"....and in the last days...false prophets will rise up..."
Posted on 03/25/2002 7:44:16 AM PST by US admirer
Spong warns not to take Bible too literally
Controversial religious figure John Shelby Spong took the pulpit at Dilworth United Methodist Sunday and urged more than 600 worshippers not to believe everything they read in the Bible.
The retired Episcopal bishop, who was born and raised in Dilworth, is best known for questioning Christian tenets such as Jesus' virgin birth and his physical resurrection. Spong's Palm Sunday sermon focused on challenging those who believe the Bible is the literal word of God.
"The book we see as the book of life has for years been used as a weapon of oppression, and it's still being used to justify hatred and oppression," Spong said... (see URL for full article)
You might want to discuss the matter with St. Luke. He's long since dead, of course, but he wrote extensively on the topic, and his writings are widely available.
Quite right... As a physician, Luke could write authoritatively on the subject... Jesus’ mother, Mary, was the primary source of Luke's research...
I believe this is referred to as recreating God in Man's image. If one believes this is acceptable then all religion becomes a meaningless exercise.
Rabbi David Wolpe, don't look behind you. You have competition.
True, but there is hope within the United Methodist Church. The Good News movement, is a "voice for repentance, an agent for reform, and a catalyst for renewal within the United Methodist Church. By God’s grace, we will proclaim and demonstrate the power and effectiveness of historic Christianity as emphasized in Wesleyan doctrine and practice."
I am not a United Methodist, but I have many friends who are UM pastors. There is hope, but they face constant battles against the liberal wing.
"....and in the last days...false prophets will rise up..."
Cafeteria Christianity. Many have been practicing it for years. The old take what looks good and leave what looks un-appetizing. Or in computer lingo. Cut and Paste theology.. Or we can always edit out what we don't like and insert what sounds and make us feel better.
Revelation 22: 18, 19 "For I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book;
and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Book of Life, from the holy city, and [from] the things which are written in this book."
I'll stick with the Book!
It is also clearly taught in Isaiah so that brings it up to around 1000 years before the Nicene creed.
Spong and his ilk are just circus freaks. Put a dress on a man and presto! the bearded lady.
Because he is an "evangelist", of sorts. Spong is the foremost representative of that branch of revisionist theology that emphasizes the forgiveness aspects of Christianity, and completely ignore those inconvenient parts about judgement.
It's not just an Episcopal thing, of course: you see the same pernicious agenda in all of the mainstream denominations (note that he spoke in a Methodist church in the article). Theirs is an agenda which is best spread within large national churches: groups can infiltrate the national bodies and work their way down. In this sense, the situation of the mainline protestant churches is not terribly different from that of the Catholic Church before Luther and Calvin.
Beyond that, Spong loves the limelight, and his present status cannot be maintained without the attention-grabbing act of defiling Christianity within the confines of Christian churches.
To its eternal shame, the national Episcopal Church, and many of its bishops, have refused to address Spong's apostasy -- which, as you've noted, is all in the service of "anything goes." Part of it is cowardice. But in many cases, the bishops agree with much of what he says.
Speaking as a member of a vibrant Episcopal parish, I can state that all is not bad in the ECUSA, it just looks that way sometimes. IMHO, for beauty and content you just can't beat the traditional Anglican liturgy, hymnody, and theology.
I can't respond to what the Catholic Church did in the 1800's, but I can tell you what the bible says. It plainly says that Mary had not "known" a man when she became pregnant by the Holy Spirit.
Jesus was born sinless only because he was not fathered by man. Way back in the garden God prophesied to the serpent and said that his head would be bruised by the seed of the woman. Sin is inherited from the father not the mother.
Bishop Spong has spewed this diatribe for over 10 years that I can remember. When confronted by honest biblical scholars he becomes abusive and irrational.
It isn't hard to believe the virgin birth if you can believe the first words in the bible, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth". The rest is just icing on the cake.
I am convinced, however, that exactly the opposite is true. To me it is obvious that unless we expose the barbaric quality of this ancient interpretation of the meaning of Jesus' death and of the God who was said to have required it and remove this spiritual monstrosity from the Christian enterprise then Christianity has no future. I do not believe that modern men and women will ever find appealing a God whose will is served by the human sacrifice of Jesus on the cross.A classic misunderstanding. Mr. Spong has completely ignore the whole meaning and(or) significance of the Old Testament sacrificial system and how Jesus was the logical conclusion and fulfillment. To equate the Temple sacrifices as a "spiritual monstrosity" clearly shows Mr Spong's as being a argumentative contrarian. He offers no textual basis for his opinions, just his own revelations about the true meaning of 2000 years of Christian doctrine. Mr. Spong has old tired arguments which have proven to be false when tested under the light of biblical interpretation.
The virgin birth is essential to belief that Jesus was ontologically different than the rest of us. The holy trinity is made up of Father, Son and Holy Ghost. Not Supreme Being, Heavenly Force, infallible God/Man. A classic misunderstanding of the three aspects of the Godhead. In addition without the virgin birth prophecy would not be fulfilled, thus losing the link from Old testament to New.
Christians should stay away this man's opinions which neither edify Christ nor offer any new insights into his character and nature. Scholars and lay people alike can disagree on doctrine minutiae, but the pillars of Christianity must be defended from apostate clergy diverted from the path like Mr. Spong.
Oh, and I am a Methodist, this man does not speak for me or my church.
IMHO, the first 11 theses are only there to set us up for the last one. Spong seems primarily to be working in the service of various sexual agendas (of which the homosexual agenda is ony the best organized and most focused).
If you start out with #12 and work backwards, you'll see where he's coming from.
Said while waving your hands in the air, no doubt, because you have no real evidence to back up your claim.
Why don't you read what those "diverse" ancient Christians actually wrote and believed? How about where Ignatius of Antioch talks about "heretics" (his word) "who deny that the Eucharist is the flesh of Our Lord Jesus Christ" (his words) ... and what does he say about them? "Oh, they're diverse." Nope. "Oh, they're confused." Nope. He says: "It's better not even to speak of such as these." Then there's another passage where he treats of those who celebrate the Eucharist without their bishop's approval. What does he say of them? "Oh, they're diverse" Nope. "Oh, they're okay; just a bit irregular" Nope. He says: "They might as well be worshipping the devil."
Or when Polycarp of Smyrna, who was a disciple of the Apostle John, met Marcion the heretic in the baths. Marcion said to him, "Do you recognize me?" Polycarp said, "Yes, I recognize you ... as the firstborn of Satan!"
Read Irenaeus' Against Heresies, where he lays out his view of that "diversity" in no uncertain terms.
There were heretics before the 4th Century, there were more, not fewer, heretics after the 4th Century. The only thing that changed was that the church could publicly identify them as such.
That's an inaccurate assessment. Read Irenaeus' second century Against Heresies. A quote from the preface to Book 5:
"In the four preceding books, my very dear friend, which I put forth to thee, all the heretics have been exposed, and their doctrines brought to light, and these men refuted who have devised irreligious opinions."
There's a story preserved by Eusebius that when St. John the Apostle went to baths and saw the heretic Cerinthus there, he said "Let us flee, lest the bath fall for Cerinthus, the enemy of the truth, is within." St. Polycarp, the disciple of John, encountered the heretic Marcion one day, who said "Don't you recognize me"? To which Polycarp responded: "I do indeed: the firstborn of Satan."
The early Fathers was concerned very much with orthodoxy: what they were taught came directly from the Apostles themselves, and any "diverse" ideas were a clear sign of some invented idea that had no Apostolic authority.
I fully agree with you. I also am a Methodist and informed Christians in my church totally reject what Spong says.
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.