'The Nativity Story' Movie Problematic for Catholics, "Unsuitable" for Young Children

'The Nativity Story' Movie Problematic for Catholics, "Unsuitable" for Young Children

NEW YORK, December 4, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A review of New Line Cinema's The Nativity story by Fr. Angelo Mary Geiger of the Franciscans of the Immaculate in the United States, points out that the film, which opened December 1, misinterprets scripture from a Catholic perspective.

While Fr. Geiger admits that he found the film is "in general, to be a pious and reverential presentation of the Christmas mystery." He adds however, that "not only does the movie get the Virgin Birth wrong, it thoroughly Protestantizes its portrayal of Our Lady."

In Isaiah 7:14 the Bible predicts the coming of the Messiah saying: "Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign. Behold a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel." Fr. Geiger, in an video blog post, explains that the Catholic Church has taught for over 2000 years that the referenced Scripture showed that Mary would not only conceive the child miraculously, but would give birth to the child miraculously - keeping her physical virginity intact during the birth.

The film, he suggests, in portraying a natural, painful birth of Christ, thus denies the truth of the virginal and miraculous birth of Christ, which, he notes, the Fathers of the Church compared to light passing through glass without breaking it. Fr. Geiger quoted the fourth century St. Augustine on the matter saying. "That same power which brought the body of the young man through closed doors, brought the body of the infant forth from the inviolate womb of the mother."

Fr. Geiger contrasts The Nativity Story with The Passion of the Christ, noting that with the latter, Catholics and Protestants could agree to support it. He suggests, however, that the latter is "a virtual coup against Catholic Mariology".

The characterization of Mary further debases her as Fr. Geiger relates in his review. "Mary in The Nativity lacks depth and stature, and becomes the subject of a treatment on teenage psychology."

Beyond the non-miraculous birth, the biggest let-down for Catholics comes from Director Catherine Hardwicke's own words. Hardwicke explains her rationale in an interview: "We wanted her [Mary] to feel accessible to a young teenager, so she wouldn't seem so far away from their life that it had no meaning for them. I wanted them to see Mary as a girl, as a teenager at first, not perfectly pious from the very first moment. So you see Mary going through stuff with her parents where they say, 'You're going to marry this guy, and these are the rules you have to follow.' Her father is telling her that she's not to have sex with Joseph for a year-and Joseph is standing right there."

Comments Fr. Geiger, "it is rather disconcerting to see Our Blessed Mother portrayed with 'attitude;' asserting herself in a rather anachronistic rebellion against an arranged marriage, choosing her words carefully with her parents, and posing meaningful silences toward those who do not understand her."

Fr. Geiger adds that the film also contains "an overly graphic scene of St. Elizabeth giving birth," which is "just not suitable, in my opinion, for young children to view."

Despite its flaws Fr. Geiger, after viewing the film, also has some good things to say about it. "Today, one must commend any sincere attempt to put Christ back into Christmas, and this film is certainly one of them," he says. "The Nativity Story in no way compares to the masterpiece which is The Passion of the Christ, but it is at least sincere, untainted by cynicism, and a worthy effort by Hollywood to end the prejudice against Christianity in the public square."

And, in addition to a good portrait of St. Joseph, the film offers "at least one cinematic and spiritual triumph" in portraying the Visitation of Mary to St. Elizabeth. "Although the Magnificat is relegated to a kind of epilogue at the movie's end, the meeting between Mary and Elizabeth is otherwise faithful to the scriptures and quite poignant. In a separate scene, the two women experience the concurrent movement of their children in utero and share deeply in each other's joy. I can't think of another piece of celluloid that illustrates the dignity of the unborn child better than this."

Well, I would say we have done hit a irreconcilable issue here. You say we are worshipping her. We say we're not. I think we have to table it.

No question that God COULD have ravished Mary and impregnated her against her will. Do you really think he WOULD have?

