minor canonry as well…

  • David

    Greetings one and all.

    Ahh Mrs Proudie, this week your politico-religious commentary really is a tour de force. I just adore the “pilot-project as a Pilate project” story, summing up as it does our social and spiritual problems created by the political class and their hangers on.

    Just returned home after an interminable three week stint in hospital, with a twenty one day supply of antibiotics. To cut a long story short, I returned home from touring western Canada in late September feeling extremely tired. They suspected a virus and spent until early November treating me with antibiotics for that. Eventually they tested for a bacteriological explanation, which proved correct; Porton Down National Centre no less advised I had been bitten by a tick. So hopefully I am now receiving the appropriate antibiotic to deal with such matters. The support I have received from my conservative evangelical Anglican church has been simply superb.
    On the upside I have written a short prayer based on the Persons of the Holy Trinity to help with such situations. In God we trust !

    • Royinsouthwest

      Sometimes people have to wait a long time before being diagnosed withy lyme’s disease, if that is what the tick gave you. However you seem to have been in good hands and I hope you make a speedy recovery.

      • David

        No not Lyme’s Disease which results in a distinctive pattern on the skin but some other bacteriological infection. They started on the wrong track and stuck to it for five weeks, it seems to me, whereas if they had tested initially for either bacteria or a virus they could have saved me five weeks of distress and the NHS money.

        • Ray Sunshine

          Is this what is turned out to be, ehrlichiosis? I believe it’s much commoner in dogs than in humans. Perhaps if you’d gone to a vet first ….

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ehrlichiosis

          • David

            woof, woof !

    • Mrs Proudie of Barchester

      Goodness, you poor thing! Restorative hobnobs are on their way, and I recommend gallons of Earl Grey by a roaring fire! I shall also send my latest tract entitled, ‘Blessed are the Pacemakers: Active life beyond sixty-five” as a bit of light reading….

      • David

        Thank you, Mrs Proudie.

    • Chefofsinners

      It is a pleasure to give this comment an upTICK.

      • Anton

        You deserve a good ticking off for that.

  • SonoView

    Alas the word “Ichabod” has already been carved on the lintel of the Swedish church, and indeed on increasing numbers of churches in our own dear country. But then how would they notice!

  • michaelkx

    I
    think your first paragraph is spot on Madam, for I fear that it is to
    late for the C of E they are already on that slippery slope to
    blasphemy. May I draw your attention to Revelation
    3: 14 to 22. all I can say is Come LORD Jesus come.

    • Mrs Proudie of Barchester

      I also fear it is too late, though Mr. Slope is prepared to lead a rear-guard action….

  • Jon Sorensen

    This sounds like knee jerking panic reaction like the first century Christians would have had if they would see the modern day CoE beliefs; Where did this Trinity came from – Egypt? Why is Jesus God, not a servant/son of God? Why is church(es) so rich and people so poor? Where did this Bible come from and why is that inerrant?

    Christianity evolves and doctrines/ideas change now faster than ever. Maybe God has now revealed that the only True Church and His/Her/It Religion is in Sweden, and that God has no gender as genders are the production of an evolution…

    • Anton

      3/10 only for wind-up.

      • Jon Sorensen

        I have to say I’m not surprised that you gave me the Trinity number. Early Christians would have given me only 1.

        • Mrs Proudie of Barchester

          My knee does not jerk…

          • Jon Sorensen

            How about your Christianity’s knee?

          • Mrs Proudie of Barchester

            I don’t think it jerks…and if it does it probably needs an appliance…

          • Jon Sorensen

            So why are you reacting to someone’s heresy when others like early Christians would consider you heretic? Everyone is someone’s heretic. CoE’s Christianity resembles very little James’s, Paul’s and Didache’s Christianity.

          • Mrs Proudie of Barchester

            I don’t react, I opine…

          • Manfarang

            Old English had three gender.

          • IrishNeanderthal

            Richard Dawkins, in Unweaving the Rainbow, took issue with those who do not distinguish between gender as a grammatical construct and sex (male / female) as a biological phenomenon.

            That was in context of people in favour of Cailfornian Hippiculture or New York polysexuality who were arguing that humans are more closely related to bonobos than chimps.

          • dannybhoy

            Go away Jon.

          • Jon Sorensen

            You seem to be so uncomfortable even reading disagreeing views. Why are you so sensitive and weak in faith?

          • Anton

            In the knee jerk reaction, someone bending over you hits your knee with a hammer and then you kick them. That’s how I’d react too.

    • IrishNeanderthal

      Darwin was puzzled how homosexuality survives in evolution. I have an idea. Put simply for now, heterosexual males who didn’t mind exercising dominance over younger males through “Greek sex” (as I have heard it called) may have had, in traditional macho societies, greater success with females than those who were homo-averse in regard to their own behaviour.

      • Jon Sorensen

        No need to puzzle. You can read studies why homosexuality can help groups of people to survive. Diversity is often a strength like colour blindness or ability to an extra colour.

  • SonoView

    Sweden is probably the most LGBT affirming nation in the world. In 2011 a research group published a paper based on (at that time) the largest series of transgender individuals (over 400 cases), The results were that, despite medical and surgical treatment, they demonstrated significantly higher levels of psychiatric and psychological morbidities as compared to a similar non-trans per group. This included depression, anxiety, self-harming, attempted and actual suicide. The paper concluded that this was because their underlying mental health issues were not addressed.

    http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0016885

    The American College of Pediatricians (sic) have also taken a very strong line on trasition treatments in children.

    https://www.acpeds.org/the-college-speaks/position-statements/gender-dysphoria-in-children

    This madness must be challenged, even if the CofE seems wishy washy on the issue.

    • John

      Sweden has welcomed a large number of Muslims in the last few years. I feel sure this madness, as you delicately understate it, will indeed be challenged rather too robustly for comfort.

    • Inspector General

      Trannys typically are a decade and a half into trannying before considering removal of ‘those offending bits’. There are trannys, probably the greater majority, who from the onset have no intention whatsoever of undergoing surgery. More and more in the psychiatric field are coming around to the dismal truth. That a sexual fetish is at work, and also that some homosexuals on the most effeminate scale actually are looking for a ‘real man’ to ‘live and mate with’ and not a poof with his own victimhood. One crazy in a relationship being more than enough.

      All this is suppressed and it is a real effort to extract this reality from the www as papers on the subject explaining the reality of it all are rare. Publishing could mean the militant LGBT thugs go after you. Unlike Christians, these zealots DON’T do forgiveness.

    • Mrs Proudie of Barchester

      I fear ‘Wishy-Washyness’ has become the 40th Article of Religion…

  • Anton

    Two blokes have a row on a platform at Oxford Circus and half the tube system is shut down while everybody runs away. How we have degenerated since the capital withstood the Luftwaffe and won a world war!

    • Ray Sunshine

      Given the recent spate of terrorist incidents (Westminster Bridge, London Bridge, …) I can imagine that the the top brass at the Met are more worried about the consequences of underreacting than of overrreacting to what might conceivably be a knife-wielding jihadi on a Tube train.

    • Dreadnaught

      Can you really blame them? I expect you would have have stood like Superman arms akimbo commanding ‘Stop Citizen’s – Superman will protect you’
      Come off it Anton, you can be a bit of a Prat at times.
      That bloody Twitter App is what caused the problem. With a language as efficient as English why does anyone (including Cranmer) think that this is a good way to converse. I would like it to be banned. It is an unnecessary vehicle to transmit ideas and messages in limited detail that feeds the ego of the sender more than it enlightens the recipients.
      If people had been killed, trampled, crushed on the consequences of Tweets by fools like Brand and Murs, who would have been guilty; them or Twatter?
      Ban the damned thing as it is effectively the best tool in the Islamist’s arsenal.

      • Anton

        Most certainly I would not have gone looking for trouble, but I would not have run away at high speed; just maintain awareness and move away as briskly as possible without panicking, which is liable to panic others.

        What really matters is the response of the public if you find yourself within feet of a terrorist. That is the circumstance in which I think the Israeli advice is better than the advice given by our authorities: engage, engage, engage.

        • Dreadnaught

          Don’t take it to heart Anton – I was merely gently ribbing you.

    • dannybhoy

      I saw this yesterday..
      http://metro.co.uk/2017/11/23/arrogant-commuter-who-called-himself-a-legend-tasered-by-police-7102099/
      I couldn’t believe that not one man there had the nous to jump on this guys back and bring him down, with a couple of large (fat?)people to sit on his trunk and legs.
      Instead they all stood and watched and gawped. Only one little woman had the balls to stand up to him.
      I truly despair of a voyeuristic culture that views life through its smart phones.

  • Norman Yardy

    Our father who art in Heaven;
    This the Lord’s own prayer, he who tampers with this tampers with Deity itself. It is a time when people believe they are greater than God himself and create a religion of their own.
    A commentator earlier said that biological sex was determined at birth. Not so. Parents are informed of their progenies sex at a few months into the pregnancy with the benefit of ultrasound. Will they interrogate the fetus to seek which sex it wishes to be designated?

  • Inspector General

    The woman who some call the bishop of Gloucester also refuses to acknowledge patriarchal Christianity and refuses to grant the Almighty the same distinction that no less a personage than Jesus Christ used about ‘his father in heaven’. When she’s not too busy allowing Islam to set up a stall within the cathedral, that is…

    It is true about womanly sense. It’s a damn mystery…

    • Mrs Proudie of Barchester

      An Islamic stall in the Cathedral? Gasp…..

    • betteroffoutofit

      As much a mystery to the idiot feminazis as to men, Inspector.
      Their logical failure even extends to accusing non-compliant women of “Thinking like men!”

      btw: Have you ever attended a Courcy Castle galas?

      • Inspector General

        Not this man, dear lady

  • its ceaseless struggle to appear relevant to those who couldn’t care less

    I think the Church of England lost that struggle the day (probably in the 1940s) it decided to support the cross-party policy of making Britain less white and less Christian. The British had a right to expect that their national church would resolutely defend the best environment for raising their children, that’s to say amongst others of the same religion and race, human empathy being greatest towards one’s own kind or tribe.

    The church’s decision to support Islamization was not only a betrayal of the British but an act of suicide by the church. I don’t suppose we shall ever know whether those who took the decision were naive beyond belief, foolish beyond belief or evil beyond belief.

    • dannybhoy

      Headless chickens, self importantly fluffing up their feathers in anticipation of Christmas..

    • Manfarang

      Aryan Christianity ended in the smoldering ruins of the German cities in 1945.

      • Anton

        What do you mean by “Aryan Christianity”?

        • Manfarang

          What was also called Positive Christianity.

          • Anton

            A Christianity which refuses a place to the Bible is not a Christianity at all, is it?

          • carl jacobs

            The Nazis wanted to empty it of content and rebuild it in their own image. The destruction of the Church was a stated post-war task of the Nazis.

          • Manfarang

            I think it is called ancient Marcionism.

          • Anton

            May I take that to be “No”?

          • Manfarang

            It was a form of Christianity.

          • Anton

            And Islam without the Quran, is that a form of Islam? Hinduism without the upanishads, is that Hinduism?

          • Manfarang

            Plenty in Pakistan will tell you Ahmadis aren’t Muslims but in Britain they are regarded as Muslims.

          • Anton

            Do they accept the Quran as the word of the Almighty Creator?

          • Manfarang

            The Qadiani (Ahmadiyya) leadership has tampered with authentic meaning and interpretation of the Holy Quran. (according to mainstream Muslims)

          • Ray Sunshine

            There have been fights and even killings on that score, in Glasgow, Luton and elsewhere. A Luton newspaper, as I recall, eventually gave an undertaking that it would stop using the term “Muslim” in connection with Ahmadis.

          • carl jacobs

            Only in the sense that it used Christian terms.

          • Anton

            He’s just dancing, Carl, use questions.

          • Manfarang

            The Prophets is a ringing defense of the continued relevance of the Old Testament and is unapologetic about its very Jewish character. Like much of Abraham Heschel’s work, the Prophets was written not for a Jewish audience but for people of faith in general. Writing during the era before Vatican II, Abraham Heschel was challenging his Christian readers to confront Judaism as a living organism and not simply as a relic of the Old Testament and to look in on their own Christianity as something very Jewish.

          • Anton

            Once again you change the subject to avoid admitting your error. But this new subject is OK with me.

          • Manfarang

            I make no error about what happened in Germany in the 1930s or about Marcion who some German theologians referred to at that time.

          • Anton

            Your error is in asserting that the Nazis’ proposed church was a form of Christianity. It banned the Bible. If you think this was a form of Christianity, do you think Islam without the Quran is a form of Islam? Or Hinduism without the upanishads, is that Hinduism?

          • Manfarang

            I am talking about what happened within German Protestantism.

          • Anton

            You weren’t, actually. You were talking about Aryan Christianity / Positive Christianity, and I showed you that was openly antibiblical and therefore not Christian, in just the same way that someone claiming to be Muslim yet repudiating the Quran would not be Muslim.

            I’m happy to talk about the German protestant churches in the 1930s, of course. By the time they realised how poisonous Hitler was many of them were too close to him and collaborated disgracefully. Not all, thankfully.

          • Manfarang

            Aryan Christianity started with only having “Aryans” as Church members. In other words if a clergyman had any Jewish ancestry he was thrown out of the Church. Of course the New Testament was emphasized above all.
            Remember some of the German Jews rounded up by the Nazis were practicing Christians.

          • Anton

            Throwing believers in Christ out of the church on grounds of race shows that it is not the church of Christ.

