Contention Over What Constitutes An Evangelical

[mfbukowski]

Very nicely said. ditto that on attacking other religions will result in nothing good.

But it raises an interesting question on whether attacking those who aggressively insult our church is good form or not. I have been attacked myself for doing so and sometimes the attackers do the same I have, so as a convert who is unfamiliar with the culture, I honestly am not sure what is acceptable and what is not.

People regularly attack guys like Walter Martin here all the time while protesting against attacking their religion. So where does one draw the line?

I really would like to know what is considered acceptable and what is not.

Confusing customs these Mormons have...

Edited January 7, 2013 by mfbukowski

[Calm]

CARM belongs to Matt Slick if that rings a bell.

I provide this without a link as the site allows for temple content, I believe:

President and Founder of the Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry.  Matt earned his Bachelors in Social Science from Concordia University, Irvine, CA in 1988.  He earned his Masters of Divinity from Westminster Theological Seminary, in Escondido, CA, in 1991.  He now resides in the Boise, Idaho area with his family.  He is ordained.  Matt started CARM in October of 1995 to respond to the many false teachings of the cults on the Internet.

Matt currently hosts CARM Radio, heard weeknights, 3-4 pm, M-F in the Boise area and over the Internet.

Matt does not post anywhere on the internet on any discussion forums under the name "Matt Slick".  He does post as Matt Slick in CARM's own discussion Boards, CARM's own chat room, vbulletin.com, Facebook, Twitter, paltalk.com. This low profile is so impersonators can be easily spotted.

Matt also uses pseudonyms when exploring, gathering information, testing ideas, and generally does not affirm or deny who he is or isn't regarding pseudonyms on the internet.

Many people ask about Matt's testimony.  So here is Matt Slick's Testimony.  Also, here a clarification of Matt's personal beliefs in the article "What I believe".

[Calm]

But it raises an interesting question on whether attacking those who aggressively insult our church is good form or not. I have been attacked myself for doing so and sometimes the attackers do the same I have, so as a convert who is unfamiliar with the culture, I honestly am not sure what is acceptable and what is not.

People regularly attack guys like Walter Martin here all the time while protesting against attacking their religion. So where does one draw the line?

I really would like to know what is considered acceptable and what is not.

Confusing customs these Mormons have...

Demonstrating credibility or lack thereof should be acceptable, I never get the ones who tell us we shouldn't even be doing that but instead just ignore them. The scriptural commandment to keep records of attacks on the faith seems to me to require identification of who is attacking first.

[EllenMaksoud]

The new journal Interpreter has managed to post a new essay every Friday. The most recent essay describes the controversy among factions of conservative Protestants over what constitutes evangelicalism. Someone has tried to describe some of the issues upon which evangelicals differ one from another. I know something about this brand new essay because I am its author. It can be accessed by clicking on the following:http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/. I would enjoy, I think, seeing if those on this august board find some light and knowledge in my essay. So let the complaints begin.

I find myself in a position that I do not wish to yeild on. I was evangelical for 32+ years. Now days when the subject comes up, I just think of Tayor Swift's, "Mean".

[mfbukowski]

Demonstrating credibility or lack thereof should be acceptable, I never get the ones who tell us we shouldn't even be doing that but instead just ignore them. The scriptural commandment to keep records of attacks on the faith seems to me to require identification of who is attacking first.

Thanks for answering. I guess my problem is that I am not sure what is "credible" to others and what is not. I know what is credible to me at a glance of course so maybe I tend to beat the other person's credibility into the ground because I never know at what point I have demonstrated their lack of credibility.

I guess I have a problem in this area- I am just trying to avoid being a "gross embarrassment" to anyone so I genuinely appreciate being instructed. There was some discussion of this a while back regarding personal attacks on Rob Bowman but all I thought I was doing was what "had been done in other worlds" against Rob's mentor Walter Martin. I guess peace and lovey-dovey to all is the answer but that is not easy, and I wonder if it is always appropriate.

[3DOP]

Hey bukowski...

"Peace and lovey-dovey" is tolerant of everyone who doesn't talk about anybody else because they don't disagree with anybody. But the "lovey doveys" are always intolerant and willing to attack those who claim to distinguish between truth and error.

[noel00]

I gave the reference to the paper to a prominant evangelical blogger and his response was " Midgley is a very combative apologetic Mormon writer". I myself received a very nasty email from you years ago. You seem to have that approach that turns some people off. I see this in your dealings with the late Wesley P Walters and more recently Grant Palmer. Among evangelicals there is a wide diversity, even Fuller Seminary has this with the likes of Dr Murphy and Dr Mouw.

