Archive for January 15th, 2013
The doctrine of ‘Double Predestination’ condemned “anathema” @ The Council of Orange
Posted by simon peter sutherland in Christianity, The Bible, Theology on January 15, 2013
Research through the ancient creeds of Christendom from the first few centuries of the Christian Church always proves interesting.
I have long held to some early church statements concerning my personal faith and regard many of them as very Biblical and foundational.
Some early church creeds are not like the more modern creeds such as the “Synod at Dort” and the “Westminister confession of faith” which go beyond the foundations of the faith and into varying debatable and maybe even none essential doctrines.
However, much of what I find in these early creeds of Christendom are totally contrary to the many doctrines found in the church today, including a popular and growing doctrine which is logically connected to the hardcore Calvinistic doctrine of “Double Predestination”.
The Council of Orange dating to 529 AD says the following; “We not only do not believe that any are foreordained to evil by the power of God, but even state with utter abhorrennce that if there are those who want to believe so evil a thing, they are anathema” (The Council of Orange. Conlclusion. 529 AD)
The problem today is that many young Theologians who are influenced by the revival of Puritan books such as Owens “Death of Death” and some Calvinistic/reformed doctrinal books, are embracing doctrines which are not quite right, yet sound right when connected to other doctrines and certain passages of scripture.
Thus, in my posting this text, I would like to add that if any of my readers or your friends and fellow Christians hold to this doctrine condemned at Orange then you would be wise to re-think yourself. As written in scripture; “Take heed unto thyself and unto doctrine; for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself and them that hear thee” 1 Timothy 4: 16
St Thomas bay, Malta and St Pauls shipwreck
Posted by simon peter sutherland in Biblical archaeology, The Bible on January 15, 2013
In 2005 I visited the Island of Malta in the hope of researching the events of Acts 27: 39-44, 28: 1-10. After much research and travelling on foot to various sites connected to the Biblical events, St Pauls Bay became a prominent feature, yet lacked something?
Simon Peter Sutherland at San Pawl Milqi, Malta
© 2005/2013 Simon Peter Sutherland
However, I also came upon a new claim that parts of an ancient shipwreck had been found on the seabed at St Thomas Bay, in contrast to the traditional site of the shipwreck at St Pauls bay.
If these finds are true then they yet again offer more evidence for the Bible as History. The problem is that far too many people look for evidence in the wrong places, then they critique the text they clearly do not know so well.
This video contains some information about the archaeological finds.
What is a Codex?
Posted by simon peter sutherland in The Bible on January 15, 2013
‘Codex’ is a descriptive word which refers to an ancient book, in the form of books as we know books in our day and age. In the ancient world, the Latin word ‘codex’ meant “tree trunk” and while tablets were used to record events and various documents before Christ, the record of writings from the Roman era, tablets made of wood were used.
In later centuries Christian texts began to be formed as ‘Codex’ of which the pages of early Christian books were made of papyrus.
Many early Christian documents were written on animal skin, which is known as a ‘parchment’ and when formed in a book, is called a ‘Codex’. Many of these books were written or transcribed by monks or by ministers of various congregations for public reading and personal reflection.
So to define the word ‘Codex’ it refers to an ancient book, in the form of a book as we know a book today.
The Aleppo Codex online
Posted by simon peter sutherland in Christianity, The Bible, Theology on January 15, 2013
The Aleppo Codex is a complete Hebrew manuscript of the Old Testament and dates to around 930 and is available online for you to view and study.
Please take some time to look at this amazing preservation of the original Old Testament.
Click the link to visit the website: http://www.aleppocodex.org/
Why a King James ‘only’ movement?
Posted by simon peter sutherland in Christianity, The Bible on January 15, 2013
The King James Bible is an absolutely beautiful translation. Its language and use of the Hebrew and Greek texts is one of a kind and stands out high above nearly all other translations. The translation is exquisite and graceful, poetic and ancient sounding, Christ magnifying and full of grandeur and splendor. It is a true translation and worthy to be called the word of God.
But aside from this, there is a movement which is strange and totally opposite to the text it claims to represent. The KJV only movement is embraced by many and is often agressive in attitude and forceful and totally rejective of other translations and even esteems the KJV text above the Hebrew and Greek texts. I believe this movement is a huge error. There are other old translations which are true and good also, the Tyndale New Testament, the Coverdale Bible, the Geneva Bible, and more. Should we reject them too?
It seems that something that could be beautiful and good has been clouded over greatly by a movement which has little actual clear reasoning or openness to other translations of scripture. So, it seems odd that many people today embrace the KJV only movement, and since there is not one verse in the entire cannon of scripture that claims that English people are to be subject ‘exclusively’ to a translation that would be set forth in 1611 in Olde English, the movement has little Biblical support.
I can understand the worries that many have today regarding modern translations and the corruptness that can be found in many of them. But does that mean we are to cast away any goodness that can be found in other translations? I think not.
After all, the King James only movement is inconsistent with itself since the original 1611 King James Version (Authorised version) is not the same as those in the shops today. The original 1611 version had the apocrypha in it and did so until the 19th century when it was edited out by certain publishers.
So what then is the King James only movement if its followers do not read the actual original unedited Authorised Version?
If only we could just read the King James Bible without having this cloud of extreme KJV onlyism over our heads, then we could see the beauty of the KJV and enjoy its beauty.
-
You are currently browsing the archives for Tuesday, January 15th, 2013
Simon Peter Sutherland
-
Simon Peter Sutherland 