XXXVII. Of the Civil Magistrates

You may also like...

156 Responses

  1. Jackie says:

    But, the apple never fell far from the tree – you can’t even differentiate Rome’s pomp and pomposity from Anglican.

  2. I don’t see the offense here.

    From Merriam-Webster:

    Jurisdiction- 1:the power, right, or authority to interpret and apply the law
    2 a : the authority of a sovereign power to govern or legislate b : the power or right to exercise authority

    We, as Americans, don’t allow the Pope jurisdiction here either. Of course, we don’t give the crown the power granted here either, but hey, it is England not America.
    This whole article is about authority. The article says the Crown has jurisdiction both civil and ecclesiastical, but cannot minister the Word or deliver sacraments. The Crown had already set forth it’s limits in this area. And the church agreed to them.
    Very much a product of it’s time, but understandable given the religious turmoil of the age. I think Americans would not want the authority the Crown is given here to be held by the Pope over us either, even in this day and age.

    The question is, do all Anglicans, in all countries have to agree to this article? Why? Why have these articles not been updated to reflect the more global reach of the Anglican church outside of England?

  3. English please…

  4. Gary says:

    The Pope and the RCC being expunged from English rule was more political than religious thanks to Henry VIII. There was no going back after that without losing face. Those were different times. Christians had to escape the Church of England just as they had the RCC. Two false religions in my view.
    Nothing wrong with govt. order and structure but don’t intrude on religious affairs.

  5. They really should update this statement. I mean the queen has less power than the church and the church has less influence than the media rags that chirp daily. Seriously, this statement is meaningless in present day England.

  6. Michael says:

    The sovereign has the chief power in the realm of England and his other possessions. The supreme government of all in this realm, whatever their station, whether ecclesiastical and civil, and in all matters, belongs to him and is not, nor ought to be, subject to any foreign jurisdiction. When we attribute to the sovereign the chief government (a title which seems to have offended some slanderous persons) we do not grant our rulers the ministry of either God’s Word or of the sacraments. This is also made clear in the Injunctions published by Queen Elizabeth I. By this title we acknowledge only the prerogative which we see in holy Scripture God has given to all godly rulers. They should rule all people committed to their charge by God, whatever their station or rank, whether ecclesiastical or secular, and restrain with the civil power those who are stubborn or practise evil.
    The bishop of Rome has no jurisdiction in this realm of England.
    The laws of the realm may punish Christian people with death for heinous and grave offences.
    It is lawful for Christian men at the command of the state to carry weapons and serve in wars.

  7. Michael says:

    In this historical period the governmental rulers often tried to exercise authority over the church as well…going so far as to usurp the offices of the church in regard to the sacraments and church discipline.
    This article made the division clear over who had authority in what sphere.
    Civil government ruled in civil matters and was expected to carry out the it’s responsibilities in a godly manner, but the church had authority over all matters sacred.
    It reiterated that the pope had no political or ecclesiastical authority over the church of England.
    It acknowledged that the government had been given the power of the sword by God.
    It refuted the Anabaptist idea of pacifism.

  8. Michael’s #6. Is that an update? If so, not one that would address the Anglican Church that is located in a country that is not under the authority of whoever rules England.

    BD’s #5. Exactly. When I said “Of course, we don’t give the crown the power granted here either, but hey, it is England not America.” What I meant was, we in America don’t give our govt. the authority the Crown is granted in this article. But, you are right, any authority the Crown once had has been chipped away at over the years.
    I would bet a lot of what is unspoken in this article, deals with land tenure. The Crown took the land the CofE uses from the RCC, but all land in England at that time was a grant from the Crown. Way different time. Way different govt.

  9. #7. Thank you. Better context there.

  10. Well, you will never lack for the number of Lutherans who agree that the papacy is the anti christ.

    Who else (as biblically described) sits on the throne of god’s temple and deceives the world – that deception coming by denouncing salvation by God’s grace through faith alone.

  11. London says:

    Michael. The sovereign of England is a woman. Long live the Queen. 🙂

    Isn’t this article updated? The Elisabeth that’s mentioned is the current monarch, not one from centuries ago.

  12. But, this article begs the question…Why has it not been updated to reflect an enumeration of powers, civil and ecclesiastical, that more clearly represents a global presence of the Anglican Church? I mean what is the use of making an American or African Anglican agree to this to be catechised?

  13. Gary says:

    When Jesus said; “If you forgive anyone’s sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.” was He referring to the apostles or to all Christians?

  14. #6 Is what I asked for
    #7 gives clarity
    But it is still irrelevant to the actual situation on the ground.

    Describing realms of authority is always useful … if they pertain

  15. Michael says:

    BD,

    I would disagree.
    I believe that sooner or later in this country the government will be dictating what we can and cannot teach in more than one area.
    How will the church respond?
    Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it…

  16. Michael says:

    Derek,
    Many Anglicans have split from the main body in England.
    The Canadians have entered into communion with the African brethren as have some of the Americans.
    Those would still use the BCP with this article updated to reflect those associations.

  17. #16. Are these the articles Reuben uses though? I had assumed it was.

    It is different than the the article found in the Book of Common Prayer I own, published in 1928, for the Episcopal Church, which is part of the Anglican communion.
    Here it is:

    XXXVII. Of the Power of the Civil Magistrates.

    THE Power of the Civil Magistrate extendeth to all men, as well Clergy as Laity, in all things temporal; but hath no authority in things purely spiritual. And we hold it to be the duty of all men who are professors of the Gospel. to pay respectful obedience to the Civil Authority, regularly and legitimately constituted.

    Now, that seems far more in line with what I would expect for an updated article.

  18. It actually covers all forms of government well with that.

  19. Michael says:

    Derek,

    This one is from the 1600’s.

  20. I know that.
    I am asking does Reuben’s church still use it?
    I guess sort of like some churches still use KJV only, does Reuben’s church still use the outdated ones for some reason?
    These are the articles he is posting and I, for one thought, these were the articles he was affirming for inclusion into that church.
    Not criticizing, just confused on this point.

  21. Michael says:

    Derek,

    Not sure about that…Reuben will have to answer that one.
    I have the old BCP and love it…

  22. I realize Reuben is probably at work, so I am not asking for an immediate answer.

  23. “It is lawful for Christian men at the commandment of the Magistrate to wear weapons and serve in the wars.”