[mfbukowski]

Well for what it's worth, I did finally get a chance to read the article and I will put in my dos centavos.

I think it is a great summary of the clear fact that Evangelicalism in no way represents "one faith and one Baptism".

Further I think that it is pretty demonstrable that the penal substitution theory of the atonement derives from a Neoplatonic metaphysical position.

Penal substitution as far as I can tell cannot exist without the underlying assumption that sins are in some sense "real things" which carry with them their own "charge" in some way. These things must be transferable from one person to another, not unlike perhaps coins or other tokens. It presumes a view of punishment as payment for a crime- that indeed somehow the correct amount of punishment must be meted out to equal the deficit - to the penny as it were- for the crime.

The underlying assumption is that perhaps for certain crimes, 40.57 lashes would be the perfect punishment, not 40 and not 41 for indeed anything above or below the correct amount would not be just. And somehow now, this punishment can be, and indeed was, transferred to Christ who underwent it all to "pay the debt" for us all.

Indeed the underlying assumption here seems to be what led ultimately to the idea of indulgences- that a certain amount of merit cancels out a certain amount of punishment, and that somehow it is all based on theoretically measurable units of merit and punishment.

I find it very difficult to even comprehend such a system much less make it an important part of my belief system concerning the atonement.

For me the atonement is incomprehensible but involved is the notion that Jesus somehow was able to sinlessly sacrifice and heal the effects of sin in our lives by his sacrifice. This is the Mormon notion as I understand it.

The healing aspect is the central notion here, I think- that it was not taking on punishment as much as it was allowing us to be freed from guilt and pain if we but do our best remembering his sacrifice for us. Our actions can never make up the difference between what we have done and what we should have done instead- those errors deliberate and not deliberate can never be taken back, they are past history and over and done with. But Christ has healed us of those spiritual consequences, and also can indeed also heal us of physical consequences if we have sufficient faith in Him.

I have seen healing miracles in my life- literal physical healings happen through blessings bestowed through Priesthood authority. The healing power of Christ is the basis for all of it, and I believe also the basis for the atonement.

Anyway, that's my two cents. That's the way I think the atonement works- not by the transferring of punishment; I find the very notion of that absurd. For me the atonement is all about healing.

Edited January 7, 2013 by mfbukowski

[boblloyd91]

Hello all! I'm a little bit late to the game but I read Dr. Midgley's book review and really enjoyed it. For what it's worth here are my two cents on what I thought about this topic (this coming from a clinical social worker who isn't nearly as smart as most of you)

1. I think it is very hypocritical to claim to be the sole possessors of truth and condemn others to heresy when this camp has a wider range of opinions then LDS, Catholic, or Orthodox (i.e. Calvinism vs. Arminianism, pre/post/amillenialism etc.).
   
2. I, with Dr. Midgley, am curious as to why Pentecostal/Charismatic Christianity wasn't included. I know that this branch is growing the fastest, and they are the ones that seem to have the most outreach (most Televangelists or other Christian Television is Pentecostal-ish). I know that many of the current Pentecostal practices are considered Heretical by many fundamentalists. Maybe that's why?
   
3. Dr. Midgley's previous post about lack of understanding about Church history is relevant here. Latter Day Saints can point to Joseph Smith's experience with John the Baptist and Peter, James, and John, while Orthodox and Catholic can point to Apostolic Succession. Most Protestants point to Sola Fide/Sola Scriptura as their basis for authority. I don't know my Church Fathers as well I would like, but from what I understand there is little support from them in regards to the doctrines of faith alone/scripture alone (I'm sure Rob Bowman may correct me on this, like I said I'm a clinical Social worker, not a theologian!)
   
4. I occasionally read Catholic/Orthodox forums (more Orthodox, CAF can be a pretty grumpy place) as well as blogs (my personal favorite being David Waltz Articuli Fidei) and it seems that there is somewhat of a migration by more historically minded Protestants to "Cross the Tiber" or "Cross the Bosporus". I don't know if anyone has heard of The Coming Home Network, but it was started by a fellow named Marcus Grodi, a former Presbyterian Pastor who became Catholic. He hosts a show which interviews converts from various Christian Faiths. From what I've heard, many of them left Protestantism because of the issues this book brings up that being there is no definitive authority to look to
   

Those were some of my thoughts, take them for what they are worth!

