1. The Select Practical Writings of John KnoxThomas Thomson (Ed.)
336 pages, clothbound
£16.00, $26.00
ISBN 978 1 84871 102 0
All references in brackets in this article refer to this volume.
Posted on 09/09/2012 8:41:47 AM PDT by Alex Murphy
'You are holding in your hands a rare and precious book', reads the publisher’s description on the jacket of this book.1 'It contains the choicest practical writings of a man whom God used to transform his native country and bring it into the light and under the blessing of the gospel of Jesus Christ, and that in spite of constant opposition and grave personal danger.' Knox is well known as a man of resolute action and a most powerful preacher under the Holy Spirit’s mighty operation. He sought no honour, however, for himself, saying: 'It hath pleased God of His superabundant grace to make me, most wretched me of many thousands, a witness, minister and preacher'.
We are not apt to think of Knox as a writer, or at least a particularly extensive writer, even though his collected works comprise six substantial volumes. As John Ker observed, 'The life of Knox was too busy and troubled to permit him to be a great writer, even had this been his faculty'. Although he published relatively little, his pen was rarely at rest but, as Thomas Thomson notes in the introduction to this book, it was 'indefatigable . . . at one time drawing up a manifesto, and at another, penning a treatise, or letter of religious consolation and advice' (p xxix). At certain times, however, even this labour took its toll: 'My daily labours must now increase . . . My old malady troubles me sore, and nothing is more contrarious to my flesh than writing' (p 316).
Knox’s History of the Reformation in Scotland2 is frequently read and referred to, together with his controversial pamphlets. One literary historian (Kenneth D. Farrow) justly maintains that Knox’s History is the first great work of Scots prose. We are unlikely, however, to think of Knox as an author of a quantity of writings valuable for practical Christian experience. Yet, as John Ker observes, Knox’s 'practical treatises, which are less read, have great fervour of spiritual feeling'.3 As the five-hundredth anniversary of Knox’s birth approaches (2014), this volume may help us to gain a fuller appreciation of his character and legacy as well as ministering real spiritual help to our souls.
We have here, as the historian Gordon Donaldson notes, 'almost for the first time in Scotland, a quantity of intimate personal letters'.4 What letters they are! Though comparatively few survive, his letters are indeed brief epistles of hope. Usually they are one-to-one letters, mostly to his mother-in-law, Elizabeth Bowes, and therefore more personal. Needless to say, we can find no evidence for the caricature constructed by unsympathetic secular writers – of a harsh, unfeeling fanatic. He can speak freely of his fears and write very candidly of himself, as he did in 1558: 'My heart is corrupt, and the hypocrisy thereof in many thousand cases hid from myself, so is my zeal cold, and my love nothing, if it shall be tried by the right touchstone' (p 289).
He writes in striking yet tender terms:
If we should earnestly consider the fruit that shall follow a transitory and a momentary pain, as St Paul calleth the afflictions of this life, they should not so greatly affray [frighten] us. The fruit is called Life everlasting, the Sight of God, and the Fullness of all joy . . . If we knew, I say, what comfort lieth hid under the fearful cross of Christ, we would not be so slack to take up the same. If we knew that life is buried with Christ in His grave, we would not fear to go and seek Him in the same (p 294).
Iain H Murray makes an acute observation in A Scottish Christian Heritage: 'If it were to be asked what is the recurring theme in Knox’s words and writings the answer is perhaps a surprising one . . . From the first years that we have anything from his pen, we find him engaged in a ministry of encouragement.'5 Encouragement was certainly a key note in Knox’s public epistles, such as Chapter Four, 'A Comfortable Epistle, sent to the Afflicted Church of Christ' (pp 103ff). He looked earnestly to the time of deliverance 'more than they that watch for the morning' (Psa. 130:6). 'The sun keepeth his ordinary course, and leapeth not back from the west to the south; but when it goeth down, we lack the light of it, till it rise the next day towards the east again. And so it is with the light of the gospel, which hath his day appointed by God.'
