My response to Laurence Vance's "Should a Christian support criminalizing prostitution"

[PierzStyx]

Man, seeing how threads turn out can be odd. A thread starting out with Christian "Liberty" trying to spread more theocratic statism based on poor interpretations of the scriptures ends up being a debate about whether you can catch cold (or worse) from a shared communion cup. Who knew this thread would go this direction?

[jmdrake]

Man, seeing how threads turn out can be odd. A thread starting out with Christian "Liberty" trying to spread more theocratic statism based on poor interpretations of the scriptures ends up being a debate about whether you can catch cold (or worse) from a shared communion cup. Who knew this thread would go this direction?

LOL. Anybody who spends time at RPF especially in the religion subforum. FWIW everybody agrees that it's there's little to no chance of getting sick from a common communion cup. The only debate is if that's to be expected anyway.

[jmdrake]

In 1946 Burrows demonstrated that when human volunteers shared a communion cup, with instructions to get as much saliva as possible on the rim, bacteria were recovered in small numbers.

So with people basically hocking and spitting in the cup for the experiment they only had small amounts of bacteria recovered.

18 In 1967 Gregory showed that in a more realistic simulation of a communion service, various species of bacteria could be recovered from the cup, including staphylococci, Neisseria species, beta-hemolytic and non-hemolytic streptococci, and Micrococcus species.18 In 1967 Hobbs and colleagues performed experiments that concluded that silver and wine may have antimicrobial properties. However, the time interval between each communicant drinking from the cup, which is typically less than five seconds, is not sufficient to cause a significant decrease in bacterial counts. They also found that rotating the chalice was ineffective at decreasing colonization; however wiping the rim with the linen cloth decreased bacterial counts by 90%. [note: Orthodox priests do not wipe down the spoon prior to giving the Eucharist to the next person, as seen in the video earlier posted by me, so this is not applicable. - TER] All studies concluded that the risk of spreading disease cannot be excluded but is extremely low.19

And so you're extrapolating from an experiment done with people putting their mouths on a chalice to one where people are using a spoon and then dipping into the chalice to form a conclusion? You're ignoring the fact that with a spoon there is no possibility of backwash which means less saliva getting into the Orthodox chalice.

Here is a study that won't be done but probably should be. Have two groups of people drinking watered down wine from a communal chalice. You can use spoons or putting their lips on the chalice itself. In one group it's actually communion being done. In the other it's just people enjoying some watered down wine. See if there is any significant disease difference between the two groups. I strongly doubt there will be.

[TER]

So with people basically hocking and spitting in the cup for the experiment they only had small amounts of bacteria recovered.



And so you're extrapolating from an experiment done with people putting their mouths on a chalice to one where people are using a spoon and then dipping into the chalice to form a conclusion? You're ignoring the fact that with a spoon there is no possibility of backwash which means less saliva getting into the Orthodox chalice.

Here is a study that won't be done but probably should be. Have two groups of people drinking watered down wine from a communal chalice. You can use spoons or putting their lips on the chalice itself. In one group it's actually communion being done. In the other it's just people enjoying some watered down wine. See if there is any significant disease difference between the two groups. I strongly doubt there will be.

Funny when lawyers start trying to be doctors.

As I said before, I am done discussing this topic with you. However, I am grateful that we had it because it helped me find those scientific publications which I didn't know existed. I praise the Lord for this, and I thank you as well!

[TER]

....

[jmdrake]

Funny when lawyers start trying to be doctors.

Before I was a lawyer I did statistical analysis for epidemiologists, psychologists and behavioral health scientists. My name is even on published papers. Most of the studies I worked were not on communicable diseases but I am familiar with how studies are designed and how someone comes up with controls and their null hypothesis.

As I said before, I am done discussing this topic with you. However, I am grateful that we had it because it helped me find those scientific publications which I didn't know existed. I praise the Lord for this, and I thank you as well!

Glad you enjoyed the discussion. I did as well.

[PierzStyx]

LOL. Anybody who spends time at RPF especially in the religion subforum. FWIW everybody agrees that it's there's little to no chance of getting sick from a common communion cup. The only debate is if that's to be expected anyway.

