The Old Gray Dog Ponders . . . THE LEGEND OF ST. PATRICK, 2014

The Old Gray Dog Ponders . . . THE LEGEND OF ST. PATRICK, 2014

	Inbox		x

JAMESET@aol.com	8:02 PM (4 hours ago)
to JAMESET

Editorial opinion: We live in a society dominated by "political correctness."  Differences are found to be offensive.  Instead of celebrating our unique cultural diversity, we stifle it.  Today provides an excellent case in point.  Some will be offended that a Reformed Christian, such as myself, would feature the legend of an Irish Catholic.  Pity.  Like all cultures, there is much we can learn from Patrick.  I think our nation would benefit from the celebration of the diverse cultures which make up our country.  Learning about the traditions behind our various holy days seems much wiser than ignoring them and turning them into generic "holidays."  OGD] 

 

 

 

 

THE LEGEND OF ST. PATRICK

1. Maewyn was a young Christian who lived in Scotland. When he was sixteen, he was
captured by Irish pirates. The pirates sold him as a slave.

2. The Irish were not Christians. After six years working for an Irish master, Maewyn was able to run away and leave Ireland. He vowed he would come back to Ireland some day and teach the Christian religion to the Irish people.

3. Maewyn became a priest in the Christian church. Later he became a bishop. In the year 431, the Pope gave him the name Patricius (Patrick). The Pope sent him to Ireland. "Take Christianity to Ireland," said the Pope.

4. Patrick went into each town in Ireland. A man walked in front of him,.beating on drums. The drums announced that -8 Patrick was coming into the town.

5. Patrick was very brave. He faced many dangers. The Irish threw stones at him. They put
him into prison. But he got out. And he never gave up.

6. He taught people about Jesus Christ. The people became Christians. He baptized them. He started schools and churches.

7. An important idea of Christianity is that there are three parts of God in one:
the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The Irish people could not understand how
three could be the same as one. So Patrick used the shamrock to help them understand a With the three leaves of the shamrock, he showed how the three parts made up the whole.

8. Patrick worked in Ireland for forty years. He died on March 17,493. Many years later, the
church made him a Saint.

9. There are many legends of miracles that St. Patrick did. He healed sick people. Some
legends tell that he healed dead people too. One story tells that he made snow burn. Another story tells that St. Patrick chased all the snakes out of Ireland by beating on his drum. There are no snakes in Ireland today.

 

 

http://www.andiesisle.com/ThisBlessingIsForYou.html  (You will need to cut and paste this to your web browser.)

 

“A dog barks when his master is attacked. I would be a coward if I saw that God's truth is attacked and yet would remain silent.” John Calvin

The Old Gray Dog

Jim Tuckett
The Old Gray Dog Ponders radio show can be heard every Friday at 11:30 Central Time (www.BNNSRadio.com)

PS...Don't forget to wear your proper colors to honor our Protestant faith and heritage..................And you all know I don't mean green, either...God Bless!!!

 

 

Is a potential "Psaltergate" a luxury the Orthodox Presbyterian can afford?

 
The latest edition of New Horizons magazine has several articles regarding the new Psalter project undertaken by the Orthodox Presbyterian Church and our brothers and sisters in the faith in the United Reformed Churches in North America. There was one article in particular that aroused the ire of one of the most respected OPC elders in Western Pennsylvania. The article in question was described by him and several others as "brusque", "staccato" etc. My purpose here is not to grind axes and name names. My purpose here is to shed my perspective on the potential pitfalls of placing such inordinate emphasis on this ecumenist initiative... One predicated upon the misnomer of exclusive psalmody.

One of the main shortcomings cited about Calvinists is our tendency to throw down on each other over the nonessentials; as opposed to endeavoring a unified front against the greater enemies of our faith. . The latter is a lot more in sync with the Great Commission and, had we thus engaged in the mainstream

.........................................this could quite easily have been prevented!!!!!!!!!!!!


