Wasn't that you critiqueing writing style? Physician... And, the Levitical Law contains much more than prohibitions against homosexuality. How about mixing cloth? How about eating shrimp? Why the pick and choose?
And any "Presbyterian" group that claims to be biblical (many don't these days) but embraces homosexuality is just as wrong as Rome manufacturing sacerdotalism. Paul noted in the letter to the Romans that it is against our normal design and thus part of the rebellion against God. It is in the same group of sins as disobedience to parents. Their error does not justify Rome's hermeneutical error. We would call them demonic also.
But, interestingly, the RCC (sorry about the extra C last time) does not advocate executing the homosexual, although that is the penalty under Mosaic Law. And they don't advocate executing their own priests for rape of children...unless Ratzinger has changed his position. This would be a more consistent use of the Law. Again though, pick and choose.
And perhaps we are using "repudiate" in two different ways. The normal sense of the word is "reject, or deny". Again, I do not reject the Sermon on the Mount any more than I reject the Levitical Law. I embrace them both as "tutors" the way Paul describes them, "Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith, but now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor". Gal. 3:23, 25
Any ordinary understanding of these verses would tell you that the Law serves a very good purpose, as did the stringent requirements of the Sermon on the Mount. Recall, Jesus is telling the Jews if you even call your countryman a "fool", you are worthy of hell fire. Is that your Gospel Mark? Have you ever muttered that under your breath about me? I confess that it happens a few times the other direction. But, we are no longer under the Law or law.
Even the so-called "Lord's Prayer" (a name made up and added to the margin notes of Bibles, but nowhere in the text), ends with "forgive us our debts (exactly) as we forgive our debtors. For if you do not forgive others, your Father in heaven will not forgive you." Is that your Gospel Mark? Do you get forgiveness of all of your sins EXCEPT the sin of non-forgiveness and then burn in hell or spend 10,000 yrs. in purgatory. Do you make it crystal clear to those parishoners around you that this is the high bar of the Law, according to Jesus? Do you tell them to sell all of their possessions, take up their cross and follow Him, like say you do?
Do you tell them to tear out their eyes, cut off their hands if they cause them to stumble? Do you tell the priests that diddle little kids that because they caused one of them to stumble, it is now better that a millstone gets tied around their necks and they be cast into the sea? Do you actually teach this harsh Gospel? This is not a "repudiation" of the Gospels, it is a recognition of the real message Jesus was getting at...we are broken beyond repair, unless He steps in.
Somehow you have concluded this makes us antinomian or renegades. Nothing could be further from the truth. We hunger for righteousness, we want it to be a real part of our lives. But, we understand that we are far away. The only way we stand worthy before God is that we are clothed in the righteousness of His Son.
Somewhere along the line, the RCC begins to break down and become more Calvinistic than they would like to admit. They see that there is a disconnnect between their lives and the requirements that they hold up. Instead of casting themselves wholly upon Christ alone, the way Paul and Peter taught, they manufacture a whole series of sacraments, absolution, the eucharist (I know this is a sacrament) and others which confer grace. Grace is no longer grace, unmerited favor, but wages in exchange for doing, thinking, saying something. We, OTOH, have no where else to go, but to Christ. You tell me which pushes you closer to God?
"Get thee behind me satan."
Ouch. Those words were used by Jesus to rebuke Peter for not catching that Jesus had to go the cross. Man's efforts, whatever those might be, were simply inadequate to rescue his soul. Peter's good intentions notwithstanding, his thinking was from the pit. We submit that Rome is in the same boat. They likely mean well, but teaching the man-centered gospel they do makes their words directly from the pit, also.
Yes.
And, the Levitical Law contains much more than prohibitions against homosexuality. How about mixing cloth? How about eating shrimp? Why the pick and choose?
The early Church chose. From the time of the Apostles, the Church began to define what was the doctrine and what were the disciplines. Jesus began the changes to the Mosaic Law and enabled the Church to continue the change from Judaism to Christianity.
But, interestingly, the RCC (sorry about the extra C last time)
What is the RCC? Do you mean the Catholic Church. RCC is not the Catholic Church.
does not advocate executing the homosexual, although that is the penalty under Mosaic Law. And they don't advocate executing their own priests for rape of children...unless Ratzinger has changed his position. This would be a more consistent use of the Law. Again though, pick and choose.
The Church has come to understand that the death penalty is wrong according to the words of Jesus. Again, Jesus supersedes Moses.
And any "Presbyterian" group that claims to be biblical (many don't these days) but embraces homosexuality is just as wrong as Rome manufacturing sacerdotalism.