It is true that we prize Mary rather more not only than the protomartyr (Steve?) but than all other Saints. The lingo I was recently made aware of is hyperdoulia (The first Google entry on the word - I checked because I was uncertain of the spelling - is

The distinctions which the Catholic theologians made between latreia, doulia, and hyperdoulia or hyoperdulia, are absurd, groundless sophisms.

and it's at http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/feuerbach/works/essence/ec07.htm -- Is that great or WHAT?)

As I say, I think this is irreconcilable. I do not recognize myself or my actions in what you say. I suspect that part of the issue is cultural -- even though it was Milton who said, I think "HE for God only, She for Christ in Him (though I find that some think that a scribal error and the original was She for God AND him, but I just work here) and Milton was no Catholic.

Still the idea of anyone, even Paul, saying "be imitators of me as I am of Christ," is just a non-starter these days. I think in earlier times no one would have a problem with giving "all" one's allegiance to a lady whose first command is, to nobody's surprise, "Give all your allegiance to my Son."

Well, I would say we have done hit a irreconcilable issue here. You say we are worshipping her. We say we're not. I think we have to table it.

No question that God COULD have ravished Mary and impregnated her against her will. Do you really think he WOULD have?
First of all, the imagery that you used, Mad Dawg, was deliberately inflamatory as if God would rape Mary. No such suggestion was made. Rather, the issue is the Sovereignty of God. As Paul said in Romans 9, hath not the Potter power over the clay to make of it what he will (paraphrased)? God doesn't ask permission. God directs what is going to happen. He doesn't say "Abraham, will you leave Ur and go someplace where I'm going to lead you?" He directs Abraham and tells him what will happen. He doesn't say to David, will you be my king over Israel? He anoints David when David isn't even looking to be King and says "You will be King." He doesn't go to the Apostles and say "will you follow me?" He commands, "Follow me." I know you don't see this being an Arminian Catholic. However, if you look at Scripture, I don't know of a single instance where a person, being, or anything else HAD TO give God permission to do anything that He willed to do. Mary included. There is no question. There is a statement of what is going to occur. 30And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God. 31And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS. 32He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: 33And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.
Mary's exclamation is not "I give you permission to do this." But "Let it be so!" So the idea that Mary gave God the permission to use her is not really biblical in the actual words of the encounter nor in the way we see God operate in Scripture. And, if he did impregnate her without even letting her know, it would have been within His rights as God. He made the vessel. He can do with her as He wishes. Still, He chose to reveal what He was going to do (at least in part) to Mary and she was genuinely humbled and astonished by it. To say, however, that She gave us the Word and She somehow contributed to us being saved is also antiscriptural and ventures into Mariolatry.

Jesus gave His life. He gave Himself to die on the cross. He gave Himself to become a man so that He could take our penalty. It's all about God and the reason we Protestants react so strongly is because Mary is getting much of the credit and focus where only focus on the Savior is due.

As I say, I think this is irreconcilable.
In the current mindstate of Catholics where Scripture is not held as the rule of faith and practice, I would agree with that.

I do not recognize myself or my actions in what you say.
Honestly Mad Dawg, I haven't seen a lot of it in you myself. Others on this thread I have, and you yourself are well acquainted with the overfocus on Mary in most sectors. Anecdotally, I go to the Catholic Store online and click on Statues. There are 8 Jesus statues. There are 20 Mary Statues. There are 12 books on the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. There are 44 on Mary/Rosary. There are 13 Catholic pictures. 7 of them have Mary in them or are all about Mary. It goes on and on. Mary IS worshipped in Catholicism. And the worship of Mary takes the focus off of her Son. Irreconcilable. Short of the Holy Spirit, I agree.

