Posted on 07/19/2005 9:48:25 PM PDT by sionnsar
“I am a gay man”, Peter Elliot proclaimed to the Anglican Consultative Council meeting in Nottingham. He did not mean that he was happy or merry. No. He means that he is a homosexual. What does that mean? No one really knows but like Alice in Wonderland, it means exactly what Peter says it means. It means look at me and accept me for whatever I say I am whatever that might mean.
Such voices as Peter’s are claimed to be “prophetic voices”, voices which challenge our age, voices which challenge the institutions of our society, voices which challenge the Church to change. In this case, these voices demand that those who call themselves “gay” or “homosexual” be recognized as belonging to a new category of our humanity and that the benefits of Christian marriage be granted to them as equivalent to the marriage between a man and a woman. These voices see themselves as equivalent to the prophetic voices of the past – uncompromising and demanding. But are they?
Do the prophetic voices of the Jewish, Christian and Islamic traditions call attention to themselves? Do the prophetic voices of the great religious traditions claim special attention for special interest groups in the name of self-definition and assertion? Or do the prophetic voices recall us to the foundational principles of our relation to God and to one another?
June 24th marked the Feast of the Nativity of St. John the Baptist, ironically the patron saint of Canada. He is a prophet and, as Jesus says, “more than a prophet” because he stands on the brink of the fulfillment of all prophecy in the Christian understanding of things. Does he point to himself? “Behold the lamb of God” (John 1.29), he says, pointing out Jesus to his disciples who will then become the disciples of Christ. “He it is who cometh after me, whose shoe’s latchet I am not worthy to unloose”(John 1.27), he says. “This is he of whom I said, ‘After me comes a man who ranks before me, for he was before me’”(John 1.30). Not much calling of attention to himself there, it would seem.
“He must increase, but I must decrease” (John 3.30), he says, quite the opposite of self-promotion, it would seem. Everything about the biblical view of prophecy would seem to be about calling attention to God and his dealings with our humanity and not about the social and political agendas of special interest groups vying for our attention and wreaking great violence upon the meaning and nature of our institutions.
In a free and democratic society, people are free to denominate themselves as they choose. In a free and democratic society, people are free to enter into contracts and associations of their choosing. It doesn’t mean that everyone has to accept those terms and categories of definition as binding, however tolerant of them we should be, however narcissistic and self-serving they may seem to be. And it doesn’t mean that the institutions themselves have to change their fundamental character.
For the Church, nothing can be compelled that does not have the clear warrant of Scripture. The terms “gay” and “homosexual” have no biblical (or biological) warrant; at best they are a distortion of the forms of friendship as distinct from marriage. For the Christian Church, the categories of our discourse are rooted in the doctrine of creation, “male and female He created them”; in the doctrine of redemption, as sinners all who seek the redeeming and transforming grace of God; and, in the doctrine of sanctification, as called to holiness of living in the states of life of single or married, as lay or clergy. Such categories recall us to the nature and the condition of our life in Christ.
Prophetic voices do not call attention to themselves but to God and to our life with God. The authentic Christian voices of prophecy always recall us to our foundational principles. They point us to Christ and to our life in Christ. “Behold”, he says, “I have called you friends” (John 15. 15). In him we are gay, for in him we find our joy and our happiness.
Fr. David Curry
Feast of the Nativity of St. John the Baptist
June 24th, 2005
Christ Church, Windsor, NS
Studying the Word of God is profitable, so that the Will of God can be properly understood. Prophecy, however, serves no purpose but to reveal the will of God, which has already been revealed.
"Prophecy, however, serves no purpose but to reveal the will of God, which has already been revealed."
What of the other side of the equation, God Himself? His will may have been revealed, but that does not mean we listened or, even if we did, that we do not need additional help in order to understand His will. Most importantly, it does not in any way restrict Almighty God.
Who are you to tell God, "I say you cannot send any more prophets because your will is already revealed. If you do, I'm telling everyone I know of to ignore them."
One of us needs to get off of his high horse my friend.
I am not on a high horse. Prophecy is not needed to help us understand His will. The Holy Spirit works to help us understand His will.
The Bible clearly states that prophecy, speaking in tongues, and other miraculous deeds were to cease. A careful study of the Scriptures shows that those things have already ceased.
Knowledge has not passed away.
"I am not on a high horse." Well, one of us certainly is.
The type of knowledge being specified in the passage (1 Corinthians 13) has, which was supernatural knowledge. The real important point is that the passage says that hope and faith will last past the time of those miraculous gifts ceasing.
Some people claim that the miraculous gifts would last until the return of Christ. However, hope and faith will cease at that point, since we will no longer have any need for them, considering our Lord and Saviour will have returned. Therefore, the return of Christ is not a proper understanding of that to which "that which is perfect" (1 Corinthians 13:10) is referring. The word that is translated "perfect" in many translations actually could be translated as "complete". This is in reference to the completion of the written Word of God.
