Posted on 01/05/2002 11:55:52 AM PST by Brian Kopp DPM
From Adam clark a Protestant commentator
Verse 65. Therefore said I unto you] chap. vi. 44. see the note there.
Except it were given unto him] None can come at first, unless he be drawn by the Father; and none can continue, unless he continue under those sacred influences which God gives only to those who do not receive his first graces in vain...
Verse 66. Many of his disciples went back] They no longer associated with him, nor professed to acknowledge him as the Messiah. None of these were of the twelve. Christ had many others who generally attended his ministry, and acknowledged him for the Messiah.
Verse 67. Will ye also go alway?] Or, Do YE also desire, &c. These words are very emphatical. Will YOU abandon me?-you, whom I have distinguished with innumerable marks of my affection-you, whom I have chosen out of the world to be my companions,-you, to whom I have revealed the secrets of the eternal world-you, who have been witnesses of all my miracles-you, whom I intend to seat with me on my throne in glory; will YOU go away? Reader, in what state art thou? Hast thou gone back from Christ, or art thou going back? Wilt thou go?
Beg pardon? Hatred means something like "strong aversion coupled with ill will." Mom, Dr. Luther's strong words made true reform possible in Germany, even between Protestants, and led to civil wars of the worst kind: that based on religious differences. An approach that says" I have nothing against you, but your mother is a whore who has deceived you about her past" is not the way to start a fruitful dialogue, especially when it comes from someone known to be hostile to the mother.
And the blood of Protestants was shed at the hand of your church..as my grandmother used to say "sticks and stone may break my bones but names will never hurt me"
That my friend is "ill will"
Had it not been for Martin Luther you would still be buying your grandma out of purgatory with your lunch money. You may not like him..but as a result of his movement your church was forced to reform the abuses..
If you can not separate a dislike or disbelief of a doctrine from a dislike of an individual you should not visit the Religion threads..or prisons or the grocery store..there are Protestants everywhere and your dislike of them is palpable!
Where did your church get the authority to be the sole source of "Chrisitan Morality" P2b?
Protestants and Catholics both shed blood with equal ferocity. It does no good to start down this road. Sin abounds on both sides.
Debate over who sinned more during the reformation is futile.
Debate over personal interpretations of scripture is futile, at least as it pertains to salvation on this thread. Each individuals' personal beliefs make agreement impossible.
On moral theology, however, Catholic, protestant, and orthodox stood together till 1930 on all issues including masturbation, divorce, contraception, abortion, adultery/fornication, and homosexuality.
We all agreed on the scriptural and historical teachings of Christianity on these moral theology issues, despite differences outlines in this original article on matters of salvation.
On those matters we must agree to disagree.
Now, however, on the issue of ALL forms of contraception )NOT just abortifacient contraception), there has been a break.
That break is not based on differing interpretations of scripture, as the differences over salvation could be said to be based.
So what was the source of the change in protestantism on this teaching that stood for 1930 years alongside the teachings on masturbation, divorce, abortion, adultery/fornication, and homosexuality???
NO ONE has answered this!
We can argue events and writings from 500 or 1500 years ago till we're blue in the face!
But this change is within the lifetime of many of us or our parents or grandparents.
Many of my geriatric patients remember when their churches changed this teaching.
In the United States, the decision of the Lambeth conference of 1930 regarding contraception was quickly accepted by a committee of the Federal Council of Churches in March, 1931, when it endorsed "the careful and restrained use of contraceptives by married people." The general moral atmosphere of the times can be inferred from a March 22 1931 editorial in the "Washington Post":
"Carried to its logical conclusion, the committee's report, if carried into effect, would sound the deathknell of marriage as a holy institution by establishing degrading practices which would encourage indiscriminate immorality. The suggestion that the use of legalized contraceptives would be 'careful and restrained' is preposterous."
Again, why does a secular institution here see that which protestantism refused to see then, and to this day refuses to admit.
The comments of the Washington Post here, and the previously posted comments of the SCOTUS in PP V Casey, are a ringing condemnation of protestantism's failure on this issue of contraception.
This is a failure that continues to this day, and a failure you condone when you condemn only abortifacient contraceptives, and a failure on which was built the legalization of abortion, as even the SCOTUS admits.
