Friday, November 05, 2010
Always Remember
The fifth of November is remembered as the day upon which the gunpowder plot, an attempt by a Roman Catholics to blow up the Protestant Parliament, was foiled by the Providence of God. Guy Fawkes was caught on November 5, 1605, and after a few days of torture gave up his co-conspirators and revealed the full details of the conspiracy, including a related plot to assassinate King James I (VI of Scotland). That's the same James who had the previous year authorized a new English translation of the Bible, subsequently published in 1611.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
16 comments:
Wow...not many even bother to report such news in our day...kudos to you mr T'fan....Mark
"The fifth of November is remembered as the day upon which the gunpowder plot, an attempt by a Roman Catholics to blow up the Protestant Parliament, was foiled by the Providence of God."
Wasn't there a recent movie that updated this "theme"?
TU&D,
You might be thinking of "V for Vendetta".
Matthew, that's the one!
Now I know what you meant when you kept telling us to always remember the 5th of November! I love these tidbits of history, and did not remember this one! Thanks
T-Fan, believe it or not, I had only recently (within the last few weeks) heard of this incident. Thanks for bringing it to attention.
The only troubling part of that whole sordid affair of this man, Fawkes, clearly led astray by vicious willing dark and wicked spirits that seem to have their way with Roman Catholics too, instead of being led by the Spirit of Grace, is the stark contrast between Scripture and him being tortured for a few days after being caught by the governing authorities.
Here's the Biblical way of dealing with our enemy:
Rom 12:17 Repay no one evil for evil, but give thought to do what is honorable in the sight of all.
Rom 12:18 If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all.
Rom 12:19 Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, "Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord."
Rom 12:20 To the contrary, "if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals on his head."
Rom 12:21 Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.
Now, of course, with merit, we have these verses too:
Rom 13:1 Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.
Rom 13:2 Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.
Rom 13:3 For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval,
Rom 13:4 for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer.
Rom 13:5 Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience.
I just don't see how God can hasten the day of the Lord if men are permitted to torture their enemies? Do you?
Catholics and some Protestants & “Bible only” Christians believe in the universal or unlimited atonement of Christ, i.e. that He died on the cross for all men, the Elect (those predestined to heaven) and the Reprobate (those predestined to hell).
The scriptural support that Christ died on the cross for everyone is overwhelming, among which:
And he died for all, that those who live might live no longer for themselves but for him who for their sake died and was raised. (2 Corinthians 5:15)
And they sang a new song, saying: ”Worthy art thou to take the scroll and to open its seals, for thou wast slain and by thy blood didst ransom men for God from every tribe and tongue and people and nation," (Revelation 5:9)
Other verses like John 4:42 refers Christ as the Saviour of the world; 1 Timothy 4:10 calls God as the Saviour of all men, especially of those who believe; Hebrews 2:9 says that Christ tasted death for every one and 1 John 2:2 states that Christ is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world.
In the words of the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
“At the end of the parable of the lost sheep Jesus recalled that God’s love excludes no one: ‘So it is not the will of your Father who is in heaven that one of these little ones should perish.’
He affirms that he came ‘to give his life as a ransom for many’; this last term is not restrictive, but contrasts the whole of humanity with the unique person of the redeemer who hands himself over to save us.
The Church, following the apostles, teaches that Christ died for all men without exception: ‘There is not, never has been, and never will be a single human being for whom Christ did not suffer.” (Catechism of the Catholic Church # 605)
Caholic Teaching and Limited Atonement
I don't think there's any point getting into another Limited vs Unlimited Atonement debate, so I'll just say quickly what Scripture and Tradition have to say on the matter:
Scripture
St. John says: "he is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world."
The issue here is the use of the 2 phrase "not for ours only" and "sins of the whole world".
This is diametrically opposed to the doctrine of limited atonement.
It reminds me of the doctrine of sola fide where Calvinists interpret "not by faith alone" as "by faith alone", and "wills that all men be saved" as "doesn't will that all men be saved".
(Kind of like the Catholic case: "A bishop should be the husband of one wife" interpretted "A bishop shouldn't be the husband of one wife" - but we don't believe in sola scriptura so we at least have a reason)
Tradition
In any case, I think the whole thing is just another great example of the failure of the Reformation doctrine of the Perspicuity of Scripture.
As Calvinists and Arminians prove by their continued existence, Scripture does need an interpreter, Moses' seat must be replaced with the chair of St. Peter.
The Patristic evidence is also in complete opposition to the doctrine, as the classic formulation was that Christ died for those whose nature he assumed, meaning all of humanity.
