Gentlemen, I have assembled a new guide to the Jewish controversy and the Neo-Nazis. Please use this in your discussions because I put a ton of time in to this and my wrath will be provoked if it is not used! 🙂 Winning!
The following is from Rutherford’s Free Disputation (1649),
“Answ. Paul bids receive them, ergo, he bids tolerate them all together, it follows not, he will have them informed that there is no such divine law that presseth them, and so a moral toleration of not refuting their error is denied to them.
2. He bids receive them in a practice in itself, for that time, indifferent (for 1 Cor.8.8. Neither if they did eat, were they the better, nor if they did not eat, were they the worse) but only erroneous in the manner, because of the twilight and sparklings of the light of the Gospel not fully promulgated to the Jews. Will it follow that the Jews should be tolerated still, and perpetually to circumcise and keep the ceremonial law, and to teach others so to do? for Libertines contend for a constant and perpetual toleration of all Jewish and sinful practices.” (pg. 100)
“To tolerate Jews openly blaspheming Christ, or to receive them in the Common-Wealth, cannot be allowed, or to suffer them to have Synagogues, in regard they blaspheme the God we are in Covenant with, and do no less deny him, than Goliah and Senacharib did, 2. But simply seduced Jews are to be instructed, for there is a peculiar prophecy touching the Jews, Rom. 11. Jer. 50. 5 ,6. That they shall be brought in to know Christ, and believe in him.” (pg. 316)
John Hull, Emeritus Professor of Religious Education at the University of Birmingham, states in his, The Holy Trinity and Christian Education in a Pluralist World ,
“There is no hierarchy of power, no monarch from whom the Son and then the Spirit emanate, but a society of perfect order in perfect equality. ‘The Father is in me and I am in the Father’ (John 10:38). ‘The oppressed struggle for participation at all levels of life, for a just and egalitarian sharing while respecting the differences between persons and groups; they seek communion with other cultures and with other values. . .’. Leonardo Boff continues ‘For those who have faith, the trinitarian communion between the divine Three, the union between them in love and vital interpenetration, can serve as a source of inspiration, as a utopian goal that generates models of successively diminishing differences’.(58)”
Where oh, where did he get this idea? Hull states in his Karl Marx on Capital: Some Implications for Christian Adult Education,
“Just as the Father, notes Marx, in the Holy Trinity differentiates himself from the Son in the process of the eternal begetting of the Son and yet the Father and the Son remain one, and are also of one age since neither has a temporal priority, so capital differentiates itself into money and into commodities. ‘The Son, and by the Son the Father, is begotten. So soon does their difference vanish and they again become one.’ [Marx, The Capital, Volume 1, Part 2, Chapter 4-SI] Marx goes so far in denying the subordination of the Son because he wants to deny the monarchic principle. He wants a dynamic Trinity of complete mutuality between Father and Son, in which value is conceived by capital and made manifest through process.”
Is it any wonder then, that the Roman Catholic Church, having assumed this heretical denial of the Father’s Monarchy, would later develop communist economics? See Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Question 55, Article 7, Sir Thomas More’s Utopia, and the Jesuit’s Reductions.
I contaced Professor Hull about this article. He replied,
The article to which you refer, “Karl Marx on Capital”, was published in
Modern Believing, Volume XXXVIII, No 1, January 1997, pp 22-31.
The comment of mine you mention does not claim to be based upon a new
quotation from Karl Marx but, as the context indicates, is a reflection
of my own upon the Trinitarian significance of the quotation from Marx
which immediately precedes it, i.e. (footnote 15) Capital 1973, Vol. 1,
p.154. Marx is making the point that capital both differentiates itself
from money/commodity whilst at the same time being reunited with it. The
implication of this is that he is drawing upon Western views of the
Trinity, in which the three are co-equal, co-eternal and of a single
essence, in contrast with what tended to be the Eastern view, which, as
you know, emphasised the monarchy of the Father. This would not do for
the purposes of Marx because it would deny to capital its strange
ability to move in and out of money and commodities.
I have not had time to get out Capital and check the quotation in note
15, to which my comment applies. If this is not correct, I am all at sea
because I have not got time to search through Capital to find it! But I
hope my explanation will show that an additional quotation was not in