    Is it lawful for Christian men who disagree with such ideas as wearing weapons and serving in a secular government’s wars to therefore NOT do so?

    If an individual owns himself then no government, sacred or secular, can compel an individual to kill or support organized killing and the exploits of any government.

  24. Its interesting to me how The Enlightenment forced the evolution of human rights for Western Europe and The United States.

    As this quoted document comes from the 1600s, what has been put in its place to reflect current Western thought?

  25. Becky says:

    Reuben is using the original articles from the 1600s No we don’t actually follow it in the original. (obviously!) This I guess could be a history lesson as well for some. If it had not been for the reformers you all would probably not be in your own little bubbles of Christianity.

    Stop whining about the language! (strong irritation for those who can’t understand old english here). It’s not brain surgery it is english. At least it is not in latin. Then you would have some reason to whine. But then I would tell you to go learn some latin.

    Of course XXXVII Of the Power of the Civil Magistrates in the newer publications of the Book of Common Prayer is a more updated version. I have an idea….Check it out for yourselves Like Derek did.

    =^..^=

  26. #25. Thank you, Becky! Confusion cleared up.

  27. G,
    It doesn’t say you have to serve, it says it is lawful “to serve”. Conscription was a big thing then though, just as it has been in modern history. WWII and Vietnam to cite two. What current Western thought are you talking about? If it ever comes down to a war that takes more than volunteer, I guarantee that will happen again. Selective Service anyone?

    I posted an updated article if you care to read it.

  28. Thanks Derek. I’m all for volunteers who choose based on their own reasons but will always be against demanding anyone participate in a war

  29. “Stop whining about the language!”

    …but whining is what makes all this so much fun 😉

  30. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_Service_System

    For those that think our system is too enlightened to send people to war who don’t volunteer, the govt. stands ready to disabuse you of that notion if it ever needs you.

  31. Muff Potter says:

    London wrote @ # 11:
    The Elisabeth that’s mentioned is the current monarch, not one from centuries ago.

    I just loved Cate Blanchett’s portrayal of the Elizabeth of centuries ago.

  32. London says:

    I don’t see one single comment about the language except me playfully chiding Michael about his use of a masculine pronoun in reference of a female monarch.
    Definitely no posts that look like whining or complaining about older English.
    People’s comments about updating the ideas

    I honestly don’t think Americans can fully apreciate nor judge this based on our cultural standards or history. We don’t come at it with British eyes

  33. Just to be clear, I wasn’t calling for it’s revision, I did not understand why an Anglican in a country outside The British realm or any of the Commonwealth’s would subscribe to this article. It actually made sense to me that anyone living under the Queen would, even though the Monarchy in England has been rendered far more impotent than in Elizabeth I’s time.

    As for the language, with all apologies to Becky, it is actually considered Modern English.

    Old English=Beowulf
    Middle English=Chaucer
    Modern English=a little before Shakespeare and up.

    Now, that being said, I was brought up with a KJV/NIV Bible and have had no problem understanding the KJV. It takes a bit more time and effort for the modern reader, but Becky is right it is still understandable today.

  34. Becky says:

    London,

    BD usually complains about not being able to understand “English please…”

    I studied Theatre, especially Shakespeare. I Think he makes a remark each time just to annoy me on purpose. And it does. I sit here and roll my eyes and think a certain word.

    =^..^=

  35. Becky says:

    Yes Derek it is modern. For some reason some people just can’t comprehend. It annoys me. It really does. 🙂 As in Makes me roll my eyes and say certain words. 🙂

  36. Muff Potter says:

    (|o)====::: and Derek,

    War is and always has been one of the most lucrative enterprises an investor can be into. It made vast fortunes for the Venetian shipping tycoons during the Crusades and handsome profits for Bell Helicopter during the Vietnam conflict. Nothing new under the g2 star we orbit is there?

    “…When the haves can wring no more from the have nots they turn on each other in calculated gambits to get more. This is called war…”

  37. London says:

    Oh I see.
    Well even if he didn’t do it to annoy you before, now that he knows it does, he undoubtly will. 🙂

  38. Actually Michael, we agree about the present government. The US government is antichrist and will do anything to crush the witness to Jesus.

    I just think the church of England statement is not relevant to their present state of affairs. The church and the royalty are a mess.

    On the other hand we will have to be very bold in the future to navigate life in our beastly state.

  39. Reuben says:

    Derek,

    The original 39 are adhered to, to a degree… Our church is affiliated with the most extreme orthodox branch available in the states. It used to be African, but has since asked the Americas to take up their own leadership. That change happened in the last year. We are not expected to be 100% on board with the 39. Obviously, we do not report to the queen. However, it is interesting stuff.

    Jackie is a nut, and showed her ignorance in neon lights with her comment.

    I am still at work, so I don’t have time to get into much else.

  40. I was reading some of the background on the whole controversy on the 1928 revision, where the House of Commons rejected it and all the way up to the Common Worship series in 2000. Interesting stuff even into modern times.
    I am sure that if I was Anglican I would gravitate more towards the African branches, as they tend to be more theologically conservative.

  41. mrtundraman says:

    MLD wrote – “Well, you will never lack for the number of Lutherans who agree that the papacy is the anti christ. Who else (as biblically described) sits on the throne of god’s temple and deceives the world – that deception coming by denouncing salvation by God’s grace through faith alone.”

    And there are a number of Catholics who feel/felt the same way about the Protestant Reformation and Luther in particular, ie, that it/he was the spirit of AntiChrist,,.

    Not sure how the papal seat of Rome or the Pope could be described by the phrase “sit on the throne of God’s temple” by the Lutheran view…

    2Thes 2:4 clearly ISN’T describing the Roman Church in the 50 AD timeframe in which it was written – “Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.”

    It can only be describing the Jewish religion, pre-70 AD, The Emperor would never have been described in such a way and Peter or his immediate successor was still the Pope in Rome (if it could be said that he was the Pope at that time).

  42. Ahhh…MTM has shown up to pick a fight with MLD. My night is complete.

  43. mrtundraman says:

    “When Jesus said; “If you forgive anyone’s sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.” was He referring to the apostles or to all Christians?”

    The apostles and their successors – today’s Bishops and Priests – those who have the sacrament of confession and absolution.

  44. mrtundraman says:

    Certainly a Caesar would have called himself a god, by that point in time, but Paul would NEVER describe the palace of the Caesars as “the temple of God”. That can only be the Jewish Temple and the High Priest.