          • Manfarang

            No true Scotsman

          • IrishNeanderthal

            I had thought that you might have contributed something to discussions. For example, your insights from Thailand might prove useful. Following one up, I learnt that the French seized Laos from Thai control in the early 20th century. (I understand that the Lao and the Thai people are quite closely related.)

            This may have resulted in a weak link which led to the disastrous events in “Indo-China” in the second half of the 20th century.

            ** However **, you seem to take pleasure in being nasty. Not so much going out of your way to do so, more that it actually seems to be your way.

            No wonder we in Blighty get comparatively few immigrants from Thailand. You must have put them off.

          • Manfarang

            Immigration to the UK from outside the EU is heavily restricted.
            Actually there are a lot of Thais in Britain. You may have noticed some Thai restaurants. A lot of British men have Thai wives.
            In fact I have been involved in sending young Thais to study abroad including Britain.
            Thailand allowed the Imperial Japanese Army to pass through its territory in WW2 and became part of the Axis. There was the Seri (Free) Thai movement that was based in Allied countries which helped to change the wartime Thai government.
            Just read about the Nanking massacre if you want to know what the word nasty really means. Read the book ‘The Good Man of Nanking’ by John Rabe

          • IrishNeanderthal

            Interesting bit of information about Thailand, there.

            I am well aware of the Rape of Nanjing. I have found that Middle Eastern people find the English language unexpressive. One complained that English people would say “sorry” for gross offences as much as trivial ones. Therefore, your objection to my use of the word “nasty” may well founder on that particular sandbank.

          • Manfarang

            Anyone who is nasty doesn’t last long in Thailand I can tell you that for sure. Most of those who live in Britain say critical things about their country.

          • Ray Sunshine

            It was called the Reichskirche, the “Empire Church”. More Reich than Kirche, I think.

          • carl jacobs

            Have you read Alfred Rosenberg’s description of “Positive” Christianity and the “Negative Christianity” to which he compared it?

          • Anton

            Hang on Carl, I’m just typing it for him!

          • Anton

            See Rosenberg’s articles for the Reich church which I’ve posted elsewhere on this thread.

          • carl jacobs

            The conflicts of the earliest centuries of our era are not to be understood except as struggles of racial souls against the Hydra headed racial chaos. In this the near eastern amalgam of superstition, insane magic and sensual mysteries gathered to itself all that was chaotic, broken, and degenerate, thus infecting Christianity with that schismatic character which still afflicts it to this day. Thus a servile religion, its true nature disguised through the misuse of the great personality of Jesus, entered Europe. Emergent Christianity, derived from a multiplicity of sources, demonstrated an astounding combination of abstract spirituality and demonic sorcery, as well as exceptional powers of infiltration irrespective of other currents which were assimilated in it. The idea of the trinity, for example, was familiar to many of the peoples of the Mediterranean basin in the form of the father, the mother and the son, and in the precept Everything divides threefold. The mother symbolised the fertile earth, the father the creative principle of light. Now, in place of the mother there appears the
            holy ghost as a conscious retreat from the purely physical. Such was the hagion pneuma of the Greeks, the prana of the Indians. This spirituality and its emphasis were not rooted in a racial national ground conditioned by the polarity of organic life. Instead it became a force without direction.

            Here is neither Jew nor Greek, here is neither slave nor free, here is neither man nor woman, wrote Paul to the Galatians — that last remnant of a great Celtic migration down the Danube valley and into Asia Minor. On the basis of this nihilism, which is a denial of everything organic, he then calls for a belief in Christ. This constituted a total rejection of all the culture creating values of Greece and Rome — although to be sure, Christianity took over a degenerate form of such values — and effected their disintegration. Thanks to its
            strongly exclusive character, Christianity was then able to gather to itself all those who had lost direction.

            A further step toward the denial of natural life lay in the dogmatic assertion of the virgin birth. Yet this is commonly a part of a solar myth to be found among various peoples from northern Europe to the south sea islands.

            Abstract spirituality, however, was flanked on each side by all the magic of Asia Minor, Syria and Africa. The demons which were driven out by Jesus and passed into the swine; the calming of the stormy sea at his command; his certified resurrection from the dead; his ascent into heaven — all these were the real point of departure for Christianity, and undoubtedly greatly strengthened the ability to endure much suffering.

            Thus the world did not proceed from the life of the saviour (soter) but from his death and its miraculous consequences. This is the single motif of the Pauline epistles. Goethe, on the contrary, held that it was the life of Christ which was important, not his death. In this he was attesting to the soul of the Germanic west expressed in Positive Christianity, as opposed to negative Christianity based on priesthood and witch mania and deriving from Etruscan Asiatic concepts.

            Alfred Rosenberg, The Myth of the Twentieh Century
            https://archive.org/stream/TheMythOfTheTwentiethCentury/Myth_djvu.txt

          • Manfarang

            Instituts zur Erforschung jüdischen Einflusses auf das deutsche kirchliche Leben.
            http://www.eva-leipzig.de/product_info.php?info=p3333_-Entjudung—-Kirche-im-Abgrund.html

          • carl jacobs

            What am I supposed to do with that link?

          • IrishNeanderthal

            G.K.Chesterton was well aware of the penchant of the Germans for myth-making. About the last time he mentioned this was in an essay About Loving Germans (1936) — the whole of it well worth reading — finishing with these two paragraphs:

            Thus there is a New Myth spread quite recently and rapidly over all Germany, almost in a few months. The New Myth is that Germany was never defeated in the Great War. You could not have a more astounding and catastrophic collision than that, between mythology and history. But the point is that the mythology is actually more modern than the history. All Germans apparently find it easy to believe it; though I can imagine few things more difficult to believe than a statement like that: that a great and somewhat arrogant Empire consented to sink the whole of its fleet and give up all its colonies, as well as nearly all its conquests in foreign countries, when it had not really been defeated. But this cloud, as it lies on the mind of a whole people, now looks as solid as a mountain. It may remain as a legend quite as fixed as that which makes Arminius rather more important than Augustus. The other part of the New Myth is that the complete surrender of all the German armies was somehow or other brought about by the Jews. I have never underrated the real problem of the international position of the Jews; but I should say that this was just about the sort of thing that the Jews alone could not possibly do. Judas could betray the Redeemer of the world; but he could hardly bribe Caesar to surrender the Empire of the world to the Parthians.

            But the point is not that you and I could never believe it in a thousand years. The point is that the Germans themselves did not believe it until within about two years. There is no evidence that the average German, for the first five or six years after his defeat, had even the faintest doubt that he had been defeated. He might think he was unjustly defeated, or unjustly treated after defeat; and he would have a right to his opinion, though there are others whose opinion I think more sound. But most of such men would have thought it sheer madness to deny the very calamity from which they suffered. These people are not the only people among whom a theorist may throw out a theory that might well appear mad. But they are the only people among whom that theory can be instantly and universally believed. To make up history after it has happened, and to make it up all different, may seem to some to have something even wildly poetical and attractive about it. But in practical politics these immense international illusions are very dangerous; and the clouds in which these people live have broken before now about us, not only in rain, but in lightning and falling fire.

      • If you mean that a German victory would have kept Europe Christian, you are almost certainly correct. There would have been no Muslim immigration and the traditional family would have been protected, not undermined. In Tell the Truth and Shame the Devil [PDF, page 95] Gerard Menuhin, son of the virtuoso, writes that newly wed couples in pre-war Germany received generous state loans to help them buy a ‘house with garden or a large flat. At the birth of a child a quarter of the loan was forgiven. If they had four children, repayment was entirely cancelled.’

        • Manfarang

          Lebensborn hardly protected traditional families.

          • carl jacobs

            The Nazis actually advocated polygamy in order to increase the master race. And … Well … Because powerful men want to justify access to more than one woman.

          • Anton

            “I must confess that is an astonishingly good idea you have there, doctor…”

          • @ Manfarang—Indeed not. Children receive the best start in life when raised by their married biological parents. The detrimental effects of Lebensborn would have become apparent and it would surely have been abandoned even if Germany had won.

        • Anton

          Alfred Rosenberg held an office titled “the Fuehrer’s Delegate for the entire Intellectual and Philosophical Education and Instruction for the National socialist Party”. In wartime he drew upa 30-point plan for the churches, including the following:

          * The National Reich Church categorically claims the exclusive right and the exclusive power to control all churches within the borders of the Reich; it declares these to be national churches

          * The National Reich Church is determined to exterminate irrevocably and by every means the strange and foreign Christian faiths imported into Germany in the ill-omened year 800.

          * The National Reich Church demands immediate cessation of the publishing and dissemination of the Bible in Germany as well as the publication of Sunday papers, pamphlets, publications and books of a religious nature.

          * On the altars there must be nothing but “Mein Kampf”, which is to the German nation and therefore to God the most sacred book, and to the left of the altar a sword.

          * On the day of its foundation, the Christian cross must be removed from all churches, cathedrals and chapels within the Reich and its colonies and it must be superseded by the only unconquerable symbol of Germany the “Hakenkreuz” (hooked cross or swastika).

          I’ve taken these from chapter 8 of William Shirer’s book “The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich”, but they are not hard to verify online. This isn’t Christianity.

          • @ Anton—This isn’t Christianity

            Nor is the churches’ betrayal of the peoples of Europe. The Chinese Academy of Social Sciences was asked to pinpoint the reason for the success of the West. They concluded that it was Christianity. If Rosenberg’s weird plan had come to fruition the resulting shambles would have had the people demanding the restoration of Christianity.

          • Anton

            What you are seeing, in what I agree is a betrayal by senior churchmen, is a deeper problem: institutional Christianity is not real Christianity. Those churchmen are of the institutional churches, whereas gospel Christianity is always countercultural and will be until Christ returns to this world to rule it.

            You say that people would have “demanded the restoration of Christianity.” That happens when large numbers of individuals repent before God and turn to Christ. It doesn’t happen by opening church buildings and telling people that they should – or even must – attend.

            Your first concern is the nation, mine is the church, and that leads you and me to agree about some things and disagree about others.

            The China tale is fascinating. In the book Jesus in Beijing by David Aikman, TIME magazine’s man in Beijing for many years and a Christian, the author begins by recounting a talk by a senior member of the Chinese Academy for Social Sciences (CASS), who said that they had been tasked with working out what led to the West’s success. “We studied everything we could from the historical, political, economic and cultural perspective. At first, we thought it was because you had more powerful guns than we had. Then we thought it was because you had the best political system. but in the past twenty years, we have realized that the heart of your culture is your religion: Christianity. That is why the West has been so powerful. The Christian moral foundation of social and cultural life was what made possible the emergence of capitalism and then the successful transition to democratic politics. We don’t have any doubt about this.”

            With the proviso that institutional Christianity is being referred to, I think there is much in that comment, although I think that the Anglosphere is more different from Continental Europe than the man believed. I would *love* to get hold of the report that CASS sent to the politicians who presumably commissioned it, and put it through Google Translate.

          • bluedog

            This leads to wider thoughts about the initial adoption of Christianity in pagan Europe. One can understand that Christianity would have been adopted quickly in all provinces of the Roman Empire. The institutional structure of the Holy Roman Empire allowed Christianity to spread into German-speaking but non-Roman lands of Germany. But how did the Polish elites decide to become so very Catholic, for example? What was the imperative that encouraged their conversion? One can see that in eastern Europe within the orbit of Constantinople the form of Christianity was Orthodox, as opposed to the Romanism of the west. But the interesting part is the lands of what became the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, straddling the two fields of influence. The reasons for thoughts along these lines are that as secularism morphs into paganism as Carl suggests, at the leadership level there may be a reappraisal of the virtues of Christianity. Thus the real value of the CASS report could in fact be to European leaders, as much as to the Chinese.

          • Anton

            At a guess the ruler of Poland went Catholic to make possible some important political alliance, then made Catholicism the only religion recognised by the authorities in his lands. That is a common way it happens, and because it is not based on personal repentance it produces conformity more than piety.

          • Manfarang

            More likely Weber’s ‘Protestant Ethic’.

        • carl jacobs

          German victory would have meant 1) the end of Christianity in Europe and 2) the end of Western civilization in Europe. Nazism was fundamentally pagan. Now a German victory would have secured white world dominance for a while longer. And that is closer to what you are really saying. But race and religion aren’t the same thing.

          • @ carl jacobs—Oddly enough, the Allied victory will also see the end of Christianity and of Western civilization in Europe, courtesy of non-Christian and non-European immigration. Would Christianity have been able to resurrect itself after a German victory? Will it be able to resurrect itself in a Muslim Europe? Bearing in mind my reply to Anton about the importance of Christianity to the success of the West, I think Christianity would have survived a German victory. I doubt it will survive the Islamic victory.

          • carl jacobs

            Do you regret the fact the Germany lost WWII?

          • @ carl jacobs—Britain won WWII and set about replacing her people and their religion. Germany lost WWII and set about replacing her people and their religion. I see no difference between the two. They have both lost.

          • carl jacobs

            You didn’t answer. Would Europe have been better off if Germany had won WWII?

          • @ carl jacobs—Point 24 of the NSDAP Programme reads:

            ‘We demand freedom for all religious denominations in the State, provided that they neither threaten its existence nor offend the moral feelings of the German race. The Party, as such, stands for positive Christianity, but does not commit itself to any particular denomination. It combats the Jewish-materialistic spirit within and without us, and is convinced that our nation can achieve permanent health only from within on the basis of the principle: Common interest before self-interest.’

            If a victorious Germany had adhered to that principle, European Christianity and Europe herself would today be in rather better shape.

          • carl jacobs

            Good grief! If Germany had won the war, it would have scrupulously followed that principle, and exterminated Christianity as a result. So I’ll take this as a “yes”. You actually do regret the fact that Germany lost the war.