Still the idea of anyone, even Paul, saying "be imitators of me as I am of Christ," is just a non-starter these days. I think in earlier times no one would have a problem with giving "all" one's allegiance to a lady whose first command is, to nobody's surprise, "Give all your allegiance to my Son."
By the very words which you attribute to Mary (and others, not trying to single you out here), Mary would be appalled at such a statement. Mary was a humble faithful woman. The apparitions of her are not. They demand the glory be given to "Mary" and Scripturally illiterate Catholics follow (regardless if the Church officially sanctions the apparition or not) by the MILLIONS. Idolatry by any other name is still the same, Mad Dawg.

The scriptures are filled with theological absolutes True. So, Christ was born of Mary and the Holy Spirit, suffered, died, and rose again, and will come in glory to judge us; Christ gave St. Peter the keys to the kingdom and authority to the Church and promise that the Church built on St. Peter will obtain victory, and told it to preach to the world. To proclaim these you do not need a pope, it is straight from the scripture. I enumerated though the things on which, to avoid vainpopery, you need to become more modest:
Oh, started out so good and then tanked!

The keys to the kingdom given to Peter is a your INTERPRETATION and was NOT universally accepted by the Catholic church, by Protestants, or by linguists. Further, we do not see the primacy of Peter in action in Scripture. He was "A" Pillar, but not "The" Pillar.

Per Augustine... Sermon XXVI.

[LXXVI. Ben.]

Again on Matt. xiv. 25: Of the Lord walking on the waves of the sea, and of Peter tottering.

1. The Gospel which has just been read touching the Lord Christ, who walked on the waters of the sea; 2566 and the Apostle Peter, who as he was walking, tottered through fear, and sinking in distrust, rose again by confession, gives us to understand that the sea is the present world, and the Apostle Peter the type of the One Church. For Peter in the order of Apostles first, and in the love of Christ most forward, answers oftentimes alone for all the rest. Again, when the Lord Jesus Christ asked, whom men said that He was, and when the disciples gave the various opinions of men, and the Lord asked again and said, “But whom say ye that I am?” Peter answered, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.” One for many gave the answer, Unity in many. Then said the Lord to Him, “Blessed art thou, Simon Barjonas: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but My Father which is in heaven.” Then He added, “and I say unto thee.” As if He had said, “Because thou hast said unto Me, ‘Thou art the Christ the Son of the living God;’ I also say unto thee, ‘Thou art Peter.’” For before he was called Simon. Now this name of Peter was given him by the Lord, and that in a figure, that he should signify the Church. For seeing that Christ is the rock (Petra), Peter is the Christian people. For the rock (Petra) is the original name. Therefore Peter is so called from the rock; not the rock from Peter; as Christ is not called Christ from the Christian, but the Christian from Christ. “Therefore,” he saith, “Thou art Peter; and upon this Rock” which thou hast confessed, upon this Rock which thou hast acknowledged, saying, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God, will I build My Church;” that is upon Myself, the Son of the living God, “will I build My Church.” I will build thee upon Myself, not Myself upon thee.

2. For men who wished to be built upon men, said, “I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas,” who is Peter. But others who did not wish to be built upon Peter, but upon the Rock, said, “But I am of Christ.” And when the Apostle Paul ascertained that he was chosen, and Christ despised, he said, “Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?” And, as not in the name of Paul, so neither in the name of Peter; but in the name of Christ: that Peter might be built upon the Rock, not the Rock upon Peter.