This is part of the danger inherent, to my view , of collaborative efforts  such as these.  Such endeavors implicitly  raise the bar of  toleration of  doctrinal error.  This new Psalter, by its very being ,  flags the implication that the doctrinal errors which fuel exclusive psalmody are not only tolerable , they are to be tolerated.  Let's quickly itemize a few of the historical raspberries:

• The spiritual songs and hymns from other parts of the Bible are okay for use in the home, but are a no-no in church.. Talk about your latently papist assertions !!  What's next- rosaries and scapulars?!
• That all of our forebears ( Covenanters, Puritans, Westminster divines)  were exclusive psalmists.
• That Calvin, Theodore Beza and the divines in Geneva, Switzerland were exclusive psalmists.
•  That exclusive psalmody is in accordance with the Westminster standards.

There is another danger that we would be derelict not to consider. Such an inordinate emphasis on a proposed new Psalter, or the OPC's collaboration with the URCNA could threaten to prioritize ecumenicity at the exclusion or expense of sound doctrine! In other words, are we doing this in the vein of a more sound/healthy/well-rounded liturgical experience? Or are we placating to the URCNA in the interest of ecumenical relations ?

If it ain't broke, why fix it?


The Trinity Hymnal and the Book of Psalms for Singing are splendid repositories for the expression of faith in song. The soundness of our worship has only been enhanced in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church and the glory given to God is unquestionable in either book. There are better ways to enhance discourse within NAPARC than to invest thousands of dollars in a new publication which tacitly raises the bar for toleration for anything rooted in doctrinal error! In this case, it's exclusive psalmody.

Were collaborative efforts in the ecumenical vein which tacitly approve toleration of theological error not the recipe which proved the hemlock for the Presbyterian faith in the mainline????


Precisely where did this idea get started that the interest of Federative unity should, under any circumstances, eclipse, the soundness of worship?

Should said unity ever be endeavored if there were the slightest risk of disunity or spiritual marginalization in one's own denomination? Whatever happened to "charity begins at home"?

 As of about a year ago, my church in Pennsylvania became one of only five in the entire OPC to engage in exclusive psalmody after the call of worship. I've gone on record that capitulating to the exclusive psalmists in my church was a mistake. I maintain that strictly on Biblical, historical and catechetical grounds with no regard  to who might find that personally objectionable! This is an issue that transcends personalities and cliques and I find manipulating the liturgical architecture in any degree simply to please a few persons offensive.

 Where does it end?-I'm thinking of course of the slippery slope. The derisiveness that could be potentially wrought is not worth the effort. Obviously, the Apostle Paul did not mean that each one of us is responsible for memorizing a particular Psalm of David in I Corinthians 14:26!!!!!

The reason given for the acquiescence in question was to strike a "compromise". I'm sorry, but are we here to cater to ecclesiastical cabals or cliques or to glorify God in Christ?!?! It's really a zero-sum proposition..... The Bible commands us to sing psalms, hymns and spiritual songs in corporate worship..........period. I need not elucidate on the latently papist aftertaste that leaves.

I'm aware of Martin Luther's assessment that the "Psalms of David is the Bible in miniature form". But he also said  that "My conscience is captive to the word of God"...

 

What's wrong with what we have??? The Psalmodic deference is sufficient!!!

Christ and His atonement is self revelatory, from Genesis to Revelation. This is a position that my exclusive psalmist brothers gladly concur with me on and this is what most hold Luther meant  when he referenced the Psalms of David. If the proponents of exclusive psalmody hold to the inerrancy of Scripture as implacably as they claim they do, and I would like to think they do........ How then do they endeavor the perichoresis between exclusive psalmody and the hymns and spiritual songs the Word of God commands us to sing?

The intent was not to revisit an argument  addressed several times in Glencairn Presbyterian. However, I remain very passionate against certain "democratic" tendencies inherent in the Reformed tradition. Certainly, broader, more comprehensive discourse between those in our faith of the evangelical stripe is a lofty and noble goal- I take no issue whatsoever. My issue lies in the ghastly tendency to either manipulate the liturgical architecture or tacitly condone positions that to any degree- no matter how slight or peripheral- compromise the soteriological or liturgical integrity of the Kirk Militant.  

    
 The enemies of the faith gain momentum in the mainstream media by the day........


We ain't got time or resources for dumb stuff!!...........


Bottom line.