Posted on 04/17/2007 10:11:17 PM PDT by NormsRevenge
The Anglican archbishop, like many clerics of his denomination, does not believe in the verbal and plenary inspiration of Scripture. One cannot discuss Scriptural matters with those who don´t believe that the Bible is God-breathed.
Agreed. The answer is, how are we to do that? The danger is that in pointing out the sins of others, we act so unpleasantly as to sour them to the message of salvation.
In this particular debate, the "anti-homosexual" side is prone to using Romans 1:26-27 as a bludgeon, which is not a particularly useful method for convincing those whose actions you're trying to change.
The empirical evidence is that this approach changes few, if any, minds among those engulfed in the sin: it merely hardens their resolve to do away with the Scriptures altogether, not to mention the idea that we're all intrinsically sinners.
For those on the fence, the "Romans quoters" often appear to be smug and unpleasant creatures -- not fun folks for other Christians to be around, and certainly not the sort of Christians with whom a non-Christian would want to associate.
Why not? How are you to change their minds, if you don't discuss Scripture with them?
“Why not? How are you to change their minds, if you don’t discuss Scripture with them?”
*****
“But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.”
—1 Cor. 2:14
“A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject; Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself.”
—Titus 3:10-11
I cannot help but be reminded of the Pharisees, who refused to associate with those whose take on Scripture differed from theirs.
Jesus took them to task for that. Moreover, he did talk Scripture with those who held different views. See, for example, his conversation with the Samaritan woman in John 4.
Why should you presume to be above the example set by the Lord Himself?
That’s pretty clear...
He’s probably a closet queer.
I guess the Archbishop is ignoring the Old Testament.
What's wrong with being judgemental? Do you think three billion years of evolution created a brain that is judgemental for no reason?
I won’t defend Williams, but neither Luther nor Calvin supported “private interpretation” or else the various (incredibly similar) creeds of magisterial reformation make no sense at all. Both these men, and all the non-Anabaptist reformers were extremely well educated doctors of the church—who, took up streams of Roman Catholic thinking from generations before—they weren’t crazies barking up a tree. All these men, of the magisterial Protestants (Lutheran, Reformed, Anglican) honored the early Fathers and the traditions of the Church—they merely sought to make scripture the final and unquestionable authority, NOT the only one....wanting to take away the arbitrary authority of the present curia to tell folk what to believe—scriptures be d*mned.
It was the Anabaptist groups that pushed for (and won—in modern Protestant America, largely) private interpretation, and a neglect, if not a demonization of tradition and earlier corporate intepretations of Holy Scripture.
It was finally religious freedom itself that allowed for the development of multitudes of sects—based on private interpretation. This is why most modern cults originated in the USA—where we’ve had full freedom of religion for over 225 years...more than anywhere else on earth. So unless you want to re-establish Roman Catholic political/religious authority by abolishing the 1st Ammendment, enough with blaming Luther for “private interpretation.” If you blame him for that, you logically need to also “blame” him for starting civilization on the road to religious freedom too.
The Council of Trent did more to rend and divide Christendom than any Protestant Reformer, who, with the exception of the Anabaptists, sought to establish corporate counciliar interpretations—having been rejected out of hand by an extremely corrupted renaissance-era Roman Catholic Church.
Sorry to tell you this but the Holy Father and the bishops are just as human, and just as prone to mistakes, as anyone.
They may, I say may, be better read in the Bible than some others but I'm here to tell you that they are not infallible.
For you to say that they are a guarantee that the doctrines taught are the same as the doctrines taught by Jesus and his disciples is not correct.
There are some other verses in the New Testament besides Romans that condemn homosexuality and other such sinful behavior. There is also the Old Testament to fall back on. It sounds to me that Williams is trying to skirt around the issue to keep the Church together. However, it is his job as the leader of a faith to lead people in the path of Christ, even if that doesn’t make him popular in secular society. Of course God is the ultimate judge of our souls, but on Earth we must tell people what is sinful and encourage them to return to the Lord. We have to be careful not to be hypocrites as we are all sinful. There is a difference, though, between those who sin but repent and those who willfully sin and encourage sinful behavior.
I suggest you research the answer on the web if you truly wish to know the answer and are not simply being argumentative. This particular flavor of question has been asked and answered many times -I myself get tired of seeing it posted...
Because just knowing we have the ability to be judgemental, does not make it appropriate. Direct inquiry with peers based on independent analysis that gives the offender or the accuser the chance to explain themselves. It is arbitrary judgementalism which is the offense and sin. Judgement of vicious rumor. King Solomon and other tribal leaders needed to display an open heart to determine intent to ensure the supposed offender was not wrongly condemned.
And the ability to judge in a modern sense has only been appropriately and exponentially obtained by man over the past 5-10 thousand years, not 3 billion.
I don’t see how this condones homosexuality. It condemns adulterers and fornicators who pay no attention to their own sin while trying to call attention to the sin of others. How is that news?
I agree with you....Reuters has distorted William’s words. It is actually true that the main point of Romans 1 and 2 is to destroy all self-righteous notions...while at the same time St. Paul does describe homosexuality and its social acceptance the sign of how corrupt a society has become. The one meaning, while more general, does not negate or conflict with the other. Paul is proving EVERYONE needs the gospel of Christ, using the examples of homosexual practice and idolatry, among other things, as evidence of that need.
Still, it’s frustrating that ABC is not clear—and he appears to still be trying to work out a compromise.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.