He gives beautiful encouragement to a generation such as our own, when the light of the gospel appears comparatively to be withdrawn:
Alas then, the trumpet hath lost its sound; the sun is gone down, and the light vanished away. But if that God shall strengthen you, boldly to withstand all such impiety, then is there but a dark misty cloud overspreading the sun for a moment, which shortly shall vanish, so that the beams of the sun shall afterward be sevenfold more bright and amiable than they were before; your patience and constancy shall be the louder trumpet to your posterity than were all the voices of the prophets that cried to you (pp 95-96).
One of the key themes in these writings is the evil of idolatry and the duty to avoid it (pp 284ff). In his 'Letter to the Faithful in England' (pp 61ff), he emphasises the injunction he frequently makes: 'That so you avoid and flee, as well in body as in spirit, all fellowship and society with idolaters in their idolatry'. He was aware this was a hard thing during the persecuting times under Mary Tudor: 'You shrink, I know, even at the first' (p 61). Some were in danger of going back to attendance at mass during times of persecution and therefore his warnings are vigorous and unequivocal. It goes without saying that, if this was the duty of Protestants when their lives were at risk, how much more must it be their duty in our day when there is no such threat.
Knox is unflinching in his exposure of the corruptions and guilt of the Romanist leaders in Scotland:
They have violated the law and holy ordinances of the Lord our God; they have opened their mouths against His eternal verity; they have exiled His truth, and established their own lies. They daily persecute the innocents, and stoutly maintain open murderers. Their hearts are obdurate, and their faces are become shameless (p 154).
Chapter 6 (pp 123ff) contains practical guidance as to how to handle the Scriptures to greatest profit in such circumstances. It is entitled, 'A Most Wholesome Counsel how to behave ourselves in the midst of this wicked generation, touching the daily exercise of God’s most holy and sacred Word'. In this volume there are also treatises full of Christian experience, such as his exposition of Psalm 6, which he calls, 'A Fort for the Afflicted'. His treatise on prayer is a precious unfolding of the groanings of the heart in this exercise. It is a means whereby 'our hearts may be inflamed with continual fear, honour and love of God, to whom we run for support and help, whensoever danger or necessity requireth' (p 50). In another passage he highlights the connection between prayer, precept and promise: 'To mitigate or ease the sorrows of our wounded conscience, two plaisters hath our most prudent Physician provided, to give us encouragement to pray, notwithstanding the knowledge of offences committed: that is, a precept and a promise' (p 41).
There are two sermons in the volume, one of which was written from memory and printed after exception was taken by the Queen’s husband, Lord Darnley, to one or two references made by Knox. The royal couple sought unsuccessfully to prevent Knox from preaching. The following noteworthy prayer concludes the sermon:
Give us, O Lord, hearts to visit Thee in time of our affliction; and that albeit we see none end of our dolours [griefs], that yet our faith and hope may conduct us to the assured hope of that joyful resurrection, in the which we shall possess the fruit of that for the which we now travail (p 247).
In 'Answers to Some Questions on Baptism etc' (pp 197ff) Knox handles, among other things, the perplexed question of whether or not baptism administered by a Roman Catholic priest can be considered valid. Although he considers it to be corrupted by superstition, nevertheless Knox regards it as valid, albeit unlawful. God 'maketh our baptism, how corrupt that ever it was, available unto us, by the power of His Holy Spirit' (p 260). He gives various reasons for rejecting rebaptism in such a case, including the fact that it was in the name of the Trinity: 'the malice of the devil could never altogether abolish Christ’s institution, for it was ministered to us in the name of the Father, of the Son and of the Holy Ghost' (p 255). He also points to 2 Chronicles 30:6-8, where those circumcised by the false priests of the northern kingdom were 'not to be circumcised again; but that only they should turn their hearts to the living God, that they should refuse idolatry, and join themselves with the sanctuary of the living God, which was placed at Jerusalem' (p 260).
The Select Practical Writings of John Knox were first published by the Free Church of Scotland in 1845. This reprint has not altered the original edition significantly but rather enhanced it through fresh typesetting, supplementary notes and a very attractive cover and binding.