All these theoretical arguments about the relative merits of personal scriptural interpretations of men 500 years ago are interesting.
But the contraception issue is a modern day issue and a change that has occurred in our own time.
We need to examine it, its roots, and its consequences.
From this examination of the fruits of personal interpretation of scripture we might, in our own day, arrive at an acquittal or conviction of the truth of personal interpretation of scripture versus an adherence to that authority the Church claims Christ granted her.
Herein lies the crux of the discussion's unsolvable conflict. We have one guy who has THIS attitude towards what is, a largely NON catholic membership. Perhaps sees himself as the "enlightener" of sincere fools.
Of luther's 95 theses, MOST have been dealt with by the Romanists. Despite protestations to the contrary, the FACT that doctrine has been repented of on many levels, decrees in point of fact, that THEY were not correct at the time.
And the bitter attitude towards those who coerced the romanists to reform, is what keeps them out of sorts with the rest of us.
To SOME roman christians, keeping the fight alive is what its all about. The more radical they are, the more they like to keep alive the "northern ireland" type of confrontation that makes their haranguing intolerable to the rest of us.
Hence the "shut ups" and "I will get you banned" emails some of us get everytime we bring up a dissenting view. Modern day Jesuits of the Secret Knights of blah de blah.
Problem is, this aint northern Ireland. And America is NOT a catholic majority, even a plurality. Attacking evangelicals is no way to build one either.
RnMom... very sensible approach.
proud one... never mind. Your bitter anger drives folks away from you and your faith. Too bad, you are one smart guy otherwise.
From "CASTI CONNUBII": 60 YEARS LATER, MORE RELEVANT THAN EVER
The key event is the Lambeth Conference of the Church of England in 1930. In 1908, the Anglican bishops had reacted to the neo-Malthusian pressures by reaffirming the teaching that it was immoral to use unnatural methods of birth control. So also at their Lambeth Conference of 1920. But the pressures of the 1920s proved too much for them, so on August 14 at their Lambeth Conference of 1930, the Anglican bishops reluctantly accepted marital contraception as morally licit. In doing so, they acknowledged that previously they had always taught the immorality of marital contraception.3
This marked the first time in history that a Christian Church had given its acceptance to using unnatural methods of birth control. Furthermore, they were warned by one of their own, Bishop Charles Gore, that accepting contraception would open the door to accepting homosexual sodomy, but Gore voted in the minority.
We do not know what would have happened if the Church of England had kept the faith regarding marital love and sexuality. But we can certainly see in hindsight that this was an embrace of the sexual revolution, and today dissident Christian theologians argue from the acceptance of marital contraception to the acceptance of sodomy. Anglican Bishop Gore was indeed a prophetic voice.
I am not sure, have been wrong often, but I understand that only God is the ONE who is not wrong at one time or another. Folks who insist they KNOW, when it is really what they believe, are lying and misrepresenting the TRUTH. I hope in Christ, I believe I am wise to do so. I don't always agree with the "brethren" on ANY side of the GODWARS here, but I think we would all be better off if we stopped letting the professional dividers destroy what little consensus we can build.
I have long held that there are many among us who seek to generate debate and strife for the purpose of diluting central truths, smaller government, less of our money, less telling us what to do, less government dictating of religion, more governmental sensitivity to folks of moral conscience, making changes in laws that promote death, and stiffle individual sovereignty.
I believe in Christ, because I heard and CHOSE to believe. Others don't. That is the way of things. I don't WANT them to obey my faith or see it my way by stubborn debate. I WISH that we could just live our lives and let the most successful belief system become the prevailing one. Jesus said others would follow him because of our love for each other. He did NOT say we would be known or followed by our militant attacks on those who are pretty much "on God's side" of the equation. He did not even say to attack the infidels.
Some folks just want to fight and attack the immorality they see in others, or the faulty theology they perceive. Truth is, like I said, all have fallen short of the Glorious perfection of reason that God possesses. Hence, while we fight about what we admittedly "see through a glass darklly" He has to consider, WHY are we bickering and hating fellow believers, calling them heretics and such, while they, as much as we, are made in the image of the invisible God.
YOU and I have disagreed before. God willing we will again. But it does not have to be "your damned because my church said so and my church is bigger than yours" type of (pissing) contest that men are known for.