  45. Night all.

    A bit from Macbeth to close out the night.
    _________________________________

    Tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow

    Creeps in this petty pace from day to day

    To the last syllable of recorded time;

    And all our yesterdays have lighted fools

    The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!

    Life’s but a walking shadow, a poor player

    That struts and frets his hour upon the stage

    And then is heard no more. It is a tale

    Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,

    Signifying nothing.

  46. Gary says:

    # 14 Last line.
    It DOES pertain. In fact it’s germane.
    But you’d rather speak blather than use your right brain.

  47. Gary says:

    Ok, Mr Tundra Man. I just saw your # 44 post. What if there are 2 bishops or priests of equal rank and stature. The one forgives a certain congregant of a certain sin and the other does not. For good reason says he and without partiality. Is the sin forgiven? I’m not trying to be facetious here. I need an answer. And thanks for finally addressing the question.

  48. mrtundraman says:

    There can only be 1 bishop in an area. It is in the canons of the church.

  49. Gary says:

    I use Paul, Barnabas, and John Mark as an example. Barnabas forgave him but Paul didn’t. I know later Paul did but not for years. This is one of those verses this simp cannot reconcile. Only God can forgive sin. Maybe it’s the old conundrum of before God or before man. God forgave all sin on the cross but we must accept it for propitiation. Once God has cancelled my sin debt there is no man that can choose to not forgive me. However, I have sinned against my brother and he has not forgiven me and probably never will.

  50. “Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.”

    This is indeed a great description of the papacy – and some popes carry it off better than others. Read Trent and you will see that this was their final statement as they tried to wrestle salvation by grace away from the apostles themselves and God and to absolutely obliterate the gospel.

  51. The reason I ask people to read Trent is because that document is the official RCC response to the Reformation. (a preview, if you have not read it – they did not like the Reformation.)

    But if you read the canons, if you believe the theology that came out of the Reformation (which came out of the rediscovery of the Bible) then you are pronounced worthy of hell.

    I would have said anathema but I didn’t know how to spell it. 😉

    As a note, Rome has never rescinded nor have they modified Trent – so it still stands as their official position.

  52. Gary says:

    Do you think the new pope could command Israel in a pinch? I do.

  53. Gary says:

    If this is a place to pontificate, where is the pontiff?

  54. mrtundraman says:

    “Only God can forgive sin. ”

    Untrue. God asks us to forgive people who repent, like God does.

  55. mrtundraman says:

    “God forgave all sin on the cross but we must accept it for propitiation.’

    Except that God didn’t forgive all sin on the cross. Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven in this life or the next.

  56. mrtundraman says:

    “As a note, Rome has never rescinded nor have they modified Trent – so it still stands as their official position.”

    Apparently he’s never heard of Vatican II.

  57. mrtundraman says:

    Paul under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit wrote – “Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.”

    MLD wrote – This is indeed a great description of the papacy

    Except that it’s got nothing to do with the papacy at all. Unless you believe
    1 – Paul was speaking prophetically (there’s NO indication in the passage that he was).
    2 – There was no papacy in the 50’s AD (as I already pointed out).
    3 – Why would Paul or anyone call the Vatican “the temple of God”.

    No, it makes sense that:
    1 – Paul was speaking of a situation at his time – which matches the present tense of the passage – no future tense in the verse!
    2 – The center of worship wasn’t Rome, it was Jerusalem.
    3 – The temple on Jerusalem was the temple.

    Of course this all demonstrates that Luther was a false teacher. Not that we needed this exposition to make that point.

  58. Gary says:

    You added a condition to forgiveness and added ‘us’. I am not a bishop or a priest in a denomination that has bishops or priests. I think what you’re telling me in a round about way is that I’m not forgiven. In the Lord’s prayer. (You may call it the “Our Father”) Jesus did not put conditions on forgiveness.

  59. Gary says:

    #56 duh

  60. “Apparently he’s never heard of Vatican II.”

    Do you want to show us where Vatican II modified or rescinded the canons I spoke of. You realize that the “new” would have to say that belief in justification by grace through faith ALONE is just A-OK with the RCC now.

    Even though the EO and RCC are 2 peas in a pod, you don’t always need to defend the RCC.

  61. And no one today can blaspheme the Holy Spirit in the way Jesus spoke of it. So, MTM you are wrong on that account. Again.

  62. mrtundraman says:

    “Do you want to show us where Vatican II modified or rescinded the canons I spoke of. You realize that the “new” would have to say that belief in justification by grace through faith ALONE is just A-OK with the RCC now.”

    LOL. Why would they adopt heretical Lutheran doctrine? They’d rather stick with the whole counsel of God

  63. mrtundraman says:

    “And no one today can blaspheme the Holy Spirit in the way Jesus spoke of it.”

    Just shows that not all sins are forgiven.

  64. mrtundraman says:

    ” Jesus did not put conditions on forgiveness.”

    Of course He did. Read Matt 18 and see.

    Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.
    But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established…

  65. Gary says:

    And what if he never repents? I was referring to the prayer.

  66. mrtundraman says:

    Read the rest of Matt 18. If he never repents “let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.”

  67. mrtundraman says:

    “[In the Lord’s Prayer] Jesus did not put conditions on forgiveness.”

    Argument from silence. He did plenty of other places…

  68. “LOL. Why would they adopt heretical Lutheran doctrine? They’d rather stick with the whole counsel of God”

    That may be the case – but you were the one who opened his yap and implied (or tried to mislead) by saying that Vatican II somehow modified or replaced Trent.

    You are wrong again… or should I say as usual

  69. mrtundraman says:

    “I am not a bishop or a priest in a denomination that has bishops or priests.”

    Episcopos (Bishops) and presbuteros (priests) are a NT thing. If you are in a church without bishops or priest I’d have to say you are not in a Christian church.

  70. mrtundraman says:

    “That may be the case – but you were the one who opened his yap and implied (or tried to mislead) by saying that Vatican II somehow modified or replaced Trent.”

    I just said you are wrong and that’s not all that unusual. Of course Vatican II modified Trent. Otherwise why have such a thing as Vatican II. But they won’t say it since the church “never changes”. It just clarifies.

  71. All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation; that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them,

    Which part of “who through Christ reconciled us to himself” don’t you understand?
    Which part of “not counting their trespasses against them” don’t you understand?