Thomson, the original editor, speaks of Knox’s 'rich and impressive style' evidenced in this book and says that 'as a writer of the old rich English tongue, he had few equals, and certainly no superior, during his own day' (p xxx). In comparison with the writings of the English Reformers, Knox is not at all difficult to read. As Thomson observed: 'Knox is a writer for all time, and will be intelligible in every age and especially to those who prize the language of the Bible'. We are sure that those who give careful study to this volume will express agreement with Principal Smeton, a contemporary of Knox: 'Certain I am, that it will be difficult to find one in whom the gifts of the Holy Spirit shone so bright to the comfort of the Church of Scotland'.
Notes:
1. The Select Practical Writings of John Knox
Thomas Thomson (Ed.)
336 pages, clothbound
£16.00, $26.00
ISBN 978 1 84871 102 0
All references in brackets in this article refer to this volume.
2. John Knox, The History of the Reformation in Scotland (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1982; reprint of the 1898 edition).
3. Scottish Nationality and other papers, Edinburgh, 1887, p. 33.
4. 'Knox the Man', in D. Shaw, ed, John Knox: A Quatercentenary Re-appraisal (Edinburgh: 1975), p. 18.
5. Iain H. Murray, A Scottish Christian Heritage (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 2006), p. 26.
Taken with permission from the September 2012 Free Presbyterian Magazine. Note 2 and links added.
....In 'Answers to Some Questions on Baptism etc' (pp 197ff) Knox handles, among other things, the perplexed question of whether or not baptism administered by a Roman Catholic priest can be considered valid. Although he considers it to be corrupted by superstition, nevertheless Knox regards it as valid, albeit unlawful. God 'maketh our baptism, how corrupt that ever it was, available unto us, by the power of His Holy Spirit' (p 260). He gives various reasons for rejecting rebaptism in such a case, including the fact that it was in the name of the Trinity: 'the malice of the devil could never altogether abolish Christ’s institution, for it was ministered to us in the name of the Father, of the Son and of the Holy Ghost' (p 255). He also points to 2 Chronicles 30:6-8, where those circumcised by the false priests of the northern kingdom were 'not to be circumcised again; but that only they should turn their hearts to the living God, that they should refuse idolatry, and join themselves with the sanctuary of the living God, which was placed at Jerusalem' (p 260).
Didn’t Knox murder a Bishop?
how noble of Knox to admit baptism by a Catholic priest is valid.
to say otherwise, would be to say no one was validly baptized for 1,500 years.
i guess he knew what a fool he would seem like to admit to believing that.
No, I think he just threw his lot in with the murderers of Cardinal Beaton after the fact. Beaton’s murder helped speed up Scotland’s loss of independence to England. Beaton was probably the single ablest diplomat in Scottish history.
Didn’t Knox murder a Bishop?
Cardinal Beaton, but he was Catholic so he probably deserved it.
“Didn’t Knox murder a Bishop?
Cardinal Beaton, but he was Catholic so he probably deserved it.”
Right..and Cardinal Beaton burned George Wishart at the stake after a sham trial.
Which all in all is one of a myriad of examples that the holy spirit is not an efficacious entity at all. The Catholic nor the Protestant HS.
This has to be one of the most absurd and vicious threads I’ve seen in a long time.
As for Beaton, who was a murderous cur, Knox had nothing to do with his murder. Nothing.
As for speeding up the loss of Scottish independence, what planet do you live on? With more reason one could say that England lost its independence when James VI of Scotland became James I of England and, ultimately, the United Kingdom.
But the real point is that Beaton’s death had nothing at all to do with the issue of dynastic succession. Elizabeth made James her heir because he had a heritary claim to the throne and she had no heir, having died a barren woman. And, because you obviously don’t know, James, who was a raging narcissist and sodomite, hated the Reform, George Buchanan and Knox. He also had no love of the Catholic church, which would have subordinated him to the Pope.
This has to be one of the most absurd and vicious threads I’ve seen in a long time.
As for Beaton, who was a murderous cur, Knox had nothing to do with his murder. Nothing.
As for speeding up the loss of Scottish independence, what planet do you live on? With more reason one could say that England lost its independence when James VI of Scotland became James I of England and, ultimately, the United Kingdom.
But the real point is that Beaton’s death had nothing at all to do with the issue of dynastic succession. Elizabeth made James her heir because he had a heritary claim to the throne and she had no heir, having died a barren woman. And, because you obviously don’t know, James, who was a raging narcissist and sodomite, hated the Reform, George Buchanan and Knox. He also had no love of the Catholic church, which would have subordinated him to the Pope.
