Posted on 12/16/2009 7:38:57 AM PST by PanzerKardinal
A "Progressive" Anglican church in Auckland New Zealand paid to have this billboard placed near their parish.
Here are some excerpts written by the Vicar, Archdeacon Glynn Cardy on the church's website touting what he did.
________________
To make the news at Christmas it seems a priest just needs to question the literalness of a virgin giving birth. Many in society mistakenly think that to challenge literalism is to challenge the norms of Christianity. What progressive interpretations try to do however is remove the supernatural obfuscation and delve into the deeper spiritual truth of this festival.
Christian fundamentalism believes a supernatural male God who lived above sent his sperm into the womb of the virgin Mary. Although there were a series of miraculous events surrounding Jesus’ birth – like wandering stars and angelic choirs – the real miracle was his death and literal resurrection 33 years later. The importance of this literal resurrection is the belief that it was a cosmic transaction whereby the male God embraced humanity only after being satiated by Jesus’ innocent blood.
Progressive Christianity is distinctive in that not only does it articulate a clear view it is also interested in engaging with those who differ. Its vision is one of robust engagement. If every Christian thought the same not only would life be deadly boring but also the fullness of God would be diminished. This is the consequence of its incarnational theology: God is among us; even among those we disagree with or dislike.
(Excerpt) Read more at stmatthews.org.nz ...
John 6
28. Then they asked him, "What must we do to do the works God requires?"
29. Jesus answered, "The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent."
That's been messed up a few times; hasn't it?
Maybe not; but it sure sidetracks it.
This is EXACTLY restornu's response!
Just what IS (are?) the criteria?
5Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, "The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to obey the law of Moses."
6The apostles and elders met to consider this question. 7After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: "Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe. 8God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. 9He made no distinction between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith. 10Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of the disciples a yoke that neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear? 11No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are."
12The whole assembly became silent as they listened to Barnabas and Paul telling about the miraculous signs and wonders God had done among the Gentiles through them. 13When they finished, James spoke up: "Brothers, listen to me. 14Simon[a] has described to us how God at first showed his concern by taking from the Gentiles a people for himself. 15The words of the prophets are in agreement with this, as it is written:
16" 'After this I will return
and rebuild David's fallen tent.
Its ruins I will rebuild,
and I will restore it,
17that the remnant of men may seek the Lord,
and all the Gentiles who bear my name,
says the Lord, who does these things'[b]
18that have been known for ages.[c]
19"It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. 20Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. 21For Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath."
30The men were sent off and went down to Antioch, where they gathered the church together and delivered the letter. 31The people read it and were glad for its encouraging message. 32Judas and Silas, who themselves were prophets, said much to encourage and strengthen the brothers. 33After spending some time there, they were sent off by the brothers with the blessing of peace to return to those who had sent them.[d] 35But Paul and Barnabas remained in Antioch, where they and many others taught and preached the word of the Lord.
Yes, you specifically said all the family members in Acts 16 repented & believed first. We don't know that. Acts 16:14-15 clearly show we don't know that. So you need to back down on your 100% filter of "repent/believe"...because Scripture does provide for us a 100% filter like your systematics have invented.
HOWEVER: the scriptures, where it does speak of it, says we must all repent before baptism...
Yes...but, again, not 100%...Acts 16:14-15 speaks of baptism but no repentance. You need to back off your "absolutist" approach.
Likewise, baptism was placed as a priority for Saul pre-calling on His Name (Acts 22:8-16). And if you try claiming ONCE AGAIN that Saul already knew the Lord the moment Jesus called His name, "Saul" -- then you're going to have to re-educated thousands of theologians who claim Acts 22 is about a "conversion" story...what? Was Saul only "re-dedicating his already Christian life?" (Give me a break) Theologians say Jesus changing his name from Saul to Paul was part & parcel of this conversion.
As for Acts 2...all I pointed out is that Acts 2:38-39 applies to "children" -- the text plainly says so...so stop subtracting children.
What do ya figure, the 3 month old babies jumped up as said, 'Hallelujah, praise God, and ran for the nearest river when they heard Peter speak???
(What do ya figure, the 8-day old babies who were circumcized in OT times jumped up and said, 'Hallelujah, praise God, we're part of the covenant people of God?'")