3. This same Peter therefore who had been by the Rock pronounced “blessed,” bearing the figure of the Church, holding the chief place in the Apostleship, a very little while after that he had heard that he was “blessed,” a very little while after that he had heard that he was “Peter,” a very little while after that he had heard that he was to be “built upon the Rock,” displeased the Lord when He had heard of His future Passion, for He had foretold His disciples that it was soon to be. He feared lest he should by death, lose Him whom he had confessed as the fountain of life. He was troubled, and said, “Be it far from Thee, Lord: this shall not be to Thee.” Spare Thyself, O God, I am not willing that Thou shouldest die. Peter said to Christ, I am not willing that Thou shouldest die; but Christ far better said, I am willing to die for thee. And then He forthwith rebuked him, whom He had a little before commended; and calleth him Satan, whom he had pronounced “blessed.” “Get thee behind Me, Satan,” he saith, “thou art an offence unto Me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.” What would He have us do in our present state, who thus findeth fault because we are men? Would you know what He would have us do? Give ear to the Psalm; “I have said, Ye are gods, and ye are all the children of the Most High.” But by savouring the things of men; “ye shall die like men.” The very same Peter a little while before blessed, afterwards Satan, in one moment, within a few words! Thou wonderest at the difference of the names, mark the difference of the reasons of them. Why wonderest thou that he who was a little before blessed, is afterwards Satan? Mark the reason wherefore he is blessed. “Because flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but My Father which is in heaven.” Therefore blessed, because flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee. For if flesh and blood revealed this to thee, it were of thine own; but because flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but My Father which is in heaven, it is of Mine, not of thine own. Why of Mine? “Because all things that the Father hath are Mine.” So then thou hast heard the cause, why he is “blessed,” and why he is “Peter.” But why was he that which we shudder at, and are loth to repeat, why, but because it was of thine own? “For thou savourest not the things which be of God, but those that be of men.”

Certainly Augustine believed in Peter as the chief apostle, but he did not believe the Scriptural support that Catholics use as foundational to that doctrine - at least not the way Catholics want to interpret it. Peter was not the Rock upon which Christ was to build His church. Peter's confession was.

http://sacred-texts.com/chr/ecf/106/1060245.htm

First of all, the imagery that you used, Mad Dawg, was deliberately inflamatory as if God would rape Mary. No such suggestion was made. Rather, the issue is the Sovereignty of God. As Paul said in Romans 9, hath not the Potter power over the clay to make of it what he will (paraphrased)? God doesn't ask permission.

I wasn't trying to be inflammatory. But if somebody got impregnated against her will, ravishing and seduction and the overpowering of will come to mind, at least to my mind.

God doesn't ask permission.

Behold I stand at the door and knock; if anyone opens I will come in and sup with him and he with me." (Revelations 3:20)

In any event, it is a dream of mine to be able to say, "Be it unto me according to they word," so Mary will always be a heroine of mine. It was the notion that assenting to God meant she had a part in bringing Love into the world that first led me to admire her, and to seek, in that way, to imitate her -- as she imitates Christ.

AS for the rest, I don't know what to say. My parish is a university Parish. This is a church recovering nicely, and under excellent leadership, from the excesses and chaos of the post Vatican II period. Yes we do have an "idol", and I have seen some people kneeling in its vicinity. But from the conversation I have with these folks, I can't imagine their worshipping her whom the image represents.

(And of course, what with my being former Episcopalian, the worst thing to me is that it's in dreadful taste! But at least most of the textiles are good.)

When we hit the wall, the thing to do is pray. That's what I think. God loves us and has already turned everything upside down to get to us and set us free. He can get us through this.

I wasn't trying to be inflammatory. But if somebody got impregnated against her will, ravishing and seduction and the overpowering of will come to mind, at least to my mind.
It didn't come to my mind. He didn't have sexual relations with her during the incarnation period and seduction didn't have anything to do with it. It was a bad and inflammatory picture.

God doesn't ask permission.
Behold I stand at the door and knock; if anyone opens I will come in and sup with him and he with me." (Revelations 3:20)
There is a question in there? There is an asking of permission. No. There is a statement. Just like Whosoever will may come. But who will? Nobody, unless God draws them. Next.

In any event, it is a dream of mine to be able to say, "Be it unto me according to they word," so Mary will always be a heroine of mine. It was the notion that assenting to God meant she had a part in bringing Love into the world that first led me to admire her, and to seek, in that way, to imitate her -- as she imitates Christ.
This part I don't have as much of a problem with. There are role models for everyone. Mary is certainly someone who was faithful and blessed of God. I admire her. I don't expect her to do things for me though. Scripture NOWHERE says to pray to her or to do anything with her. But, I would agree that there are aspects of Mary that every Christian should admire.