[mathonihah]

Mathonihah:

I very much appreciate being alerted to the ranting on CARM. I enjoyed reading it. I think I have heard about that thing before, but this is my first encounter with it.

I am not one for Bible bashing. I have a rather long and detailed essay explaining why I don't think debating with jerks like those people who were boasting of the self-righteousness on CAR, while spouting proof-texts, yields more than some fun watching uninformed bigots dance in public. The essay I have in mind is entitled "Debating Evangelicals, "FARMS Review 20/2 (2008): xi-xlviii. The title is intentionally ironic. My experience is that many conservative Protestants love to debate. These tend to be fundamentalists. In a different way CARM, from what little I know of it, seems to be a gross embarrassment to the fine evangelical scholars I have known and whose scholarship I admire.

Thank you Louis, and sorry for the delay in replying to your posts. I have had too many distractions.

You should not confuse the world of Internet discussion with the world of serious academic scholarship. They serve different purposes. I joined CARM a little over a month ago, a couple of weeks after I had joined this forum, and I have had a lot more fun debating there than here. I have clocked up three times as many posts there than here. But it is not for everyone, I agree.

The good thing about it is that the board itself is fair. The mods there keep a low profile, and don't get in the way of a good discussion. The board allows the anti-Mormons to be as hateful and vitriolic towards Mormonism and Mormons (though not towards individual posters) as they want, but they don't try to stop you giving them the reply they deserve. I have been there just over a month, had fights with them, given them as good as I have taken from them and one better, told them where they can get off the bus, and nobody has tried to stop me. Thread-banning is unheard of in CARM. I have never been thread-banned, and I haven't noticed anybody else to be either.

The board itself provides a level playing field; how you deal with the antis who are out there is up to you. Unfortunately a lot of Mormons don't know how to deal with them; but if you do, it provides you with plenty of opportunities to talk to different kinds of people. Another thing I have found out about many of the antis is that once you peel away the rough outer skin, many of them have a golden heart inside, and you can learn to love them.

But, unfortunately, some of what I have recently encountered on this board is also a gross embarrassment. You will notice how carefully I have avoided mentioning Kerry Shirts, but there is a former Bishop who bothers me a bit and someone pushing a middle between who knows what.

I am not in any way embarrassed by Kerry Shirts. He is entitled to have whatever opinion he has, and come here and express it; and I consider it as much a privilege to debate with him as with Louis Midgley!

[mathonihah]

Mathonihah:

I have been trying to follow the comments on CARM. Not one of your CARM type "friends" has addressed one single thing in my essay.

I agree, but not many Mormons have done so on this forum either!

Someone calling themselves "biblos" does not think that I have defined the word "evangelical" correctly....

I think that I did give an appropriate reply to him.

And, it seems, those who have posted so for on CARM that I have seen think that their own seat is locked up in heaven, and anyone who does not see thing exactly their way does not “have Christ in them.” They seem to know this because of their own pride–that is, display of arrogance.

I agree they do, or at least, do their best to give that impression! But as I said in my previous post, I discovered that many of them have a golden heart, and it is possible to learn to love them.

[mfbukowski]

Hey bukowski...

"Peace and lovey-dovey" is tolerant of everyone who doesn't talk about anybody else because they don't disagree with anybody. But the "lovey doveys" are always intolerant and willing to attack those who claim to distinguish between truth and error.

[mathonihah]

As Anakin spends a lot of effort on building friendhsips between evangelicals and LDS, my guess is that his concern is to avoid giving the impression that we are attacking them. Which is not to say that you are attacking.

What do you call attacking? I think that their religion is apostate, and I tell them that, over at CARM! Is that attacking?

[Calm]

They must have changed their moderation practices then as past posters have been banned, posts deleted, unable to link to pro lds sites, etc.

[EllenMaksoud]

Ok, I must respond to those who have been so kind as to comment on my little essay.

I will first respond to Volgadon. He tells me that Anakin wants to make friends with evangelicals and this requires that he avoid attacking them. This is, of course, an excellent policy. So I am pleased to know what Anakin is doing. I wish him well.

In addition, if we are to be true friends, it is required that we always allow others to explain their faith for themselves. We should shut up and listen.