  • Maalaistollo

    Ever tried to sex a turnip? When I tell Finns (other than the Swedish-speaking variety) that in English ‘Swede’ refers to a kind of turnip, they are delighted with the information.

    • carl jacobs

      It’s called a rutabaga in proper English. However, certain dialects refer to it as a “Swede”.

      • Only in North America, Carl.

        • carl jacobs

          Yes, that’s what I said. Proper English.

          • Chefofsinners

            You mean ‘correct English’.

          • Anton

            Like wot it should oughter be.

          • betteroffoutofit

            Ferzackerly.

          • Innit …

      • Anton

        Fittingly enough, the word “rutabaga” is of Swedish origin. Perhaps everybody else called them swedes but the Swedes obviously had to call them something else and came up with this strange word.

        • The Snail

          Swedish for Turnip is ‘rova’ and a swede (veg.) is kålrot

          • Ray Sunshine

            The French for “to take French leave” is filer à l’anglaise, “to take English leave”.

          • Anton

            I got my info from the Wikipedia article on “Rutabaga”, as follows. Of course Wikipedia is only a first stop when one is looking into serious matters, and you might be the one who has better specialist knowledge…

            Rutabaga has many national and regional names. Rutabaga is the common North American term for the plant. This comes from the old Swedish dialectal word rotabagge, from rot (root) + bagge (short, stumpy object; probably related to bag).[2] In the U.S., the plant is also known as Swedish turnip or yellow turnip.[citation needed] The term swede is used instead of rutabaga in many Commonwealth Nations, including much of England, Australia, and New Zealand. The name turnip is also used in parts of Northern and Midland England, the West Country (particularly Cornwall), Ireland, the Isle of Man, Manitoba, Ontario and Atlantic Canada. In Wales, according to region it is variously known as maip, rwden, erfin, swedsen or swejen in Welsh[3] and as swede or turnip in English. In Scotland, it is known as turnip, and in Scots as tumshie or neep (from Old English næp, Latin napus).[4] Some areas of south east Scotland, such as Berwickshire and Roxburghshire, still use the term baigie, possibly a derivative of the original Swedish rutabaga.[5] The term turnip is also used for the white turnip (Brassica rapa ssp rapa).[4][6] Some[who?] will also refer to both swede and (white) turnip as just turnip (this word is also derived from næp).[6] In North-East England, turnips and swedes are colloquially called snadgers, snaggers (archaic) or narkies.[citation needed] Rutabaga is also known as a ‘moot’ in the Isle of Man and the Manx Gaelic for turnip is ‘napin’[7].

            Its common name in Sweden is kålrot (literally “cabbage/kale root”). Similarly, in Denmark it is known as kålroe and kålrabi, while in Norway it is known as kålrabi or kålrot and in Estonia as kaalikas. In Denmark and Norway, kålrabi is sometimes confused with Swedish kålrabbi (kohlrabi). The Finnish term is lanttu. The Romanian term is nap. Rutabaga is known as Steckrübe in German.

          • The Snail

            Proverbs 15:17

            Better a small serving of vegetables with love than a fattened calf with hatred.

          • Anton

            Well said… I’m trying to imagine who it is that wrote those Wikipedia paragraphs!

          • betteroffoutofit

            Take it easy — they could give you nightmares!!!

  • Dreadnaught

    Sweden is stuffed. It’s a no account nation with a population barely greater than that of London yet it is constantly used as the Left’s yardstick to measure our own Country’s perceived short comings.
    I totally agree with Rottenbugger’s last paragraph, it’s what is stupidly playing out here.
    We have introduced ‘hate’ laws. The CoE is tickling the belly of Islam. We are selling our lands to the highest bidder. It is ourselves who are allowing ignorance and delusion to pass for compassion in our educational system and national largesse.
    Sweden is stuffed; yet we stand idly by and fail to see the mirror.

    • dannybhoy

      Right on Dreadders.

    • Mrs Proudie of Barchester

      I totally agree…

    • Coniston

      Under the Porvoo Agreement, the Church of England is in communion with the Church of Sweden. Where does that leave Anglicans?

  • dannybhoy

    “With crosses removed and prayer spaces provided for Muslims, this hollowed-out Marxist coven working towards the Transgenderisation of Christ shows the way for future reform of the Church of England in its ceaseless struggle to appear relevant to those who couldn’t care less.”
    Excellent!
    “..until they realised it was nothing more than a coup within the ruling party and the ‘Boss That is to Come’ is just as bad as the old one.”
    Have they realised it or are they trapped within their own system, condemned to eternal thraldom?
    Reminds me of 1st Kings 12..
    “10 And the young men who had grown up with him said to him, “Thus shall you speak to this people who said to you, ‘Your father made our yoke heavy, but do you lighten it for us’; thus shall you say to them, ‘My little finger is thicker than my father’s loins. 11 And now, whereas my father laid upon you a heavy yoke, I will add to your yoke. My father chastised you with whips, but I will chastise you with scorpions.’
    Father of the Nation indeed!
    “Throwing money at problems is a government’s way of playing ostrich. We have seen this tactic used to ‘solve’ inner-city knife-crime, bearded-savage terrorism, and now as a strategy in the so-called Brexit negotiations. I was interested to hear the views of Sir Abraham Haphazzard on the matter when he dined at The Palace earlier this week.”

    There was an excellent interview on LBC with Nick Ferrari and Mark Johnson of User Voice
    http://www.uservoice.org/our-story/
    on 23/11th where the man was pointing out the absolute folly of successive parties coming to power and then tinkering with systems they don’t really understand but know they won’t ultimately be held accountable for -because either they’ll be shifted sideways or consigned to the back benches where they just have to hang on, enjoy the (taxpayer funded) perks and hope to qualify for a (taxpayer funded) pension. Not only is our current system a short term knee jerk/apply plaster ballsup; politics must be the only profession that rewards the failure of leadership so generously – and does so at the expense of the people it so desperately wanted to (self) serve’…

  • Father David

    Delighted to read that the Joanna Southcott Boxerettes will be participating in the Carol Service at St. Viagra’s. I’m sure the Bishop of Barchester has been approached to be present at the box opening and, hopefully, responded positively, I wonder if he could persuade 23 other diocesan bishops also to oblige? I’m sure that they will all be at a loose end after Christmas and the Feast of Stephen aka “Boxing Day” would be an eminently suitable day to lift the lid and expose the prophecies. As the audience used to shout out on Michael Miles’ excellent programme – “Take Your Pick” – “OPEN THE BOX”

  • len

    One has the feeling that we are not waiting for God’s Judgement to fall on us, it’s already here.
    The church has lost its way,satan’s running the show in the secular world and we desperately need some light in this ever darkening world.
    Jesus says , “I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.” (john 8:12)

  • So, they won’t refer to God using his own preferred gender pronouns? Bigots!

    Why have these haters not been disciplined? 🙂

  • carl jacobs

    The Chuch of Sweden has like 12 people. It’s a cautionary tale on the inevitable irrelevance of liberal religion. So an organization like (say) the CoE should observe with fear and trembling.

    Otherwise, liberal religionists will act like liberal religionists. This shouldn’t surprise and it doesn’t matter because the Church of Sweden was declared dead a long time ago.

    • More than a dozen members, Carl.

      The Church of Sweden (Swedish: Svenska kyrkan) is an Evangelical Lutheran national church in Sweden. A former state church, headquartered in Uppsala, with 6.1 million baptised members it is the largest Christian denomination in Sweden.

      It is the largest Lutheran denomination in Europe and the third-largest in the world after the Ethiopian Evangelical Church Mekane Yesus and the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Tanzania,[3] as well as the third-largest Protestant body in Europe after the Church of England and the Evangelical Church in Germany.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_Sweden

      As Luther taught: “No sin can separate us from Him, even if we were to kill or commit adultery thousands of times each day.” (Let Your Sins Be Strong: A Letter From Luther to Melanchthon Letter no. 99, 1 August 1521)

      “God does not save people who are only fictitious sinners. Be a sinner and sin boldly, but believe and rejoice in Christ even more boldly.”(“Luther’s Works,” American Ed., Vol 48. p. 281- 282)

      • Anton

        Be a sinner – is of course unavoidable if you live. Luther is telling us to live boldly.

        Before you scorn this interpretation, take the plank out of your own eye about some of the weird things your denomination asserts.

        • That’s the polished up version.
          Luther believed in the “once saved – always saved” mantra. The forensic covering of the guilt of sin by those arbitrarily predestined by God to salvation. This inevitably means that provided you still “believe” no sin can result in one losing salvation. So why not sin boldly?

          • Anton

            Trouble with that explanation of his words is that it is contrary to Paul in Romans – the very epistle that opened Luther’s eyes to the truth and brought him salvation.

          • It’s what Luther taught – “once saved, always saved” regardless of ongoing sin, no matter how grievous.

            Of course he got Saint Paul wrong. That’s why he was excommunicated.

            If you are a preacher of mercy, do not preach an imaginary but the true mercy. If the mercy is true, you must therefore bear the true, not an imaginary sin. God does not save those who are only imaginary sinners. Be a sinner, and let your sins be strong, but let your trust in Christ be stronger, and rejoice in Christ who is the victor over sin, death, and the world. We will commit sins while we are here, for this life is not a place where justice resides. We, however, says Peter (2. Peter 3:13) are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth where justice will reign. It suffices that through God’s glory we have recognized the Lamb who takes away the sin of the world. No sin can separate us from Him, even if we were to kill or commit adultery thousands of times each day. Do you think such an exalted Lamb paid merely a small price with a meager sacrifice for our sins? Pray hard for you are quite a sinner.

            This is the exact opposite of what Paul taught in Romans 6:1-2.

            “What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? May it never be! We who died to sin, how could we live in it any longer?”

          • carl jacobs

            Luther didn’t teach OSAS.

          • The only sin that Luther thought would cause a man to lose his salvation was the sin of unrepentant apostasy.

            Luther firmly believed in the assurance of salvation. He taught the merits of Christ were the sole basis of a man’s justification and that it did not depend in any way on a man’s deeds – either his sins or good deeds. Luther thought that a man could lose his justification if he totally and finally turned away from Christ. – but not if he sinned.

            God’s gift of forgiveness of sins and eternal life was appropriated by faith, so if a man decided to totally turn against Him, Luther believed that only then would a man be damned.

          • carl jacobs

            Luther was a Protestant. Shock! And the sky is blue. Double shock! Luther didn’t teach OSAS.

          • As good as … Sin boldly.

          • Anton

            Now go back three steps to where that was explained to you…

          • You didn’t explain it; you avoided doing so.

            Luther taught: “It suffices that through God’s glory we have recognized the Lamb who takes away the sin of the world.” So why not: “Be a sinner, and let your sins be strong.. “? Because, “No sin can separate us from Him, even if we were to kill or commit adultery thousands of times each day.”

          • Anton

            Here is where I explained it: Be a sinner – is of course unavoidable if you live. Luther is telling us to live boldly.

          • Yeah, sure.

          • Anton

            Glad you know what was really going on inside the mind of somebody 500 years and 500 miles away. Look at the context – the whole passage.

          • Chefofsinners

            If you’d like to have a go at OSAS, try me. I believe it.
            It is evident and unavoidable from scripture. Here’s the thing: there are many people who may appear to be saved but are not.

          • Where is it “evident” and “unavoidable” in scripture?

            Jack has heard the standard line:

            The Bible says in Romans 10:9 that if you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. So, when I accepted Jesus Christ as my personal Lord and Saviour, I was saved. It’s a done deal.

          • dannybhoy

            But salvation is a process as you yourself have said.
            probably.. somewhere…
            St Paul says in 1st Corinthians 9
            “24 Do you not know that in a race all the runners run, but only one receives the prize? So run that you may obtain it. 25 Every athlete exercises self-control in all things. They do it to receive a perishable wreath, but we an imperishable. 26 So I do not run aimlessly; I do not box as one beating the air. 27 But I discipline my body and keep it under control,[b] lest after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified.”
            I believe I shall attain eternal life, but not because of my own efforts -although they are necessary.
            I shall attain eternal life because of Him. His faithfulness, His compassion, His love for me that does not want me to perish. So God in all His wonderful grace and majesty inspires me and enables me, yet at the last I will still be casting myself upon His love of me revealed in Christ Jesus.
            Of whom it is written in Hebrews 4
            “14 Therefore, since we have a great high priest who has ascended into heaven,[a] Jesus the Son of God, let us hold firmly to the faith we profess. 15 For we do not have a high priest who is unable to empathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet he did not sin. 16 Let us then approach God’s throne of grace with confidence, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help us in our time of need.”

          • Anton

            “Salvation” is an ambiguous word. Being SAVED FROM hell as one’s ultimate destination is instantaneous (although reaching that point is a process). That’s justification. But we are also SAVED FOR to doing of good works, and that indeed is a process. That’s sanctification.

          • dannybhoy

            I’m not sure I agree with you Anton. I think a lot revolves around free will.
            (Thinking out loud)
            Personally I came to Christ through the divine revelation that I was a hypocrite, a sinner; not because I was afraid of Hell.
            Like all Christians I had my ups and downs, but never ever doubted that I’d been born again and that certainty was in my heart.
            The Scriptures do teach that we can lose our salvation, but it seems to me that all the time our heart is set on the Lord as our salvation that would seem inconceivable. It would take the most calamitous occurence or intellectual disillusionment for one to doubt so much that you would turn away..
            I think sancification is essentially and simply (for I am but a simple man),
            abiding in Christ as in John 15, which I think results in both fruits and good works and ministry.
            I think (conveniently for me of course!) that we can over analyse and overcomplicate what has its origins in life; in a dependent relationship with the Creator.
            During the weekend I attended a mens meeting where I was sitting next to the vicar of a nearby local church. A good church and he is a good godly vicar. Thee is a ‘sympathy’ between us, and we relate as Christian brothers, not on the basis of theology but I think, personality. I respect his calling, I feel for him in the challenges he faces and I like to think I can both pray for him and verbally encourage him.
            But my wife and I still wouldn’t go to his church because essentially we get nothing out of Anglicanism..

