How will the Robinson Affair change Northern Ireland?

William

SEX HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IT

A 59-year-old having sex with a 19-year-old cuses mirth but it's not a scandal.

The scandal is corruption at the centre of Government.

Susie
Carryduff

NOTHING.

Peter Robinson should clearly stay in his Job as he has done nothing wrong, he is a clear victim of circumstances created by others.

John Dynes: Yet Peter Robinson has done wrong, by not reporting his MP/MLA wife's misdemeanours promptly upon learning of them. If it's not breaking the letter of the law, it is nevertheless immoral and corrupt behaviour.
My sympathy for Mrs Robinson extends only to the point that none of her entourage restrained her sooner, if she has been as ill as she apparently is. Not only have Mrs Robinson's remarks on homosexuals set back human rights and equality for LGBT people in NI, but also her hugely inappropriate affair and backhand deals now undermine the credibility of the whole Assembly.
And in the meantime, Radio Éireann plays "And here's to you, Mrs Robinson" for a laugh.

A married 59 year woman having sex with a 19 year old man is mirth? last time i checked it's adultery and fornication... which to me isnt a laughing matter. Peter Robinson has been compromised and must go...the assembly was grounded on evil by having unrepentant terrorists in government and now we have finacial scandal at the top, maybe tomorrow when mcconnell is there you could ask him about his fincalial misdealings lest he be a hypocrite and maybe he could be asked why he is there when Iris was a member of the independent methodist church rather than whitewell??? At least Rev. McIllveen has publically condemned adultery but what about the others on the panel? will they publically condemn Iris for her adultery and blatant disregard for God's law??

It is Iris Robinson that should resign "not" Peter, the facts are, that Peter Robinson did NOT take any money nor did he get involved nor was the money for the DUP or for his wife.

The money was for "that person" who started the business and to say that Peter should have reported it, is total rubbish, if the money had went through his bank account and he gave the money to that "wee boy" on behalf of his wife, then and only then would he be in breach of any rules concerning "not reporting" that silly transaction.

Peter Robinson needs the prayers of God's chosen people at this time, as he is being attack from the agents of HELL.

Of course Iris had to resign, she has committed at least one illegal act by failing to declare donations and income.
I'm afraid Peter has to resign as well - he is the Leader of the party and clearly he knew of at least some of Iris's illegal behaviour and did nothing - he failed in his duty to the public!
Being an accessory after the fact is just as illegal as being an accessary to the fact!!!
He was also party to, if not the main instigator, in what was clearly an attempt to cover up what had happened - something which, thanks to good investigative journalism, was exposed by the BBC Spotlight team.

Hopefully this sad and pathetic affair will change Northern Ireland for the better - constant viligance is required to ensure our elected representatives are actually worthy of the trust placed in them.

John

"he is being attack from the agents of HELL."

Should I call Ghost Busters?


Where's Heliopolitan when you need him?

People still don't get it, peter or iris did not receive any donations for themselves or for the party, it was the "wee boy" that got the money.

Peter robinson IS a victim of circumstances and other parties took advantage of the situation, by using every dirty trick from the devils book of slander upon the child of God.

Iris should resign because of the situation with the castlereagh council, with regards to the "wee boy".

Peter Robinson has no case to answer and hopefully at the end of next week, he can start to get his life back on track with God's help.

Firstly to emphasize the Kirk is no relation of mine (that I know of anyway). Secondly, people are making a huge deal out of getting money from property developers to invest in a business - it's hardly a big deal. Ok, she should have declared the interest but, big deal. When you're having an affair those things are the least of your lies. Blaming Peter Robinson for not advertisig his wife was having an affair is a bit ridiculous. He's at the good end of the spectrum and it would be a disgace if he had to resign over this.

Apparently he thought Iris had developed a deeper interest in the Presbyterian Church - she kept disappearing for Kirk Sessions.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Iris HAS TO GO NOW. Enough said.

Peter Robinson CAN NOT BE ALLOWED TO SET UP HIS OWN investigation from within the Office of the First Minister. This is uncacceptable because he wants a quick vindication and then back to bussiness as usual. NO WAY.
There has to be a PROPER SCRUTINY in the interests of justice ALL ROUND.

The Robinson empire of influence and palm greasing hs to be stopped not sweep under the carpet.

NI needs open and accountable qand NON SECTARIAN government where people were willing to turn a blind eye to the most outragous behaviour just to keep the other lot out. DUP leadership has always played the sectarian game - vote for us to keep Nationalists OUT - no matter how we behave - Come on - just look at the history of self interest ........ Decent DUP folks at grass roots deserve better - We need honesty in government - not sleeze nor questionable finances.

GERRY47, your right! about the sectarian goverment, that includes sinn fein and every other party that has a certain amount of it behind closed doors and hidden within the mind.

So to single out the DUP as the only party in the system that is to blame for everything is a load of rubbish.

ps... Iam a non-DUP voter or even supporter, just stating obvious.

God's Law re adultery?
Per Matthew, to look with lust in the heart, is sufficient.
Perhaps even ChristianCalvinist is a sinner.

Actually, rochcarlie, you are correct; that is what Christians are supposed to believe.

I would really hope this whole sad saga unfolding will bring about a whopping dose of *humility* to certain sections of the evangelical christian community in Northern Ireland.

So often these sections have to sought to define ourselves by what they "detest" ie homosexuality rather than by self sacrificing love which is the spirit of the New Testament!

I am suprised that there has not been closer media attention paid to what would appear to me to be a major influence on Iris Robinson's behaviour and attitude.

Her church Whitewell Metropolitan Tabernacle Belfast shares her arrogant views on homosexuals and certainly would appear as suggested by the WW threads would not appear not to particularly worry about financial transparency!!

I mean did ANY reporters ask the Robinsons WHY they are members of a church that teaches british israelism, alledgedly it keeps its accounts and the identity of its trustees a secret and just look at the WW will and testament threads or google for the whole whitewell Romainian orphanage saga!!!

Mark,

For as long as evangelical Christians (I am one) think of their 'faith', their ability to believe, their 'repentance' in conditional terms i.e. as those things by which they are accepted by God, our community will never learn humility.

I cannot think about this whole sorry saga without returning in my mind again and again to Romans 2 - it has many messages, not just for the principals involved, but for each and every one of us.

I think it almost goes without saying that Ireland (North and South) faces the most important economic, social and political crossroads in living memory.

I agree with John Dynes in No. 12: "So to single out the DUP as the only party in the system that is to blame for everything is a load of rubbish".

The current scandals around the Robinsons should only be understood in the context of Gerry Adams's long silence over child abuse in his family, which he now confesses to having known about. This in turn should not be seperated from the widespread cover-up of child abuse in the Catholic church in Ireland, and the lack of action by Gardaí and other state authorities in the Republic over many years.

The wrongdoings in question are different in each of these cases, but all involve concealing the truth and failing to act for the vulnerable in order to protect people (including the alleged perpetrators) in positions of power. Seeing these events unfold not only raises questions about the integrity of the individuals directly complicit in the cases, but also of the institutions they represent. Yet most importantly, it raises questions about the social and political structures that supported them, which then puts all of us in the frame, and becomes an imperative to reassess our values.

McC

To be clear - he's no relation

AND

he's not you (-;

You know this whole affair takes me back to one of my first posts on W&T

In June 2008, in 'Can you "love the sinner and hate the sin"?' I wrote -

"It does not matter one iota whether or not Homosexuality is "disgusting" to someone's taste. After all some people may find the idea of a love affair with Mrs Robinson as an unattractive proposition. But I don't forsee anyone inferring that there is a moral objection to love affairs with Mrs Robinson - at the very least Mr Robinson would be entitled to one. The elderly are entitled to passionate embraces, and eveything that follows thereafter. I just don't want be around at the time."

