tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post4917397691479609000..comments2024-03-17T08:25:33.806+00:00Comments on Thoughts of Francis Turretin: One of the Problems of PluralismTurretinfanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01802277110253897379noreply@blogger.comBlogger17125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-3248162666193063382011-05-01T03:02:42.142+01:002011-05-01T03:02:42.142+01:00Do you know why the Sikhs are required to always c...Do you know why the Sikhs are required to always carry a blade? Because their sect evolved in northwest India where they were under constant threat from Muslim bullies. Sikhs had to be always ready to defend themselves. <br /><br />Likewise the requirement to always wear headgear was an intentional gesture of defiance: Islamic rulers of northern India decreed that only Muslims were allowed to Viisaushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02682159289133730565noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-24698572111956965762011-04-30T04:03:00.873+01:002011-04-30T04:03:00.873+01:00"You seem to be kind of stuck in the world of...<b>"You seem to be kind of stuck in the world of 'is' as opposed to the world of 'ought to be.'</b><br /><br />Which I will take as a compliment. The idealists seeking to turn the world into some sort of utopia always seem to end up leaving a mountain of skulls behind them.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-80007164353337337652011-04-29T12:59:15.521+01:002011-04-29T12:59:15.521+01:00B2k8:
You seem to be kind of stuck in the world o...B2k8:<br /><br />You seem to be kind of stuck in the world of "is" as opposed to the world of "ought to be." <br /><br />I should point out that - to some extent - the 1st century Roman empire was a pluralistic society. Even though I suspect that most Christian churches met in homes, there were synagogues (for the Jews) and shrines and temples (for the pagans).<br /><br />InTurretinfanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01802277110253897379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-65586732423620071702011-04-29T06:29:03.337+01:002011-04-29T06:29:03.337+01:00(Federal Visionists, hear me! Since TF's churc...(Federal Visionists, hear me! Since TF's church has no bylaws apparently, you can all join up and take over by a majority vote! ONWARDS!)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-43104254857637247332011-04-29T06:27:00.444+01:002011-04-29T06:27:00.444+01:00"I'm curious if you think that the church...<b>"I'm curious if you think that the church at Ephesus to which Paul the Apostle wrote had 'by-laws.'"</b><br /><br />I doubt that the church in Ephesus that Paul wrote to actually owned any property. They probably met in someone's home. Bylaws exist in our wonderful "pluralistic" society to protect groups that own property from having their property stolen Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-86903950891667812082011-04-28T13:38:56.336+01:002011-04-28T13:38:56.336+01:00"But the real question is what would a non-pl..."But the real question is what would a non-pluralistic society do?"<br /><br />I'm not sure if that's "the real question." What they might do would doubtless depend on a lot of factors.Turretinfanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01802277110253897379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-83011464390428101522011-04-28T13:37:19.767+01:002011-04-28T13:37:19.767+01:00"Ah, but the question is "what if a MAJO..."Ah, but the question is "what if a MAJORITY of a Christian church were attempting to open communion to everyone who wants it?" AH! I missed that word. Again, it relates to the bylaws. If the bylaws are clear that the pastor or elders or some specific officers control the practice of the church, and this majority does not have those persons on its side, the minority will win in Turretinfanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01802277110253897379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-39394171500022699742011-04-28T13:33:59.049+01:002011-04-28T13:33:59.049+01:00"The police will come in a stop you from chop..."The police will come in a stop you from chopping up the open communion crowd with your sword, and you'll probably go to jail for a bit."<br /><br />You clearly didn't understand what you read.<br /><br />"But if the church has it clear in its bylaws that communion is only allowed for members, and you have clear membership roles, then I don't think the church would haveTurretinfanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01802277110253897379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-78525390136498186952011-04-28T13:29:03.397+01:002011-04-28T13:29:03.397+01:00"Are you suggesting that you would pull out a..."Are you suggesting that you would pull out a sword and stop chopping people up in order to deny them communion? Because if not, doesn't your feeble attempt at analogy kinda fail, like epic fail?"<br /><br />No and no.Turretinfanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01802277110253897379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-39286898468797104832011-04-28T06:09:23.530+01:002011-04-28T06:09:23.530+01:00But the real question is what would a non-pluralis...But the real question is what would a non-pluralistic society do? Might as well give the contrast. The Donatists wanted to refuse communion to those who had denied Jesus during persecution, and the Catholic Roman Empire forcibly forced them to allow these people back in their churches, or they shut their churches down and seized their property. So this whole "plurastic society bad, Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-60675425681544422372011-04-28T06:02:08.198+01:002011-04-28T06:02:08.198+01:00Ah, but the question is "what if a MAJORITY o...Ah, but the question is "what if a MAJORITY of a Christian church were attempting to open communion to everyone who wants it?" AH! I missed that word. Again, it relates to the bylaws. If the bylaws are clear that the pastor or elders or some specific officers control the practice of the church, and this majority does not have those persons on its side, the minority will win in courtAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-81051723710674806202011-04-28T05:59:09.248+01:002011-04-28T05:59:09.248+01:00"And for my Escondido friends, what if a majo...<i>"And for my Escondido friends, what if a majority of a Christian church were attempting to open communion to everyone who wants it? Does the civil magistrate have a duty to protect the church of our Lord against such violence from a majority?"</i><br /><br />The police will come in a stop you from chopping up the open communion crowd with your sword, and you'll probably go to Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-41295566433867256292011-04-28T05:54:26.657+01:002011-04-28T05:54:26.657+01:00Are you suggesting that you would pull out a sword...Are you suggesting that you would pull out a sword and stop chopping people up in order to deny them communion? Because if not, doesn't your feeble attempt at analogy kinda fail, like epic fail?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-22443936622740832092011-04-27T15:51:12.275+01:002011-04-27T15:51:12.275+01:00Ken wrote, "...I don't know if the foundi...Ken wrote, "...I don't know if the founding fathers of USA government ever envisioned a future where other religions would become majorities in areas because of immigration. (Islam, Hinduism, Sikhism, Buddhism)..."<br /><br />Ken, they may have suspected this, especially if they had looked out over their own farm-yards and noticed who was working there. Most of the Africans brought Frederickahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17071420764901945035noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-80158271671321277172011-04-27T13:33:31.659+01:002011-04-27T13:33:31.659+01:00You raise a good point - I don't know if the f...You raise a good point - I don't know if the founding fathers of USA government ever envisioned a future where other religions would become majorities in areas because of immigration. (Islam, Hinduism, Sikhism, Buddhism) Or atheists and Universalists or pure secularists ( ?) through apostasy and lack of faith in the next generation. (?). <br /><br />Some liberal on line pointed out that evenKenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17824685809003307918noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-60493788570348652282011-04-26T18:25:15.044+01:002011-04-26T18:25:15.044+01:00TF,
What is the "Confession" or classi...TF, <br /><br />What is the "Confession" or classical Reformed position on 'separation of church and state'? <br /><br />It would seem to me that such a concept is not Reformed but rather more Baptist.Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01453168437883536663noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-75362434609868859432011-04-26T17:09:19.665+01:002011-04-26T17:09:19.665+01:00Hi TF. In Cantwell vs. Connecticut, the Supreme Co...Hi TF. In Cantwell vs. Connecticut, the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment "embraces two concepts -- freedom to believe and freedom to act. The first is absolute but, in the nature of things, the second cannot be. Conduct remains subject to regulation of society." Laws against assault, which certain of these individuals appear to have violated, are just fine. I'm not sure Frederickahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17071420764901945035noreply@blogger.com