  72. Time to drive home from work – see ya! 🙂

  73. I am sorry. Do those words actually literally translate into Bishop and priest? That has never been my impression? I thought it meant overseers and elders.

  74. mrtundraman says:

    yes, they translate…

  75. mrtundraman says:

    What’s the problem with “priests” as a NT office?

    And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.

    And…

    And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth.

    If Priests are only in the OT, then whey would it say that?

  76. mrtundraman says:

    “All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation; that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them,
    Which part of “who through Christ reconciled us to himself” don’t you understand?
    Which part of “not counting their trespasses against them” don’t you understand?”

    Nothing about forgiveness in those verses.

    As Scripture says “Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ’s stead, be ye reconciled to God.”

    If it tells us to be reconciled then there’s more reconciliation to be done… We do our part by receiving Christ. I know MLD will hate to hear that since it means God’s work isn’t done until we received that work but I’d rather have God’s word be true than MLD…

  77. mrtundraman says:

    Even the reconciliation above has limits –

    Col 1:21-23 And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled In the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and unblameable and unreproveable in his sight: If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister;

    Notice the “if” in the third verse…

    If you continue.

  78. mrtundraman says:

    The Bishop is the Overseer. He oversees the priests.

  79. Steve Wright says:

    and presbuteros (priests) are a NT thing
    —————————————-
    I’ll avoid snark and just say this is just flat-out wrong And Derek is 100% correct. .Priest is not even close to the same word.

    As far as “bishop” it is the Greek word for overseer, and outside of the King James usually translated that way in most verses where it occurs (or translated as elder) (NIV, ESV, NASB etc)

    Even the KJV does not try to make it “bishop” in this verse to all the Ephesian elders (see v.17) who are to shepherd (pastor) (i.e. feed) :

    Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you OVERSEERS, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. Acts 20:28

    1 Peter chapter 5, verses 1 and 2 also show the interplay of these three words. Elders that pastor/shepherd serving as overseers.

  80. Xenia says:

    Bishop = overseer

    It’s the English version of the Greek word epískopos

    Epi is a preposition that means on or upon or over.

    Skopos has to do with seeing, as in the English words telescope.or microscope.

    So, to over see.

    That’s what a bishop does!

  81. Steve Wright says:

    I also see Tundra does not understand a 1st class conditional Greek sentence with the Colossians quote. Nor the very well known textual criticism issues surrounding the two Revelation verses quoted as he does using the old KJV once more.

    When someone who clearly knows little about Greek, tries to use Greek in a forum like this, it does say something to me…

    Buyer beware.

  82. Steve Wright says:

    That’s what a bishop does!
    ————————-
    I do agree with you Xenia. That’s what a pastor does as well – though we use a different term than bishop.

    Tundra went out of bounds in his conclusion.

  83. Xenia,
    Not seeing the elder translation to priest.
    Bishop….hmm maybe, but seems that it doesn’t quite fit the definition of overseer I have had growing up and hearing sermons all my life. Even us lay people pick some things up over a lifetime. I know the KJV uses it, but this is a case where I think it confuses people between an office and a function.
    As for MTM, I am used to hearing a lot of confusion from him as his main goal is too refute any word that comes from MLD. I know he refuses to let anyone know what denom. he really wants to belong to. Is he really going to be the main spokesperson for Orthodoxy on here? I respect your word far more than his.

    MLD, say the sky is blue and see if MTM can post about 4 posts in a row to try to prove you wrong.

  84. MTM,
    I can’t believe your theology allows you to express yourself that way. The first part of the passage says that God has done all of the work through Jesus Christ to reconcile himself to mankind – remember, God is the offended party. It goes on to say that he no longer holds our sin against us. Sin is no longer the issue between us and God.

    The second half of the passage says that we, the reconciled, are to go into the world telling people THAT message – what God has done and that we are to reconcile ourselves with God. Well, as anyone knows that does not mean that we now do the same and forgive God – or not count his sins against him any longer. No, the way we reconcile ourselves to God is to accept what he has said about His work. Belief or unbelief are now the issue.

    Look, I like to give the short version – our message to the world is this “God is no longer mad at you. Stop being mad at God.”

    The end. 🙂

  85. mrtundraman says:

    Before Steve gets all excited about what he thinks I don’t know, the original question was “Do those words actually literally translate into Bishop and priest?”

    Yes, they do literally translate… The modern English words “priest” or “presbyter” are derived etymologically from presbuteros. That’s a well demonstrated fact – look in a dictionary it if you want to check it out…

    First…
    dictionary.reference.com/browse/priest
    Then…
    dictionary.reference.com/browse/presbyter

    In the Eastern Orthodox Church the term presbyter is used to refer to priests, whose authority is considered to be an extension of that of the local bishop. In Orthodox theology, the charism of Eldership (itself an extenuation of Prophesy) continues to this day in monasticism. An experienced monastic Elder (Greek: Geronta; Slavonic: Starets) will provide guidance not only for their fellow monks, but for the laity as well.

    All of these are well documented facts… Sorry Steve. No reason to get so excited…

  86. I would like some examples of where presbuteros is translated in a modern translation as priest? Just saying it literally translates to “priest” in the time of King James does not cut it, when that is not actually the true meaning of the word. Not buying it.

  87. mrtundraman says:

    Steve also got excited and wrote – “I also see Tundra does not understand a 1st class conditional Greek sentence with the Colossians quote. Nor the very well known textual criticism issues surrounding the two Revelation verses quoted as he does using the old KJV once more.”

    Yah, I know that the “once saved-always saved” use this “first class conditional” term to try and make the passage say something other than what is says in the Greek or English… But the word is properly translated as “if” and it is just a presumption that it means “since”.

    As to the textual critical arguments around the use of “priest” in translating the Revelation passages, I will still with Chuck Smith who in his tapes 575 and 576 stated

    “Now these same textual critics and scholars that are telling us that we can’t accept all of what is in the King James, as truly divinely inspired of God, are the same school of scholarship that tell us that really we can’t accept all of the stories in the Bible as being genuine, because we know that a lot of the Old Testament Stories are just nothing more than Hebrew mythology.” https://files.pbworks.com/download/5wGFVhiw6B/calvarychapel/35843501/Smith%20-%20KJV%20pt%201.mp3

    If you don’t agree, take it up with your leader…

  88. Gary says:

    When Jesus said; “If you forgive anyone’s sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.” was He referring to the apostles or to all Christians?
    MLD and mrtundraman gave their answers. Anybody else have an opinion?