Do you think Iris read - " I don't forsee anyone inferring that there is a moral objection to love affairs with Mrs Robinson"? Is this whole calamity my fault?!

G Veale

Can I also plead with journalists to refrain from calling Mrs Robinson "sexy".
Gail Walker wrote a piece in the BT, in which she asks us to imagine Mrs Robinson removing a stocking a la Anne Bancroft in the poster for the graduate.

If ever a 'Toevah' was needed.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

For all of my 'run ins' with Brian in the past, I'd like to read what he has to say. This moderation thing really is quite a pain. Brian is entitled to his point of view.

Brian,

You would consider reposting in a manner which might be found to be more acceptable to the moderators?

It appears that David Mc Ilveen & Ron Johnstone ( FPC Moderator ) are not both singing from the same hymn sheet
Mr Johnstone says that David Mc Ilveen is NOT speaking on behalf of the Free Presbyterian Church

Mr. Crawley:

The Robinson affair in Northern Ireland--will have some short-term
difficulites in the region of affairs of running government; But, it will be overcome quickly.

~Dennis Junior~

Am I the only person that keeps thinking of an episode of dinner ladies.....you know the one where Bren's mother (played magnificantly by Julie Walters) turns up at the factory with her 16 year old "toyboy" Clint. For some reason I can't get it out of my head everytime I hear the news.

Still, if it hastens the day when politics in Northern Ireland are real politics and not just a tribal head every 5 years or so then maybe it's not a bad thing. I'd love to be able to vote for a left of centre party that's neither nationalist or republican. In my opinion, now would be a good time for the labour party to orgaise in NI, as the Conservatives have done. They really could capitalise on the dissilusionment that many voters are probably feeling about local politics.

This moderation thing really is quite a pain.

Indeed Peter.

It's a bit pedantic and way over the top. Can William not make it a bit more user friendly ?

???....Then let me be the first;

[Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]

And here's to you Anne Bancroft

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hsdvhJTqLak

Here's the studio's original trailer

The Song "Here's to you Mrs. Robinson" in its original form sung by Simon And Garfunkel and the Trailer to the movie the Graduate can be seen on YouTube. The plot of the movie fits this scandal to a tee. Even the name is the same. Too bad BBC didn't see fit to publish links to them. Both won huge accolades and awards in the United States when they first appeared. Grow up BBC.

Definitely not me - Kirk spells it with a B like a good Protestant - like my great grandfather Barney did before he converted.

The reason I was moderated is that I called someone a "total sleaze".

Here's an inferior knockoff of the song by S&G wanabees. Maybe copyright infringement was the issue on the previous link. The original was better.

[Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]

Here's the movie's web site;

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0061722/

For some reason BBC censors do not want you to hear this song, at least not from a link on this blog site. Now I wonder why. Something about it must hit them where they can't take it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mrs._Robinson

Once the £ and the $ devalue there will be no need worry who is first minister.
It will be ration packs for all of us.
Check out jim rodgers and gerald celente on you tube if you don't believe me.

Once people start starving it will change the social and politcal status here forever.
Mark my words a second money crash is coming very soon - and it will dwarf the first one.
Who cares about silly little stories and nit picking political vultures it is time for unity and a return Godly values - or we will perish.


J-

How presumptive of Mr Simpson to comment in his report today that the public as well as the media are obsessed with the Robinson affair. I object and can assure you that the public are obsessed with absolutely nothing to do with politics or politicians. That is the domain of you sensation builders. How you love to dwell on the options real or make belief that might develop from the rather ordinary situation that has befallen the First Minister and his wife. You may well create amunition for the worst of situations to develop but do please leave the public out of this. We are far too busy trying to organise our lives and our budgets in an economy allowed to collapse at the hand of politicians with their noses so deep in the expenses trough that they, while the media remained silent, failed miserably to honour their duty to the nation by taking timely action. Now we and our descendants are all in debt big time.

Can someone point out the difference between Peter and petermorrow? (-:

Graham

There's no morrow for Peter

Susie
Carryduff

Christian Calvinist, the church that Iris Robinson asked the money to be directed to was not an Independent Methodist church. The church concerned was Dundonald Free Methodist Church.

How presumptive of Mr Simpson to comment in his report today that the public as well as the media are obsessed with the Robinson affair. I object and can assure you that the public are obsessed with absolutely nothing to do with politics or politicians.

The sad thing in all of this of course, is that a woman with a public profile attempted to take her own life.That should give us all cause for concern.

However, had she had the affair with someone nearer her own age, I don't think people (or the press) would have been as obsessed with the story. She didn't. It was a 19 year old teenager. This is the type of thing you hear about (and balk at) on the Jeremy Kyle or Trisha Goddard shows on daytime TV. For an ordinary member of the puplic to do this sort of thing would be unthinkable. For someone in the public eye to do it makes it truly bizarre (even putting aside her outbursts).

Time will tell how recent events involving Peter and Iris Robinson will pan out politically, but perhaps a response is needed to the comments that have been made about them as evangelical Christians - since there seems to be a queue of people only too willing to 'cast the first stone'.

The Bible teaches that we all have a sinful nature, and Christian beievers do sin - sometimes in a very public and shameful way. It is also apparent that God is more willing to forgive than people are - sometime even more willing than Christian people.

In particular, Iris' moral failure has been seized upon with glee by the 'gay' community, because of her previous remarks about homosexuality. But it is worth remembering that homosexual behaviour was wrong before that day on the Nolan show, and remains morally wrong today.

The truth of the Christian Gospel still stands true - forgiveness and a changed life is available to every sinner who repents and trusts in Jesus Christ. To such He then would say: 'Go and sin no more.' (John 8v11)

"This is the type of thing you hear about (and balk at) on the Jeremy Kyle or Trisha Goddard shows on daytime TV."

An apposite comment! Well said that man who isn't Peter Klaver or Peter Morrow.

"The church concerned was Dundonald Free Methodist Church."

As I understand it they never received a penny, and were unaware that £25000 pounds was about to be dropped anonynously into their coffers. If that is the case, I wish the media would clarify it.

Pastor Phillip

I agree with your assertions. However Evangelicals are easily manipulated as we read "do not judge" and "love your enemy" as "refuse to see, or ignore, wrongdoing in that person."

In fact the commands mean - see the wrongdoing, acknowledge it, and love the person in any case.
The commands do not constitute a liscence for gullibility. Sad to say, the only thing that surprises me is the age of Mrs Robinson's lover. A lot of evangelicals seen this coming.

GV

Can't help feeling this is a fine reflection on the weird world of post-Agreement politics.

Peter Robinson is under fire for failing to provide information on his wife's failure to declare an interest in a 50,000 loan while his Deputy smiles for the cameras despite having been a self-confessed member of an organisation responsible for multi million pound extortion and smuggling rackets and bank robberies.

Sack the lot of them - bring back direct rule.

Will somebody please explain the difference of the Free and Ind Methodist Churchs?

Pastorphillip (41) Of course Mrs Robinson's moral failure has been noted by the gay community, because her affair has exposed her hypocrisy, which the "Spotlight" programme last week very aptly demonstrated. I am normally wary of blaming a woman for adultery, yet Iris Robinson held the balance of power in her dealings with Kirk McCambley on many levels and she abused them. She condemned one act which you and she both view as a sexual sin, and yet she carries out another. Mrs Robinson's hypocrisy gives little credibility to your assertion of any "truth" to your interpretation of the Christian Gospel or any "sinfulness" of homosexuality.

Peter (40): It is unfortunate when anyone tries to take his or her own life, yet it must be noted Mrs Robinson chose to take on not only one stressful full-time job (as an MP), but take on another (as an MLA) and stay on the local council. It would be a miracle for that to have no effect on someone's mental health.