But one problem is that the Protestant(s) with whom we are trying to have an open and honest conversation may not (1) be at all familiar with what their very sophisticated historians and theologians are writing, and (2) they may know virtually nothing of the actual details of the history of Christianity, including especially their own denominational history or the history of the movement that they associate themselves with (be it fundamentalist or evangelical). This is illustrated in spades in the remarks I have seen on CARM, which I think stands for Christian Apologetic Research Ministry. My hunch is that this is a countercult agency many of which operate on the margins–well unfortunately on the soft underbelly–of the larger Protestant church life.

If one is concerned as I am with what responsible conservative Protestant scholars are saying about the history of Christianity and about the beliefs of contemporary Protestants, then one will necessarily encounter a more reasonable, interesting literature. Well, given the very low intellectual level of countercult stuff, it could hardly be otherwise.

I am currently writing about what is being produced by excellent Protestant scholars from whom I believe the Saints can learn something about our own faith. My hunch is that by reading carefully “Evangelical Controversy” one will for perhaps the first time have heard about the Penal Substitution theory of the atonement. I am not sure just how many folks whose bums are in the pews on Sunday really comprehend this theory. But it is still standard Protestant dogma. When one grasps what preachers either are saying or trying to say, then one can then begin to see exactly how and why what we have packed into the Book of Mormon offers a profoundly different, and I believe, far superior understanding of the Gospel, understood as the story of what God incarnate as a mortal did for all human being by allowing himself to be murdered by the then most malevolent demonic forces (the agents of the Roman Empire and the Jews who did their bidding) and then was resurrected three days later. All this is an essential part of God’s story or God’s Spell or tale. That story includes an account of the Passion or killing of Jesus, and then also the his stunning victory over physical death. This opened the door for all of us, if and only if it actually happened. Since it is history, it cannot be proven. But reasons can be given for believing it and hence for putting one’s trust in the “risen One.” And his death and subsequent resurrection also opened the door for our liberation from sin (understood as an offense to God and not merely as drinking tea or not really doing our home preaching at the first of the month or some other items on a check list.

And it could also be the case that some or even many on this board do not understand that Protestants tend to insist that the moment one confesses Jesus as Lord and Savior, one is at that very moment justified. This is what is behind the standard “saved by grace through faith alone. Jusfication (from the Greek dike, meaning getting what one deserves either as retribution or distribution) is understood as the imputation of an alien righteousness on a still totally depraved sinner. Our scriptures, and especially the Book of Mormon, teach clearly that one begins being a disciple of Christ by making a covenant with him to keep his commandments, and then thereby begins the long and very difficult process of purging, purifying, sanctifying regeneration or new birth in which we must undergo a refiner’s fire or baptism of the Holy Spirit in which we become genuine Saints (Holy Ones), if we endure to the end in faith (understood as trust and not merely assenting to some propositions). So from the perspective of what is clearly taught in the Book of Mormon, if we are sanctified (keep the commandments the sum of which is love) then and only then will we have an Advocate in the final judgment when we are judged according to our deeds (works understood as our loving obedience to God’s will) we are, hopefully, to be found true and faithful because our Lord has forgiven our sins.

The common Protestant objection to what I have in a very brief way just outlined is that what the Saints believe in “works righteousness”–that is, we save ourselves by our works. This is, of course, pure rubbish. Only God can save us. We can’t possibly resurrect ourselves or forgive our sins understood as an offence to the Holy one of Israel. So this complaint is, of course, rubbish. The lunch is free, to use Hugh Nibley’s famous formulation, but work we must.

Despite all of these kinds of differences, there is no doubt at all that Protestants, Roman Catholics and Orthodox have much of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, but they lack, among other things, its fullness, part of which I have spelled out above. But, unfortunately, having the fullness of the Gospel in our scriptures does not mean that here and now we have ardent in our efforts to grasp and incorporate it in our deeds. But we frequently renew our covenants, or at least this is what the little central ritual of our worship should involved. We renew because we know from hard experience that we fall from grace, something Protestant “once-saved, always-saved” types flatly deny. So when they see people fleeing from their faith they claim that they never were saved in the first place. They sort of neglect to imagine that they might be one who goes missing. Then what?