          • “I believe according to some scriptures I could lose my salvation, but I also believe I shall attain eternal life; but not because of my own efforts -although they are a necessary evidence of my salvation.”

            That’s not the position of the OSAS contingent. According to Calvin, who invented this doctrine, unheard of in the Church before him, once you believe it’s a done deal, your “saved” with total assurance – no matter what sins you commit thereafter. Presumably, you could decide you’re a homosexual, leave your wife and have gender realignment surgery. Whereas, you believe then that some effort to cooperate with God and His love and graces He offers is still necessary. And the Catholic Church agrees with this. Luther would say such sin, provided it’s not an indication of apostasy, won’t prevent your salvation. So sin boldly – and believe in Christ boldly. It’s only a final turning away from God that will cause damnation. Calvin, on the other hand, would probably say you were never really saved in the first place, in that you weren’t given the final perseverance of the saints.

            “I shall attain eternal life because of Him. His faithfulness, His compassion, His love for me that does not want me to perish. So God in all His wonderful grace and majesty inspires me and enables me, yet at the last I will still be casting myself upon His love of me revealed in Christ Jesus.”

            The Catholic Church wouldn’t disagree with this. This hope and the necessary grace to attain heaven are offered to us all. The question is: do you believe that you are still capable of serious sin? And, arising from this, what might be the consequences of dying without confessing and repenting of such sin? The additional questions being: did Christ establish His Church to be a channel for offering the means of sanctifying grace through the sacraments?

          • dannybhoy

            Yes, capable of serious sin, but as we grow in grace the power of sin loses its hold on us. The Holy Spirit leads and provides necessary grace.
            The idea of committing a terrible sin, say adultery, fills me with dread because of all that would be destroyed, betrayed etc.
            Now if I had done such a terrible thing and died I would imagine that my last moments would be of terrifying regret and an expectation that God’s justice would be served on me i.e. eternal separation.
            If I were still conscious I could not help but acknowledge God’s righteousness, and that even if there were forgiveness I would not be able to live in His presence without a sense of eternal self loathing.
            Christ offered Himself as the means of supplying us with the Holy Spirit who is the abider and sanctifier.
            The sacraments are purely symbolic of the realities of what Christ did for us. Some people may find it helpful to fasten their attention on these things, I don’t and never have. My greatest joy and inspiration to worship is when I am with Christians walking in the light with each other, perhaps we have had a time of confession together, and tears and forgiveness. Then what I call the breaking of bread and the drinking of the wine as symbolic of His sacrifice has meaning.

          • “Now if I had done such a terrible thing and died I would imagine that my last moments would be of terrifying regret and an expectation that God’s justice would be served on me i.e. eternal separation.
            If I were still conscious I could not help but acknowledge God’s righteousness, and that even if there were forgiveness I would not be able to live in His presence without a sense of eternal self loathing.”

            That’s all quite a burden, Danny! Doesn’t sound entirely protestant to Jack.
            A perfect act of contrition in your last moments, i.e. not fear of Hell but regret for offending God, would carry you to Him. In answer to the second paragraph, in God’s presence there is no shame or self loathing. Without being perfect we cannot see HIs face – hence purgatory where we are completely purified.

          • dannybhoy

            But then free will appears on stage again. If of my own volition
            I committed such a sin, then who am I kidding?
            Certainly not me, nor God. So, really, why would I be asking forgiveness?
            Better to acknowledge that despite all the grace, all the blessings I had betrayed His love and scorned His salvation.
            Of course this is rather hypothetical. I don’t expect it to happen, but moral logic is where such a situation would lead me.

          • Anna

            Surely God’s forgiveness is available to someone who falls into the sin of adultery – if he or she truly repents.

          • dannybhoy

            Oh yes Anna,
            I’m not thinking of that, I’m thinking of Hebrews 6:4 where (hypothetically) an established believer might find themselves ensnared in something that has all kinds of consequences – which could have been avoided if temptation hadn’t been given into.

          • Chefofsinners

            I’ve put it in a reply to Anton above. That’s your starter for ten.

          • Anton

            I would like to debate it with you. Please would you summarise your principal argument for it?

          • Chefofsinners

            Certainly.
            First, election and predestination jump out from most pages of the New Testament. If God determines something is so, then it will be so. Not that I am a Calvinist, for scripture also teaches the apparently contradictory truth that salvation depends on faith. Here is where OSAS gets tricky for the non-Calvinist.

            The scriptural metaphor of new birth describes the quickening of a man’s spirit. Once made spiritually alive a man’s body becomes a temple of the Holy Spirit, through which he is brought into a relationship with God. From this point the saved soul is kept by the power of God. ‘None shall pluck them out of my hand’ said Jesus.
            Sin interrupts the Christian’s fellowship with a holy God, but the Spirit within always draws him back to repentance.

            This interpretation satisfies all the scriptures in a way that (to me) no other does. It also perfectly describes the condition in which I find myself, endlessly kept by the grace of God.

            “Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy, to the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen.” Jude 23-4

          • “Not that I am a Calvinist, for scripture also teaches the apparently contradictory truth that salvation depends on faith. Here is where OSAS gets tricky for the non-Calvinist.

            That’s an easy one for a Calvinist to answer. Grace, and with it faith, is irresistible. God has predetermined your salvation, then it is you who receives this, not those who God predestines to damnation.

            The Bible does speak of salvation as a past-tense event – Ephesians 2:8–9: “For by grace you have been saved through faith.”. It also speaks of salvation as a present-tense event – Philippians 2:12, Paul exhorts us to “work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.” Scripture also speaks of it as a future-tense event – Romans 13:11, “our salvation is nearer than when we first believed” and 1 Cor. 3:15, “The builder will be saved, but like someone barely escaping through a wall of flames., and again, “you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord.”

            Do you agree the Bible speaks of salvation as past, present, and future?

          • Chefofsinners

            Oh yes. The bible most definitely speaks of salvation in three tenses:
            We have been saved from the penalty of sin (justification).
            We are being saved from the power of sin (sanctification).
            We will be saved from the presence of sin (glorification).

            However, God is eternal, dwelling both within and outside of time.

          • Now you’re shifting to a Catholic understanding … this is good.

            In John’s Gospel, Christ tells the Apostles at the Last Supper to remain in his love. He adds that if we keep his commandments we will remain in his love. But he who does not remain in his love is “cast forth as a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire, and burned” (John 15:6).

            Now, if salvation were a done deal, why would Jesus feel the need to tell anyone to remain in his love? It would be like locking a person in a closet and telling them to remain there. If they are unable to leave, it is senseless to ask them to remain.

            Jesus told His disciples to remain in his love because just as we enter freely into a relationship with Christ, we are free to leave him. Scripture is overflowing with examples of this. In Romans 11:22, Paul says, “Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God’s kindness to you, provided you continue in his kindness; otherwise you too will be cut off.” In Galatians 5:4, Paul says, “You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace.” This verse implies that they were united with Christ and in grace before they fell. In 1 Corinthians 9:27, Paul again warns the Christians against being overconfident: “I pummel my body and subdue it, lest after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified.”
            This is not the language of “once saved always saved.”

          • Chefofsinners

            In John’s gospel Jesus is speaking to those who have not yet received the Holy Spirit, who is ” a deposit, guaranteeing our inheritance” – Eph 1:14 and 2 Cor 1:22. Furthermore, the scriptures you quote are dealing with fruitfulness, not salvation. We know that our reward in heaven will depend on our earthly service, including a number of crowns mentioned in the New Testament. Much of the NT is taken up with encouragements to fruitfulness, and rightly so.
            “no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ. If anyone builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw, their work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each person’s work. If what has been built survives, the builder will receive a reward. If it is burned up, the builder will suffer loss but yet will be saved—even though only as one escaping through the flames.” – 1 Cor 3: 11-15 (NIV).

          • Manfarang

            There is a small church (The Church of Peace) near were I live. They had two bids from two contractors to build it, one a Christian the other Buddhist. The small congregation prayed for guidance. They choose the Buddhist, he did an excellent job, later they found out the Christian was dishonest in his business dealings- he would have used inferior materials.

          • Anton

            From which one draws the conclusion that man might let you down but God doesn’t.

          • Manfarang

            The church has a congregation of about 20 people mostly women. There aren’t many Christians in Thailand.

          • Anton

            God knows even before someone is conceived whether they are going to end up in the New Jerusalem or gehenna (the lake of fire). That is not in dispute, but I also think it is not relevant because we know that the person is going to end up in one or the other and we do not have access in advance to the information stating which.

            I also accept that one may know if one is saved but not whether anybody else is. (Although you have to make a pretty good guess when popping the question.) Also, that some churchgoers who think they are saved aren’t; sadly they never consider whether they fulfill the Biblical criteria.

            I’d also like to define the question more closely. I take it to mean this: If a man is in such a spiritual state that, were he to be killed by lightning (or something else unexpected and instantaneous), his final destination would be the New Jerusalem, then is it possible that, during his life, he could move to a state in which if killed by lightning he would end up in gehenna? Would you confirm that this is equivalent to the question you are giving a particular answer to?

            Enough preamble. The “observational” evidence against OSAS is that someone can be living a fine Christian life and then backslide spectacularly. The OSAS response is that such a person never was saved but just fooled everybody (including perhaps himself but not God) for a while. I consider this argument to be stalemate.

            Let’s look at the verses you quote. In regard to “None shall pluck them out of my hand” the image suggests that no other volitional being can do so. This does not rule out someone climbing out of His hand of his own accord. And in Ezekiel we get a heartbreaking description of God himself leaving the Temple at the start of the Babylonian exile; why should the Holy Spirit not leave a human temple? In regard to verses such as “Nothing in creation can separate us from the love of God” (Romans 8:39), the question is who “us” is. Is it those who are saved at the time of the discussion regardless of how they live the rest of their lives; or is it those who are saved at the time of the discussion and keep faith to the end of their lives? Greek has a present continuous tense, so this verse is not decisive. Similarly, in Hebrews 13:5, “I will never leave you nor forsake you”, who is’ you’? As for Jesus’ words, “a slave has no permanent place in the family, but a son belongs to it forever” (John 8:35), the concepts of sonship and fatherhood in this exchange with the Pharisees were entirely about Jesus as son of God, so ‘son’ refers here specifically to Jesus; this is not about Christians as sons of God, but about how Jesus has the same power as God to set people free from sin – as the next verse makes clear.

            What of the biblical case against OSAS? The New Testament is full of warnings about failure to reach your destination. The failure of most of the Israelites to reach the Promised Land is used as a warning in 1 Corinthians 10 and Hebrews 4. Paul, writing in the Greek world with its interest in athletics, often compares life to a race; what counts is how you cross the line, i.e. your faith at your death. That is what you carry over; how can those who have fallen away enter heaven as atheists? Further warnings are found in parables of shoddy servants and unready bridesmaids (Matt 25). Again, why bother if believers are ‘once saved, always saved’? Nowhere does scripture set out a clear statement of this claim; in contrast, Matt 7:21-3 warns that some who do ‘deliverance’ ministry in Jesus’ name will not be found in the New Jerusalem. Jesus says of the believer who overcomes, in Revelation 3:5, that “I will never blot his name from the book of life,” implying that other names can be blotted out (or why not give a positive word of encouragement, rather than a promise not to do something negative?) It follows that such people were saved but later are not; perhaps the parable of the sower gives a clue to who these are (Luke 8:4-15). Paul exhorts certain members of the congregation at Rome to “consider the goodness of God to you, provided that you continue in his goodness; otherwise you will be cut off” (Romans 11:22). Peter says of certain people that “If they have escaped the corruption of the world by knowing our Lord and saviour Jesus Christ and are again entangled in it and are overcome, they are worse off at the end than they were at the beginning” (2 Peter 2:20-22). Hebrews 6:4-6 says that “It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age, if they fall away, to be brought back to repentance”. Those who have shared in the Holy Spirit were definitely Christians at the time in God’s eyes (and therefore saved), as it is only to such people that God gives his Spirit. Is not the implication clear that salvation can be lost?

            For the avoidance of doubt, I am not closed-minded on this subject.

          • Chefofsinners

            Yes to your lightning question. John 5:25 “Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.”

            The observational conundrum is expected. Jesus predicted it in the parable of the wheat and the tares. (Matt 13:24)

            The Christian life can be successful to a greater or lesser degree depending on our commitment. This is the reason for all the encouragements to endure, persevere and finish the race. God wishes us, for our own temporal and eternal good and for His glory to be as fruitful as possible. Of course we can cut ourselves off from His blessings and we all do to some extent – every time we commit a sin of omission. But we cannot even know all these sins, so we are utterly dependent on His grace every day.

            The book of life is interesting. I believe that the names of every human are written in that book as a result of Christ’s unlimited atonement. Names are blotted out when a person finally and irrevocably rejects God’s offer of forgiveness – a point known only to God.