AS for the rest, I don't know what to say. My parish is a university Parish. This is a church recovering nicely, and under excellent leadership, from the excesses and chaos of the post Vatican II period. Yes we do have an "idol", and I have seen some people kneeling in its vicinity. But from the conversation I have with these folks, I can't imagine their worshipping her whom the image represents.

(And of course, what with my being former Episcopalian, the worst thing to me is that it's in dreadful taste! But at least most of the textiles are good.)

When we hit the wall, the thing to do is pray. That's what I think. God loves us and has already turned everything upside down to get to us and set us free. He can get us through this.

The only thing I would urge people to do, all people, is look to God alone. Jesus is worthy of all of our praise, adoration, and worship. Everyone, and I mean everyone, pales in comparison.

Now, lest you think I only pick on Catholics and Orthodox, I will turn to my own Baptists. In some Baptist churches, I find doctrinal soundness without love. In some I find loads of love but nothing but milk if that for doctrine. For both, the worship is of SELF. In the ones without love, they believe that as God's chosen that there is something which makes them a cut above all the others. They are guilty of the sin of self-idolatry which is rooted in pride. In the others, they are guilty of the sin of the Old Testament where every man did what was right in their own eyes. Most of the time, the ones with love but no doctrine have ceded doctrine in the name of a user-friendly, seeker sensitive existence. That one isn't right either. Everywhere there should be a balance. You can have strong doctrine AND strong love. Unfortunately, it is lacking in so many places.

See Mad Dawg, again, the only reason we react so strongly to the overemphasis on Mary (which in many cases has become idolatry) is that it takes away from focus and devotion towards Jesus. I know you say it doesnt and Mary leads others to Jesus. But my little "Catholic Store" excursion should give one pause. The Mary of Scripture, just like the Holy Spirit, would not have wished to receive glory for herself. Calling her blessed? Absolutely! Thinking she's other than a normal woman and sinner, no. She was a humble servant of God. And as far as she followed God, she is worth admiring. But no more than that. Just focus on the Lord. He will draw all who do nearer than any intermediary could hope to.

Does this mean that you really, truly believe that we do not do the types of things you list above?

FK, I was responding to your question "How do the Orthodox 'get to work'?" I was not commenting on how the Protestants 'get to work.'

I was responding to your earlier comment "So, shed that cozy, don't-worry-be-happy macarena attitude dear protestant brothers, and get to work!"

Being a Protestant seems cozy and 'don't-worry-be-happy' because a Protestant is free to believe whatever (s)he wants and to worship in whatever manner (s)he deems appropriate. Custom-made rleigion to one's own preference and style. Certainly, neither Judaism, nor Apostolic Christianity are that way.

FK: FK: "My conception of theosis was an attainment of something, but here it sounds more like an awarding of something."

Kosta: Yes, it's called likeness to Christ.

FK: So theosis is the awarding of a likeness to Christ? May I assume that this award is based upon the performance of all the deeds you listed above to a certain degree?

In #6222, I said: "There is no salvation before judgment. ... Only after judgment will we be either saved or condemned; only then will we have a ticket to heaven or hell. ... and while none of us deserve[s] salvation, some will receive it for no other reason that God's incredible mercy."

The "ticket" is not an award; it is a right of passage based on a mericiful and just decision on how we are in our hearts. It is not what we are but how we are in our hearts that counts, FK.

Job was not righteous in God's eyes because he was sinless, but because God knew that in his heart Job would never blame God even for his worst misfortune.

The poor old woman in the NT who gives her last two copper coins to the synagogue is making a huge sacrifice out of love for God, because she is giving to God or for God's cause everything she owned. We, on the other hand, don't.

It should be no effort to know who meets the criteria for God's mercy. In fact, Christ told the rich man to sell everything and follow Him, and the rich man couldn't. He loved the world too much. Most of do, even though we probably all think that we are decent and God-fearing people.