I have elsewhere made a fuss about the remarkable ignorance of the history of Christian faith among Protestants. I have dealt with what I call the historical amnesia common among Protestants in an essay entitled “Knowing Brother Joseph Again,” FARMS Review 18/1 (2006): xi-lxxii. See especially the pp. xi-xxv. This essay is, of course, one of many of my efforts to vindicate and defend my trust (faith) in Jesus of Nazareth as Messiah (Hebrew) or Christ (Greek), where those terms mean that his was and still is Yahweh (YHWH) once incarnate and subject to death and who has already (but not quite yet for those of us still here undergoing our mortal probation) won a victory over death and hell. All this is, I believe, very good news for me and also even for Joseph Stalin or Ted Bundy.

Now, of course, I have scolded Latter-day Saints for not owning their faith be becoming as familiar with the history of the restoration as they possibly can, and also for not seeing all of the history of Christian faith as part of their own larger matrix of stories. If anyone would care to know the results of a long interest in the history of Christianity, which necessarily rests upon both the textual materials written by those who are not LDS, and also by historians speaking for and from the competing large traditions of Christian faith, then have a look at my essay entitled “Telling the Larger ‘Church History” Story,” Mormon Studies Review 23/1 (2011): 157-171, and also my brief reviews of a wonderful secular account of the Christian past by Diarmaid MacCulloch (pp. 173-177), and a book by Ken Stewart dealing with myths surrounding Calvinism (pp. 177-179), and a remarkable collection of essays and response by N. T. Wright and his critics (pp.180-183), and also a review of still another history of Christianity by James Eckman, a Calvinist divine (pp. 184-186). These items are exemplars of a dozen or so other essays and reviews in which I try my very best to introduce a literature written by non-LDS to matters I believe the Saints could benefit by reading.

This explains all those footnotes in “Evangelical Controversy” in which I cite my reviews and essays on the work of an assortment of prominent Protestant historians. Clearly I work with what I call “the illusion of the Professor”–that is, the notion that one can cure the world by writing an essay. But please realize that we all have our illusions about the efficacy of spouting our opinions. Proof of this is the seemingly endless opining found on this list, some of which is not all that well grounded.

Well, again I am reminded of why I came to the LDS church in the first place. Abandoning the volumnous tomes written about what each of us are, the measure is simple. Do we love Heavenly Father, and do we love one another? There it is in one sentence. Sometimes I thing these long winded arguments serve only to wear out he saints.

[mathonihah]

I am currently writing about what is being produced by excellent Protestant scholars from whom I believe the Saints can learn something about our own faith. My hunch is that by reading carefully “Evangelical Controversy” one will for perhaps the first time have heard about the Penal Substitution theory of the atonement. I am not sure just how many folks whose bums are in the pews on Sunday really comprehend this theory. But it is still standard Protestant dogma. When one grasps what preachers either are saying or trying to say, then one can then begin to see exactly how and why what we have packed into the Book of Mormon offers a profoundly different, and I believe, far superior understanding of the Gospel, ...

This is one of the topics you have discussed in your paper which I wanted to question. In your paper you have explained penal substitution as follows:

Most of the ways of understanding the Atonement, of course, involve the idea that Jesus did for humans what they could not possibly do for themselves. But in the penal substitution theory Jesus is not seen as an innocent, sinless substitute for sinful humanity. He is, instead, pictured as somehow being guilty in a real way of all past, present and future sins of totally depraved humans—he became in our place the focused object of the wrath of God.

I am not sure if that is an accurate theological description of penal substitution. The Wikipedia article on penal substitution expresses it as follows:

Penal substitution (sometimes, esp. in older writings, called forensic theory) is a theory of the atonement within Christian theology, developed with the Reformed tradition. It argues that Christ, by his own sacrificial choice, was punished (penalised) in the place of sinners (substitution), thus satisfying the demands of justice so God can justly forgive the sins. It is thus a specific understanding of substitutionary atonement, where the substitutionary nature of Jesus' death is understood in the sense of a substitutionary punishment.

It doesn’t say that Jesus actually became guilty, or felt guilty, of those sins he atoned for. Some authors may have used language that may suggest this (such as Martin Luther whom you quoted), but I don’t think that it is an integral or essential part of the doctrine of penal substitution. The Wikipedia definition certainly doesn’t. And if you exclude that part of the definition, the rest is fully in agreement with the doctrine taught in the Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants.

“And he cometh into the world that he may save all men if they will hearken unto his voice; for behold, he

suffereth the pains of all men, yea, the pains of every living creature, both men, women, and children, who belong to the family of Adam.