            Hebrews 6:4-6 is the single greatest scriptural objection to OSAS. In coming to a settled view it is often desirable to reconcile all scriptures but sometimes there are outliers, which have to be weighed in the balance. In such situations, consider what it could mean other that what is seems to prima facie.
            So, those who have “tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age” could mean those who have seen the working of the Holy Spirit in others. Who have hung around the Church, enjoyed the love it offers and seen miracles – Like Judas among the disciples. They are equivalent to those Jesus described as “blaspheming the Holy Spirit.”

          • Anton

            Thank you. I am persisting because although your post hasn’t convinced me I still have a nagging feeling that I may have missed something about this subject. I welcome further response. Would any Calvinists also care to chime in?

            I find it odd that somebody’s name might be present and undeleted in the book of life at a moment when they are not saved, which follows from your view of this book.

            As you probably spotted, my main response to the scriptures from which OSAS is inferred is – to whom does “us” or “you” refer in them? There are subtle assumptions here in the OSAS position.

            Paul also suggests that he is capable of losing salvation, at 1 Cor. 9:27.

          • Chefofsinners

            The idea of people’s names being present in the book of life when not ‘saved’ works like this:
            Christ’s sacrifice must be sufficient for all because He is infinite. Hence the truth that “God is not willing that any should perish” and that all creation will be redeemed. Standard anti-limited atonement stuff. So what condemns a person to eternal separation from God is unbelief. One result of this is that those who are too young or disabled to comprehend the gospel are saved.

            I don’t really follow your point about who “us” means. If God is able to keep some from falling and present them faultless, then He is able to do the same for anyone.

            In 1 Cor 9:27 Paul speaks of being disqualified for a prize, not of losing his salvation. He has in view one or more of the seven crowns which the New Testament describes in other places and is referred to here in verse 25.
            James 5:19-20 speaks of saving a person from death, not from the second death.

          • Anton

            But they are not saved from death, are they? I have not heard of any latter-day Enochs or Elijahs. James must mean the second death.

          • Chefofsinners

            Yes, they are turned away from acts that lead to death in a way that Ananias and Sapphira might have been.

          • Anton

            Chef: Some of the scriptures I have quoted are ambiguous and we take them different ways. One isn’t, and is anti-OSAS, as you say. But I’ve now remembered why I am (unusually) open-minded. The following argument for OSAS is an indirect one, as it has to be given the absence of any single knockdown verse asserting OSAS. The argument is that one becomes a new creation; a new self is installed in us at our conversion, and our old self is relegated merely to being our flesh, dead yet still kicking. It makes no sense that such a process is reversed if a person says he ceases to believe, ie it makes no sense that the new self is uninstalled and the old self reverts to being the real self.

            All comments welcome…

          • Chefofsinners

            Yes. – Although your argument is based on what makes sense to you. I would only believe it if it was based on scripture, which fortunately it also is:
            You describe exactly what is called the new birth and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. “If any man be in Christ he is a new creation. The old has gone, the new has come.” 2 Cor 5:17.

          • Anton

            Where do you think I got it from? I gave a sermon on exactly what happens at conversion in the spring after a close study of Romans. Just because I didn’t quote chapter and verse above…

          • Chefofsinners

            Just that the reasoning you articulated was that “it makes no sense”.
            There we are then. Scripture either supports OSAS or it doesn’t. For me, the scriptures that appear to support it are inexplicable in any other way, but the ones which seem to contradict it can, on reflection, be understood to say something else.

          • dannybhoy

            Good discussion between you two. I remain of the opinion that a Christian can lose their salvation – as a result of deliberately persisting in some sin or attitude. Not a sudden sin, however heinous.
            It boils down to the state/intent of the will; whether our heart is for God or disillusionment and disbelief have set in and bitter fruit is forming.
            Nothing happens overnight.
            I liked your “While in this body, sin interrupts the Christian’s fellowship with a holy God, but the Spirit within always draws him back to repentance (Romans 7:19).”
            And,
            “This interpretation satisfies all the scriptures in a way that (to me) no other does. It also perfectly describes the condition in which I find myself, endlessly kept by the grace of God.”
            I think this is where different personalities come into play. For example some Christians are extroverts, some introverts and there are all shades in between.
            I am a doer, a practical man who wants to apply what I believe in my own life and encourage it in the congregation. I don’t much dwell on guilt, but I am at my happiest when everything is to my mind in order. Prayer, ministry, outreach.

            Others may have a reflective nature and a sensitive conscience which causes them anxiety.
            So my point is that depending on your personality you will be drawn to certain themes, passages and verses of Scripture.
            So whilst I do believe you can lose your salvation, it’s not an easy thing to do, and the Holy Spirit dwelling within you will do everything possible to prevent it.
            I do think your understanding is most helpful Chef, and encourages us to dwell on our adoption as sons..

          • Chefofsinners

            The simplest truth is often overlooked in these discussions:
            The very word ‘saved’ describes a permanent state. You cannot be temporarily or conditionally saved. You’re either saved from the wrath to come or you aren’t.

          • Ray Sunshine

            As I see it, the problem with OSAS is the implied assertion of certain knowledge. Can anyone ever have certain knowledge that he is saved?

          • Chefofsinners

            The indwelling Holy Spirit can give assurance of salvation.

          • Ray Sunshine

            The indwelling Holy Spirit can give assurance of salvation.

            I was going to post a reply asking, “Is that a Yes or a No?”

            But in the meantime I’ve read your comment addressed to Anton (below) which gives a full and cogently argued answer to my unasked question.

          • dannybhoy

            Does give assurance..

          • carl jacobs

            No he didn’t. You need to go understand the terms you are using.

          • So explain these terms to Jack.

          • dannybhoy

            “Again, it is not the doing of good works which justifies. The good works come forth in response to the grace of God enacted in a Christian life. It is through these works that the proper Christian response to justification can be seen–in true love for one’s neighbor, this action not being motivated by self-gain but through the example of Christ. It is this expression of the outward nature, the ‘outer man,” which must be mastered and directed in daily intercourse with the rest of human society. This is done through the joyful acceptance by the inner nature of the grace of Christ in which ‘it is his [the Christian’s] one occupation to serve God joyfully and without thought of gain, in love that is not constrained’ (p. 17).

            The total lack of a role for good works in Luther’s concept of justification cannot be stressed enough in this, or any paper. It was a central theme in his entire message, and it served as the keynote from which much criticism flowed downhill, toward him. While, indeed, good works do not justify sinners, they do serve two important purposes: the law provides a mirror in which the individual may see her or his need of grace; and, the works of the law serve as an outward expression of the true act of justification. These acts are not mandatory for salvation, but, as Luther put it, ‘good works follow and proceed from the good person. . . ” (p. 17). They are, in other words, expected by the very nature of the inward change.”
            from Martin Luther on Good Works.. http://www.revneal.org/Writings/lutheron.htm

          • Anton

            The one sentence in this that appears to be counterbiblical, I have already explained above.

      • carl jacobs

        Jack, do you know anything about the CoS other than that Wikipedia article? It’s a large church in numbers only. (Not least of which because it used to be true that children of members automatically became members.) Few people attend. Those who attend don’t actually believe. Like the CoE there is some residual cultural attachment to the rituals of religion. But Sweden is an atheist country. It’s one if the least religious countries in the world.

        Well, except for the Muslim part of course.

        • Well, no wonder if they follow Luther’s teachings on sin. Why attend church? Just have faith and carry on with one’s life – sinning and living as one wishes. Just keep on believing – and do it all boldly!.

          • Anton

            Where did Luther say live as one wishes without regard to God?

          • Obviously one has to continue to believe in God. There’s no way you can stop sinning so carry on regardless. Homosexuality, fornication, abortion, adultery – all forensically covered by Christ’s death for us.

            “No sin can separate us from Him, even if we were to kill or commit adultery thousands of times each day.”

            What’s missing church on Sunday?

    • dannybhoy

      Yet we look back on their ancestors and they were a part of that genetic family that terrorised the rest of Europe, sailed the seven seas and prepared the way for McDonalds, Starbucks and the American Dream..
      What went wrong??
      Ps I know some very funny jokes about the Vikings, but as an American intellectual suburbanite and higher culture vulture I shan’t share them with you..

      • carl jacobs

        I can give you an anecdotal answer. Some 20 plus years ago, my parents visited Sweden to meet relatives we still have in that country. They (our distant relatives) said the problem with Sweden was that everyone with drive and ambition left for the US in the 19th Century.

        I think however that the problem is a combination of 1) the two world wars which crushed Europe’s sense of cultural confidence 2) the easy seductive path to moral autonomy offered by materialist explanations of existence and 3) post WWII wealth, which made materialism tolerable. The problem is that this combination leads straight to hedonism and pleasure-seeking for its own sake because it leads to the inevitable conclusion there is nothing else to life. That is the caustic solvent that is consuming the West.

        • Anton

          Yet Sweden was one of the few European countries to keep out of both world wars.

          I recently read an interesting book, The Death of Christian Britain: Understanding Secularisation 1800-2000, that altered some of my categories for grasping the history of recent centuries. The Enlightenment secular view is basically optimistic (about man) and materialist (since it coincided with the Industrial Revolution). This view is called ‘modernism’ and it broke the political power of the Roman Catholic church in Catholic lands. It spread throughout the industrialised world but I now understand that, in the English-speaking protestant world, at least – in Britain and the USA – it did *not* bring about a crisis of faith. Protestant Christianity carried on in the mainstream of English-speaking culture until the 1960s, when optimistic secular modernism faced its own crisis in the wake of two world wars, the threat of nuclear destruction and the failure of materialism to bring personal fulfilment. Modernism was overtaken by post-modernism – the hippies, the New Age, and the pessimistic view that truth is personal and private (“that’s your truth”). Since the 1960s this view has brought institutional Protestantism down. Its pessimism soon led to nihilism – “nothing has any meaning in life” – and hedonism – “so let’s have a good time”.

          Modernism did for institutional Catholicism, and postmodernism did for institutional protestantism. I no longer take the view that modernism ravaged both.

          The book is written by a secular sociologist, by the way.

          • carl jacobs

            Protestantism was beginning to suffer the ravages of modernism 100 years before the 1960s. It was the rise of science as “Truth giver” and its ability to give an (ostensibly) coherent alternate explanation for existence that served to undermine religion. Men were left with moral freedom and equations that could provide no purpose to life. They didn’t care because they valued moral freedom more than purpose. Man by nature seeks to supplant God and a declaration of moral freedom is the ultimate arrogation of God’s place.

            The dogma of evolution was the magic unicorn dust that made this all possible. It is the philosophical foundation upon which this entire materialist worldview is built because it alone gives a satisfactory answer to the question “Why does anything exist?” It allows men to answer that question in immanent instead of transcendent terms and thus frees them from the Law. But once free of the law, they find no possible destination but nihilism and hedonism. They make themselves into gods only to discover they they are images of wood capable of neither speaking not acting.

            Institutional Protestantism collapsed so fast because it was so hollow. By the 1960s there wasn’t much “there” there anymore. There was form without substance, image without reality. The traumas of the 20th century simply revealed what was already there.

          • Anton

            Of course modernism made many converts in institutionally protestant lands, but there was no crisis as there was in Catholic lands. People carried on being technologists and going to church.

            Antisupernaturalism is of course an enemy of the Christian faith with its virgin birth and miracles. But the postmodernists are fairly sympathetic to the supernatural given all that New Age crap about crystals and sitting in pyramids and so on.

            As for the role of evolution, look at the Academy today, Carl – are the deadly enemies of the faith in the Arts Faculties or the Science ones?

          • carl jacobs

            Yes, they carried on going to church. But this is what I meant by form over substance. There was no root when the crisis hit. It withered almost immediately. There was more cultural inertia to it than faith. Church attendance and identification is falling in the US. Why? Because it is now a public liability to be associated with a church. There is suddenly a social cost instead of a social benefit and so nominal membership dries up.

            What you should see in the stuff about crystals and pyramids and spirits and ghosts is the re-emergence of paganism. That is always where man naturally returns. By nature he worships the creature instead of the Creator. It’s a sign of the disintegration of secularism.

            Academia in its entirety doesn’t take religion seriously anymore as anything except as a premodern motivator of actions. As far as academia is concerned, religion has no explanatory power for reality. It believes that the universe is self-explanatory through natural law, and that man is free to chart his own course now that he has been liberated from created boundaries. This is the de facto religion of the West. This is why we are dying.

          • Anton

            I’m suggesting that, had postmodernism not come along, institutional protestantism would have carried on rather than crumbled.

          • David

            Yes that book certainly taught me a few things. Quite depressing though….

        • dannybhoy

          Well,
          Hmmm, but..
          No..you’re

          I’d go along with that.

  • Come now, surely all you protestants should acknowledge the right of this sister churchlet of yours to interpret scripture according to their own reasoning, assisted by the Holy Spirit? If you disagree, then have a “good disagreement” and “dialogue” and “embrace the diversity” of your differences.

    • Anton

      Yours is just another denomination claiming to have the truth in Christ and there are plenty of those, so pipe down a bit.

      • It’s a significant protestant churchlet – the largest Lutheran denomination in Europe and the third largest in the world.

        • Anton

          I don’t have to accept your narrative of Catholic and the rest. I see Catholic, Anglican, Methodist, Baptist, etc, all claiming to be right, and size is no guarantee of truth.

          • dannybhoy

            And actually apart from Jack’s Church the differences between the rest are minor. All acknowledge that our Lord made salvation possible, and there is nothing that any Church can add to that vis a vis terms and conditions.
            (Although some parts of the CofE are definitely ‘iffy).

          • Are you forgetting the Orthodox Church?

            Protestants have stripped the Gospel of God’s chosen means of salvation i.e. access to the forgiveness of sin secured by Christ through sacramental grace made available by His Church.