It has been a while since I've been really active around here. But I do remember how wild the religion forum can get sometimes. You just never know where it will end up. That is always a surprise!

[TER]

It has been a while since I've been really active around here. But I do remember how wild the religion forum can get sometimes. You just never know where it will end up. That is always a surprise!

That's true! Every page or two, the topic is completely different, and sometimes there are four or five conversations taking place at one time!

[TER]

Before I was a lawyer I did statistical analysis for epidemiologists, psychologists and behavioral health scientists. My name is even on published papers. Most of the studies I worked were not on communicable diseases but I am familiar with how studies are designed and how someone comes up with controls and their null hypothesis.

As for the study above which you suggested should be done, it would be very interesting to see the results. It would require many volunteers if it is to produce data which is valuable and reliable. I would greatly be interested in seeing the results of such a study.

Glad you enjoyed the discussion. I did as well.

It is good to have these discussions, which are fruitful and brings great benefit to those who hear and listen. I, for one, am grateful that we can do so in a forum which allows such frank discussions. I applaud the moderators who have restored order and decorum to this subforum. I also thank you jmdrake for digging deeper, so that we might find treasures. This is what friends do, and I thank you.

[Christian Liberty]

TER, just curious, do you think that tons of people get sick in Protestant congregations that serve wine in a common cup? Would be curious to hear HU's thoughts here as well since I know he's in a congregation that does.

Furthermore, what's the Orthodox view on the legitimacy of Protestant Lord's Supper?

[Christian Liberty]

Man, seeing how threads turn out can be odd. A thread starting out with Christian "Liberty" trying to spread more theocratic statism based on poor interpretations of the scriptures ends up being a debate about whether you can catch cold (or worse) from a shared communion cup. Who knew this thread would go this direction?

I'm only a statist in that I support the existence of a State.

[hells_unicorn]

What happened to the historical continuity of the Christian Faith and the very Church at the time of the Great Schism that precludes you from referencing any EO figure since? Did the Church disappear? And if not, where did it go? The Papal Roman Church? Or did it stay with the remaining four Patriarchates which are still in communion to this day? I am interested to learn what you are being taught.

No, the church didn't disappear, the unity of the church disappeared. The Reformed assert that the EO was on the right side of the Papal issue, but in addition to the institutional separation of the church, there is the matter of certain doctrinal developments in the centuries leading up to the schism. The Lutherans and the Anglicans have maintained a stance of either support or ambivalence on the matter of the 2nd Council of Nicaea, the Reformed held a different position on this issue. Consequently, there is a schismatic divide between the Lutherans and Anglicans (and consequently also the EO) with the Reformed Churches.

To give you a point by point answer to your questions, I present the following.

- I don't reference EO figures following the Great Schism because there is a general hostility between the East and the West concerning Ambrose, Augustine of Hippo and a few other Latin figures that the Reformed consider fully orthodox.
- The Church did not disappear, but institutional unity ceased in a universal sense.
- The Church endures in various forms and to various degrees in a visible sense, be it faithful individual, entire congregations, or even synods espousing an orthodox position in either a sufficient or near total sense. Presently there are several nations that have orthodox confessions according to the Reformed position (The U.K., The Netherlands), but their institutional churches have become derelict in enforcing them. America, in our position, defied the concept of a national covenant with its proto-socialist Constitution and is viewed as a secular empire by the Steelite dissenters based on the original Solemn League and Covenant.
- The Papal Roman Church is an illegitimate institution that declared its head a prophet at Vatican I, but the seeds of this were planted by the Ultramontanist movement going back several centuries before.
- The 4 other Patriarchates are a separate matter from Rome, but there are existing issues of doctrine that prevent the Reformed from being in communion with them. I believe that historically the Latin West had a claim of legitimate authority over much of the western church, but that they lost that right when they went down the road of innovative ecclesiastical governance and doctrine, However, this does not mean that the other 4 Patriarchates have a right to move in on the west and make us subservient satellites of their areas of historic influence.