You wrote:
“This has to be one of the most absurd and vicious threads I’ve seen in a long time.”
Really? Are you brand new here?
“As for Beaton, who was a murderous cur, Knox had nothing to do with his murder. Nothing.”
First, I said: “No, I think he just threw his lot in with the murderers of Cardinal Beaton after the fact.” So, I’m not the one saying Knox had anything to do with Beaton’s murder. Also, Beaton was not a murderer. Executing Wishart does not a murderer make.
“As for speeding up the loss of Scottish independence, what planet do you live on?”
I live on Earth. Apparently you don’t.
“With more reason one could say that England lost its independence when James VI of Scotland became James I of England and, ultimately, the United Kingdom.”
I suppose some idiot could say that, but that would just help prove his idioicy. After James VI became James I, England ruled Scotland. It still does. England IS the U.K. and always has been. Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland (heck, throw in the Isle of Man if you want) are truly secondary territories.
“But the real point is that Beaton’s death had nothing at all to do with the issue of dynastic succession. Elizabeth made James her heir because he had a heritary claim to the throne and she had no heir, having died a barren woman.”
No. Elizabeth had a closer relative who had a better claim to the throne of England, Mary, Queen of Scots (James I’s mother), but Elizabeth trumped up charges against her and had her killed.
“And, because you obviously don’t know, James, who was a raging narcissist and sodomite, hated the Reform, George Buchanan and Knox.”
John Knox died when James VI was 6 years old. What James felt toward Knox really doesn’t matter. And I bet I know more than you do.
“He also had no love of the Catholic church, which would have subordinated him to the Pope.”
Like most monarchs at that time, James had a desire to rule without hinderance from anyone. He wanted to be responsible to no one. You might want to read The True Law of Free Monarchies (1598) or Basilikon Doron (1599).
You wrote:
“Right..and Cardinal Beaton burned George Wishart at the stake after a sham trial.”
Beaton didn’t burn anyone at the stake. Wishart was clearly guilty of heresy whether or not someone considers his trial a sham or not doesn’t change that fact.
“Which all in all is one of a myriad of examples that the holy spirit is not an efficacious entity at all. The Catholic nor the Protestant HS.”
The Holy Spirit is always efficacious. People are not always disposed to His efficacy, however.
They've done studies, you know. 60% of the time, He's efficacious every time.
You may call murder an “execution” if you like.
The charges against James mother, Mary, were not “trumped up”. She had plotted against Elizabeth many times over (and had almost certainly conspired in the murder of Darnley, her husband and James’ father). Elizabeth only had her executed after a trove of Mary’s letters showing she was again conspiring against Elizabeth fell into Elizabeth’s hands.
Because you have a reading comprehension problem, I repeat”James had a hereditary claim to the throne.” I didn’t say that it was a better claim than that of his mother had she been alive, but inasmuch as she was quite dead at the time of Elizabeth’s death, she had no claim at all. In any event, you are simply trying to obscure the obvious fact that the death of Beaton had nothing at all to do with James becoming James I.
You may believe that England has always been the UK, but that hardly makes it so. Before James Scots had no role in ruling England. After James many Scots were in powerful positions governing the UK. If you were familiar with the English Civil War, it would be apparent that even then Scotland was hardly a mere appendage of England. Moreover, you seem to have some mystical idea of “England” - as if it were always ruled by the English. The Tudors were a Welsh family. They were followed by a Scots family, who were followed by a Dutch family, who were followed by German families. Perhaps England lost its independence on Bosworth Field, or perhaps it was at the Battle of Hastings.
Because you really don’t know as much about James and this period as you think, you don’t understand why James hated Knox, Buchanan, and the Lords of the Congregation. You say this doesn’t matter. Perhaps, but it certainly would bring into question any claim that the Reform educated James united Scotland with England to align Scotland with a Protestant power. This, of course, is speculation about an argument not made, but because you offer no argument at all that the death of Beaton was somehow responsible for accelerating the formation of the UK, I thought it would help you to understand the point.