"Christ Jesus our Lord, as no man who is or has been or ever will be whose nature will not have been assumed in Him, so there is, has been, or will be no man, for whom He has not suffered-although not all will be saved by the mystery of His passion.
But because all are not redeemed by the mystery of His passion, He does not regard the greatness and the fullness of the price, but He regards the part of the unfaithful ones and those not believing in faith those things which He has worked the rough love (Galatians 5:6), because the drink of human safety, which has been prepared by our infirmity and by divine strength, has indeed in itself that it may be beneficial to all; but if it is not drunk, it does not heal." - Council of Quiercy 853 CE
I'm trying to figure out why we're talking about the scope of the atonement here.
But very briefly, the expression "he is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world," is only diametrically opposed to limited atonement if "our" refers to the elect.
Do you think you can establish from the context that "our" means the elect?
-TurretinFan
No weapon that is formed against thee shall prosper.
Isaiah 54:17
This day is notable in English history for two great deliverances wrought by God for us. On this day the plot of the Papists to destroy our Houses of Parliament was discovered, 1605.
While for our princes they prepare
In caverns deep a burning snare,
He shot from heaven a piercing ray,
And the dark treachery brought to day.
And secondly-to-day is the anniversary of the landing of King William III, at Torbay, by which the hope of Popish ascendancy was quashed, and religious liberty was secured, 1688.
This day ought to be celebrated, not by the saturnalia of striplings, but by the songs of saints. Our Puritan forefathers most devoutly made it a special time of thanksgiving. There is extant a record of the annual sermons preached by Matthew Henry on this day. Our Protestant feeling, and our love of liberty, should make us regard its anniversary with holy gratitude. Let our hearts and lips exclaim, We have heard with our ears, and our fathers have told us the wondrous things which thou didst in their day, and in the old time before them. Thou hast made this nation the home of the gospel; and when the foe has risen against her, thou hast shielded her. Help us to offer repeated songs for repeated deliverances. Grant us more and more a hatred of Antichrist, and hasten on the day of her entire extinction. Till then and ever, we believe the promise, No weapon that is formed against thee shall prosper. Should it not be laid upon the heart of every lover of the gospel of Jesus on this day to plead for the overturning of false doctrines and the extension of divine truth? Would it not be well to search our own hearts, and turn out any of the Popish lumber of self-righteousness which may lie concealed therein? ~Charles Spurgeon
King James I was a very status-conscious high-church Anglican ruler - that is, he had vivid appreciation for hierarchical ritual in both church liturgy and secular court ceremony.
And nonwithstanding all this, king James was Protestant enough to realize the semi-pagan nature of RC/EO cult of the saints:
http://www.archive.org/details/tractxcbyjhnewm00oakegoog
p. 154
"As for prayer to saints," says King James, "Christ (I am sure) hath commanded us to come all to him that are loaden with sin, and he will relieve us; (Matt. xi. 28;) and St. Paul hath forbidden us to worship angels, or to use any such voluntary worship, that hath a shew of humility in that it spareth not the flesh. (Coloss. ii. 8, 23.) But what warrant we have to have recourse unto these DII PENATES or TUTELARES, these Courtiers of God, I know not; I remit that to these philosophical neoteric divines. It satisfieth me to pray to God through Christ as I am commanded, which I am sure must be the safest way; and I am sure the safest way is the best way in points of salvation. But if the Romish Church hath coined new Articles of faith, never heard of in the first 500 years after Christ, I hope I shall never be condemned for an heretic, for not being a novelist."
Thus we can see that not only low-church Protestants with their vulgar modern sensibilities are offended by hagiolatry...
5th of November is Fort Hood Massacre Rememberance day. A radical muslim killed 13 people on 11/5/2009.
-Another Anonymous in America
Turretinfan said...
Do you think you can establish from the context that "our" means the elect?
Dear Turretinfan,
Private interpretation of Scriptures can be exceedingly harmful to self and others. This has divided Christianity into hundreds if not tens of thousands of segments.
Too many individuals claim their position is right and are unwilling to freely discuss the position taken or to be submissive to moral authorities.
Holding to a personal position, or one of heretical source, places one's eternal soul in jeopardy. Such people often become instruments that lead others to perdition.
If you don't think your position is right and yet you hold your position, you're an idiot.
And - of course - everyone except the most extreme idiots exercise private judgment. It's how humans work.
And the Scriptures were meant to be read and understood by people operating the way that people operate.
Post a Comment