In short, the Churches of Scotland, England and Ireland have a legitimate claim of autonomy and orthodoxy according to the WCF, which was a necessary re-covenanting of said nations in reaction to Papal encroachment. It is rooted in historic doctrine that is informed by scripture, and well as the early council declarations (excluding 2nd Nicaea and any subsequent synod or councils by Rome) and the theology of various early figures. I stand by it as an orthodox declaration of the western church, as does the remaining Reformed Presbytery that have not bent the knee to American exceptionalism or modern liberalism.

[hells_unicorn]

TER, just curious, do you think that tons of people get sick in Protestant congregations that serve wine in a common cup? Would be curious to hear HU's thoughts here as well since I know he's in a congregation that does.

Furthermore, what's the Orthodox view on the legitimacy of Protestant Lord's Supper?

The way we observe the Lord's Supper is by having our minister consecrate the elements (a loaf of leavened bread and a common cup), then the loaf is passed around and each person sitting at the table breaks off a piece to eat. The cup is then passed around and each sitting member takes a drink from the common cup. The wine that we use is red and not diluted. In the time that I've received communion in a common cup, be it as an Anglican (my youth), Romanist (from about 2004 up until 2008), Ultrajectine Old Catholic (2008 until late 2009) or Presbyterian I have never gotten sick in close proximity to doing so.

We make a regular practice of testing every recipient on what is taking place at The Lord's Supper before giving it, just for the record.

[TER]

TER, just curious, do you think that tons of people get sick in Protestant congregations that serve wine in a common cup?

I can only speak from what I know with regards to the Orthodox Church. The studies which I found and posted earlier in the thread are not very clear on which denomination they were testing. One of the tests involved the subjects receiving Anglican communion which did not demonstrate any transmission.

Furthermore, what's the Orthodox view on the legitimacy of Protestant Lord's Supper?

You will get varying beliefs on this. If you study the Church Fathers, it is quite ubiquitous stated that those sacraments held outside the Church are without grace (for example, this was the charge held against the Arians and many other heretical splinter groups which developed in the course of history.) Most priests I have spoken with tell me to worry about my own sins and let God worry about the sacraments held outside the Church.

[PierzStyx]

I'm only a statist in that I support the existence of a State.

That would be the definition of a statist, those who support a government based on violent compulsion, i.e. the State. That this is the opposite of the order God established seems to escape your notice.

[TER]

No, the church didn't disappear, the unity of the church disappeared.

That is not what the Roman Church or the Eastern Churches believed, neither at the time of the Great Schism or after (except perhaps for what Vatican II taught, regarding Branch theories and such which completely go against the Patristic teachings). They don't believe the Church can be divided, and rather each claim to be the true Church established by Christ. Before the Schism, this was true, but after it, one was the true Church and the other fallen away. To any serious seeker of the truth, this fork in the road is the pinnacle in determining where the Church of the New Testament is. It is one of two, either it is the Roman Catholic Church or the Eastern Orthodox Church.

Christ's Body cannot be broken into two. It wasn't that the Church divided in unity, it was that one section fell away. Although a branch falls from the tree, it does not mean that the tree has divided. It remains one tree.

Reformed assert that the EO was on the right side of the Papal issue, but in addition to the institutional separation of the church, there is the matter of certain doctrinal developments in the centuries leading up to the schism.

You are correct, but if you think the doctrinal developments have to do with icons or the Second Council of Nicea, you would be incorrect. The innovation which developed was actually iconoclasm, and that is what was rooted out by the One Church. As for the innovations which led to the Great Schism, it did not occur in the Orthodox Church, it occurred in the Western Church (ex: Filioque), first with Rome and then the Protestant Reformation (which is the offspring of the Papal Church which broke away).

The Lutherans and the Anglicans have maintained a stance of either support or ambivalence on the matter of the 2nd Council of Nicaea, the Reformed held a different position on this issue. Consequently, there is a schismatic divide between the Lutherans and Anglicans (and consequently also the EO) with the Reformed Churches.