  89. Steve Wright says:

    Yah, I know that the “once saved-always saved” use this “first class conditional” term to try and make the passage say something other than what is says in the Greek or English… But the word is properly translated as “if” and it is just a presumption that it means “since”.
    ———————————————
    Tundra, you don’t even know enough Greek to know what it is I was saying there. When did I ever say “since” or ‘once saved always saved’? I dealt with your interpretation and use of the verse, improperly, as a proof text.

    And as to Revelation, so your defense on the textual criticism issue is Chuck? Somehow you can’t defend your own words – and I am obligated to “take it up” with Chuck.

    And so I got you correct on this….in your world, no CC pastor can study, discuss and teach textual criticism issues in line with the scholars of Christendom. And then you criticize CC pastors regularly for their lack of education.

    Somehow, Chuck is of course wrong on just about everything in your world, except when you can use him to come into an alignment with a point you seek to make and that you can’t support on your own.

    I’ve known many KJV only folks. Knowing your KJV allegiance does explain your minimal effort in studying the original languages – and just knowing you explains your attempt to use something you don’t understand to make points that you otherwise can’t support, in hopes others too don’t know the languages.

    But as both Derek and Xenia showed, even a layman can spot some of your errors.

  90. Steve Wright says:

    Wow, I should have read the “priest” argument post first before wasting my time.

    English derivations somehow are used to rewrite the meaning of the words God used when the Bible was written in its original languages?

    There are no words for such ‘scholarship’ (pun very much intended)

  91. Gary says:

    I’d rather attend CC than MLD or mtm’s church.

  92. I understand the whole idea of the english word priest coming originally from the greek word presbuteros. What I can’t understand is how any educated person today would still think that a valid translation of “elder”. When one thinks of elders one does not think priest. Priest brings to mind OT connotations of the word or else RCC and EO connotations of the words. I think even by King James time the meaning had been skewed in people’s minds. It is points like this that make me see the flaws in the “tradition” thinking.

    Word meanings change and people’s concepts of what words mean change. I really appreciate the KJV for it’s contributions to both Christianity and the English language, but it shouldn’t be used to prove some points.

  93. Gary, you know nothing about my church – for all you know, they have the good decency to make me sit on the back porch.

  94. The word “peculiar” from the KJV is a good example of the meaning of words changing.

  95. Steve Wright says:

    Even the KJV never ever translates presbuteros as ‘priest’

    And it had 67 opportunities to do so if they wanted to….

  96. Steve, don’t feel bad – you can still call Chuck to “take it up with him.” MTM requires me to go out and “take it up” with a guy who had been dead 450 yrs.

    When MTM’s argument starts to circle the toilet, he throws in the “well Luther wrote / said”

    Hey MTM, keep your focus, you are discussing with me – not Luther.

  97. Gary says:

    MLD,
    I bean on dis blog for muntz. Finely you say sumfing funny. I laughing. It really was funny. 😉

  98. Steve Wright says:

    This book by Grassmick is a great little work – especially for anyone interested in the subject. It is not a Greek grammar book, in fact one does not have to be an expert in Greek to still get a lot out of this book. It really covers a range of issues, and uses Colossians to show how the disciplines look in using a portion of Scripture. Each issue of course is worthy of an entire book for greater study, but he does cover them in more depth than a typical “bird’s eye” fly-by.

    Amazon has it too, but for twice as much as this site.

    http://www.gbibooks.com/Details.aspx?ID=316

  99. #96 Well. Still waiting on those examples….look like you can include the KJV now.

    How is that back porch? If they don’t have some shade and a cool beer, I think you should fuss to the management.

  100. Gary says:

    Fuss? MLD? The back porch is probably where they keep the pillory stocks.

  101. OK, so I was out for my walk and I ran into Martin Luther. Since MTM alwys tells me to takin it up with Luther I did.”

    Now even though MTM says that Luther is a false teacher and even though I know that anything coming from me about Luther MTM denies as truth… Luther said to me;

    “But the question is: What are we to do with sins—not only other people’s but our own? Paul answers that the man who is called Jesus Christ, the Son of God, has given Himself for them. These are wonderful words of consolation and promises of the old law: that our sins are not removed by any other means than by the Son of God given into death. Such bullets and such artillery must be used to destroy the papacy, all the religions of the heathen, all ceremonies, all works, all merits. For if our sins can be removed by our own satisfactions, why did the Son of God have to be given for them? But since He was given for them, it follows that we cannot remove them by works of our own.”

    Martin Luther, Luther’s Works, Vol. 26: Lectures on Galatians Chapters 1-4

    Luther then told me to tell MTM to rest in Christ and not be a slave to your works – Jesus already did it for you.

  102. Reuben says:

    Arguing soteriology 101.

    Winning!

  103. mrtundraman says:

    One of the funnier aspects of this is that Steve is making the claim that he knows Greek better than the Greeks do. The real Greeks call the leader of their local congregation “presbuteros” because that is always what they have called him since the early church. That same role is fulfilled by the guy who goes by the title of “Priest” in the English speaking church. I really could care less that translators use the word “elder” since the role is that of the priest in the church.

    Ironically Steve takes the title “Pastor” for himself. The term has just one NT usage where it is not defined at all.

  104. Still waiting on those examples

  105. mrtundraman says:

    Too bad the subject was ecclesiology not soteriology…

    For MLD any subject is soteriology. He can’t see the subject because he is so focused on one tiny aspect of soteriology…

  106. mrtundraman says:

    Steve wrote – “Even the KJV never ever translates presbuteros as ‘priest’
    And it had 67 opportunities to do so if they wanted to….”

    Take it up with the Greeks, Steve. They will be amused with your claims. They know what they have always called the Priest in their church – presbuteros.

  107. Sort of like peculiar still means the same thing in King James time as it does now. That would be like me appealing to Modern English to prove the meaning of the word in Old English. Not always gonna work there buddy.

  108. Examples? Guess not.

  109. mrtundraman says:

    “I understand the whole idea of the english word priest coming originally from the greek word presbuteros.”

    Which was the original question I responded to.

    “What I can’t understand is how any educated person today would still think that a valid translation of “elder”. ”

    Translations are funny things. The Protestant NT translators tend to take a priest=bad and elder=good mentality. I prefer a more nuanced translation which seeks to go to the meaning of the passage rather than a wooden mapping trying to preserve a standard Protestant reading of the text.

