麻豆约拍

So far as I can see if McCausland were Muslim, Jewish, Hindu or even an Atheist few people would complain if this led him to avoid events involving Christian worship. Surely this means that he should also be entitled to avoid Catholic events on account of his Protestant beliefs.

I don't think many atheists would have a problem attending a religious service in an official capacity. Maybe McCausland is one of those people insufficiently confident in his worldview that he is worried about it being contaminated with a bit of The Other? WWJD?

Nelson McCausland is, to the best of my knowledge, an Orangeman. He would therefore have taken an oath 'not to countenance by his presence or otherwise any act or ceremony of Popish worship'. Given his professed Biblical fundamentalism, we must assume he takes this vow seriously.

Furthermore we have to take into consideration that for centuries it was Protestant orthodoxy that the Mass was a 'blasphemous fable and dangerous deceit' and some Protestants still hold to that understanding. I would disagree with them but I uphold their right both to their convictions and to acting in accordance with them.

"Northern Ireland culture minister Nelson McCausland has reasserted his commitment that he will not attend any religious services in a Catholic church."

His staunch unyielding and uncopromising position reflects the culture of Northern Ireland very well. I can just hear him after a few pints of Guinness now; "The next thing you know they'll be marrying our daughters and we'll have to attend the wedding ceremony in one of their Cathedrals. Horrors"

Smithborough, I'm an atheist and have no qualms about attending a Catholic or any other religious ceremony. Nothing I see or hear is likely to change my mind even the slightest bit. Perhaps McCausland is not quite so sure of his own convictions and fears being "persuaded." Or perhaps he just fears ecumanism and inadvertently contributing to peace breaking out.

Well, my convictions would be that the whole thing (including McCausland's "faith") is a pile of mince, but I think far too much is made of faux "integrity" and "standing up for principles" or "acting out of conviction" as if these were virtues. Just because you're unshakeably "sincere" about something does not mean that you're not being a complete ass - indeed, quite the reverse. I'd rather see ministers (and others) show a bit of humility and give-and-take.

The best measure of our tolerance is how much we are prepared to tolerate the intolerant.

I think McCausland's understanding of Christianity is a travesty of the Gospel and those who seek to follow Christ should challenge it and repudiate it at every opportunity. I defend absolutely, however, his right to believe any nonsense he chooses and to act in accordance with those beliefs up to the point at which they might be an occasion of harm others.

I support the right of people who may, in the past, have been involved in murder to be in government and I support the right of someone who thinks it wrong to attend a church service to be in government. You know, one was a harder swallow than the other.

I find myself completely supportive of Nelson's position. He has a religious view and he's entitled to it. It's not an intolerant view in that he, to the best of my knowledge, supports the religious freedom of Catholics to worship as they believe. To force him to participate in Catholic services because he's a government minister would be an outrageous attack on his religious freedom. His position was the same as the Catholic Church's position as recently as forty years ago. I don't hear Catholics complaining - what I hear are secularists who don't believe in religion and can't understand that people take their religion seriously. It's the view of people who think that religion should have no place in the public square at all.

The normal mash mallow theology that melts in the heat! coming from the P.C.I. And as a Presbyterian, the Moderator doesn't speak for me! that's fact! And no, I鈥檓 not doing any day trips to the fair.

I am very concerned at the increasing views of some of the Protestant church leaders. The reformation did happened and what I believe was good reason.

As for WWJD - From my study of the bible he would speak up and point out the error that he was witnessing.

Yeah, Stafford's a real liberal. I mean, you can catch Transubstantiation walking into a Catholic Church. It's like the swine flu.

GV

I mean, when Paul acted as a Torah observant Jew he was approving of the Judaisers, and being a hypocrite. Wasn't he?

I never focused on the Mass - it is far from the only issue that reformed church has - or at least used to have - with the Roman Catholic Church.

But yes I do believe people can be influenced by a service or meeting they attend, whether they intend to participate or not.

Paul was like any other human but was very clear on salvation.

Do you think Jesus would have attended something he didn't agree with and simply sit there and say nothing? No doubt he would have plenty to say about Protestant churches too.

Back to the original point of the article - People should have the right to their own personal faith on issues like this. If he is not comfortable with the service surely he should have the right to quietly state that and the media and everyone else should respect that.

"Do you think Jesus would have attended something he didnt agree with and simply sit there and say nothing?"

Yes I do and yes he did.

People complained that he ate with tax collectors and sinners. He also went to the Temple on many occasions, presumably saying nothing.

He also spent time with Satan in the wilderness. Very outgoing.

However, you do bring up a vaild question which I'd re-word. Would Jesus march in an Orange walk? And if he did, would he say anything?

Here's a so far overlooked little gem from the colonies;



A weak underpinning in the Catholic Church's power in America is that escape from the consequences of sexual and other abuse of chidren by those in the Church and the Church itself is not so easy to escape in America as it is in Ireland. The Catholic Church in America is falling like a house of cards. I think this is the seventh one. The church in Delaware will probably have to prove to the courts that it already IS financially bankrupt, not that it could go bankrupt if the civil trials lead to more enormous payouts to victims. That it is morally bankrupt is a long foregone conclusion. If culture minister Nelson McCausland were in Maryland or the prosecution of the offenders was as vigorous in Ireland, he might be only too happy to go to a Catholic Church at every opportunity...to gloat.