At least we agree that James had no interest whatever in Catholicism. Nevertheless, unless one understands Knox and Buchanan, and especially Buchanan’s De Jure Regni apud Scotos, the point of James’ True Law of Free Monarchies and Basilikon Doron will have been entirely missed.
I suppose some idiot could say that, but that would just help prove his idioicy. After James VI became James I, England ruled Scotland. It still does. England IS the U.K. and always has been. Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland (heck, throw in the Isle of Man if you want) are truly secondary territories.
Yes, that is unfortunately true. But it has been no picnic.
England is the UK in exactly the same way that WASPS are the United States of America. England may have ruled historically, but look at the situation today. Like WASPs in America, England is expected in the name of some great universal concept of justice to oppose its own self-interests just as WASPs in America are supposed to in order to atone for their historical sins of oppression. Today Wales, Scotland, and Ireland are the beneficiaries of a left wing, politically correct "blood and soil" nationalism that mixes Marx with Celtic mythology.
Devolution has given Scotland its own parliament and Wales its own Assembly (I believe Northern Ireland has always had Stormont). Scots, Welsh, and Ulstermen have their own assemblies in which laws are decided, and then have a voice in the all union Parliament at Westminster. England has no national parliament or assembly of any kind and has not since 1707 (the English and Scottish parliaments were both abolished by the Act of Union, which was unpopular to the majority in both countries). As a result "England" and "Britain" became synonyms while Wales (which was technically actually a part of England proper from 1535 to 1955) and Scotland retain their charming national identities and characteristics.
Furthermore the British (not the English) Prime Minister is officially assisted by people who represent Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland . . . but no one, especially not the British Prime Minister, represents England.
In other words, the English are the "unhyphenated Britons" while the Welsh, Scots, and Ulstermen are hyphenated. For all practical purposes, "England" as a political entity has not existed since the de-annexation of Wales.
One can hate the English all one wants to. They have certainly not been saints. However, they weren't demons from the pit either. Scotland could have just as easily dominated England as England came to dominate Scotland (the two thrones were always in rivalry over that little island). As a result of the Union the English of the world (and the English diaspora is one of the world's largest) have no ancestral homeland as do the Irish, for example. The language we speak is called English, not British, yet it is Britain and not England that has an actual legal existence.
Through no fault of my own I am of English ancestry. Apparently this makes me a "100% American" because I have no ancestral homeland like everyone else has. I have always envied others with ancestral homes and languages of their own. But England's total submersion in "Britian" and the "British Empire" has made me and every other Anglo-Saxon in the world an ethnic orphan.
Please understand that I am well aware that England was the catalyst of the Union and has dominated it from the beginning. That there is no sovereign, independent entity known as "England" in the world today is almost entirely the fault of the rulers of England themselves. But that doesn't change the fact that "England" is to the UK as the District of Columbia is to the USA.
I don't countenance the black mark in England's history, but I do advocate English independence, totally apart from England and Scotland (and Wales if they don't want to keep their de-annexed status).
This bizarre Anglo-Saxon abstractionism, this state of being the only non-ethnic people in the history of the world, has robbed millions of people throughout the world of a harmless ethnic heritage and turned them to nativism in their various acquired countries.
Gentlemen: I say ye "independence for England!"
You wrote:
“You may call murder an “execution” if you like.”
Nope. I’ll stick to calling an execution an execution, thanks.
“The charges against James mother, Mary, were not “trumped up”.”
Yes, they were.
“She had plotted against Elizabeth many times over (and had almost certainly conspired in the murder of Darnley, her husband and James’ father). Elizabeth only had her executed after a trove of Mary’s letters showing she was again conspiring against Elizabeth fell into Elizabeth’s hands.”
Historians believe the letters to be forged and with good reason.
“Because you have a reading comprehension problem, I repeat”James had a hereditary claim to the throne.” “
Apparently you’re the one with the reading comprehension problem because I never once doubted or denied what you “repeat”. I merely pointed out that Mary’s claim was better than James’. That’s just a fact.
“I didn’t say that it was a better claim than that of his mother had she been alive,”
And I never claimed you did. Again, you apparently have a reading comprehension problem. You seem to be imagining words that no one is actually posting.