Yet, no matter how much you might want to exclude 8-day old babies from being the people of God in OT times ... yet they were! Coinciding with that -- the apostle Paul associates baptism with circumcision:
Col. 2:11-12: In him you were also circumcised, in the putting off of the sinful nature, NOT with a circumcision done by the hands of men but with the circumcision done by Christ, having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead.
The bottom line here is it's not...
...the water of baptism that saves us...
...a decision for Christ that saves us...
...a mental assent that saves us...
...100% correct theological alignment that saves us...
First of all, the WHO is key: 'Tis a Person who saves us -- Jesus Christ -- and He chooses to use His Word -- His Gospel in doing that.
All that's involved in baptism is God speaking His Salvific, powerful Word through the water:
>...just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word (Eph. 5:25-26)
1 Peter 3:21: and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ...
Q: If baptism has no "salvific" reference point, why does Peter come right and disagree with you? (I mean, you have a right to disagree, just note you're disagreeing w/Peter)
The true dividing line on baptism within the body of Christ really boils down to this: Is baptism an act of man or is it an act of God. If you choose "man," then you get what a ritualized ordinance (law) of what man can do. (And I'll tell you what, men can do can in no way bring out the effects described of baptism in Romans 6:3-4...that shows what God can do).
LIAR!
I have told you and others I have recieve a witness by the Holy Ghost before I ever knew about the Church or missionaries etc!
Hey, when I'm wrong, I admit it. And when Narses said: ...He commands His Apostles and their successors to Baptize all the Nations -- your reply was:
Well, you're wrong again...There aren't any succesors to the Apostles...Getting baptized doesn't make one a Christian...Turning to God makes one a Christian...
I saw no admission to Narses on your part that you falsely accused him/her of being wrong. Narses wasn't wrong. Jesus does command/commission His apostles & their successors to baptize all nations -- all ethnic groups. So, if you're going to export your opinions like your grading school papers, you better be able to stand a review yourself.
No.
“French isn’t your strong suit, huh?”
_________________________________________________________
Double-entendre is actually an English phrase. To convey the idea in French one says, “sous-entendu.”
And no, the “Christian” message was never explained up-thread, but I’m glad to hear you’re not afraid of P.C. judgments against your ‘judgmentality.’ We do have some common ground here, and I apologise if my post seemed unduly harsh.
Thankyou...
The Tradition of the Catholic Church is nothing less than the teaching handed down to us from the Apostles. (The Scriptures are a product of that Sacred Tradition.) It therefore follows that only the Church can teach the Christian faith authoritatively. And the Church teaches that Our Lady is perpetually virgin.
When I am looking for authentic Christian truth, I have two choices: I can trust in the Church, with her two thousand year tradition of teaching stretching all the way back to our Lord Himself, or I can trust in Pope St. Elsie, who claims the ability to infallibly teach the truth based upon Pope St. Elsie’s feelings, opinions, and desires.
I hope you won’t take it personally when I say that I trust the Church more than I trust you.
“Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
“Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen” (St Matthew 28:19-20)
Baptism is a direct commandment of Christ. Verse 20 makes it plain that it is one of the observances that Christ wants of His followers.
It is therefore not optional for Christians: it is a Commandment that must be obeyed. Straight from The Boss Himself: I didn’t make it up.
> Double-entendre is actually an English phrase.
Tell my French teacher that. As are many Canadians, I am bilingual.
> To convey the idea in French one says, “sous-entendu.”
That is another, more modern, way to say it.
But if it as as you say (and my dearest sister in Christ has suggested as much to me), then this would constitute the divinization of Man on two scores....
It actually makes God, in a sense, derivative from Man. That is, Man is the "real" creator here [or rather, Man's self-regard, as scored according to your points (1) and (2)].
In which case it seems LDS would be in perfect accord with that [nefarious! IMHO] German philosopher Ludwig von Feuerbach ("flaming brook"), who held that God was merely the mass "psychological projection" of the highest [moral?] aspirations of human beings in the collective. Which is a huge pile of mush, it goes without saying.
For one thing, what is this "collective???"
GOD DEALS IN SOULS, not "collectives!!!"