” (2 Nephi 9:21)

“For, behold, the Lord your Redeemer suffered death in the flesh; wherefore he

suffered the pain of all men,

that all men might repent and come unto him.” (D&C 18:11)

“For behold, I, God, have suffered these things

for all, that they might not suffer

if they would repent;” (D&C 19:16)

These all teach penal substitution, or a substitutionary Atonement. I don’t see how you can get away from that.

... understood as the story of what God incarnate as a mortal did for all human being by allowing himself to be murdered by the then most malevolent demonic forces (the agents of the Roman Empire and the Jews who did their bidding) and then was resurrected three days later.

I would also question your judgement that the Roman Empire was a “demonic force”. They established a great civilization. They gave us law. They gave us government. They gave us Literature. Our scripture states, “We believe that governments were instituted of God for the benefit of man; and that he holds men accountable for their acts in relation to them, both in making laws and administering them, for the good and safety of society.” (D&C134:1) The Roman Empire was one such government. Paul says the same thing, but in different words:

“Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers [of government]. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be [i.e. the civil government] are ordained of God.

“Whosoever therefore resisteth the power [of earthly government], resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.

“For [secular] rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:

“For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.” (Romans 13:1–4)

Edited January 8, 2013 by mathonihah

[Calm]

http://www.theopedia.com/Penal_substitutionary_atonement

Penal substitutionary atonement refers to the doctrine that Christ died on the cross as a substitute for sinners. God imputed the guilt of our sins to Christ, and he, in our place, bore the punishment that we deserve. This was a full payment for sins, which satisfied both the wrath and the righteousness of God, so that He could forgive sinners without compromising His own holy standard.

[Calm]

I would also question your judgement that the Roman Empire was a “demonic force”. They established a great civilization. They gave us law. They gave us government. They gave us Literature. Our scripture states, “We believe that governments were instituted of God for the benefit of man; and that he holds men accountable for their acts in relation to them, both in making laws and administering them, for the good and safety of society.” (D&C134:1) The Roman Empire was one such government. Paul says the same thing, but in different words:

“Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers [of government]. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.

and what was it that Christ had done that justified his death by their hands?

What right had they to conquer their empire by might, resulting in the deaths hundreds of thousands, if not more?

[mathonihah]

They must have changed their moderation practices then as past posters have been banned, posts deleted, unable to link to pro lds sites, etc.

I haven't experienced any problems since I have been there. They do delete posts (occasionally), which is one thing I disagree with; but they usually do it when somebody breaks the rules; and they don't have many rules, except that posters should not get personal or attack each other. Somebody made a post that attacked me personally. I asked him to withdraw his comments and apologize, otherwise I would report it. He didn't, I reported it, and it was deleted, which I disagreed with. If I had known that his post would be deleted, I wouldn't have reported it. I don't think that anybody's post should be deleted, even if they break the rules. But in general I found it to be playing it fair. Their rules certainly state that to be the case. Here is a link to one statement of their rules.

[pogi]

What right had they to conquer their empire by might, resulting in the deaths hundreds of thousands, if not more?

I've wondered the same thing about America. Just sayin'

[mathonihah]

and what was it that Christ had done that justified his death by their hands?

I don't think that justifies us in labelling the Roman Empire a demonic force. Injustices and miscarriages of justice takes place in every civilization and under every government. It doesn't make it a demonic force.

Edited January 8, 2013 by mathonihah

[Calm]

I've wondered the same thing about America. Just sayin'

So have I.

[Calm]

I don't think that justifies us in labelling the Roman Empire a demonic force. Injustices and miscarriages of justice takes place in every civilization and under every government. It doesn't make it a demonic force.

Assuming that it was influenced by Satan or the own evil in its nature to execute a sinless man, for that act at least it was a demonic force one could state. Iow it was acting as a force of evil in that act.

Brother Midgley will have to state if that is what he meant, but that is certainly how I see it.

Edited January 8, 2013 by calmoriah

[mathonihah]

What right had they to conquer their empire by might, resulting in the deaths hundreds of thousands, if not more?

They were not even their enemies! But establishing empires in ancient times (and relatively modern times) was not uncommon, and there are singes in scripture that it was not against the will of God either.

Edited January 8, 2013 by mathonihah

[mathonihah]

Assuming that it was influenced by Satan or the own evil in its nature to execute a sinless man, for that act at least it was a demonic force one could state. Iow it was acting as a force of evil in that act.

Brother Midgley will have to state if that is what he meant, but that is certainly how I see it.

He is labelling the Roman Empire itself as a demonic force. I don't think I can agree with that.