In that case, the Lutherns and Anglicans have it more correct than the Reformed Churches, which makes sense since the Reformed Churches are even greater degrees of separation from the Apostolic Church theologically, ecclesiologically and sacramentally.

To give you a point by point answer to your questions, I present the following.

- I don't reference EO figures following the Great Schism because there is a general hostility between the East and the West concerning Ambrose, Augustine of Hippo and a few other Latin figures that the Reformed consider fully orthodox.

Augustine and Ambrose are Saints within the Orthodox Church. Now Thomas Aquinas, that's a whole different story. Unfortunately, they (especially Aquinas) taught some doctrines which were unbalanced and in error, such as the extreme penal substitutionary atonement theories and the hyper-juridical approach to the Christian faith. This developed into the main Papal scholastic approach towards the faith as they drifted further and further away from the teachings of the Fathers before them. Unfortunately, the Reformed Churches clinged on to these errors. It was wrong when Rome made it the cornerstone of their theology, and it was wrong when it was carried over to its offspring, the Protestant Churches.

-

The Church did not disappear, but institutional unity ceased in a universal sense.

Says who? The Church will always remain, and the gates of hell cannot overcome it. Just as the Arians fell away, and did not cease the universality and catholicity of the Church, likewise the Great Schism did not cease the Church as being One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic. The question rather became: which is the True Church, the Papal Church or the Eastern Church? This teaching regarding the undivided nature of the body, as Christ is undivided, goes back to what the Apostles taught, namely St. Paul. What the Great Schism resulted in was a large number from one Patriarchate falling away. Your community's ecclesiological approach is flawed if you believe the Church ceased to exist as One Body of Christ because Rome split from the other Four Patriarchates.

- The Church endures in various forms and to various degrees in a visible sense, be it faithful individual, entire congregations, or even synods espousing an orthodox position in either a sufficient or near total sense.

Well, no. Going back to the teachings of the early Christian Saints, there is a visible Church militant (those in the world, baptized and in sacramental communion with the Apostolic Church) and the invisible Church triumphant (the Angels and those who have run the race and died in communion with the Church militant and await the Final Judgment).

Presently there are several nations that have orthodox confessions according to the Reformed position (The U.K., The Netherlands), but their institutional churches have become derelict in enforcing them. America, in our position, defied the concept of a national covenant with its proto-socialist Constitution and is viewed as a secular empire by the Steelite dissenters based on the original Solemn League and Covenant.

This is another argument altogether. The Church, which looks toward the eschatological Kingdom of Heaven and called to be not of this world, is not defined by ethnic or national borders. It remains One Church. The tradition of national arraignments have to do with administrative and pastoral reasons. Ethnophyletism, however, is a heresy and has been condemned within the Orthodox Church. Unfortunately, there exist strains of it within the Body, which are unfortunate.

- The Papal Roman Church is an illegitimate institution that declared its head a prophet at Vatican I, but the seeds of this were planted by the Ultramontanist movement going back several centuries before.

That may be true, but the Protestant Church sprang from this same community (Rome) which had already fallen away from the One Church, according to what the Orthodox believe.

- The 4 other Patriarchates are a separate matter from Rome, but there are existing issues of doctrine that prevent the Reformed from being in communion with them. I believe that historically the Latin West had a claim of legitimate authority over much of the western church, but that they lost that right when they went down the road of innovative ecclesiastical governance and doctrine, However, this does not mean that the other 4 Patriarchates have a right to move in on the west and make us subservient satellites of their areas of historic influence.

Excuse me, what? Acknowledging history and adhering to Church canons is not 'moving in on the west'. It seems like the west innovates and/or ignores those things, like Rome's adaptation of the Filioque and the Protestant willful ignorance on Church history and canonical norms. Also, the Orthodox Church is notorious for not trying to enter into Western cities, whether in Europe or the US, and trying to proselytize the population there. This is in fact one of the criticisms people have of the Orthodox Church, that it keeps too much to itself and does not effectively do missionary work (which many believe have to do with the suspicions which have developed from both sides).