I think it is neither in the individual's or the voters' interest that people should be allowed to serve more than one tier of government. This goes for Scotland, Wales and England too.

All have sinned...true true...even I...but i'm not an elected representative, Christians are to rebuke evil publically not ignore it...and are disassociate with evil and seperate unto the gospel...its shocking to see so many so called christians choosing to become apologists for adultery and lying rather than standing up for the gospel...what is wrong is wrong

No thread on the Southern Blasphemy law?

Odd.

I'm not sure I know what to say anymore. A few comments back I tried to highlight the danger of my Christian community speaking of 'faith' and 'repentance' in conditional terms, terms by which we grant ourselves the right to point towards others and say, 'that I am not', 'I'm better than that'.

It was said to me just the other day that we Protestant people, and what was meant was, 'the evangelical church community', have a problem with judgementalism. I found it difficult to disagree.

Over the holiday period Radio Ulster broadcast a most wonderful programme, 'The Return Room', an account of WR Rodgers' childhood in Belfast, and both of these reminded me of his poetry. He once wrote that we could "detect sin in sinfonia." I find it difficult to disagree.

It seems that our 'good news' has become, 'Look at all those dreadful sinners, if only they would repent like me, then God would love them.' And if that is what our 'gospel' has become I want no part of it.

Luther on public rebuke:
All of this refers to secret sins. But where the sin is so public that
the judge and everyone else are aware of it, you can without sin
shun and avoid those who have brought disgrace upon them-
selves, and you may also testify publicly against them. For when
something is exposed to the light of day, there can be no question
of slander or injustice or false witness. For example, we now cen-
sure the pope and his teaching, which is publicly set forth in books
and shouted throughout the world. Where the sin is public, appro-
priate public punishment should follow so that everyone may
know how to guard against it (284).

Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear. 1 Timothy 5:20

Now that is the book of galatians and a quote from Luther...so why does petermorrow act as if the public rebuke of sin is extrascriptural and modern invention?

@ graham veale:

"No thread on the Southern Blasphemy law?" Yes the omission does seem odd.

The subject of Blasphemy is the question this week @ GU, Cif:
"What is blasphemy today?"
https://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jan/11/religion-blasphemy-question

The topic really should be discussed here though.

re: 60 year old having sex with a 19 year old person - that is none of anyone's business other than for the parties involved. Although the thought of any gender combination is somewhat creepy.

If the politicians have committed fraud then that is a matter for public discussion and for the courts.

Mr. Crawley, I don't know how you cope doing that job. Frankly it must take nerves of steel to listen to panel members that say such utter gibberish. The comments by clerics this week were too much. Religion is not the source of morality. The rules from Iron Age tribal science fiction stories do not deserve the light of day today.

I had no idea about the infection of religious belief in Ireland. What a particularly crazy thing that is. Is the whole world Taliban then except for my country, Canada, the true north strong and free?

Man I feel darn lucky that my grandparents left Europe and struggled in the new world to give their offspring the gift of freedom.

Marcus - are you partnered (or open to polyamory)? Looks like you've a soul-mate...

Interesting, isn't it, how Luther got from, "rebuke publicly", to "shun and avoid"; I wonder what he had in mind, a law requiring 'sinners' to cry, "Unclean! Unclean!" as they went about their business, maybe he could have provided free bells for them to ring.

Who said anything about ignoring sin? I was suggesting that our community can misuse 'faith' and 'repentance'.

I note Paul was writing to churches, you know, us, in relation to how we might deal with unethical behaviour within our community, things like calling our brother a fool; according to Jesus that puts me in danger of Hell. Actually, let me get this right, the KJV, says “Hell fire”. It also says that I should be “perfect, even as my Father which is in heaven is perfect.”

Perfect? Mmmmm, where's that bell, seems I need to get in a bit of ringing practice.

"Moderation is carried out by a separate, specialist unit and that unit oversees moderation across all BBC news blogs."

Outsourced to KGB agents who used to work in the CCCP Censor Bureau at Radio Moscow but were out of work from December 1991 until they learned English. Looks like they've learned a few tricks at BBC and become even tougher since the good old days.

Darragh MacIntyre's questions towards the end of his Panorama programme (an updated version of last week's Spotlight) were spot on, in my view. I admire the courage and dignity of Dr Selwyn Black in standing up for the truth.

So Peter Robinson has stood down (for now at least) and Arlene Foster is the interim First Minister, apparently to the "surprise" of Sinn Fein (BBC). Over the weekend, mostly anonymous DUP insiders have been more than happy to share titbits with the press about their run-ins with the "rude" and "unpleasant" Iris, and express their lack of sympathy for their leader Mr Robinson (Irish Independent). This appears to contradict the outward support shown for Mr Robinson today. Newspapers in NI report rumours of Mrs Robinson's affair being conducted in the Robinsons' marital bed (reported in the Guardian), turning the story into a tacky sub-Jackie-Collins melodrama.

William Crawley asks how will the Robinson affair change Northern Ireland. It has changed Northern Ireland already: the moral high ground of the evangelical Christian leaders who held up the Robinsons as one of their own and form the bedrock of the DUP's support haas been severely shaken. The current scandals have cost Iris Robinson her health and possily ruined the political aspirations of her First Minister husband for good. As I wrote above (19) the current scandal conincides to the exposures of wrongdoing covered up both in Gerry Adams's family (and the movement he leads) and the Catholic Church. It subsequently calls into question the authority of some of those institutions which have formed the essence of the political agenda in Northern Ireland to date. As Peter writes above (27), these scandals might just hasten the day to a new politics in the province.

Luther probbably just had the scriptural principle of seperation and avoiding evil persons as the Word of God commands...do you have a problem with scripture?
I'm amazed that you feel the need to attempt a character assination on Martin Luther because of his love for scripture and keeping God's law...

I saw you'll do anything to ignore God's command to publically rebuke evil..or in this case an "abomination" as God calls it...prove me wrong...

re: the politicians - Those who profess public piety IMO circus hucksters. They do it because that's what their audience wants to see.

From a Science Daily report:

"Why Powerful People -- Many of Whom Take a Moral High Ground -- Don't Practice What They Preach"

Results: "In all cases, those assigned to high-power roles showed significant moral hypocrisy by more strictly judging others for speeding, dodging taxes and keeping a stolen bike, while finding it more acceptable to engage in these behaviors themselves."

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091229105906.htm

@ William Crawley - I think you should devote a whole show and blog entry to the Blasphemy question.

ChristianCalvinist

Hi, and thank you for the conversation.

I'm not ignoring the public rebuking of sin at all. It's just, you see, that I've got to the stage where I'd prefer to identify with those who are often, and publicly, called 'sinners'. If that leaves me shunned and avoided by those who call themselves Christian, well, that's a pity; but I really hope you don't misunderstand my point.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

LucyQ (58):

An interesting article, but I do think it is probably a mistake to argue that politics can ever be completely sincere and without hypocrisy. It (hypocrisy) seems to be an inherent 'flaw' of civilisation. So the search for a totally authentic politics is probably a wild goose chase (Hitler claimed precisely this, that the Nazis were more 'sincere' and authentic' than the other German parties).

In Northern Ireland Protestant culture, many evangelical Christians supposed that in the DUP they had such a party: a pure, secular counterpart to the Free Presbys, cleansed of the lies, deceptions, corruptions and hypocrisies of the other local parties, especially on the 'other' side. In this way they could save Ulster not only from Dublin rule but also from the sins of the flesh as well as from 'murderous' abortion and 'abominable' gay sex.

The Robinson affair has blown this myth out of the water and therefore it will hopefully have a beneficial secularising effect on Ulster's Protestant culture (whether NI's 'religious culture' in William's post refers to a culture that is predominantly religious or merely that part of NI's culture which is religious is an interesting point).