            Let’s remember Luther taught: “It suffices that through God’s glory we have recognized the Lamb who takes away the sin of the world.” So why not do as he says and: “Be a sinner, and let your sins be strong”? Because, after all, “No sin can separate us from Him, even if we were to kill or commit adultery thousands of times each day.” All you need to do is believe – nothing else.

            Alternatively, you could always follow Calvin and his entirely novel doctrine of unconditional eternal security. He teaches that only the elect (the humans who God chooses to redeem) will be the recipients of the power of perseverance through the presence of the Holy Spirit and they will infallibly know that they are saved. These believers will be kept in the power of the Spirit and are eternally secure. They can never lose their salvation.

            Catholicism is such hard work in comparison. We Catholics and Orthodox followers have to actually do all we can to avoid sin and work at our salvation with fear and trembling and when we do fall, as we all inevitably do, receive the forgiveness and grace through sacrament of the reconciliation.

          • Anton

            Protestants certainly stripped the mediaeval Western church of various antiscriptural accretions.

            It is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast – Ephesians 2:8-9.

            You will know how much harder it is to unlearn something that is wrong than to learn something beginning with your mind a tabula rasa. The simplicity of Paul’s words here stood in opposition to a body of Catholic accretions that Luther succeeded in unlearning before replacing it all with Christ.

          • The sacerdotal priesthood and the distribution of the sacraments as channels of sanctifying grace were all present in the early Church. So too was recognition the Church was Apostolic and Episcopalian.

          • Anton

            How early?

          • It all began with Jesus.

            The priesthood began with Jesus. During his three years of public preaching, he chose twelve men from the crowd, men to be his disciples, his students. At the time, they had no idea what they would ultimately learn, but they still gave up everything to follow Jesus. He spent those three years teaching the public, but also teaching His disciples, telling them things he did not reveal to the crowd. He was training them through this whole time. Eventually, his time on Earth drew close to the end. At this time, Jesus celebrated the Last Supper with the Twelve. He broke bread and wine, as was tradition for Jews, but the celebration was altered: He said to them, “This is my body … This is my Blood … Do this in memory of me.” And with these words, the bread became His Body, the wine his blood. The next day, Jesus died. Three days later, he rose again. And he continued with his Disciples, preparing them for the times when He could not be with them in flesh. And He send the Holy Spirit down on them, that they would continue what he had left unfinished.

            The Twelve Apostles were the original bishops and also the original priests. They broke bread in homes in the name of Jesus, and they ministered to the poor. However, their ministry attracted a great number of people. They could not do it all themselves. And so they ordained other men to be priests as well. These men also performed the Eucharist, the breaking of the bread, for the “Eucharist is ‘the source and summit of the Christian life … The other sacraments, and indeed all ecclesiastical ministries and works of the apostolate, are bound up with the Eucharist and are oriented toward it” (Catechism, 1324). Throughout the years, the Apostles and their successors, the bishops of the church, continued their work, and ordained more priests along the way.

          • Anton

            When you say, “And so they ordained other men to be priests as well”, you give away the fact that you don’t believe in the universal priesthood even though you claim to when you are reminded of the verses which demonstrate it. Had you said, “they ordained other men to be episkopoi” then I would have been in full agreement.

            I don’t believe transubstantiation either, but my real beef is the view that only an officer class can supposedly do it, and must therefore lead Eucharistic meetings.

          • You’d accept: “they ordained other men to be episkopoi”?
            What did the “ordination” consist of?
            The lexical meaning of epískopos equates to ‘supervisor’. In the Greek world, episkopos habitually referred to an official. The Delian League sent epískopoi, who were Athenian officials, into allied cities, e.g. in order to set up a democratic constitution.

          • Anton

            Look it up in the Septuagint. Its meaning is fairly broad. Overseer seems to encompass it well. Ordination means to license someone for a specific role.

          • Hmm … nothing to do then with the laying on of hands and the Holy Spirit?

          • Anton

            You asked what it consisted of and I realise that I said what its meaning was. I gladly affirm that it involves the laying on of hands, and one trusts that the Holy Spirit is already in the person chosen for the role, and in the choice.

          • Yes, one hopes so, though it isn’t always the case. You’ll agree the gifts of the Holy Spirit are not given equally.
            Jesus specifically prepared and empowered His Apostles for their particular roles and Scripture informs us He gave them His authority and sent the Holy Spirit down on them.

          • dannybhoy

            Sez who and on what was it based? Certainly not the acts and writings of the Apostles.
            I think rituals and privileges were appropriated from the Old Covenant priestly role, in the mistaken belief that the Jews were no longer the chosen vehicle of revelation, and adopted/adapted/ appropriated for the Church.

          • “the mistaken belief that the Jews were no longer the chosen vehicle of revelation.”
            Really?

          • dannybhoy

            There has to be a reason why the emergent Church leader adopted the skull cap and like the High Priest represea priesthood with

          • dannybhoy

            There has to be a reason why the Pope adopted a skull cap, that like the High Priest he represented the Chosen people and spoke with the authority of God,
            Why a priesthood emerged that was set apart like the cohenim and levites except that they couldn’t have wives..
            Why Rome was splashed with gold and jewels like the Temple despite what Jesus said about simplicity and service…
            You cannot show me anywhere in the New Testament that says outward wealth and worldly authority will be marks of Christ’s Church, but we can see a link between the fading power and glory of the Roman Empire and an emergent Church.

          • Who’s claiming outward wealth is a necessity? As for authority – the Church’s is spiritual.

          • dannybhoy

            Not a necessity, a mark of..

          • One can be wealthy and authoritative and yet retain simplicity and purity in devotion to Christ..

          • dannybhoy

            And so people outside the Church ignore the wealth and authority
            -or are drawn towards it?
            When Jesus sent out the apostles it was in poverty. St. Peter said,
            “Silver or gold have I none…”

          • Catholics are neither attracted to nor repelled by the Church’s wealth. The Vatican is a State and the Church is both a worldly and spiritual body. That’s just the way it is.

          • dannybhoy

            Protestants have stripped the Gospel of God’s chosen means of salvation i.e. access to the forgiveness of sin secured by Christ through sacramental grace made available by His Church.
            That’s a nonsense for which you have no proof but which by means of assertion gives your Church power and authority over the faithful.
            Everything necessary for salvation and sanctification is there in Scripture.

            Yes I am forgetting the Orthodox Church because their overall impact on GB/ UK has been minimal through the years.
            We recognise that God Himself makes it clear that He would have all men come to a knowledge of the truth. So we know His compassionate and forgiving nature will do everything possible to bring us to eternal salvation.
            It is love that inspires us to discipleship, not fear.

          • Saint Paul warns us to work out our salvation in fear and trembling.

            This means to continually work to bring something to completion or fruition. We do this by actively pursuing obedience in the process of sanctification with a healthy fear of offending God through disobedience and an awe and respect for His majesty.

            “Everything necessary for salvation and sanctification is there in Scripture.”
            And Scripture informs us of the authority of the Apostles and their successors. Are you seriously suggesting the sacraments of confession and the Eucharist were not instituted by Christ as a means of salvation but an invention of the Church?

          • dannybhoy

            We agree on sanctification and working out our salvation; there’s no argument there.
            But why do you always gravitate towards the power structure Jack?
            And yes I am saying that, re the Mass or Eucharist/ Holy Communion as it is called in the CofE we attend.
            Not that the Church invented it, but by putting all kinds of symbolism and sanctions and even mysticism around it, the Church retained its meaning and power – and more importantly, its access.
            Another means of control.
            The breaking of bread we do in remembrance of His sacrifice as our Paschal Lamb, but not as a means of salvation, as a sign of our salvational relationship with Him.
            I’ve been in situations where for months for one reason or another we never broke bread as Communion.
            Communion doesn’t make you a Christian, it’s a sign that you are a Christian.

          • Your so wrong on the Eucharist and Jack genuinely feels for all those who have been denied the truth of this – the greatest gift and means of salvation given by Christ.

          • dannybhoy

            Show me in Scripture Jack what I have been denied and show me the (living) saints who demonstrate a different quality of spiritual life as a result..
            There are those that glow with the Spirit, sometimes through meditation, prayer, worship, even persecution..

          • Chefofsinners

            No, he is right about it. Christ was abundantly clear: “Do this in remembrance of me.” It is a memorial, nothing more.

          • Nothing more! It’s the very Body and Blood of Christ.

            Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.”

            (John 6:53-56)

            Catholic Christians believe in the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist. It rests upon the literal meaning of the words of the Last Super as recorded by the Evangelists and Saint Paul.

            While they were eating, he took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them, and said, “Take it; this is my body.” Then he took a cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them, and they all drank from it. He said to them, “This is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed for many.”

            (Mark 14:22-24)

            The belef of the Church from Apostolic times about the objective reality of these words of Christ is clear from many documents.

            Irenaeus (Asia Minor, 140 – 202), Tertullian (Rome, 160 – 220), Cyprian (Carthage, 200 – 258) are just a few of the earliest who attest to the objective reality of the words of Christ.

            In the Church in Alexandria, Athanasius (293 – 373) and Cyril (376 – 444) equally attest to the literal meaning of the words of Christ at the Last Supper.

            In the Church in Palestine, Cyril (Jerusalem, 315 – 387) and Epiphanius (Salamis, 367 – 403) also affirm in their teaching the same reality.

            Unanimity is found across the universal church until the 11th century.
            Berengar (Tours, France, 1000 – 1088) was one of the first to deny the real presence by arguing that Christ is not physically present, but only symbolically.

          • Anton

            Christ is present neither physically nor merely symbolically. He is spiritually present.

          • Meaning what exactly? You don’t believe then that the bread and wine becomes the Real Presence of Christ – that there is a once and for all change in the bread and wine?

          • Anton

            I do not believe they change, but that’s a side issue for me. If Rome were to continue to believe in transubstantiation but say that any Catholic could do it, not just the ordained priesthood, then I’d be a lot happier.

          • Hmm … never going to happen.

          • Anton

            I agree with you there. Unhappily.

          • Would you want to include women in such a consecration of bread and wine?

          • Anton

            In an all-female gathering, certainly.

          • In a gathering of men and women?

          • Anton

            What is the point of these questions, please?

            I’ll answer, nevertheless. A man should do it unless, perhaps, the meeting is in the home of a woman (eg a widow). Notice that the church often met in houses in the NT, and it would be normal for the host to preside. I haven’t thought through what happens in that case.

          • dannybhoy

            What all this demonstrates is that some people display a deeper capacity or tendency or even reverence towards the unseen and the unknown as it attaches to rituals or objects
            I won’t call it superstition; it’s more like a developed or distorted awareness of the unseen.
            And of course we believe there is an unseen realm, powers and dominions, but when that becomes so powerful that it exercises a strong influence over us and others, who decides what is actually going on and what is reality?
            For example 2nd Chronicles 7 we read that the glory of the Lord filled the temple and the people bowed down and prostrated themselves saying,
            “For He is good, for His steadfast love is eternal.”
            This manifestation I can not only accept but would want to be a part of.
            But it seems to me very different from Jack’s understanding of things.

          • How do you know? You don’t understand “Jack’s understanding of things” because you’re spiritual formation is causing you to block this.

          • dannybhoy

            This is true, and by the same logic your spiritual formation is causing you to defend it!
            So here we are. We both profess a love for God and a desire to be pleasing to Him – not out of fear but out of love; and we have a different understanding of something that is very dear to you, but not to me.
            I don’t see it as an essential component of salvation, but rather a command from our Lord to do in remembrance of Him.

          • Except Jack spent many years away from the Church and explored other faiths and Christian denominations before he confirmed his belief in the teachings of the Church.

            The Eucharist for a Catholic and Orthodox Christian is “the source and summit of the Christian life … The other sacraments, and indeed all ecclesiastical ministries and works of the apostolate, are bound up with the Eucharist and are oriented toward it”.

            And it is a command of Christ: “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.”

          • dannybhoy

            And now you have found peace and an intellectually satisfying approach to faith.
            Why would anyone wish to take that away from you?
            This is a major part of the reason why I never wanted to get Into these differences with you, because I recognised that if my starting point was your starting point, it all makes sense and hangs together
            Kinda.
            It is only because (I like to think) we have shown a mutual respect and willingness to try to explain ourselves, that it has come this far without tears; and I will continue to respect you and call you brother Jack in the faith, even if we never agree.
            Romans 14:4.

          • Jack does not have “an intellectual approach” to Christ. Even if he didn’t understand Jack still have faith. There are many mysteries he just accepts on faith. However, he would struggle to accept a faith in his heart that was not internally consistent and reasonable and consistent with scripture and the teachings of the Church. That’s the true joy of Christianity. Our faith will be received according to our individual God given abilities and gifts. The Gospel satisfies Jack’s mind as well as his soul and spirit.

          • Ray Sunshine

            For example 2nd Chronicles 7 we read that the glory of the Lord filled the temple

            Solomon built his Temple on the summit of Mount Moriah. There’s a theory that on the occasion of the formal opening, described in this chapter, volcanic activity of some kind literally filled the Temple with smoke and heat.

          • dannybhoy

            I prefer to accept it as a manifestation of the Shekinah. When I read it in the Jewish Tenach the wording was so powerful I wish I could have witnessed it.

          • Ray Sunshine

            For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body. (1 Cor 11:29)

          • Chefofsinners

            Exactly so. To discern the Lord’s body. Not to actually eat it. If we think it is the taking part that saves us then we are in danger of damnation.

          • Ray Sunshine

            The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat? Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.
            These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum.