In short, the Churches of Scotland, England and Ireland have a legitimate claim of autonomy and orthodoxy according to the WCF, which was a necessary re-covenanting of said nations in reaction to Papal encroachment. It is rooted in historic doctrine that is informed by scripture, and well as the early council declarations (excluding 2nd Nicaea and any subsequent synod or councils by Rome) and the theology of various early figures. I stand by it as an orthodox declaration of the western church, as does the remaining Reformed Presbytery that have not bent the knee to American exceptionalism or modern liberalism.

Church history, ecclesiological tradition, Church canons, and basic theology disagrees with you, as do I. The WCF is not a product of the Church of the Holy Ecumencial Councils, it is a new confession apart from her. I am not saying that you or anyone else cannot find Christ within your community and find salvation, but to claim that your community has autocephaly when such has never been granted as is canonically required within the historical Christian Church (canons which were formed WAY WAY before any Great Schism was ever imagined), breaks from canonical order. To claim apostolic succession, when it is a child of Rome which split away centuries before because of doctrinal errors and distorted ecclesiology, is not historically correct. To claim that the Church ceased to have catholicity because one of the Patriarchates fell away demonstrates a revisionist approach to Church history and the nature of the Church and is an innovation which has been propagated just these last couple of centuries.

To top that, to ignore a Holy Ecumenical Council which convened at a time long before the Great Schism and almost 800 years before Luther was born, demonstrates that your community and its founders do not actually take ecclesiology seriously or have a firm basis in historical realities and canonical orders, but rather, imitating the typical Protestant approach from which they sprung from, have created a new body apart from the historical and original Church and picked and chosen whatever doctrines and traditions they want to believe in, even if it has no basis within the life of the earlier Church.

These seem like hard and insensitive statements for me to make, but I am only responding to some of the errors which the community which you have decided to follow have fallen into. I am speaking the truth as I understand it. Again, I am not saying that one cannot find salvation within that community, but we should not ignore certain fundamental and ancient ideas regarding the nature of the Church as the Body of Christ, and how it has endured through the centuries as threatened from enemies both within and without.

[TER]

I just want to emphasize that I believe God is merciful and just, and He knows the hearts of men and which men truly love Him. I also believe He works in the lives of all those who call on the name of His Son and who look towards the Lord Jesus Christ for salvation.

[helmuth_hubener]

So, what's the verdict, men? Do we ban prostitution or not?

[osan]

Going in the religion section, as I'm primarily directing this at others who acknowledge the authority of scripture (as Vance does.) For those who dont, I'm not really addressing this at you.

https://reconvenantersassanach.wordp...-its-problems/

This was my response to Vance's article today.

The laws you quote are, IMO, idiotic on their faces. They are arbitrary and without stated justification other than "because God says so".

FAIL.

God gave us brains and IMO the purpose of the brain is NOT to be a hat rack.

It is claimed we are made in His image. I seriously doubt that this means arms, legs, and the dangly bits in between. Therefore, I must conclude that if we are made in His image, it means that our MINDS are isomorphic. That further implies that our reason is very similar to God's, even if somewhat circumscribed in relative terms. This tells me that our reason and intuition, being similar to that of God, are valid. My reason and intuition tells me that these purported laws are not God's at all, but rather those of a herd of camel-$#@!ers. That further reveals to me that they have no validity whatsoever.

Unlike many, I do not believe God to be a stooge, nor intentionally cruel to good people. I must therefore reject such pseudo-law on its face as the work of said camel-$#@!ers, whose interests are likely not in line with my own, or those of women in general, which is probably why they are camel-$#@!ers in the first place.

Believe as you will, of course, but I see no profit in any of this. Rather, I see compliance to that which is patently idiotic as the acts of frightened men, fearful of possible retribution by a God they clearly envision as a cranky, constipated, sadistic old prick with nothing better to do than strike those dead who dare get off their knees even for a moment.

I have no time for such childish nonsense. When I see images of creation such as that of the Cat's Eye nebula, it becomes impossible for me to accept the God-as-petty-stooge model of reality. YMMV, and who knows, I could be dead-wrong on every count.

[osan]

So, what's the verdict, men? Do we ban prostitution or not?