The effect on NI's public morality is another matter. Olli (44) is right: what Iris did or what Peter allegedly failed to do is tame compared to the enormity of the offences committed by Peter's Deputy or by the organisation to which he belonged, yet he remains in situ and his party stands to gain enormously from the DUP's troubles.

Darn - you woult think I was trying to me moderated. I'd a small quote from Canadian national anthem in French. Forgot the BBC is so jingoistic you're not allowed to use anything but English.

The moderators are scared. I used a phrase on another BBC blog that they could not possibly know the meaning of. Even 99.9% of American moderators wouldn't know the meaning of it. It was "referred to the moderators" probably on gut feel alone. The phrase was anything but flattering but it wasn't actually as bad as it sounds. It was directed specifically at someone who would know the meaning of it, I'm certain of that, someone from a very select group of people and no it has nothing to do with race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, nationality or anything like that. It will be interesting to see how they handle it. Without knowing the meaning, how could they possibly decide if it broke the rules or not?

It is sad to see that our country is being governed by people obsessed by the Church. In my experience people who profess to be "Christian", telling me all the time that they are "Christian" are the least likely persons to be trustworthy. Once again Iris Robinson has proved this to be true.
Peter Robinson should have declared the £50K to the Parliamentary authorities as soon as he found out about it. He did not do so. In my opinion he should do the right thing and stand aside to look after his wife and the rest of his family. He has done Northern Ireland no favours in the last 6 months by concealing all of this. How could he concentrate on the affairs of state when all this was going on in his head.
When is this country going to get poititians who work for the Electorate and not themselves?

Brian

Good to hear from you again. I hope all is well. You've raised an important point. Politics involves compromise - even the Nazi's had to make compromises with the conservatives in the German military and capitalists in industry. Stalin had to give some power back to the miltary to defeat Hitler.
If poiliticians in Totalitarian societies need to compromise, then how much more in democracies? Steve Bruce has pointed out that the Religious Right was doomed to failure. To succeed it needed to make political alliances. But you don't build a City on the Hill by getting into bed with the "Gubernator".
The Religious Right can at best hope to be Kingmaker in US politics (and even then, it can only energise and organise sub-urban white voters.) It can never hope to be King. Too many evangelicals and fundamentalists become disillusioned by the compromises made by the Bush Jrs and the Reagans.
The same follows in NI. Disillusionment is a necessary outcome of faith based political movements. It is not surprising to find Evangelical language skillfully manipulated by a political movement. It's even less surprising to find out that Evangelicals have been duped.

Actually this whole affair shows that we need to rethink Ian Paisley's remarkable achievement - as much as I despise what he achieved. To maintain a faith based movement over several decades and to take it into political power is astonishing. But of course his downfall once he was in power was inevitable. Compromise kills his brand of politics.

GV

On Religious Language

I think that Peter Robinson made a mistake in using it. Read the statement https://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/8444422.stm

"Iris, racked by guilt and sorrow, had attempted to take her own life and would certainly have been less likely to recover if I had left.
Over time and on calmer reflection, I set her inappropriate behaviour" against 40 years of bringing up our children - often alone."

That's language everyone can relate to. Everyone prefers psychological to religious explanations (*especially* in the Evangelical Church. Witness the rise of Christian Counselling, or "Rogers for the Righteous.")

"I love my wife. I have always been faithful to her. In a spirit of humility and repentance, Iris sought my forgiveness, she took responsibility upon herself alone for her actions and I have forgiven her."

Now we're using the language of salvation, and it has put Mr Robinson in the place usually taken by God! (This contradicts what he has said before, where he acknowledged that he put pressures on his marriage, and where he sounded human and accessible.) He immediately mentions God's forgiveness. But forgiveness in the Evangelical world would mean repentance, publically walking away from the life that has led you into wrongdoing. Mrs Robinson did not do this.

Now Evangelicals are already walking away from the DUP (and it mainly attracted Fundamentalist Evangelicals. UCCF types tended to take pride in voting Alliance!) It's interesting that David McIlveen's comments on Mr Robinson (according to the Newsletter) caused discomfort in Free Presbyterian circles, not because he was criticising Peter Robinson, but beacuse the Free Presbyterian Church wants to distance itself from the DUP.

Perhaps the DUP will realise that the Evangelical language is not helping, and that a more secular expression of forgiveness would have gained more sympathy. And maybe this is an opportunity for Mr Dodds, Mrs Foster and Mr Weir to redefine their party.

GV

Hi Graham:

I'm fine. It's just that I have other things to do and there are many religious topics which I find tedious.

You say that politics involves compromise. Yes, but so does life itself in society. None us us can have everything we want.

I should also make it clear that hypocrisy is not confined to 'politics', narrowly defined. It too seems to be a feature of life in general. The Jesus of the Gospels was hypocritical. He preached 'love your enemies' and 'turn the other cheek', but he was anything but loving towards the Scribes and Phariseees and indeed to anyone who refused to accept him for what he claimed to be. On the contrary, he condemned them to Hell (not very loving or cheek-turning).

La Rouchefoucauld often hit the nail on the head:

"If we had no faults we should not take so much pleasure in noticing them in others".

"We may give advice, but we can never prompt behaviour".

"Good advice is something a man gives when he is too old to set a bad example".

"Hypocrisy is the homage which vice pays to virtue".

Hehe... Nice!

Definitive there is a lucky people in the world. I completed a bachelor's degree in engineering, a Phd in Economics and I am about finishing a master's degree in Project Management. However, I have a poor job and not money.

I should have spent my time looking for a woman as Mrs. Robinson rather than waste my time in the universities.....

For my youngers, please follow the way of this 19 year old brilliant boy... do not waste your time like me....

Nevertheless, if Mrs Robinson or other fantastic lady like her needs help, please do not hesitate on contact me.....

[Personal details removed by Moderator]

Brian

The problem in evangelicalism is that we have a strong anti-intellectualist streak. Now there's something to be said for that- a sort of working class: "The Bible's for the ordinary person and not your educated classes!"
But what was supposed to be an appeal for all Christians to have the right to study has become "no-one needs to study. Truths just pop into your head after you read the Bible".
What that leads to is a simplistic reading of Jesus' ethics. And that leads to an inability to judge groups that appropriate evangelical teaching.
Like you say, life is complex. One or two simple rules about love and forgiveness are not enough to guide us through every moral problem. Difficulties arise when we try to reduce *any* thinker's claims to one or two rules. Jesus said substantially more than "love your enemy". If you're claiming an inconsistency between his teachings on love and eternal justice, then you've made a substantial point. The tension is reconciled by viewing Jesus as (at least) an apocalyptic prophet, rather than a moral teacher. This, of course, makes him much more offensive. But I believe that the Gospels and Epistles portray an offensive character.
That said I'm not sure that Jesus condemned opponents to Hell. It's more that they condemned themselves. As for loving one's enemies, problems arise if we interpret that as meaning "ignore their faults". It's rather a case of wanting reconciliation or fellowship *despite* a persons faults. It also includes giving up a demand for personal justice. "Turn the other cheek" abandons the lex talonis as the measure of justice. It does not abandon justice altogether, and it is not a license for masochism.

GV

Graham:

You say:
"I'm not sure that Jesus condemned opponents to Hell. It's more that they condemned themselves".

That's a bit like saying: "Iris Robinson didn't condemn gays; rather they condemned themselves". Are you saying that we should ignore what he is quoted as saying: "Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell? (Matthew 23:33).

The above quote implies that he believed in hell, and indeed elsewhere he describes it as a place of fiery torment, where there is 'weeping and gnashing of teeth'. Even many Christians, as well as non-believers, now maintain that Hell never existed. If hell does not exist, and never did, then the 'vipers' could not effectively be condemning themselves to a place that doesn't exist. It is Jesus who is wrongly assigning them to a place that doesn't exist. In other words, he is doing the condemning. Let's be clear about that.