“but inasmuch as she was quite dead at the time of Elizabeth’s death, she had no claim at all. In any event, you are simply trying to obscure the obvious fact that the death of Beaton had nothing at all to do with James becoming James I.”
What? When did I EVER CLAIM that Beaton’s murder had anything at all to do with James I/VI??? Show me where I said the two ideas were even remotely related. I don’t think I even mentioned both of them in the same sentence.
“You may believe that England has always been the UK, but that hardly makes it so.”
But it is so and everybody knows it.
“Before James Scots had no role in ruling England. After James many Scots were in powerful positions governing the UK. If you were familiar with the English Civil War, it would be apparent that even then Scotland was hardly a mere appendage of England.”
I never said it was a “mere appendage”. But England ruled Scotland and not the other way around. It is still that way.
“Moreover, you seem to have some mystical idea of “England” - as if it were always ruled by the English.”
Oh, my gosh. I have seen some people pull some pretty desperate semantic nonsense here, but you take the cake.
“The Tudors were a Welsh family.”
In ancestry, yes. They were also Norman and French.
“They were followed by a Scots family, who were followed by a Dutch family, who were followed by German families.”
No. They were followed by another royal family that was Norman, Welsh, English, and French. They they were followed by a royal family which was French, Welsh, English, Norman and Dutch. Then they were followed by a family that was mostly German. Royal families have roots in all the major countries of Europe.
“Perhaps England lost its independence on Bosworth Field, or perhaps it was at the Battle of Hastings.”
And...?
“Because you really don’t know as much about James and this period as you think,”
Yes, actually I know exactly what I know and that seems to be more than you.
“you don’t understand why James hated Knox, Buchanan, and the Lords of the Congregation.”
I know why James struggled with many. But again, Knox died when James was about 6.
“You say this doesn’t matter. Perhaps, but it certainly would bring into question any claim that the Reform educated James united Scotland with England to align Scotland with a Protestant power.”
No, it would not bring that into question in the least.
“This, of course, is speculation about an argument not made,...”
You’ve been attacking things I never even claimed or ever wrote. So, aren’t you making all sorts of speculations about arguments not made?
“but because you offer no argument at all that the death of Beaton was somehow responsible for accelerating the formation of the UK, I thought it would help you to understand the point.”
First, I need not offer any argument. I made the point. It is not incumbent upon me to make an argument for everything I post. Second, you are clearly in no position, or apparently have no ability, to help anyone “understand the point.”
“At least we agree that James had no interest whatever in Catholicism.”
Once again, you are claiming I said something I never said. Pointing out that James had the same desire as most monarchs - to be completely free to rule as he wanted - is not the same thing as saying he has “no interest whatever in Catholicism”. You are conflating two different things as if they were one. I said one. I never said the one you claim I did.
“Nevertheless, unless one understands Knox and Buchanan, and especially Buchanan’s De Jure Regni apud Scotos, the point of James’ True Law of Free Monarchies and Basilikon Doron will have been entirely missed.”
And you would be the one to miss it apparently.
And now John Knox’s descendents in the Church of Scotland accept gay bishops. That’s what occurs when the general laity can vote for changes to religious dogma
vlad is correct about the loss of Scottish independence. Scotland under James V pursued its own policy that was not appreciated by Henry 8.
Attention, Attention, I have great news, there is a book to replace all other books, it is called the Bible, it tells all about what people seems to like to argue about.
We no longer need to worry about what any one says concerning what Jesus was all about.
What ever was right or wrong with our ancestors they did a good thing, they gave us the Bible which has severed us well for several hundred years.
Their war for control is beside the point as God works in mysterious ways.
Jesus said that his gospel would be preached to all of the world as a witness unto men, and it has happened in spite of the despots who helped to carry it.
I say despots simply because that is the idea i get from the comments made on this thread as i have no idea myself.
“The Holy Spirit is always efficacaious”....
Well, lets look at some of the jobs of the HS.