Instead we disagree, live as best as we can figure is good and right, and wait for THAT day when all will be resolved by folks who are a lot smarter than we, ON THE OTHER SIDE OF JORDAN.
Hey, thanks!
Your bitter anger drives folks away from you and your faith.
Huh? Bitter anger? Driving folks away? I've been commended for my reserve on this thread many times, by Catholics and protestants, specifically for not returning insult, attack and anger with same.
The only anger I have is at error, and the destruction of human life.
You think calling the reformation "a false gospel" is bitter anger?
You think calling the change in protestantism on contraception apostacy, is bitter anger?
You think pointing out the connection between acceptance of contraception (based on private interpretation of scripture) with abortion is bitter?
Hardly.
This is a literal life and death struggle that we are losing, because no one will admit the roots of the legalization of abortion.
For to admit its roots is to question the entire legitimacy of the religious system that institutionally accepts the contraceptive lifestyle.
Gosh, you folks are thin skinned.
You shoulda seen OPie's opening salvo on this thread (unfortunately it was pulled to my chagrin).
Or better yet, read the_doc's litany against Rome and Romanists that I copied and pasted several times above.
By the way, its the attacks of the anti-Catholic bigots that drives folks away. I'm getting emails saying folks are converting to my pro-life vision as well as my faith. Many folks have NEVER heard the things about contraception and Christianity that I have presented on this thread, nor the now obvious link to abortion. Folks appreciate learning Truths which have otherwise been kept from them by their religious system.
I'll let the readers decide just who is driving folks away. Besides the obvious, I'm not called to be successful, I'm only called to be faithful.
I freely admit that. And I work tirelessly to correct that.
I have even found that many ardent pro-life evangelical Christians, who in many cases have a deeper grasp of what it means to be committed to Christ, are more open to this part of the gospel of life.
That's why I chose this controversial headline and article to pull all my born again brothers and sisters onto this thread.
I know you are committed to Christ and are honestly seeking Truth and how to live a Godly Life.
I have a part of the message of that gospel of life that I know from being an evangelical born again Christian is simply not preached in your churches.
I know that you are committed to ending abortion.
I'm showing you its root causes.
In so doing, I've made you uncomfortable, because I've pointed out some troubling undeniable truths about the culture of death and the part that protestantism has played in it in its apostacy on the whole birth control issue.
I knew exactly what I was doing when I chose this headline and article for this thread.
It was my conscious intention to drive the debate to a discussion of the change in protestantism on birth control, and place a seed in the soul of my Christian brethren here.
I know it has changed some hearts.
My intention is to convert people to the full pro-life position, not convert them to Catholicism.
If I accomplish that too, alls the better.
See my post # 1219.
(1) Don't confuse history with either Catholic or Lutheran propoganda. But Germany paid a heavy price for Luther's scruples. Like Jefferson Davis(Lincoln if you swing that way), his heart might have been in the right place, but he produced a slaughter, beginning with the Peasant's War. That's when he stopped being a prophet and became a separatist leader.
you are very divisive. freespeech of course is yours. but you offend more than you convert. you offend me. you have made enemies of those who would be your most vocal supporters. you do know that don't you?
have a nice sunday anyway.
If the Truths I posted in this thread make you an enemy, that problem lies in your soul, not mine.
I'm sure you mean well. I fullheartedly endorse your right to call yourself a Christian. I judge no one. I slander no one. I honestly and earnestly post what I know in my mind and heart to be undeniable Truths, Truths that if accepted and applied to individual lives will give freedom and stop grave sin, and ultimately end the slaughter of the unborn.
If those Truths make enemies of those who should be allies, there is nothing I can do about that. I'm not called to be successful, I'm only called to be faithful.
you are very divisive. you offend more than you convert. you offend me.
This is hard. I do not like to offend. I do not like to be divisive.
But I do not like to see babies die either. So I must persevere even at the cost of offending some folks' sensibilities.
I'm sure if we could carry this debate forward in person, over a cup of coffee, we would see how much we share, and we could be personal friends based on that, and allies.
Unfortunately I guess we'll have to wait a little while till we can be allies together in eternity. If I was wrong somewhere on this thread, God will point that out to me. Until then, I have a duty and obligation to share that which I have been convicted is Truth, Truth that will save physical lives and eternal souls.
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.