Brian, hi.

Good to read your comments, it's not often we agree, but when you say, "It (hypocrisy) seems to be an inherent 'flaw' of civilisation." we are at one.

Interesting conversation with Graham. As ever with religious language there is, what shall we say, nuance! :-) And this nuance is something I can live with, however when you say, "In other words, he (Jesus) is doing the condemning. Let's be clear about that." again I'll agree; indeed this is one of the ways in which Jesus is seen to be "offensive" as in Graham saying, "This, of course, makes him much more offensive. But I believe that the Gospels and Epistles portray an offensive character."

And this is the reason I hesitate to 'publicly rebuke' as has been suggested I should. I am no man's judge; that, though, is a role Jesus took upon himself, and yes it is 'offensive' to us. And if that were not bad enough, the biblical record places him in the role of the only person who has ever been perfect. His followers hailed him as 'Messiah', or 'Christ' and one, therefore, who is in a position to judge. What they didn't expect was that this 'Messiah' would die but even the death itself is not without controversy, for through it he also dares to say he forgives us!! (I know, this whole Christianity thing just gets better and better, or is that worse and worse!)

I'm not of course expecting you, or anyone else, to like all this; there are times when I don't like it myself, I too find the story offensive. I am still though in a position where I consider it to be true.


And ChristianCalvinist, I hope that clears up and clarifies any accusations of 'character assassination', or 'problems with scripture'.

John 8
1But Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. 2At dawn he appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them. 3The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group 4and said to Jesus, "Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. 5In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?" 6They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.

But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. 7When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." 8Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.

9At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. 10Jesus straightened up and asked her, "Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?"

11"No one, sir," she said.
"Then neither do I condemn you," Jesus declared. "Go now and leave your life of sin."

theres been a lot of talk in the evangelical world about the forgiveness that mrs robinson sought and found. but the passage most people are quoting is this one above and i think if we look at what The Lord Jesus actually said. when He showed her grace and mercy there was a condition Go now and leave your life of sin." now when He forgave her this would be the act of saving grace but after an evangelical chrictian is saved the maximum must still be in place go now and leave your life of sin. all throughout the scripture this is always stated ephesians 1 says 4For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. the emphasis is on He choose us to be holy. 3It is God's will that you should be sanctified: that you should avoid sexual immorality; 4that each of you should learn to control his own body[a] in a way that is holy and honorable, 5not in passionate lust like the heathen, who do not know God thess 4 and if you note here learn to control not in passionate lust like the heathen who KNOW NOT GOD.Therefore, I urge you, brothers, in view of God's mercy, to offer your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God—this is your spiritual[a] act of worship romans 12 1We must pay more careful attention, therefore, to what we have heard, so that we do not drift away. 2For if the message spoken by angels was binding, and every violation and disobedience received its just punishment, 3how shall we escape if we ignore such a great salvation? heb 2 and for the crux of the matter listen to heb 6 4It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, 5who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age, 6if they fall away, to be brought back to repentance, because[b]to their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace. now iris profesed the name of Christ to a large audience and on many an occasion and in her public dealings with other politicians was far from humble or gracious and her actions are they not doing what was descibed in the last passage quoted? The Lord was always harsh with the pharisees and they were described by this 1Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: 2"The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. 3So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach. 4They tie up heavy loads and put them on men's shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them. 23"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices—mint, dill and cummin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former. 24You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel. 27"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of dead men's bones and everything unclean. 28In the same way, on the outside you appear to people as righteous but on the inside you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness.

#71 - brianmcclinton -

"Are you saying that we should ignore what he is quoted as saying: "Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell? (Matthew 23:33)."

In my opinion, your interpretation is strongly challenged (even if not comprehensively refuted) in the verse you quoted. Jesus was asking the Pharisees how they could escape the damnation of hell. Either this could be interpreted as Jesus implying: "you can't escape the damnation of hell", and therefore the answer to the question is "We cannot, we're doomed 'cos God hates us" (in other words, Jesus is just rubbing salt in their wounds) or it could be interpreted as Jesus expressing his desire for these people to escape this fate, thus the answer to the question is: "by repenting of our brutal exploitation and abuse of other people" (which Jesus referred to in verse 4 of the same chapter). If Jesus had such hatred for the Pharisees then it seems strange that he treated Nicodemus - a Pharisee - with respect in John chapter 3 (unless you want to believe that Jesus' surprise at Nicodemus' ignorance - verse 10 - was an expression of personal contempt!)

Anyway, I am aware that what I am saying is irrelevant to you, given your strongly expressed views, but since you are appealing to the biblical text to support your view of the character of Jesus Christ, you must be prepared to expect others to use the Bible to set the record straight. As with the empirical data of science, so with the biblical text, our conclusions are, more often than not, the result of interpretation - a point I never tire of trying to get across to people.

The biblical references to hell are not subject to one particular interpretation, and so it is unfair to assume that there is only one way to read this text (even if you believe the text is all a pack of lies anyway). If a person believes in God, and therefore believes that there is an eternal spiritual reality (which is actually implied in a theistic belief), then it is entirely logical to believe that moral choices have eternal and spiritual consequences. After all, the Christian understanding is based on the renewal of the inner life, and that what we do flows from what we are. Therefore spirituality and morality are inextricably linked. So the idea that a rejection of the love of God will result in a spiritual experience which is unpleasant, does not imply that God ever wants a person to have that experience (unless of course you deny the reality of free-will).

I do not deny that there are problems with the idea of hell - such as its eternal nature - and how an eternal punishment can follow from temporal evils. I also do not deny that there are those "Christians" who use the doctrine of hell as a tool of social control. This is vile behaviour, as far as I am concerned. I also reject the ideas of predestined reprobation as well as the perverse notion of inherited guilt (a kind of "Minority Report" view of divine judgment). As far as I am concerned, these are all tendentious interpretations of the biblical text, and, as I have written, the text can be interpreted differently. If the Bible could not be interpreted differently then I would gladly and enthusiastically join you in the atheists' club. Thankfully I don't have to...

logica very well put

Can i just say now that it is nice to see Christians who actually know what Christianity is... the idea that Christians should ignore sin and compromise is all too prevailent in this day and age and its great to see people who are ready to quote scripture and oppose sin!

LSV:

Using the Bible 'to set the record straight' is a high claim indeed and somewhat arrogant in view of the lack of real knowledge of Jesus and his thoughts (if any). But I do not think there is much doubt that the character portrayed there believed in Hell and consigned those who didn't accept him to its eternal fire and brimstone. In his parable of the last judgment, people are simplistically divided into sheep and goats, with the blessed sheep on the king's right entering the eternal glory of the Father, whereas the goats on his left are summarily dismissed: "Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels" (Matt 25: 41). Apart from this insult to goats, it is a most primitive and savage idea of justice.

The notion is enshrined in the Westminster Confession of Faith: "the wicked who know not God, and obey not the Gospel of Jesus Christ, shall be cast into eternal torments, and be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of His power". Correct me if I am wrong, but Presbyterians (and Baptists?) still subscribe to this thoroughly discredited concept.

Most civilsed Christians now accept that this poisonous and hateful nonsense is bad for their image and is really a hang-over from a darker age. Surely, the idea of eternal punishment for a thought-crime (rejecting Jesus' claims/message) should be repugnant to all decent people?

#77 - brianmcclinton -

OK, I admit that "set the record straight" was an unfortunate phrase to use, now you mention it. I'll replace it with "put another point of view".