    Here’s one Catholic translation (Douay-Rheims Bible) of a familiar text:

    Against a priest receive not an accusation, but under two or three witnesses. Them that sin reprove before all: that the rest also may have fear.

    So although Protestants don’t translate those passages that way, the Catholics do.

    “When one thinks of elders one does not think priest.”

    That’s because you are not a traditional/historical Christian. You have a much more newly minted religion.

    “Priest brings to mind OT connotations of the word or else RCC and EO connotations of the words. I think even by King James time the meaning had been skewed in people’s minds. It is points like this that make me see the flaws in the “tradition” thinking.”

    That’s why it helps to look at the office. There is a book out called “Biblical Eldership” which seeks to re-instate what they think is the BIblical model of church leadership with the Elders leading the church. They just don’t get that is what we have with the Priest and Bishops. That was and is the original form carried forward in time to today.

  110. mrtundraman says:

    Derek, I just got in from a long morning with my kids so pardon me for not providing all of your examples the minute you asked for them…

  111. “Too bad the subject was ecclesiology not soteriology…”

    Too bad the subject was you trying to figure out how to be forgiven.

  112. mrtundraman says:

    “Word meanings change and people’s concepts of what words mean change. I really appreciate the KJV for it’s contributions to both Christianity and the English language, but it shouldn’t be used to prove some points.”

    I’d go with the Greeks. They used the word and have the right idea about what it should mean. It’s incumbent on someone with an alternate meaning to make the case since they’ve always seen the word as describing the person who performs the role of the Priest.

  113. mrtundraman says:

    MLD – Do you want some help with the difference between ecclesiology and soteriology? When someone asks if we should forgive a brother who repents what do you say? Only God can forgive? Or do you recognize that this is something between brothers? It seems to me that you continue to confuse man forgiving man with God forgiving man.

  114. mrtundraman says:


    “Too bad the subject was ecclesiology not soteriology…”
    Too bad the subject was you trying to figure out how to be forgiven.”

    I have never seen a better example of someone making the very point that they claim to be refuting…

  115. mrtundraman says:

    Note, I was just trying to answer the original question about the two words. But, as often happens when I dialog with my fellow Protestants, the arguments against the historical/traditional faith (Catholic and EO) don’t hold much water. These arguments are what is driving me towards Christmation (entrance into the Historical EO church).

  116. mrtundraman says:

    “Sort of like peculiar still means the same thing in King James time as it does now. That would be like me appealing to Modern English to prove the meaning of the word in Old English. Not always gonna work there buddy.”

    Not only is the word cognate, but the meaning has carried forward. Nobody woke up one day and just decided to start calling pastors as “priests” in the historical churches. They have been called that for a very long time. The English speaking Protestant church (Church of England) still calls them Priests.

    It was the Protestant breakaways which rejected the word and left the Greek to English derived titles as a way of weakening the priesthood. They picked an obscure title “Pastor” which is only in 1 NT passage as the name for their leaders. Not sure how they went so far off the reservation but it seems like an attempt to rebel against the historical church.

  117. mrtundraman says:

    Typo a couple back s/b Chrismation… Not Christmation. Might make Xenia smile at the slip of spelling.

    Xenia, we have a St. Xenia icon on the front wall of our church… She was skinny 🙂

  118. mrtundraman says:

    ‘And so I got you correct on this….in your world, no CC pastor can study, discuss and teach textual criticism issues in line with the scholars of Christendom. And then you criticize CC pastors regularly for their lack of education.”

    No sense of humor today, Steve? I am not KJV only, but clearly Chuck Smith was when he did tapes 575 and 576. I don’t put any stock in his argument at all but I think you ought to take stock in it since it was made by your leader. It shows what he thinks (or thought at the time) about your way of looking at Scripture. So every word you make to criticize me on the point is deflected to Chuck. I am glad to see you disagree with him.

  119. mrtundraman says:

    “But the question is: What are we to do with sins—not only other people’s but our own? Paul answers that the man who is called Jesus Christ, the Son of God, has given Himself for them”

    Luther sounds really confused on this point. Confused between man and God…

  120. mrtundraman says:

    Or maybe MLD is just confusedly quoting Luther since he tends to get the categories confused…

  121. mrtundraman says:

    “I’d rather attend CC than MLD or mtm’s church”

    I attended MLDs church (the denomination). I was baptized and confirmed there. Didn’t find Christ anywhere there. He may have been there, but he was undercover.

    I did find Christ at CC. Not directly due to CC. Someone had already done 99% of the work before we went to CC.

    I did find the fulness of the faith in the EO church and may someday join.

  122. “Xenia, we have a St. Xenia icon on the front wall of our church…”

    What is this OUR CHURCH stuff. You blatantly refuse to join that church.

    Come on buddy – belly up to the bar – are you EO or not? You can’t keep jumping from EO to Protestant as if you think that helps your discussions.

  123. Ok, still no examples.

    Guess many posts=I am right and don’t have to provide examples, just obfuscate.
    Or could it be, there are no examples.
    Well, y’all have fun on this thread.

  124. mrtundraman says:

    “I would like some examples of where presbuteros is translated in a modern translation as priest? Just saying it literally translates to “priest” in the time of King James does not cut it, when that is not actually the true meaning of the word. Not buying it.”

    I gave the example already:

    Here’s one Catholic translation (Douay-Rheims Bible) of a familiar text:
    Against a priest receive not an accusation, but under two or three witnesses. Them that sin reprove before all: that the rest also may have fear.
    http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=61&ch=5&l=19#x

    Not sure what more you want…

  125. mrtundraman says:

    The Douay-Rheims Bible translation fits the bill for what you specifically asked for being a translation from the time of King Jimmy (actually a little before).