Christian Hippy, Antrim View

I'll use language which I think you will understand. It's not the sort of thing I usually say around here as this blog is so kaleidoscopically diverse as to render it pretty much pointless, but in this case it's probably worthwhile.

It's language which, in a context where it will be understood, I am comfortable with and to which I give my assent and it may help set the scene for what I want to say on this matter.

I affirm salvation by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone, as revealed in the scripture alone, to the glory of God alone. That makes me pretty Reformed! I affirm Jesus Christ as King in the Church and in the world, and God as a covenant making and covenant keeping God revealed fully and finally in the person of Jesus. I could go on, but I think you get the picture.

Now here's the thing, if Jesus really is King, then He is King of all. If my salvation is dependent on Him and his covenant keeping then that means I'm free. I'm free (among other things) to love others, I'm free from ritual and religion, and I'm free to eat "food sacrificed to idols". Don't read into that phrase BTW, it's only a reference to 1 Corinthians.

I think Stafford has grasped that freedom.

Or let me put it another way, it isn't mashmallow theology, and it isn't a cause for concern, it's a combination of strength and good grace.

And, of course, Mr. McCausland is free too. He's free to go and he's free not to go, but he's also chosen to be a public representative of a Secular State, and that, whether he likes it or not, places him in a bind. And maybe what he and a few others in the DUP need to do is think through their position on Church and State.

Christians, and for that matter evangelical Protestants are no longer aloud to hold personal views which are grounded in the Scriptures.

For instance, take the Northern Ireland Culture Minister, Nelson McCausland who is being hounded by the liberal media and the shinners for maintaining a principled stand by not entering the Mass House for blasphemous worship: the perpetual sacrificing of the Body of Jesus Christ who was offered up once and for all for the sins of the world.

Not only is he being hounded by the liberal media and the Marxists of Sinn Fein, but his stance is being undermined by the Moderator of the PCI who claims to be reformed in doctrine.

Laurence White鈥檚 piece in the Belfast Telegraph is riddled with ignorance of the teachings of the Roman Catholic church and the Westminster Confession of Faith which Presbyterians supposedly subscribe to, though the PCI subscribe to a watered down version which probably explains Stafford Carson鈥檚 stance towards Nelson McCauslands theological integrity.

Christian Hippy,

Now what did Will tell you on the other thread? Huh? Not to see agendas, conspiracies, etc everywhere. Going on about McCausland being 'hounded by the liberal media' etc does make you look like what Will said on the other thread: paranoid.

Get over your persecution syndrome already, will you.

RomeJellyBean.
Thanks for your reply. In the bible wherever I have read of Jesus with Tax Collectors and sinners it was for the purpose of telling them to follow him and in any referencing that I can think off that is exactly what happened.

When Jesus was on earth the temple was proper practice according to the command of God - The final scarifice had obviously not occurred. I also have read of him teaching from the prohets in the temple when he was 12?

When referring to what Jesus did people should also remember that He was the Son of God and able to resist Satan which none of the rest of us is capable of doing without him.

With regards to the OO - I do not know if Jesus would have taken part and nor do you. What I do know is that the intended purpose of orange paradea is to celebrate civil and religious liberty for all and the promotion of the reformed faith.
This may not, regretable, how many people implement it but are these not worthy principles?.

AV

Very worthy principles, but as you say, not always implemented.

I cant speak for NI, but over here, I can only describe what it feels like to sit inside a Catholic Church at six o'clock on a Saturday evening on marching days.

When the band goes past, a certain 'message' may be being delivered about civil and religious liberty. That is not the message received. It is, rather, a message of fear, intolerance and hatred. (As I say, I do realise the circumstances are somewhat different in NI.)

Secondly, I dont think you can bring up Jesus with regard to Mr McCausland's decision (# 12 "Do you think Jesus would have attended..."),
and then later state that you shouldnt really bring up Jesus with regard to Mr McCausland's decision because (# 18 "Jesus was the Son of God.")

Sometimes Jesus is great when he backs up our argument. He's useful then. On other occasions, well, better if he just kept out of it and stuck to being a carpenter.

Ref 15 petermorrow
There are those who hang on your every word here and I must admit that I like to hear what you have to say too. Most of the time, I can agree with your contribution. Unfortunately, I have difficulty with some of your comments at Ref15. Unlike you, I am not of the reformed faith - I lost faith in it in the same way the reformers lost faith in the Catholic church. My problem is with the word 'alone'. You used the word a number of times in affirming salvation. But it is where you state, 鈥榯hrough faith alone鈥� that I have a difficulty. It鈥檚 just no matter how I try, I cannot square this doctrine with the rest of the scriptures.