One of us, the one on his high horse, is now presuming to interpret the Holy Scriptures for himself by use of his own reason(Greek wisdom?): "The type of knowledge being specified...of the written Word of God."
Worse yet is that one of us is also telling everyone else to interpret the Holy Scriptures exactly as he does.
What next, a papal encyclical maybe?
I would only say to let the Bible interpret itself. If you disagree, that is fine. I am not forcing you to believe anything. I am just defending my belief.
The type of knowledge being specified in the passage is simply gnosis. You are reading into the text in order to arrive at a predetermined meaning.
I have observed those with stong gifts of prophecy. I personally have been told by God to expect certain outcomes, outcomes that I believed were not possible, I have seen and experienced what you say is not possible.
The passage you refer to is meant to explain the importance of Love and the importance of the return of Christ. The HS has given us gifts to be used until Christ returns. Of course these gifts will not be needed when he returns. To assume that the HS is withholding his gifts while we wait is illogical, contrary to the experience of Christians and a tortured reading of scripture.
Grave's point is a good one.
He is saying that if what you claim is true that its not possible to have "supernatural knowledge", which I assume is knowledge from God, then its not possible to "know" scripture.
By your own definition, your own knowledge of the bible cannot be from God because that has ceased to exist.
"I would only say to let the Bible interpret itself."
This has been said for centuries. ". the canon of Scripture is complete, and sufficient of itself [but]...owing to the depth of Holy Scripture, all do not accept it in one and the same sense, but one understands its words in one way, another in another; so that it seems to be capable of as many interpretations as there are interpreters. For Novatian expounds it one way, Sabellius another, Donatus another, Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius, another, Photinus, Apollinaris, Priscillian, another, Iovinian, Pelagius, Celestius, another, lastly, Nestorius another" (St. Vincent of Lerins, probably in A.D. 434).
By now, of course, the number of possible interpretations seems to have increased exponentially, especially among those who say, "let the Bible interpret itself."
I have already pointed this passage out to you in this thread, but here it is again.
2Ti 3:16-17
(16) Every scripture inspired of God is also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness.
(17) That the man of God may be complete, furnished completely unto every good work.
Apparently, Paul was under the impression that a "man of God" did not need extra-Biblical revelation in order to "be complete, furnished completely unto every good work".
"Apparently" to whom? "Apparently" to youm, that's whom.
If you do not agree, please offer your understanding of the passage. Just saying you don't agree doesn't help anyone understand your position.
"If you do not agree, please offer your understanding of the passage. Just saying you don't agree doesn't help anyone understand your position."
That's fair.
Here's my position.
"Therefore, it is very necessary, on account of so great intricacies of such various error, that the rule for the right understanding of the prophets and apostles[i.e. the Holy Scriptures] should be framed in accordance with the standard of Ecclesiastical and Catholic interpretation...ll possible care must be taken, that we hold that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and in the strictest sense "Catholic," which, as the name itself and the reason of the thing declare, comprehends all universally. This rule we shall observe if we follow universality, antiquity, consent. We shall follow universality if we confess that one faith to be true, which the whole Church throughout the world confesses; antiquity, if we in no wise depart from those interpretations which it is manifest were notoriously held by our holy ancestors and fathers; consent, in like manner, if in antiquity itself we adhere to the consentient definitions and determinations of all, or at certainly nearly all bishops and doctors alike"(St. Vincent of Lerins, op. cit.)
You did not offer what you think the passage teaches, which is what I was asking.
"You did not offer what you think the passage teaches, which is what I was asking."
Well, to be honest with you, I don't have a clue. This much I do know, as an Orthodox Christian, and that is that the prophetic gifts never ceased. If you will go to the link I provided, and here again provide, there are many examples of Orthodox prophecy from the apostolic age to the present.
http://www.geocities.com/kitezhgrad/prophets/index.html
If you don't have a clue what the verse teaches, then on what basis do you claim that I am wrong about what it teaches?
I visited the link, but I don't have time to look through it in detail. If you could provide one or two specific examples, that would help. Also, in order for someone to be a prophet according to the Biblical standard, that person would have to be 100% accurate on every prophecy that they have ever made. Keep that in mind when listening to those who claim to be prophets.
"...on what basis do you claim that I am wrong about what it teaches?"
I don't think I said you were wrong. What I think I said was that you were presuming.
"I don't have time to look through it in detail..."
Machts nichts to me.
"If you could provide one or two specific examples, that would help"
Do it yourself. I'm not your personal tutor. You want me to do your work? Then send me check for my time, $200 and hour.
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.