When I answered "Yes," it was to the first part of your statement (re: attaining), and not the latter, as you took it (re: awarding); salvation is awarded, as a crowing recognition of you as someone who has attained the likeness to Christ in God's eyes.

OK, then what do you think he did with those three years (Gal. 1:18), and why?

Look up Gal. 1:17! :)

+Paul preached "his gospel," as he says, in Arabia. Where does it say he spent those years in 'solitude and prayer?'

It seems your view would make Paul the most indispensable Apostle. Yet, he appears to be your least favorite

He was. I don't agree with his alleged solafdeism atonement theology (and I would say the Church doesn't either), but as far as his mission for the Church is concerned, thank God for +Paul!

What would you say to the crazy idea that Paul was specifically CALLED by God to preach to the Gentiles?

That's what he says (Gal 1:16) and I would say that's what God did.

If Paul was the only one with enough slick to sell to the Gentiles, then what does that say about the other Apostles? They weren't good enough?

They didn't have the vision, style and the resoluteness +Paul had. +Paul realized that in order for the Church to be accepted by the Gentiles, some aspects of Judaism will have to be dispensed with (even though they are protected by God's Laws).

As TRD said, those things were decided at a council. Paul didn't simply declare them.

That's what the Acts say. Concordance was badly needed, and nothing short of a scriptural text could justify running contrary to God's promise that the New Covenant was intended only for the House of Israel and the House of Judah ([er 31:31]. The idea that God somehow wanted all this to be shared by the Gentiles is +Pauline in origin (and please don't quote Mat 28, because "all nations" there means all 12 tribes of Israel, not all nations of the world, as Christ even so mentioned abolishing circumcision, or dietary laws).

This is a truly amazing statement because if the Church really did not want Paul, then by definition, the Church was WRONG and was directly against God. The scriptures are 100% clear that God chose Paul. God wanted Paul. So much for the infallibility of the Church. Further, if the original Church was wrong, then so must the consensus patrum also be subject to error

First the Apostles didn't even know +Paul until he came to Jerusalem three years after his conversion. Second, his suggestion to drop circumcision and dietary restrictions was not immediately accepted. The fact that the Apostles are said to have been inspired and holy men would make any disagreement, even initial one, an impossibility. yet, clearly there was a difference of opinions.

Concensus patrum does not teach Pauline atonement doctrine, nor sola fide. The Creed does not contain atonement doctrine either.

+Pauline role and accomplishment in saving the Church is one thing; his theology and doctrine is another. I don't think the Church would ever admit it, but the role of +Paul in the liturgical life is very clearly distinct from that of the Apostles who wrote the Gospels. The homily is always based on the Gospel and not on the Epistle. These are very subtle facts that say a lot.

I'm talking about your personal belief here, not that of the Orthodox Church

I have my opinions, FK, like all of us, but I always defer to the Church. Such musisngs only reveal subtle details that are otherwise not clearly noticed.

[FK quoting Alex from 6707]: The Protestant belief stemming from this one is wrong: the notion that "saved" is a one time event in the life of man. It is not: one has been saved by the sacrifice of Christ, continues to be saved by working on his faith through his life time, and hopefully but not surely will end up saved at the end of his life in the Particular Judgment.(emphasis added)

I then said I agreed with everything I underlined.

In other words you disagree that the final particular Judgment at the end of one's life is secure, and you don't like to call it particular. But this is a major difference. While God knows His elect from the foundation of the world, we don't; we are given hope, but not firm knowledge.

I'm sure you well know our position that while we can know for sure about ourselves, we cannot know for sure about anyone else. ... I had never heard the term "particular judgment" before, so I looked it up. Here is what the Catholic Encyclopedia says about it:

"A. Dogma of Particular Judgment -- The Catholic doctrine of the particular judgment is this: that immediately after death the eternal destiny of each separated soul is decided by the just judgment of God. Although there has been no formal definition on this point, the dogma is clearly implied in the Union Decree of Eugene IV (1439), ..."