            John 6:52-59

          • Chefofsinners

            Indeed. Now read around the verses you quote to understand them.

            Verse 35: “I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.” So salvation is a result of coming and believing.

            Verse 51: “the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.” Jesus speaks here of giving His life on the cross to work salvation.

            Verse 63: “It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.“

          • Pubcrawler

            HJ, do you know of Brant Pitre’s book Jesus and the Jewish Roots of the Eucharist? I read it a week or so ago. I think you’d enjoy it, it presents a good argument for the Real Presence.

          • Jack has never read it but here’s a video presentation of the themes of his book :

          • dannybhoy

            I am viewing this right now, but had to stop to say it’s zany Jack!
            He quotes Moses and the prophet who is to come, but Moses doesn’t say what your man says/assumes/ postulates..
            Moses says in Deuteronomy 18,
            “15 “The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your brothers—it is to him you shall listen— 16 just as you desired of the Lord your God at Horeb on the day of the assembly, when you said, ‘Let me not hear again the voice of the Lord my God or see this great fire any more, lest I die.’ 17 And the Lord said to me, ‘They are right in what they have spoken. 18 I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brothers. And I will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I command him. 19 And whoever will not listen to my words that he shall speak in my name, I myself will require it of him.”
            There is no evidence that the Jews were looking for a second Exodus!
            Read “Searching for Jesus” by Robert Hutchinson, a Catholic author (whom I do respect and enjoy). He goes into what the thinking was at the time of Jesus aout Messiah and a Deliverer..
            Out of respect for you I shall continue listening, but so far, impressed I ain’t.

          • As you know, Jack’s dad was an Orthodox Jew and Talmudic scholar before his conversion to Christianity. Much of this talk reminded Jack of his father’s explanations to him as he was growing up. Some of the details may be different but in its essentials it’s the same.

          • dannybhoy

            I think that’s a wonderful heritage to have. Were I of Jewish descent I
            would be so pleased. In fact I would have made Aliyah and lived in Israel as a Yehudi Meshichi, gone in the IDF and lived on schwarma
            and falafel.
            It may then explain the attraction of Catholicism to your father. The two faiths are not dissimilar, and would certainly have suited that keen and educated mind of yours.

          • Perhaps you should spend as much time researching Catholicism a you appear to spend on Judaism. Modern day Judaism isn’t the same as it was in Christ’s time.
            As my father said: “Catholic Christianity is Judaism perfected by Christ.” The only “choice” he faced was between it and Orthodoxy.

          • dannybhoy

            Without being rude it doesn’t interest me, anymore than rabbinic Judaism does.
            A great deal of fun(?) and intellectual sparring could be had; enough to last several lifetimes one might imagine.
            My brother in law has given me some tasters into the Talmud, and one can well understand why Jewish people are so well represented in all aspects of law..

          • “At the end of the day it all boils down to interpretation and opinion of what was originally meant.”
            Well that’s protestantism for you.

          • dannybhoy

            There are those Jack who believe ‘true religion is the dissection thereof’.They get more pleasure in arguing over it that practicing it.
            There was a very good reason why the Lord didn’t choose His disciples from among the Pharisees and Sadducees.. :0)

          • dannybhoy

            Jack, regarding your Jewish background I thought you might find this website of interest. It gives up to date info on the growth and state of the body of Christ in Israel, including Israeli society.
            https://www.oneforisrael.org/category/bible-based-teaching-from-israel/israel/
            This statement rang very true to me..
            ” Usually in the Western world, if someone wants to become a pastor, he first must acquire training at a Bible college / seminary and then be ordained as a pastor. The Israeli reality, however, is the other way around: new believers start gathering around a more mature believer, who becomes their pastor, and only later realizes that he needs training.”

          • Ray Sunshine

            Danny, please allow me to pick your brains in the rabbinical connection. To anyone who has ever been privileged to take part in a Kiddush at a synagogue, the similarity to Holy Communion is striking. I have long wondered what the historical connection is, but I’ve never met anyone really knowlegeable that I could ask. Historically, which of these alternatives woud you say comes closest to the truth?

            (a) The early Church took over the Kiddush, adapting it to Christian needs by switching the spoken words to verses from the NT.

            (b) The rabbis at Yavneh or Tiberias took over the Eucharist, adapting it to Jewish needs by switching the spoken words to verses from the OT.

            (c) Holy Communion and the Kiddush are both adaptations of some practice of outside origin, neither Jewish nor Christian but something else (presumably pagan)

            (d) There is no common origin at all. The similarity is purely fortuitous.

            Well, two things can be said right away. I don’t think it can be (a), because in that case we would know all about it. Nobody would ever have written all those books explaining which bits, exactly, of the Passover Seder were the ones that Jesus chose to quote at the Last Supper. The Kiddush and the Seder are entirely different ceremonies, and no NT scholar could possibly have mistaken one for the other.

            Also, I don’t think it can be (d). The similarity is so close that it can’t be just coincidence. So that leaves (b) and (c). What do you say, Danny?

          • dannybhoy

            I’m not qualified to answer your comment anyway brother Sunshine.
            My real interest is relationships rather than rituals, how we build relationships, maintain and repair them.
            This is one of the reasons I find Jewish life so interesting. I like the independence of the Israeli believers because to my mind it fits in with how on the early Church would have been.
            As for the emblems of Communion and the kiddish cup I a

          • Ray Sunshine

            Sorry, Danny, I took down that comment after it had been up a few minutes, because on rereading it, it struck me that it was unsuitable for such a public forum as this one. It would be fine to discuss it with you by e-mail (or better still,over a few pints down at the Mouse and Wheel), but not with thousands of people looking over our shoulders, if you catch my drift, nudge nudge.

          • Why unsuitable?

          • Anton

            Beware of hanging much argument on the Council of Jamnia/Yavneh…

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Jamnia

          • Ray Sunshine

            Okay, Anton, thank you. Please see the the comment I’ve just addressed to Danny, two or three comments down from this one.

          • Jack believes it is (a) and the original Sunday gatherings of the early Christians combined a thanksgiving meal with the Eucharist. Why shouldn’t the 1st-century Eucharist practices be a combination of three Second Temple Jewish meal rites? The kiddush blessing with wine (or bread in its absence), the Chaburah fellowship meal and the Passover Seder meal?

            In Hebrew, kiddush literally means “sanctification,” The tradition of kiddush is believed to have originated sometime between the sixth and fourth centuries B.C.E. Drinking wine prior to a meal is derived from the early part of the first century C.E. when festive meals in most cultures began with a cup of wine. This rite gave Jews the opportunity to thank God for the receipt of the Sabbath as recognition of the creation of the world and the Exodus from Egypt. Kiddush worked its way into Shabbat services at the synagogue during the Middle Ages.

          • CliveM

            CE and BCE, how ecumenical!!

          • Ray Sunshine

            Pitre’s book has been on my list for a year or two but I’ve never quite got round to it. Thanks for your recommendation – I will now.
            In the video that Jack linked to (below), Pitre says he is working on a new book to be entitled Jesus and the Last Supper: Judaism and the Origin of the Eucharist, which sounds hardly different from the first one.

          • not a machine

            Interesting happy Jack, that you see it that way. Is this an old position or a recent one for Roman Catholicism? On a side note I am reading Pope John Paul crossing the threshold, and was fascinated to read he was at Vatican 2,when under soviet rule, he had to gain permission to attend!

          • Catholicism has always had the sacrament of reconciliation (confession).

            A great man and a great Pope, Karol Józef Wojtyła.

          • not a machine

            Yes Happy Jack I re read your post and see that Luther did not counter this criticism which perhaps makes me think we should have had a longer conversation back then. Heresies are difficult things and can have disastrous results when agreed by people who do not have a fully understand the question they are dealing with. Going back to that time period when the monk Luther committed his rebellion, do you think the Roman Catholic Church had not realised that selling indulgences could be an error, doctrinally?

          • One hopes so. Certainly very many Catholics looked on the practice with horror as they did the market n relics. Hence the Council of Trent forbidding the practice.

          • Protestants have stripped the Gospel of God’s chosen means of salvation i.e. access to the forgiveness of sin secured by Christ through sacramental grace made available by His Church.
            And there was I thinking that God’s chosen means of salvation was Christ and Him crucified.

          • Are you infallibly sure?

            Saint Paul wasn’t. Writing at the end of his life, “I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith. Henceforth there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, will award to me on that Day” (2 Tim. 4:7-8). But earlier in life, even Paul did not claim an infallible assurance, either of his present justification or of his remaining in grace in the future. Concerning his present state, he wrote, “I am not aware of anything against myself, but I am not thereby justified. It is the Lord who judges me.” (1 Cor. 4:4) Concerning his remaining life, Paul was frank in admitting that even he could fall away: “I pummel my body and subdue it, lest after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified.” (1 Cor. 9:27)For a spiritual giant such as Paul, it would be unexpected and out of character for him to fall from God’s grace. Nevertheless, he points out that, however much confidence in his own salvation he may be warranted in feeling, even he cannot be infallibly sure either of his own present state or of his future course.

          • The certainty of our salvation is certainly not based upon feelings; it is based on the sure and certain promises of God.. ‘The one who comes to Me I will by no means cast out’ (John 6:37). Reference 1 Cor. 4:4, we are certainly not justified by our own righteousness (Titus 3:3-7); it is God Himself who justifies us (Romans 8:33), Christ having redeemed us.

          • Praise the Lord, He didn’t make salvation possible for me.
            He saved me.

          • dannybhoy

            That’s how you understand it Martin, and as long as you walk daily in Him and I do too, it’s not worth arguing over.

          • Think you’ll find, if you look, the difference between Methodists and Lutherans is substantial, as are their differences with Calvinists. In Anglicans you’ll find a cocktail of them all and Catholicism.

          • dannybhoy

            But all acknowledge Christ as Saviour and Lord Jack.

          • “The kingdom of heaven will not give entrance to every man who calls me Master, Master; only to the man that does the will of my Father who is in heaven.”

          • carl jacobs

            the difference between Methodists and Lutherans is substantial

            Oh please. Care to name these substantial differences? The differences between Protestants revolve around about six subjects – each of which has a very limited subset of positions.

          • Methodist theology is basically Arminian. The Methodists teach that unconverted people have free will in spiritual matters and the ability to accept or reject God’s offer of salvation. Lutherans teach that unconverted human beings are dead in their trespasses and sins, hostile to God, and cannot accept the gospel message. Human beings play no part in their own conversion, but are purely passive. Methodists teach that God’s “prevenient grace” surrounds all humanity and prompts the wish to please God. Lutherans believe that God’s grace comes to us only through the means of grace, the gospel in God’s Word and the sacraments. There is no salvation apart from the means of grace.

            Methodists believe that the church has a responsibility toward the structures of society. Lutherans believe that God has given the church the commission to proclaim the gospel and administer the sacraments so that people can be saved for eternity. God has not called the church to reform society or to wield the law as a curb for societal ills.

            The glaring difference between them is that the Methodists believe in becoming holy through acts of love, kindness and greatness. However, Lutherans believe that we cannot become holy on this Earth and can only attain holiness once we reach heaven. They believe that they will acquire a place in heaven on the strength of their faith alone.

          • Anton

            If I want to know what distinguishes Lutherans from other protestants, I wouldn’t trust the word of someone hostile to both.

          • dannybhoy

            “Methodist theology is basically Arminian. The Methodists teach that unconverted people have free will in spiritual matters and the ability to accept or reject God’s offer of salvation.”
            It’s not as cut and dried as that..
            I believe men are born in thrall to sin, to wanting their own way, their own kingdom. which means they can do good deeds for the wrong reasons. Essentially man does not want God telling him what to do! He wants to run his own life relying on his own limited ability to understand all that is involved. It is the created being believing that he is the Creator..

            https://www.thoughtco.com/methodist-church-beliefs-and-practices-700569
            http://christchurchchatt.org/dev/index.php/archived-theological-questions-2/128-predestination

          • carl jacobs

            So you have mentioned Monergism vs Synergism, and politics. The second isn’t a theological issue. The first is one of the six areas I mentioned. I am far more sensitive to the difference between Monergism vs Synergism than you could ever hope to be, and even I don’t consider that difference essential. As I said, there are basically sic major area of conflict:

            1. Justification.
            2. Baptism.
            3. Communion.
            4. Eschatology.
            5. Church Government
            6. Spiritual gifts.

            That’s it. If you want me to start listing our common differences with Catholics, I can. That way you would be able to see the difference.

          • dannybhoy

            I have my (ongoing) doubts about how kosher you are Carl, but in this instance I can happily endorse your comment..
            The actual differences are over peripheral issues which each group would see as big enough to prevent fellowshipping together.
            I think it was more akin to British schoolboys arguing over the average scores of their favourite cricketers..

          • carl jacobs

            I have my (ongoing) doubts about how kosher you are Carl

            Ummm … wut?

          • not a machine

            I think Wesley thought the Methodist Church as being close to the CofE.

          • Anton

            Wesley died before his followers split from the CoE and became the Methodists.

          • dannybhoy

            A part of.. a group within the CoE.

        • Chefofsinners

          Tallest dwarf, then. Big deal.

      • James M

        The OP’s logic is sound though, if one accepts as valid the much-defended principle of Private Interpretation. If it is admitted as valid, then what people make of the Bible is limited only by what Providence will tolerate.

  • Ray Sunshine

    Pope Francis went to Sweden last year to join the Lutherans in their Halloween festivities in Lund. After that, two things happened: first the Church of Sweden proclaimed it was neutering God, and then the Vatican State issued a stamp honouring Luther. Just a string of coincidences, or are we to harbour suspicions of a white-gloved Jesuitical finger in the Swedish pie?