ChristianCalvinist

You say, "it is nice to see Christians who actually know what Christianity is... "

Your views on grace, forgiveness, acceptance, repentance, faith, righteousness and judgement interest me.

well Peter im an interesting guy lol you can find all my views on religious matters in a book...its called the Bible...its been out a while now so getting a copy shouldnt be to hard, im free to anwser questions

"you can find all my views on religious matters in a book...its called the Bible..."

OK ChristianCalvinist, I'll run with that as a starting point, but we're still left with the issue of interpretation; I've read many wide and varying interpretations on here. Some of them I can relate to, others I can't. And I'm sure there are many interpretations you disagree with.

I'm just wondering what your basic interpretation is? What's your starting point? What is it about the 'gospel' which motivates you. If you had a pulpit, what would you say?

my basic interpretation is that all Scripture is infalliable and we have no other authority on religious/doctrinal matters than the Holy Bible, My starting point is giving glory to God in means revealed to us in scripture...the Gospel motivates me because me the idea that some...totally depraved human beings who God could (and should) rightly throw into Hell can by His mercy be saved from the wrath to come...How great is His justice! A minister's job is to preach the Gospel and tell his listeners the truth...not just the nice bits or the things you want to hear and a true minister must have a stomach for the fight against error and evil, if i was a preacher i wouldnt just be a Sunday man...i'd confront the errors at every opportunity i had and i'd place a great emphasis on spreading the Gospel and a return to the old paths...not my Gospel...not what i want...not an edited version so you dont feel bad...but the truth of Christ's Word after all woe unto me if i preach not the Gospel. My emphasis would be on preaching Christ crucified not making money... so if in the future you come to hear me preach dont think your coming to a music concert and dont be expecting flashy gimmicks...my job wouldnt be to entertain you as some ministers think...my job would be to warn you of the wrath to come and your only hope of salvation Christ Jesus

Brian - I have to agree with you - Jesus was very fond of condemnation, but, I would say, rightly so. Condemnation was in the very fabric of the prophetic tradition in which He stands. Jesus hungered after rightness, He felt the wrongness of injustice at the core of His being and it inflamed Him.

I think it important to note that His ire is directed principally at systemic injustice - He railed at the scribes and Pharisees as a class while being sympathetic to the fallible individual that every human is.

His analysis is stark - there is a gulf between Right and Wrong, between being the oppressor or the oppressed, between being complicit or prophetic. He presents the choice we must make: to fail to make it is to be complicit in oppression and wrong-doing.

Hell, as Archbishop Rowan correctly understands, is that state where we have burned away everything but the self; where we see, feel or know nothing but ourselves and our selfishness: such a state is torment but it is a torment of our own making. Jesus preaches release through a new focus on life lived in love and, rightly, for the good of the whole of society, condemns those who refuse His call.

Mrs Robinson belonged to a class that Jesus would have excoriated. He would have roundly condemned the excesses of lifestyle, the corruption, the deception in terms which certainly would not pass moderation on this blog and I unhesitatingly echo that condemnation. Mrs Robinson is, however, living testimony that to lead one's life in such a way is to live in Hell. One can only hope and pray for her deliverance.

This is a bit silly..

Whitewell Metropolitan Tabernacle's *only* concerning teaching/doctrine is British Israelism period

I think it is a matter of public interest to know whether as members the Robinsons believe this too

One of my GCSE students just asked me - "Wasn't Iris Robinson the politician who called all gay people homosexual?"

Another chap suggested in his xmas exam that "Christians are against homosexual relationships, unless they take place in a Church."

I'm not sure I'm explaining the nature of the debate correctly...

#82 - ChristianCalvinist -

"...totally depraved human beings who God could (and should) rightly throw into Hell can by His mercy be saved from the wrath to come...How great is His justice!"

Do you believe that human beings are "totally depraved" simply because of the fall, and that as a result of this they "deserve" to burn in the fires of hell for all eternity?

If that is the case, then I wonder whether you need to ask yourself how you define the concept of "justice".

No one chose to be born. That is an indisputable fact, whatever your worldview. No one chose to be born into this kind of world. That is also incontrovertibly true. No one chose to be born with what is termed "original sin". But according to some people's theology - and I don't want to assume this is your view, although I suspect it is - when I was conceived I automatically came under the eternal wrath of God. And so did you. But I had, at that stage, not done a thing wrong. So how exactly did I "deserve" God's wrath, since I was forced into this circumstance? How can it be true that God forces people into a situation that automatically defiles them, and then condemns them for being defiled? Such an idea makes a mockery of God's justice.

This idea, of course, is nonsense, for the simple reason that the Bible states clearly that God is slow to anger (need I quote all the verses? Psalm 145:8 is one example). Therefore it is illogical to say that every person begins life under God's wrath, as "slowness to anger" implies a process beginning with "no anger" and slowly leading to ever increasing anger. And this anger is a response to a genuine level of moral responsibility that God has put into people's lives (and not based on the idea that God condemns people who could not but sin, because of fallen human nature). This is what Isaiah 5:1-6 is all about - God judges people on the basis of what He has already done in their lives - and not on the basis of some spurious idea of inherited total depravity.

I know that I will be called a heretic by many Christians, but on the basis of the command in Proverbs 4:7 - to seek understanding - I refuse to accept interpretations of the Bible which are incoherent and morally offensive. If a particular interpretation of the Bible makes no logical sense, then on what basis should I accept it, and not accept, for instance, the Muslim or atheist view of life? If we abandon logic then anything goes. The only reason to believe a message like this is because someone has intimidated us into believing it by playing on our deepest fears.

If we sin simply because of the outworking of an inherited sin nature, then we are not responsible for our sins, and God would be unjust to condemn us - according to any sane view of justice. In fact we would have nothing to repent of, since all of us would be subject to the mitigating condition of diminished responsibility.

Human beings are totally depraved because of in his natural unfallen state man had free will and chose to sin against God…since then our will has been in bondage to sin and only through God’s grace can that we turn back and please God… texts that show man’s total depravity are Jeremiah 17:9, Genesis 6:5, Genesis 3:6, Isaiah 64:6, Matthew 7:17-18. While no one chose to be born that is of no consequence and according to the Scripture we are born dead in transgression and sin (Psalm 51:5, Psalm 58:3, Ephesians 2:1-5). The Bible teaches that because unregenerate man is “dead in transgressions” (Ephesians 2:5), he is held captive by a love for sin (John 3:19; John 8:34) (as I call bondage of the will) so that he will not seek God (Romans 3:10-11) because he loves the darkness (John 3:19) and does not understand the things of God (1 Corinthians 2:14). Therefore men suppress the truth of God in unrighteousness (Romans 1:18) and continue to wilfully live in sin and because they are totally depraved this sinful lifestyle seems right to men (Proverbs 14:12) so they reject the Gospel of Christ as foolishness (1 Corinthians 1:18) and their mind is “hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is unable to do so.” (Romans 8:7).

The Apostle Paul really summarizes the total depravity of man in Romans 3:9-18….God did not force mankind to sin…he gave them freewill and they chose sin which in no mocks God’s justice!


The idea of total depravity far from being nonsense as you portray it is actually a scriptural fact that is agreed by the vast majority of Protestant churches and even I believe the Roman Catholic church, you mention how God is slow to anger but you have taken the quotes out of context… “God judges people on what He has already done in their lives”…this makes no sense, are you saying God judges people on how much He does? Rather than their sins? How is anyone to get to heaven then if we sin at all by your logic we have deliberately sinned and turned away from God… how can we ever be assured that we are saved when we sin?

Rather than a heretic I would view you as a blasphemer, you say you seek to understand the scripture but yet you ignore anything you don’t personally like which would lead me to wonder if you want to hear the Word of God or you just want to hear your own views… Total depravity makes perfect sense in the light of scripture…if you accept the muslim or atheist way of life then that would be idolatry, The reason I believe this is not that I am bullied into believing it…but because it is scriptural.