I can鈥檛 understand how the reformers came to this conclusion that it is 鈥榝aith alone鈥� that saves and I am more puzzled, how over time, it has not been rejected. There is nowhere in the Bible that has the words 鈥榝aith鈥� and 鈥榓lone鈥� together except in James 2:24 which states, 鈥淵e see then how that by works a man is justified, and NOT (emphasis added) by faith only鈥�. Most of that chapter spells out that faith without works is not faith at all. It may be a belief but it is surely not faith if it is does not stimulate a person to action. This tells me that salvation through faith alone does not make sense.

The reformers used Paul鈥檚 words to create this doctrine. In Gal.2:16 Paul says, 鈥淢an is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ ...鈥�. Now there are too many scriptures that I could quote (and you know I can) that don鈥檛 concur fully with these words if we interpret them in a stand-alone way. However, if we interpret them in a way that they are synchronised and in harmony with the rest of scripture, instead of coming to the conclusion that faith alone saves, we come to the conclusion that the works of the law alone does not.

Surely the works of the law that Paul is talking about here is the whole set of rules, rituals and practices of the Mosiac code, both those included in the writings of Moses and the mass of oral tradition that had been formulated throughout the centuries. Is it not likely that there may have been Jewish converts still thinking their old practices were still necessary? Surely it make more sense to see that Paul was just putting them right. But, he hardly wanted them to disregard all the commandments to do good works, given the rest of N.T. teachings. It seems more reasonable that he was pointing out that we cannot be justified by the Mosiac law or, for that matter, by any law of works alone.

The idea of 鈥榝aith alone鈥� was invented by Luther. In his translation of the Bible he had the audacity to include the word 鈥榓lone鈥� beside 鈥榝aith鈥�. Could he have done that to justify his immoral lifestyle? I wonder.

Now, you seem to be an intelligent man. What puzzles me is how you square this doctrine. I also wonder, when I sense uncertainty in your words, if this doctrine has some part to play in that. Forgive me if you feel I am being intrusive but I am just doing it in the same spirit of your message to Christian Hippy and Antrim View.

Just one other thing, Jesus is not the King of this world, nor the God. In fact He reminds us, who wish to follow Him, that we are no longer 'of it' either - John 15:19. In the great intercessory prayer He affirms that we, nor He, are of the world - John 17:16. Paul leaves us with no doubt who the God of this world is in 2Cor. 4:4. And, it is made explicit when Jesus is tempted on the mountain top during His 40 day fast - Matt 4:8,9. If all the kingdoms of the world were not the devil鈥檚 to give, he couldn鈥檛 have offered them. This isn鈥檛 as important as my first point, but I thought you may like to know.

Antrim View

Whatever the intended purpose of the Orange Order, it isn't the church, Jesus didn't set it up and Jesus doesn't need it. All of which means that if we are to be truly reformed (in the widest sense of the word) we owe our allegiance to King Jesus and no other. And, that, of course, raises a multitude of questions for Christians in a little place like Northern Ireland.

BTW I don't oppose the OO culturally, but again, it isn't the Church of Jesus Christ and we need to be very careful not to confuse the two, especially if doctrinal accuracy is important to us.


Christian Hippy

Again, on the issue of doctrinal accuracy and theological integrity. You refer to the Westminster Confession. Does that mean you're a 4 sola man? ;-)

And on the issue of Christians holding personal views which are grounded in the Scriptures. Oh we're allowed to do that all right. King Jesus gives us all the permission we need, and even if it ever became illegal to hold such views, I think He'd still be happy to have us 'stick to our guns', if you see what I mean. There's quite a tradition of it in Hebrews 11.

puretruthseeker

Just noticed your post 20

First up you say, "There are those who hang on your every word here...

Well, that's a bad idea for a start! If I were you I wouldn't listen to me, it's only a point of view. Cripes!

Anyway. Faith, works, and 'only'.

When I say faith alone, I think of faith in it's entirety. I don't mean simply 'believing' something to be true (although that's a start), and I don't mean simply assenting to some statements of doctrine of theology. What I mean is a faith which works. Faith which causes me to change my attitudes and my actions and so I can't see that we disagree much here. And when you say, "faith without works is not faith at all. It may be a belief but it is surely not faith if it is does not stimulate a person to action." I'd agree.

In terms of the Reformers I think that what happened was that they stated the issue in such a way as to draw attention to a particular point and sometimes this can lead to a weakness or a lacking in our thinking. One thing is for sure, we not transformed by affirming the solas, and that might be one of the lacks in Reformed thinking.

And no I don't mind you asking, actually it's much better that you do, then at least we get a chance to better understand one another.

And on the King thing, I think we're looking at two sides of the one coin but another time maybe. :-)

Just for clarification - i did not raise the points of WWJD and the OO I was simply responding to other posts.

RomeJellyBean - I can assure you that those actions are not supported by me and I know for a fact that the local RBP for example always arrange their return parade through the town until after the serice in the chapel is over and everyone has left.

Final point from me - I believe Nelson has the right to state his personal belief and should be respected for it.

Peter Morrow

Do continue. I hang on your every word, most honourable teacher!

Grasshopper