  • A Berean

    “…in its ceaseless struggle to appear relevant to those who couldn’t care less.” And yet such changes are constantly being made in the naïve belief that some day we hope they will come to like us because of the changes.

  • Chefofsinners

    The garden of Sweden… a modern day tale of man deceived by woman deceived by Satan. Cover your bits with a fig leaf and pretend you’re something you ain’t. Let us consign this Gnawdick mythology to Europe’s frozen extremities.
    I share your joy, Mrs P, that Robert Mugarbage has finally joined Osama bin liner in the sewer of history, although his deputy, ‘the crocodile’ has crawled back up the u-bend of opportunity. It seems that the massacre of 20,000 innocents in Don’t Matterbeleland is all forgotten now. Meanwhile Ratco Mladic has been sentenced to life, which hardly seems fair after he sentenced so many others to death. Really, Gehenna’s too good for him.
    I was somewhat confused to find ‘Black Friday’ was upon us so soon. It transpires that this darkest day in history has been sold for thirty pieces of silver. Good news for Spreadshit Phil, who needs another 30 billion pieces of silver to pay the EU to maybe talk about maybe trading with us. Still, he’s doing better than Germany’s Chancellor. I believe they call her ‘Muttley’ on account of all the Whackey Races she’s allowed into the country. There is more than a passing resemblance, too. Both she and the Irish teashop now find their coalitions crumbling. Rejoice, for the EU is about to go the same way.

    • dannybhoy

      Wow!
      What are you on?

    • Mrs Proudie of Barchester

      Oh my oh my…Muttley….Whacky Races…Don’t Matterbeleland…I am in stitches…quite superb!

    • James M

      Muttley sniggers. The German Muttley…not so much. The Whacky Races are full of Angles not for turning, but Barny the Dinosaur does not see that.

      And who plays Betty Boop ?

  • dannybhoy

    Most swedes are bald Carl.
    It’s genetic doncha know?
    We should all take some pleasure in our heritage though.
    I met many Scandis whilst in YWAM, including Finns.
    Many of the women were bald, hiding their shame under huge Valkyrie style brown wigs.
    Weird to look at, but Boy! could they do Wagner…

    • carl jacobs

      Wagner. As opposed to music.

      • Anton

        Lohengrin about the court of the father of King Otto the Great, the first man to deserve the title Germanic (“Holy Roman” ) Emperor since Charlemagne, and the final Act of Götterdämmerung with Siegfried’s Funeral music and the ending of the era of paganism as Valhalla goes up in flames, are high on the list of Western culture’s greatest attainments. Give the Pilgrim’s Chorus from Tannhäuser a go too.

      • Morse.

        • carl jacobs

          Every character has a tragic flaw.

      • dannybhoy

        Now you’re sulking.

        • carl jacobs

          No, it’s PTSD. My wife once made me watch the entire @$%&#!ing Ring Cycle on TV. All 16 hours of it. The emotional scars are still visible. Failing to realize I was marrying a woman who likes Wagner was a significant oversight in my pre-marriage wife vetting process. Although it’s not as bad as Avi and what his wife drags him to. It can always be worse …

          • Anton

            I got dragged to see a matinee showing of Gone With The Wind in the 1970s by an American girlfriend. YAWN.

          • carl jacobs

            You realize that GWTW is just a romance novel disguised as a movie. It’s a chick flick. Although the Burning of Atlanta is cool.

          • Anton

            That was my provisional opinion before I saw it, which I had confirmed at excruciating length. Agree that there is one good scene in it.

            What I didn’t dare say when she asked me if I’d enjoyed it was “Frankly, my dear, I don’t give a damn.”

          • dannybhoy

            ‘It can always be worst’
            Hold on to that thought.
            It has stopped many a desperate man from jumping..

            Failing to realize I was marrying a woman who likes Wagner was a significant oversight in my pre-marriage wife vetting process.
            The big wig and the smell of rotting vegetable glue were certain ‘give always’ Carl..
            Mind you I seem to remember reading that there’s a strong streak of fatalism in the Nordic makeup.
            Could explain your predicament.

  • not a machine

    Enjoyable Mrs Proudie as ever “six impossible things before breakfast, steps for a progressive future” I fell of my thread bare chair! My only comment to the post is why did God create the sexes? I mean there is an order, it’s not genderless, and those sexes are part of God’s working. It just looks like they have taken “God is a spirit” an arrived at, no need to consider the physical differences.
    Not re post :our eu chums seem to be playing out of tune or something we can’t feel happy with, it’s a bit late on to have to deal with this, but we can handle it, I am minded we started out with an approach to do our own thing, not to leave scars, the EU if they don’t manage this well will cause a problem for themselves. If they believe that making the 6th biggest economy a wounded lesser vessel, to appear all wunderbar, it won’t work like that, come March 2019 the EU will be having to tell its people if things could have been better if they had not played so poorly with our good approach.

  • Redrose82

    With apologies to Alan Sherman.

    Hello mudder,. auntie, fadder.
    Here we are in Scandalavia..
    Where the girls don’t dare go out night
    And the church insists that Jesus was transvestite

    • dannybhoy

      Good old Alan Sherman..

    • not a machine

      In camp europhysco drama.

  • layreader

    Demonstrates that ‘he who pays the piper, calls the tune.’ These Nordic churches, wealthy and partly state-funded, can obviously not remain independent of, or even opposed to, the hand that feeds them.
    At least, in the C of E, we can be independent both in finance and doctrine, although I’m starting to wonder…

    • not a machine

      That’s a good point, about the way its funded, do priests and become beaurocrats.

      • Anton

        Civil servants.

    • David

      As a committed Anglican, a Lay Minister and a conservative evangelical I have become convinced that the only way that the C of E could have retained independence from the ever more secular state, in its doctrine and practice, is to have become disestablished. However after the last AofC and now Welby I fear it is already too late.
      The C of E has chosen appeasement over a defence of Biblical truth. Within a decade at most it will be like the decaying US Episcopalians. The faith will survive of course, as God promises us that a remnant will stand. These will be found within the GAFCON and AmiE churches, Reform which is more or less quasi-independent anyway and the few Biblical churches like my own which are fortunate to have an excellent conservative evangelical vicar.

      • IanCad

        Sorry to hear of your troubles David. Good to have you back.

        • David

          Thank you Ian.

        • dannybhoy

          Never ‘eard of you ‘avin’ troubles gov, but likewise, good to see you back David.

  • The Snail

    The feminazi seem to be objecting that God is called He and would prefer that God is called She. They are not making much fuss about Satan being called He, nor do they seem to be wanting Satan to be called She. Is there a moral here?

    • Chefofsinners

      I think there is amoral here.

  • IanCad

    You must know that you are not alone Mrs. P. The public may well be a great beast, and in that form is concerned with little more than food, wealth, warmth and entertainment. There is though, a fragile connection with natural justice – the working of the Holy Spirit shall we say? It will strengthen in proportion to the evils visited on our children by the pervert brigade and their acolytes.
    Those lampposts and the tar and feathers should be presented at front and centre to serve as a curb to those who assay to betray our young and distort the laws of nature.

    • Mrs Proudie of Barchester

      The ‘pubic’? An unfortunate slippage methinks…

      • IanCad

        Edited!!! The public is obsessed with all things pubic. Maybe I’ve caught it.

        • A somewhat crabby remark.

          • James M

            Now, now…

        • Manfarang

          pulbic! Try again.

          • IanCad

            Oh Dear!! Multitasking again. Typing while taking a nap.

          • Ray Sunshine

            “The church can eat and sleep at once” — T.S. Eliot

  • IanCad

    Over here it would be described as “Mousy Brown.”

  • Anton

    The European Court of Justice shall have no jurisdiction in this realm of England.

  • Mrs Proudie of Barchester

    I think the doctrine of the Church of Sweden could be best termed ‘Smorgesbordianism’

    • IanCad

      It’s smells as bad as lutfisk.

      • Anton

        Not tried that, but I have had hákarl.

    • Ray Sunshine

      A cafeteria Lutheranism with a dash of Swedenborg?

      • Manfarang

        A New Church.

    • Father David

      Mrs. P, you are the original DANCING QUEEN and a first class SUPER TROUPER. A great shame that the Swedes have decided to interchange ABBA with MAMA MIA in their liturgy.

    • Anton

      Swedenborgian?

      • Mrs Proudie of Barchester

        No dear Anton, Smoregesbordianism…loaves and fishes as an open sandwich

  • Today we celebrate the wonderful Solemnity of Our Lord Jesus Christ, King of the Universe. This was established by Pope Pius XI in 1925 as an antidote to secularism, a way of life which leaves God out of man’s thinking and living and organises his life as if God did not exist.

    The feast proclaims Christ’s royalty over individuals, families, society, governments, and nations. Christ is God, the Creator of the universe and hence wields a supreme power over all things. Christ is our Redeemer, He purchased us by His precious Blood, and made us His property and possession. Christ is Head of the Church. God bestowed upon Christ the nations of the world as His special possession and dominion.

    Christ’s Kingdom is: supreme, extending not only to all people but also to their princes and kings; it is universal, extending to all nations and to all places; it is eternal; and it is spiritual, not of this world.

    • not a machine

      I wonder if he could see in 1925 what could happen in 1933.

    • Manfarang

      And today (27/11/17) we will celebrate the Pope’s visit to Burma.

  • David

    There is an article on Gatestone Institute describing the work of the Archbishop of Sweden’s Church. Basically she is busy erasing 2000 years of our understanding of the Three Persons of the Holy Trinity, especially the holy status, nature and role of Christ to conform to Islam. Appeasement of course never works. Moroever God will not be mocked. The leadership of Sweden is writing its own death warrant. The Archbishop is a wicked woman condemned by her own terrible actions.

    • Ray Sunshine

      Lower down this thread the Inspector General has used the expression, “The woman whom some call the bishop of Gloucester”. In the Swedish connection it would be advisable to follow the Inspector’s lead, describing the Lutheran prelatess as “The woman whom some call the bishop of Stockholm.”

      • Chefofsinners

        Or perhaps ‘The artist formerly known as Prince of Darkness.’

        • betteroffoutofit

          Not a “Princess” then? errr … “Ducky.”

  • Anton

    Because the Republic of Ireland is unlikely to compromise on a soft border and because the DUP aren’t going to compromise on Northern Ireland being the same as the rest of the UK, a rockhard Brexit seems inevitable.

    I had worries that Theresa May would crumble but this makes it impossible. Good news all round !

    • David

      I hope you are right.
      However looking at just how soft and wobbly T. May’s team is at present in relation to the EU’s demands, we are a thousand miles away from anything “rock hard” as a Brexit. However if the very survival of the PM’s government depends upon retraining the supply and confidence agreement with the DUP, then the political reality could well swing it the way you suggest. As I say, I certainly hope your political punditry is correct.

  • CliveM

    The Swedish Lutheran Church seems like mush, are other denominations standing out against this?

    • Chefofsinners

      They need a kick up the Volvo.

      • The Voulez-Vous. surely.

      • CliveM

        Painful

  • Manfarang
    • carl jacobs

      Would he be more baffled by Christians backing Hillary?

    • The whole interview with Welby on Peston On Sunday was rather pathetic. He knew noooooooothing!
      One got the impression he couldn’t be bothered to face the backlash if he really said what he thought so he kept a diplomatic silence by batting the ball back and waffling.
      And not a single question from Peston about Welby’s Russia trip earlier this week either, in fact not a squeak from MSM except from The Economist about the trip and what was said.

      It’s embarrassing the Church was forging friendship on 20th 21st and 22 Nov 2017 and Mrs Dismay goes and undoes it by slagging Russia off on the 24th Nov 2017.
      Do these institutions not talk to each other I wonder?

  • Father David

    Thinking of things Nordic and Scandinavian there’s an interesting comment on Martyn Percy’s Twitter about “Cuddesdon. The ‘Carlsberg’ of the C of E Theological Colleges and Probably the Best in the World”
    It is true that Cuddesdon has produced many bishops in the past (how many in more recent times?) not least among its Principals, many of whom go onto join the episcopate. The present incumbent Humphrey Southern has reversed that trend by being a bishop (Repton) before becoming Principal.
    From bygone days we find
    John Garton (Plymouth)
    David Wilcox (Dorking)
    Robert Runcie (St Albans & Canterbury)
    Edward Knapp-Fisher (Pretoria
    Kenneth Riches (Lincoln)
    Eric Graham (Brechin)
    James Seaton (Wakefield)
    and Cuddesdon even produced a saint!
    Saintly Bishop Edward King of Lincoln.
    I can only think of three Anglican saints the Church of England has produced since the time of Bishop King – George Bell (Chichester), Michael Ramsey (Durham, York & Canterbury) and Canon Bill Vanstone (who coincidentally happened to be one of the team of selectors at my ACCM Selection Conference in Chester, many years ago). Others may be able to think of more?

    • James M

      C. S. Lewis.

      And you forgot bishop Janani Luwum, and also, the earlier Anglican Martyrs of Uganda – bishop James Hannington and Companions.

      Lewis: 1
      Luwum (under Idi Amin): 1
      Hannington (in 1885, 25 (?) years before death of Edward King): 1
      The other Anglican martyrs (1885/6): 23 (?)

      26 in all, I think.

      There is sure to be a lot of holiness in the C of E if one only knows where to look. Martyrs are easier to remember than most.

  • James M

    Jesus Christ is Lord and Messiah and King. The Father has constituted Him to be these things and to exercise this Authority. And of His Kingdom there shall be no end.

    Sorry, Sweden; you are the weakest link.