If we sin simply because of the outworking of an inherited sin nature, then we are not responsible for our sins, and God would be unjust to condemn us - according to any sane view of justice. In fact we would have nothing to repent of, since all of us would be subject to the mitigating condition of diminished responsibility.

Of course we are responsible for our sins… we choose to commit them, God has every right to punish sin because he offers salvation so anyone who turns to Christ, if we sin we should repent…to say that because man is naturally evil we shouldn’t repent is awful…and contrary to scripture

Brian

I'm not so sure about Brimstone. The Gospels weren't written by Dante, Milton or Homer. So the Classical Greek ideal of eternal punishment, whilst making for some interesting paintings, shouldn't be read into the parables.
I'm also bewildered at your literalistic interpretation of the parables. Parables are not even allegories (although they can contain allegorical elements), never mind literal assertions.
You make no reference to the Old Testament background needed to explain the Sheep and the Goats. Which suggests that you assume that the parables are crudely literalistic devices, needing no study for understanding.
And finally, no reference is made to Jesus' other parables. For example, one prominent image of Hell is exclusion from a feast. This often due to a refusal to accept an invitation. Mere punishment is not enough to explain Jesus' picture of Hell. Another picture is that of darkness - which clashes with the picture of flames. Both can't be literal. This is probably because neither was meant to be taken literally. The flames refer to Gehenna, an rubbish pit and an unclean place. This coheres with the theme of exclusion from God's presence.
So your primitive and savage interpretation of Hell needs some nuancing. I suppose the Fundamentalists go along with it. So maybe your argument is with them.

GV

cc While no one chose to be born that is of no consequence how can if we did not or did choose to be born be of no consequence with regards to guilt? as for total depravity in children and that leaving them liable to the wrath of God simply because they were born did not God answer this in the book of jonah 11And should not I spare Nineveh, that great city, wherein are more than sixscore thousand persons that cannot discern between their right hand and their left hand; and also much cattle? now the not knoiwing between right and left hand all bible commentators believe this to be children. and if the Lord said this was this not implying innocence for children and not guilt?
our you actually saying that if people who have been born is of no consequence what if after being born and realising what a wicked world we live in and wished we had never been born who made sure that we were born? was it the Mind of God? the will of God? if we follow your conclusions did we choose that adam should fall? and if we didnt who did? and if adam sinned surely the scripture teaches that each man is judged according to his own merits then why when adam fell did that mean that the world was condemed with adam? universal judgement in one man adam. there goes singular judgement.

Rather than debate straw men, you may want to consider what I actually believe.

For Jesus view of Hell this interview is helpful -

https://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Christianity/2008/03/Finding-Heaven-And-Hell-On-Earth.aspx?p=2

as is this question and answer session-

https://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Christianity/2000/07/Your-Questions-To-N-T-Wright.aspx

For more philosophical defences of Hell you can read

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/heaven-hell/

https://bearspace.baylor.edu/Jonathan_Kvanvig/www/pdf/Resurrection.pdf

GV

I'm pretty sure that several people are ignoring Peter Morrow in post 81. I'm with Peter on the authority of the Bible, but I wonder about this "copy, cut, paste" approach to doctrine.
You would not approach any other body of literature this way when assessing it's meaning. And God gave us literature. I'm no expert, but a little attention to historical and literary context wouldn't hurt. And it's not rocket science.

GV

"you say you seek to understand the scripture but yet you ignore anything you don’t personally like which would lead me to wonder if you want to hear the Word of God or you just want to hear your own views…"

Or maybe he just made a mistake?!

It's just possible you might make a few yourself...you know you might read something out of context?

Chill, dude!
(-;

#88 - ChristianCalvinist -

"Rather than a heretic I would view you as a blasphemer, you say you seek to understand the scripture but yet you ignore anything you don’t personally like which would lead me to wonder if you want to hear the Word of God or you just want to hear your own views…"

Well that is a very serious accusation against someone you don't know - and it is a tragic way to conduct a discussion on theological matters: "...because I don't agree with you I am going to condemn you as a blasphemer..." (although I'm relieved that I am in good company - Mark 3:22 and following). It brings to mind the Inquisition and other agents of intolerance down the ages who were so immature that instead of refuting an argument with evidence, they simply burnt their opponents on the stake. Does that behaviour glorify the justice of God? Not as far as I am concerned.

The most important commandment, as I am sure you know, is "to love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength" (Mark 12:30). Are you seriously suggesting that I am blaspheming God because I wish to obey the most important commandment in the Bible, as set forth by Jesus Christ Himself? Note that it says "love the Lord your God with all your mind". Do you understand what that means? It means that God wants us to use the brains He has given us to seek to understand His word and not simply to throw verses around in some incoherent way.

I have asked some perfectly logical and legitimate questions. As a result of this you have accused me of being a blasphemer. I would dare to suggest that one day those words may come back to haunt you ("with the judgment you use you shall be judged").

I referred to Isaiah 5:1-6 and I will also now refer you to a whole chapter of the Bible which refutes the idea that God judges people on the basis of original sin: Ezekiel 18.

It is an absolutely fatuous argument to say that the whole human race is automatically under the wrath of God because of original sin - and therefore every person is born into a state of total depravity, and then to argue that every person has free-will, and therefore sins willingly. You cannot have it both ways. The true judgment of God is based on a free-will rejection of grace that God has already put into the lives of people in some way or other - something called "prevenient grace" (a notion largely rejected by Calvinists), but supported completely by Isaiah 5:1-6.

Yes, I know you quote your verses to support your particular hamartiology, but all these verses are subject to interpretation (do you want me to write a 2000+ word post to give my views about every single quotation? I am willing to, but I'm not sure if spending that much time trying to convince someone who accuses me of blasphemy is really worth the effort. And think of the poor old moderators, never mind the other long-suffering contributors!). My point is: does God condemn people on the basis of original sin and the inevitable outworking of it - which is a denial of free-will, and therefore moral responsibility? Are you not aware of what Jesus said in John 9:41 - "If you were blind, you would have no sin..."? This clearly shows that God only judges people on the basis of the light He has given them. To suggest that God puts people in darkness, they then die never having seen any light (through no fault of their own, because they never chose to be born in darkness), and then God condemns them to a fate infinitely worse than all the horrors of Auschwitz because they never saw the light, is a view not consistent with "loving God with your mind". It's a travesty of even the most primitive ideas of justice.

You go ahead and condemn me to your heart's content, if that's what makes you feel fulfilled. I myself prefer to obey the most important commandment - to obey Jesus Christ - which, as I have said, includes the command to "love God with all my mind".

Well its no wonder this country is in the state it is...

he rejects the doctrine of original sin...that is blasphemy, it is leveled against him in my church's testimoney, the westminster confession of faith, the presbyterian churh, the free presbyterian church and every other reformed church...so why gang up on me? why not take your problems up with the Christian churches??? why not complain to the Church of Rome which calls all protestants heretic....... oh but you wouldnt want to offend?? its ok to ignore and bend scripture and gang up on individuals (the whitewell thread has more examples of this than anywhere else and im talking about long before i came on this site) but when it comes to the church itself.......there is only silence, none of you mind telling me or the reformed churches or even in the case of original sin the majority of Protestant and even the Roman catholic church that we are all wrong but when someone says it to you its up into the ivory towers you go...i give you scripture...you ignore it and then complain at me for holding to scriptural views with scriptural proofs rather than the imaginings of men

CC

No ganging up. I just meant chill, calm down, take it easy. I've disagreed with LSV on these things as well.
And I'm pretty sure it isn't blasphemy to disagree with the Westminster Confession of Faith!