Access to God - Eph. 2:18 Inspires prayer - Eph. 6:18; Jude 20
Anoints for Service - Luke 4:18 Intercedes -Rom. 8:26
Assures - Rom. 8:15-16; Gal. 4:6 Interprets Scripture - 1 Cor. 2:1,14;
Eph. 1:17
Authors Scripture - 2 Pet. 1:20-21 Leads - Rom. 8:14
Baptizes - John 1:23-34; 1 Cor. 12:13-14 Liberates - Rom. 8:2
Believers Born of - John 3:3-6 Molds Character - Gal. 5:22-23
Calls and Commissions - Acts 13:24; 20:28 Produces fruit - Gal. 5:22-23
Cleanses - 1 Thess. 3:13; 1 Pet. 1:2 Empowers Believers - Luke 24:49
Convicts of sin - John 16:9,14 Raises from the dead - Rom. 8:11
Creates - Gen. 1:2; Job 33:4 Regenerates - Titus 3:5
Empowers - 1 Thess. 1:5 Sanctifies - Rom. 15:16
Fills - Acts 2:4; 4:29-31; 5:18-20 Seals - Eph. 1:13-14; 4:30
Gives gifts - 1 Cor. 12:8-11 Strengthens - Eph. 3:16; Acts 1:8; 2:4;
1 Cor. 2:4
Glorifies Christ - John 16:14 Teaches - John 14:26
Guides in truth - John 16:13 Testifies of Jesus - John 15:26
Helps our weakness - Rom. 8:26 Victory over flesh - Rom. 8:2-4; Gal. 4:6
Indwells believers - Rom. 8:9-14; Gal. 4:6 Worship helper - Phil. 3:3
So, he is to produce fruit, convict sin, cleanse, interpret scripture, empower, regerates, mold character....etc
I dont see how a human being, who becomes a Christian and has the HS dwelling within him, can reject “god” who is dwelling within him and his message.
The church of Rome for a significant part of the last 1500 years authorized by even their own vicars of Christ, has gone on bloody rampages against Jews, native pagan peoples and then Protestants. And the Protestants then slaughtered the Catholics...and each other, then a host of other groups. Not to mention the corruption like indulgences and such.
It is convenient to say : “But man is not disposed to”... but it is obvious that the HS is not very good at his job. If the whole premise behind the church and NT dogma was to be an improvement over OT by creating a new condition of the heart, it has failed.
you wrote:
“I dont see how a human being, who becomes a Christian and has the HS dwelling within him, can reject “god” who is dwelling within him and his message.”
Simple. The sinner chooses to do so. God does not force us to be holy.
“The church of Rome for a significant part of the last 1500 years authorized by even their own vicars of Christ, has gone on bloody rampages against Jews, native pagan peoples and then Protestants.”
False. The Church of Rome never did any such thing nor authorized “bloody rampages against Jews, native pagan peoples and then Protestants.”
“And the Protestants then slaughtered the Catholics...”
Gee, you mean it wasn’t the “Protestant Church”? Do you see your own bias or do I need to spell it out for you?
“...and each other, then a host of other groups. Not to mention the corruption like indulgences and such.”
Which you most likely know even less about than you think you do.
“It is convenient to say : “But man is not disposed to”... but it is obvious that the HS is not very good at his job.”
False. The Holy Spirit is always efficacious. People aren’t.
“If the whole premise behind the church and NT dogma was to be an improvement over OT by creating a new condition of the heart, it has failed.”
That was not the premise.
Your comment regarding Beaton’s death accelerating the formation of the Uk about sums up the problem here: “I need not offer any argument. I made the point.”
That attitude, along with claiming such things as historians agree that the Casket Letters are forgeries when at best the most that can be said is that there is a controversy, make this exchange unprofitable.
But one particularly absurd point that you repeated was that James couldn’t have hated Knox because he died when James was 6.
Surely you can understand that you can dislike or hate people with whom you are not personally acquainted because of real or imagined wrongs you think the person has done to you and your family. As an adult James hated Knox because he had opposed his mother, (and together with the Lords of the Congrgation)separated James as a child from his mother (I’m sure as an expert you must know that), and, especially, because Knox’s political philosophy was responsible in James’ mind for undermining the Tudor/Stuart absolutist view of monarchy.
Most of the rest of what you have to say is incoherent, or nonresponsive, so there is hardly any point to continuing with an “expert” of your caliber.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.