HELL $#@! NO!

Gotta have hookers.

Just gotta.

[osan]

I just want to emphasize that I believe God is merciful and just, and He knows the hearts of men and which men truly love Him. I also believe He works in the lives of all those who call on the name of His Son and who look towards the Lord Jesus Christ for salvation.

Which son would that be? I mean, am I now God's son? Are you not?

I admit my doubts about some, though.

[tod evans]

So, what's the verdict, men? Do we ban prostitution or not?

If befriending prostitutes was good enough for Jesus it's good enough for me.

[hells_unicorn]

So, what's the verdict, men? Do we ban prostitution or not?

Gauging the current state of American society, banning prostitution wouldn't accomplish anything even if it were possible, pagans gonna pagan. I will, however, encourage every person I know to practice biblical marriage, procreate, and protect their daughters and sons from the wicked practices of the heathen.

If befriending prostitutes was good enough for Jesus it's good enough for me.

Your definition of befriending prostitutes and Jesus' are quite different, not that you'd know since you wouldn't have made a statement like this had you ever comprehended what was going on in the gospel accounts. Your idea of befriending a prostitute is probably along the same lines of a friend who buys his alcoholic friend a bunch of rounds, then hands him the car keys and tells him to have fun on the way home.

[hells_unicorn]

I just want to emphasize that I believe God is merciful and just, and He knows the hearts of men and which men truly love Him. I also believe He works in the lives of all those who call on the name of His Son and who look towards the Lord Jesus Christ for salvation.

I'm going to submit a more comprehensive response to yours at a later date, I have personal business that I need to attend to in the meantime. But suffice to say, I will not now nor ever will I accept Nicaea II as a valid council, and I consider the worship practices that it endorses dangerous. Nicaea II was not confirmed by a subsequent council prior to the schism, and the Church of Scotland is not bound by the arbitrary decrees of any outside body, be it Rome or the other Patriarchs. You have no authority over the Reformed community, and prior to these issues being hammered out by a legitimate ecumenical council, it will be a matter of Nicaea II vs. Frankfurt. There were no Frankish representatives at the council, so at best, Nicaea II and Frankfurt amount to contradictory synods resulting in schism. I am aware that Frankfurt did not condemn the presence of icons or their veneration, but rather drew into question whether Nicaea II was actually an ecumenical council.

I will reciprocate your position that salvation is indeed possible and likely within the Eastern Church, and that Christ's grace is not tied to one national/particular church. I will even grant that it is indeed possible among more deformed and heterodox communions such as the Roman Catholic Church and the Trinitarian Baptist groups. But as a covenanted member of the Church of Scotland and Northern Ireland, I am as bound to resist contrary doctrines that go against my understanding of scripture, history and my conscience.

[tod evans]

Your definition

[hells_unicorn]

Unless your definition of "befriending prostitutes" involves trying to convince them to take a different path in life, you're not really their friend now, are you? Truth can be painful, so painful it can cause social liberals to roll their eyes.

[jmdrake]

Unless your definition of "befriending prostitutes" involves trying to convince them to take a different path in life, you're not really their friend now, are you? Truth can be painful, so painful it can cause social liberals to roll their eyes.

Jesus' definition of befriending prostitutes didn't involve stoning them or imprisoning them. Yes, try to convince anyone living a life outside the will of God to repent. But this thread was specifically about whether or not one should advocate criminal penalties for prostitution.

[helmuth_hubener]

I will, however, encourage every person I know to practice biblical marriage, procreate, and protect their daughters and sons from the wicked practices of the heathen.

Sounds good, my man. I am all for that!

How are you protecting your kids, Unicorn?

[TER]

I'm going to submit a more comprehensive response to yours at a later date, I have personal business that I need to attend to in the meantime.

I completely understand. Take your time. I look forward to reading it.

[hells_unicorn]

Sounds good, my man. I am all for that!

How are you protecting your kids, Unicorn?

Homeschooling, it's about as effective against libertine morality infecting the youth as it is preventing children from becoming wards of a godless state. Do try it sometime if you haven't already.