    You don’t have to agree with the following, but here’s a defense of the point I have been making –

    http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/where-in-the-new-testament-are-priests-mentioned
    “The English word “priest” is derived from the Greek word presbuteros, which is commonly rendered into Bible English as “elder” or “presbyter.” The ministry of Catholic priests is that of the presbyters mentioned in the New Testament (Acts 15:6, 23). The Bible says little about the duties of presbyters, but it does reveal they functioned in a priestly capacity.
    They were ordained by the laying on of hands (1 Tm 4:14, 5:22), they preached and taught the flock (1 Tm 5:17), and they administered sacraments (Jas 5:13-15). These are the essential functions of the priestly office, so wherever the various forms of presbuteros appear–except, of course, in instances which pertain to the Jewish elders (Mt 21:23, Acts 4:23)–the word may rightly be translated as “priest” instead of “elder” or “presbyter.” “

  126. mrtundraman says:

    The Douay-Rheims Bible translation fits the bill for what you specifically asked for being a translation from the time of King Jimmy (actually a little before).
    You don’t have to agree with the following, but here’s a defense of the point I have been making –
    http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/where-in-the-new-testament-are-priests-mentioned
    “The English word “priest” is derived from the Greek word presbuteros, which is commonly rendered into Bible English as “elder” or “presbyter.” The ministry of Catholic priests is that of the presbyters mentioned in the New Testament (Act, ch 15:6, 23). The Bible says little about the duties of presbyters, but it does reveal they functioned in a priestly capacity.
    They were ordained by the laying on of hands (1 Tm chs 4:14, 5:22), they preached and taught the flock (1 Tm ch. 5:17), and they administered sacraments (Jas ch. 5:13-15). These are the essential functions of the priestly office, so wherever the various forms of presbuteros appear–except, of course, in instances which pertain to the Jewish elders (Mt ch 21:23, Acts ch 4:23)–the word may rightly be translated as “priest” instead of “elder” or “presbyter.” “

  127. mrtundraman says:

    What I think the translators are really trying to do is to allow easy differentiation between the cult practice of Israel which had priests from the leaders of the church. The easiest way is to translate the word as elder. I think this is a poor choice since Israel had elders, too, as shown in the Mt ch 21:23 and Acts ch 4:23 verses). It would be easier to just get rid of the stigma that the word “priest” carries and use it the word since it’s the right word…

  128. Steve Wright says:

    Eisegesis…they name is Tundra

  129. mrtundraman says:

    Steve, I do appreciate your creative theology and am happy to stand with you in your condemnation of Chuck Smith’s KJV only ism…

  130. mrtundraman says:

    Here’s a couple more. In the Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible, which is the Catholic equivalent of the King James Version.
    In Titus ch 1:5, Paul tells Titus: “For this cause I left thee in Crete, that thou shouldst set in order the things that are wanting, and shouldst ordain priests in every city, as I also appointed thee.”
    In James ch 5:14-15 we read: “Is any man sick among you? Let him bring in the priests of the Church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil, in the name of the Lord. And the prayer of faith shall save the sick man; and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he be in sins, they shall be forgiven him.”

  131. mrtundraman says:

    Here’s a few more:

    Acts Of Apostles ch 14:22
    And when they had ordained to them priests in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, in whom they believed.

    Acts Of Apostles ch 15:2
    And when Paul and Barnabas had no small contest with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain others of the other side, should go up to the apostles and priests to Jerusalem about this question.

    1 Timothy ch 5:17
    Let the priests that rule well, be esteemed worthy of double honour: especially they who labour in the word and doctrine:

    I think I’ve made the case…

  132. mrtundraman says:

    Steve wrote “But as both Derek and Xenia showed, even a layman can spot some of your errors.”

    Not sure where Xenia did that… Can you give me the post link or number? Somehow I missed it…

  133. mrtundraman says:

    Steve wrote “Tundra, you don’t even know enough Greek to know what it is I was saying there. When did I ever say “since” or ‘once saved always saved’? I dealt with your interpretation and use of the verse, improperly, as a proof text.”

    This is a great example of a “blinding me with science” argument. I think this paper will help you with your misunderstandings about first class conditions…

    http://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/ted_hildebrandt/new_testament_greek/text/Boyer-FirstClassConditions-GTJ.pdf

    From the abstract at the top of the paper:

    “This inductive study of the approximately 300 NT instances of the first class condition (ei] + indicative) disputes the common understanding that this construction should be interpreted as obviously true and translated as “since.” It is found that this is the case only 37% of the time. Surprisingly, in 51% of the occurrences the condition is undetermined. Four proposed explanations of this construction are examined and found to be inadequate. It is then argued that the correct explanation of the first class condition is a simple logical connection
    between protasis and apodosis.”

    I can see why you got this wrong. Apparently it’s a common misunderstanding. They didn’t teach me misunderstandings at my seminary…

  134. mrtundraman says:

    Steve, there are a couple of books that would help you. In fact, I’d say a pastor or priest should read each one of these at least every other year.

    One is DA Carson’s “Exegetical Fallacies”.

    The other is Moises Silva’s “Biblical Words and Their Meaning”.

    You can buy them both together on amazon…

    I think they would help you quite a bit with your exegesis of Scripture…

  135. Gary says:

    I just checked the verses mtm posted. He misquoted those verses- all 3 of them. The word is elders not priests.

  136. mrtundraman says:

    What version of the Bible did you check them in?

  137. mrtundraman says:

    As I noted, I was quoting the Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible:

    http://www.drbo.org/index.htm

    You can look them up for yourself there.

  138. mrtundraman says:

    More from the paper I linked (which conclusively refutes Steve’s claims)

    “If the first class condition states or implies the actual truth, then it could not possibly be used by Christ to say, “If [or according to this view, since] I by Beelzebub cast out demons. . .
    (Matt 12:27), nor “Since I do not do the deeds of my father. . . “(John 10:37), nor “Since I have spoken evil. . .” (John 18:23). Paul could not have written “Since there is no resurrection. . .” (1 Cor 15:13), nor “Since Christ is not raised. . .” (1 Cor 15:14). These are not isolated, peculiar examples; they represent 12% of all the first class conditions in the NT. It is simply not true that first conditions indicate the external objective truth or reality of the condition. “Since,” of course, could be used in those cases where the condition happens to be true without making the statement untrue, but even there it would be a mistranslation, since it alters what the authors actually said. Greeks had a word for “since” (at least two of them) but they deliberately chose “if.” We must assume they knew what they were doing.”

  139. All you have done is reinforce my belief that tradition is sort of crooked when it comes down to it. It feeds on itself and tries to find reasons to reinforce things that aren’t supportable. No wonder the RCC never wanted the bible translated into a common tongue.
    But, I guess you found a translation to support your view, so that you don’t have to admit you are wrong. Too bad the bulk of modern scholars disagree with you.
    Sorry, but bored with this now, you have just shown more dishonesty IMO. This is getting old.