GV

From dictionary.com
"irreverent behavior toward anything held sacred"
from wikipedia.com
"Blasphemy is irreverence toward holy personages, religious artifacts, customs, and beliefs"

Original sin is a fundamental doctrine and belief of the reformed church... he denies it...therefore blasphemy

Well I suppose that on that thread that included the words 'condemnation' and 'judgement' sooner of later we'd end up discussing hell?

Would it be a bad idea to suggest that I can agree with some of what Graham, Parrhasios, ChristianCalvinist and LSV all have written? It would be, wouldn't it!

ChristianCalvinist, first, thankyou for your comments in post 82. I do not in any way deny biblical authority (but Graham is right about language, context and genre) the justice of God, nor the 'not nice' bits in the bible. There are others on here who both agree and disagree with me who could tell you that I have affirmed all these. A couple of reflections though, and as I do I'm thinking of some of what Graham, LSV and Parrhasios have said, we're all different 'flavours' of Christians, if I can use that word.

Justice is important, yes, absolutely (Parrhasios mentions it in his post 83) it includes many things including not ripping off the poor of the world. In fact God has a lot to say about that. You say too, that "a true minister must have a stomach for the fight against error and evil". OK. Here is our problem, yours and mine, and your Calvinism absolutely affirms what I'm going to say. When I seek to fight against that which is wrong I am pre-eminently bound to fight against it in my own life. It's desperately easy to see the fault in others, and the critical thing is this, when Christians 'rebuke' it is almost always the fault of others that they see and comment on. (Hence Brian's perfectly reasonable comments about hypocrisy.) I have never (except perhaps by way of illustration), ever, heard another Christian (ever!) flag up the fault in his own life and seek forgiveness before a congreation, ever! So, one, the church desperately needs to acknowledge it's own hypocrisy.

Second, according to Jesus: worry, calling someone a fool, imagining adultery, saying anything other that a straight yes or no, suing another, refusing to go an extra mile, public spiritual disciplines like praying, giving to the poor, fasting (for the sake of feeling good about ourselves) are all 'error'. I have never heard of a church member rebuked for any of these. I fear we do not have the stomach for the fight against them.

Three, the gospel. Yes, Jesus is central, yes I take the view he is our only hope but when the evangelical and reformed church reduces the gospel to 'safe from hell' (and the destruction of the person, in the way described by NT Wright, Graham's link, or Parrhasios is much more frightening than demons poking people with a fiery pitchfork) we do an appalling disservice to it. We are called to something aswell as away from something. Being fully alive is what the opposite of Hell is. N.T. Wright is really good on this (whatever his view on the New Perspective). (sorry for that bit of 'in' speak there everyone). And all this brings me back to my comments in post 17; it is my fear that Reformed and Evangelical Christians misuse 'faith' and 'repentance' in running real, real close to viewing them as that which makes us acceptable to God; we’re desperately close to 'salvation by works' by another name. Surely there is a case for saying that God’s attitude towards us is, because of Jesus, already that of openness, compassion, acceptance and embrace. That, in the middle of everything, else needs to be heard. And any faith I have is merely my, “Thankyou.” In this I am chastened. In this I hesitate to condemn; as a certain Paul said, there isn’t anything to boast about.

Jesus is the gospel.

I really can't be any clearer about how I think.

#97 - ChristianCalvinist -

"Original sin is a fundamental doctrine and belief of the reformed church... he denies it...therefore blasphemy"

Actually, ChristianCalvinist, you're right in a sense. It is "blasphemy" - blasphemy against an idol, which is what Church tradition is. So it's not something I'm going to lose sleep over.

Concerning "original sin", I didn't actually deny that the human race is sinful. What I was denying was the idea that anyone is condemned purely on the basis of original sin (which includes any outworking of original sin over which people have no control).

Let me clarify a bit more with an example from the Bible and Church history.

John Wesley (oh that terrible "arch heretic" because he dared to question Calvinism) would actually agree with you. One of his "44 Sermons" (one of the fundamental doctrinal tomes of the Methodist Church) is entitled "Original Sin".

Wesley certainly believed in not only the reality of original sin, but also God's judgment of people because of it. He begins his sermon with reference to Genesis 6:5 -

"And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually."

Sounds like an "open and shut" case, doesn't it? How could any awkward, insolent and audacious so-and-so in the 21st century pop up on a blog and conceivably question not only this incontrovertible Scripural evidence of original sin, but also the wisdom of that "giant of the faith"??!

Well, this awkward so-and-so can, as I will explain...

That passage from Genesis may describe the sinfulness of man, but it most definitely does not support the view that God judges people on the basis of original sin - or that God just leaves people in a state of sin without any possibility of escape, and then judges them for what they could not possibly help doing.

Let's look at the context...

verse 3 - "And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years."

In other words, God's Spirit had been striving with man, and yet man remained evil (except Noah who "found grace" - in other words, responded to God's grace). Why was God grieved? Simply because man was evil? Yes, God was grieved that man was evil, but not because they were simply in bondage to the sin of Adam, but because they had rejected the convicting work of the Holy Spirit. In other words, God judged them, not because of their status of being "totally depraved because of original sin", but because they had rejected the light that God had given them, with the result that they fell back onto their natural tendencies.

That is the shockingly "blasphemous" conclusion I have arrived at from a careful reading of the Bible!

But there are those - particularly in the Reformed camp - who seem to believe that it's OK for God to damn people purely on the basis of original sin. This is the foundation of infralapsarian Calvinism - God is apparently "just" in sending the reprobate to hell, because they are sinners - and therefore "deserve" it - even though there is absolutely no way such people could ever escape this judgement from the moment of conception onwards (thanks to the "total depravity" idea of original sin). This is because God refused to even convict them by His Spirit and offer them salvation. In other words, looking through the cunning language, this amounts to nothing more than God predestining them to damnation (thus making God evil).

Here's a typical article promoting this spurious view:

https://www.reform.org.uk/pages/tm/election_and_predestination.php

I remember writing to Reform asking them to clarify why they were being disobedient to 1 Timothy 2:4 concerning God's desire for all people to be saved. They responded with a guilty silence.

Let's also look at Romans 3:23-24 -

"...for all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus..."

Note that I have begun and ended this quote with dots to show that these two verses are merely a part of a larger sentence. Is it not interesting how many "Bible believing" Christians only seem to ever quote verse 23 (forgetting even the context of the sentence, never mind the chapter and book)? Dishonest or what? Try reading on into verse 24... "being justified freely..." Who does that refer to? Answer: "all who have sinned". Therefore, at the very least, the grace of God is offered to all. God allows no one to slip through the net and be damned simply because of original sin, since all people are subject to the grace of God in some form or other.

I could go on and on... but I reckon that's enough for now.

No one has said original sin is enough to damn a person to hell, orignial sin is the reason for total depravity and mans sinful nature, the sins that condemn a peron to to hell are those commited when a person deliberately breaks God's law, if you dont believe in it then how do you explain sin?
you talk of cunning language while bending what calvinism teaches...to quote Calvin "all are not created on equal terms, but some are preordained to eternal life, others to eternal damnation; and, accordingly, as each has been created for one or other of these ends, we say that he has been predestinated to life or to death." how is that cunning, to me it seems self explanitory, you are deliberately misinterpreting what reformed theology is in order to blacken it and deride it, you denounce scriptural teaching as church tradition because it doesnt fit with your unscriptural bending of the verse and clutching at straws theology...everyone else is worng so you can be right, scripture must be wrong because only you can be right...on original sin the reformers were wrong...the protestant church is wrong, the roman catholic church is wrong, the early christian church was wrong, the apostle Paul was wrong, the disciples were wrong and Christ is wrong.... and you are right?? is that the way this is working? Maybe its you that is wrong! You admit to blasphemy and then expect us to listen... your a modern day servetus