Just thinking out loud....
Thank you so very much for your insights Colofornian!
“Is it about a spiritual male God sending down sperm so a child would be born, or is it about the power of love in our midst as seen in Jesus?”
_____________________________________________________________
I’m getting tired of hearing about sperm. I certainly never heard about it in any Advent or Christmas service when I was growing up, and I was there quite often (choirboy, you know)...
I suspect you’re tired of it, too, but it is constructive to know ‘what they have on the brain.’
You obviously missed an earlier post in which I confessed that I am not sure how I could convince a non-believer of the Divine authority of the Torah. There are arguments, but that is not what my questions on this thread are about.
I am not conversing with unbelievers who reject the Torah but with people who claim to accept it. Given the fact that chr*stians acknowledge the Torah as authentic prior Revelation, how does one prove from that Revelation that the "new testament" is what it says it is without simply assuming this? In the terms of classical argumentation, the "old testament" is the antecedent and the "new testament" is the consequent. I am not asking how you "prove" that the events of the "new testament" are historically true. I am not asking how you prove that J*sus rose from the dead. I am asking one simple thing: given the antecedent (the "old testament"), how does one arrive at the consequent without merely affirming the consequent on its own authority--a logical fallacy committed by evolutionists among many other people?
Do you understand what I am asking now? If you don't please let me know, because by answering questions I am not asking you're not satisfying my curiosity at all.
BTW Christians do believe in the Bible, in its entirety, and that the parts of the Bible most important for us today are found in the New Testament. This does not invalidate the Old Testament — the one flows naturally on from the other.
No it does not--no more than "the book of mormon" flows naturally from the "new testament"--UNLESS one reads the latter (the "new testament," the "book of mormon") first, accepts it a priori, and quotes its own claims on the matter.
BTW, Catholics/Orthodox accept their bible because it was canonized by their church. Jews accept the Torah because it was written and revealed directly by G-d Himself (the only holy book in the world about which this claim can be made) and the Prophets and Writings because they were canonized by the Men of the Great Assembly. Protestants don't really have a reason for accepting their bible--they just do.
Belief in the New Testament without the old is to lose much of the context. Such as “Where did the Pharisees come from?” and “Why would Jesus be upset with them?” And “Why was it important for the Jews to recognize Jesus as their Messiah?”, and “Why was the rejection of Jesus by the Jews as their Messiah both a tragic fatal mistake AND a fulfillment of prophecy?”
Yes, I can see this. But you're still operating from the assumption that the "new testament" is actually the "word of G-d." The Torah came first, as you acknowledge. Therefore the Torah sits in judgment on all later claimants to being "divine revelation." Given the Torah and reading the bible from the beginning without chr*stian assumptions, how does one prove from the Torah/Hebrew Bible itself that the "new testament" is the word of G-d? And please note, I didn't ask about the apostles. I said how do you prove from the "old testament" itself. Otherwise the apostles are just claiming authority for themselves.
These answers are all found in the Old Testament. You can certainly get by without knowing any of these answers, but it makes for a much rougher ride.
You're completely missing my point. If one reads the "old testament" first (and believes it is Divinely inspired) without ever having heard of the "new testament," and then reads the "new testament," will that person believe that the "new testament" is what it claims to be? I say the answer is no.
Belief in the Old Testament without belief in the New Testament is like watching a great movie only half-way thru. You can get some value from it, I guess, but all the important bits — like the climax — will be found at the end.
That's like saying belief in the Protestant bible without belief in the koran or "book of mormon" is watching two thirds of a movie and missing the end. I'm asking how you can be sure that the "new testament" is the genuine "end of the book" without merely accepting its claims about itself? Does the Torah authorize the "new testament" in a way that is absolutely undeniable? I say no.
And you won’t know that there’s an important twist to the plot that might have changed your opinions on the movie, if only you had watched the second half.
You're assuming it's "the second half." How do you prove this without merely holding up a Thomas Nelson King James Version and saying "this claims to be the word of G-d and I believe it?" BTW, did you know that the KJV originally contained what Protestants call the "Apocrypha" but that these books were dropped after many years? How do you know they aren't "the word of G-d" too other than they aren't in the book you're holding in your hand?
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.