  140. mrtundraman says:

    More from the paper I linked (which conclusively refutes Steve’s claims)
    “If the first class condition states or implies the actual truth, then it could not possibly be used by Christ to say, “If [or according to this view, since] I by Beelzebub cast out demons. . .
    (Matt ch 12:27), nor “Since I do not do the deeds of my father. . . “(John ch 10:37), nor “Since I have spoken evil. . .” (John ch 18:23). Paul could not have written “Since there is no resurrection. . .” (1 Cor ch 15:13), nor “Since Christ is not raised. . .” (1 Cor ch 15:14). These are not isolated, peculiar examples; they represent 12% of all the first class conditions in the NT. It is simply not true that first conditions indicate the external objective truth or reality of the condition. “Since,” of course, could be used in those cases where the condition happens to be true without making the statement untrue, but even there it would be a mistranslation, since it alters what the authors actually said. Greeks had a word for “since” (at least two of them) but they deliberately chose “if.” We must assume they knew what they were doing.”

  141. mrtundraman says:

    “No wonder the RCC never wanted the bible translated into a common tongue.”

    Your comment is hilarious… The irony here is that these quotes are from the English translation of the Catholic Bible…

    “The New Testament portion was published in Reims, France, in 1582, in one volume with extensive commentary and notes.”

  142. mrtundraman says:

    “All you have done is reinforce my belief that tradition is sort of crooked when it comes down to it. It feeds on itself and tries to find reasons to reinforce things that aren’t supportable.”

    I agree with that. The Protestant church (or at least the non-CoE part) rejects the office of priests – an office based on the NT Greek “presbuteros”. The Protestant tradition replaces the clergy with an office only mentioned in one single NT verse, that of the “pastor”. That is a crooked tradition if ever there was one.

  143. Enough, you win your hollow victory. I am bored with you. It doesn’t pay to argue with people who will never admit they are wrong. Don’t expect an answer and don’t bother me on some other thread to prove your Alpha commenter status.

  144. mrtundraman says:

    “But, I guess you found a translation to support your view, so that you don’t have to admit you are wrong. Too bad the bulk of modern scholars disagree with you.”

    “found a translation”? LOL. That’s the Catholic equivalent of the KJV. Hardly just “a translation”. Again, you don’t have to like it, but that translation is more widely accepted than any other Bible translation in history. You just won’t find it in the back of the pew at your local Protestant church.

  145. mrtundraman says:

    “It doesn’t pay to argue with people who will never admit they are wrong.”

    OK, Derek. I do have a hard time admitting I am wrong when I am in fact right…

  146. Steve Wright says:

    The Catholics often like to translate the Greek word for ‘repent’ as do penance in that same Bible. No lexical justification whatsoever. A few examples.

    But Peter said to them: Do penance, and be baptized” Acts ch. 2:v. 38.

    And God indeed having winked at the times of this ignorance, now declareth unto men, that all should every where do penance” Acts ch 17 v. 30,.

    And in those days cometh John the Baptist preaching in the desert of Judea. And saying: Do penance: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand” Matthew ch 3 v.1-2

    (Go ahead and look them up) http://www.drbo.org/

  147. mrtundraman says:

    It only took me 100 posts (back and forth) to get Derek to admit I was right in my #44.

  148. Steve Wright says:

    , but that translation is more widely accepted than any other Bible translation in history.
    —————————————————
    That is a strange argument to me. Since only the Catholics really care about that translation.

    I guess by that logic if the Jehovah Witnesses ever surpassed the Catholics in sheer numbers, then the Watchtower Version will be the standard for discussion here – since popularity and member control, and not accuracy and scholarship apparently rule the day.

    I’m going to join Derek.

  149. mrtundraman says:

    “The Catholics often like to translate the Greek word for ‘repent’ as do penance in that same Bible. No lexical justification whatsoever.”

    OK, but irrelevant…

    So let’s look at an example of what Steve is saying is a mistranslated word in the D-R:

    Matt ch 3 v 8 Bring forth therefore fruit worthy of penance.

    That verse actually fits pretty well with the idea of penance. Possibly better than the idea of just repenting. Real action that shows the repentance is real.

    Again, on this one I am not defending or rejecting the D-R translation. I really could care less about the subject of penance (in this discussion) since it’s off-subject.

    Steve, how about addressing the issue presented in the Grace Theological Seminary paper? Can you just admit you are incorrect?

  150. mrtundraman says:

    “, but that translation is more widely accepted than any other Bible translation in history.
    —————————————————
    That is a strange argument to me. Since only the Catholics really care about that translation.”

    LOL. Only easy to dismiss a billion people worldwide. How many people read your translation? So much for compassion for Catholics…

    “I guess by that logic if the Jehovah Witnesses ever surpassed the Catholics in sheer numbers, then the Watchtower Version will be the standard for discussion here – since popularity and member control, and not accuracy and scholarship apparently rule the day.”

    My point (taken out of context) was in response to the numbers game Derek made “Too bad the bulk of modern scholars disagree with you”. It wouldn’t hurt you to read the comments in context here, Steve.

    “I’m going to join Derek.”

    By admitting you are wrong, too? Kewl. Never thought I’d see this day.

  151. Gary says:

    I’ll just say this before I join you Derek and Steve. I don’t trust the Catholic version and I don’t trust the Latin Vulgate. MLD and mtm deserve each other. They are 2 pees in a pod. *joins Derek and Steve*

  152. mrtundraman says:

    “MLD and mtm deserve each other”

    You really know how to hurt a guy, huh?

  153. MTM,
    “I did find Christ at CC. Not directly due to CC. Someone had already done 99% of the work before we went to CC.”

    That someone was your Lutheran pastor. 🙂

  154. mrtundraman says:

    MTM,
    “I did find Christ at CC. Not directly due to CC. Someone had already done 99% of the work before we went to CC.”
    MLD – That someone was your Lutheran pastor. 🙂

    Except… It wasn’t. I don’t even know if the Lutheran pastors I had were even Christian. Judging by how relatively easy it was to convert me, they definitely didn’t know the first thing about providing reasons for the Christian faith.

  155. mrtundraman says:

    I would be impressed with Steve Wright if he read the paper I linked and then admitted that he was wrong with his argument about Col 1:23. I don’t think there’s a chance in the world that will happen, but the paper is solid. Steve says he cares about exegesis and accurate translation but apparently talk is cheap.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.