Based on only this, I didn't underline "particular" because ultimate destiny is decided from the foundation, etc. So, the Judgment concerning salvation is secure in my view. We also believe there is another Judgment that concerns rewards in Heaven and is related to works.

BTW, the above confused me because it used both "doctrine" and "dogma". Can you explain?

This is why the gospel is also a book of exhortations to good behavior (as well as, of course, the Good News of Christ's salvific work). The scripture is with me, and my prooftext is the opening passage of 2 Peter: "brethren, labour the more, that by good works you may make sure your calling and election".

That's interesting. I could see myself using the same passage to prove my position. :) POTS recognizes the scriptural truth that all of God's elect are specifically called to do good works. Those works are an evidence of true faith. So, Peter is saying that as we do good works in love for Christ, that we may be sure of our salvation. Doing the good works is a confirmation, for our benefit, that we were previously called to do them, and previously elected.

These two, contraception and remarriage, are not matters of interpretation of the scripture or matters of tradition, they are solidly scriptural, yet the Protestant teaching en masse caved in under the modernistic cultural pressure.

On contraception I have to give credit where credit is due and say that the Catholic Church has really towed the line better than we have on this subject. As far as I know, the RCC has held a steady and consistent position on this (as well as on abortion).

HOWEVER, :) to say that the issue of remarriage is not a matter of tradition really did have me laughing out loud. I well remember when we covered this on the other thread, and I'm sure you know how I feel about annulment. :) Premature dissolution of marriage is always a tragedy in any Christian faith.

My point is simply that once the presumption of election is made by someone, a door to sin opens wider.

I agree with Blogger that with any sort of correct teaching, this doesn't happen. All Bible-believing churches I can think of teach that believers are all called to do good works. We are to be about God's business. Further evidence is that for a new believer to even understand that he may have confidence, he is most often taught. Presumably, that same teacher will correctly follow up with what Christians are supposed to do as Christians. That was my own experience. In the alternative, if the person discovers that he may have confidence simply by reading scripture, then presumably he will have read the other scripture telling us what Christians are supposed to do.

We don't claim infallibility, but we do claim confidence in scripture

I think this is a case when a caricature is defeated by pointing to the photograph. Well, yes, the President does not really have ears and nose that long. But is the caricature pointing to a truth? Your hair-splitting "not infallibilty but confidence" shows that the caricature is truthful as far as caricatures go.

It is true that the Protestants do not claim infallibility. They also do not have pastors who are heads of state, dress like medieval royalty and get their shoe kissed. The serious issue is indeed not that you have a multiplicity of leaders who claim succession of Peter, singularly represent the Church, and have primacy over bishops (the functional description of papacy), but, like Kolokotronis said, that you have multiplicity of doctrinally autonomous churches. A Catholic sums it up as each one is a pope. An Orthodox would sum it up as each one is a church. These are all idiomatic expression of the truth that you would not deny: that in Protestantism the lines of authority do not converge at the top.

You claim that they converge at the scripture is a slogan. They do not. Several foundational points of Protestantism are not scripture. Sola scriptura and sola fide, for example, are a peculiar, strained interpretation of some passages, and completely bizarre inversion of the plain text of some other passages. On your fundamentals you converge in the interpretation of the scripture, and you choose the least natural interpretation of it. On everything else you simply do not converge at all: some believe in free will, others don't, some are "arminian" others "calvinist"; some adopt modern sexual ethics and others don't; some have rudimental sacramentality of praxis, others don't; your eschatological views -- all based on the same supposedly perspicious scripture -- cannot be more diverse.

Also appeals to authority -- even Protestant authority -- do not work with you, because the authority stops at the individual sovereignly interpreting the scripture under the leadership, he claims, of the Holy Ghost. This is a level of conceit no pope of Rome would claim. By this measure you are not all popes, you are all Holy Ghosts.

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.