Over 90% of Presbyterians and other Reformed groups in the United States are not Calvinist. When this country began, over 90% of all Protestants in the United States were Calvinist. Why? I don't know about an entity called Rome manufacturing sacerdotalism, but Jesus created a special group of men whom He enabled to forgive sins, preach the Great Commission, and ordain others. Most Reformed groups require their pastors to be trained in some fashion, do they not?
And perhaps we are using "repudiate" in two different ways. The normal sense of the word is "reject, or deny". Again, I do not reject the Sermon on the Mount any more than I reject the Levitical Law. I embrace them both as "tutors" the way Paul describes them, "Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith, but now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor". Gal. 3:23, 25
But Jesus did not preach the Levitical Law. He preached His own Law and His Own commandments. When you read the Sermon on the Plain, there are no qualifiers or other statements that would allow one to skate by. The Two Commandments of Christ are not suggestions. You may consider Jesus' words whimsical tutoring, but we consider it Gospel.
Recall, Jesus is telling the Jews if you even call your countryman a "fool", you are worthy of hell fire. Is that your Gospel Mark? Have you ever muttered that under your breath about me? I confess that it happens a few times the other direction. But, we are no longer under the Law or law.
We are still under the laws and commandments of Jesus. Believe it or not, I have never called you a fool either silently or out loud. I do not consider you one at all. On the contrary, I consider you a considerable opponent. The Gospels, on the other hand repeat and repeat and repeat the idea of Judgement for one's deeds. Paul reiterates that Judgement. If there is no code of conduct, then how can one be Judged? If there is no responsibility for conduct, then how can one be Judged?
Even the so-called "Lord's Prayer" (a name made up and added to the margin notes of Bibles, but nowhere in the text), ends with "forgive us our debts (exactly) as we forgive our debtors. For if you do not forgive others, your Father in heaven will not forgive you." Is that your Gospel Mark? Do you get forgiveness of all of your sins EXCEPT the sin of non-forgiveness and then burn in hell or spend 10,000 yrs. in purgatory.
The Pater Noster (in English, the Our Father) is not normally referred to as the Lord's Prayer in Catholicism. And it follows the text of Matthew 6 very closely. Not sure where you're going here. And yes, we take it very seriously that if we do not forgive others, then God will not forgive us. By the way, there is no time in Purgatory, and Purgatory and Hell are mutually exclusive.
Do you tell them to tear out their eyes, cut off their hands if they cause them to stumble? Do you tell the priests that diddle little kids that because they caused one of them to stumble, it is now better that a millstone gets tied around their necks and they be cast into the sea?
If they don't repent, well, yes. The Gospel message is heavy with the themes of forgiveness, repentence and the imitation of Christ.
This is not a "repudiation" of the Gospels, it is a recognition of the real message Jesus was getting at...we are broken beyond repair, unless He steps in.
Jesus is there knocking at the door. If you believe that Jesus is exclusive, then you do repudiate the Gospel message of God reaching out to all men. Man cannot reach for God unless God reaches him first. Agreed. What we do not agree on is who is contacted. Calvin says some men only. Jesus and Paul and Peter and James say all men.
Somehow you have concluded this makes us antinomian or renegades. Nothing could be further from the truth. We hunger for righteousness, we want it to be a real part of our lives. But, we understand that we are far away. The only way we stand worthy before God is that we are clothed in the righteousness of His Son.
Jesus enables us to walk the Via of Christ. In that we agree. By adopting the horrific doctrine of limited atonement, you limit what Jesus has done and reduce His Work to less than perfection. By adopting the horrific doctrine of unconditional election, you repudiate all the instructions that Jesus has given us and teach that it does not matter what one does, since nothing can prevent either salvation or damnation under that theology. All of the commandments of Jesus do not matter under this theology. Not your fellow man, nothing. You either get the limo ride or you don't. Period.
By adopting the horrific doctrine of irrestible grace, you once again deny man's free will and deem him not responsible for any of his deeds. Therefore what will he be Judged upon? Many Calvinists have told me - upon Jesus's Crucifixion. Jesus is going to Judge some people upon His own Crucifixion? That is an evil statement.
Somewhere along the line, the RCC begins to break down and become more Calvinistic than they would like to admit. They see that there is a disconnnect between their lives and the requirements that they hold up. Instead of casting themselves wholly upon Christ alone, the way Paul and Peter taught, they manufacture a whole series of sacraments, absolution, the eucharist (I know this is a sacrament) and others which confer grace.
This goes back to the Jesus and the Apostles. The Sacraments come to us from 2000 years ago. And Baptism, Absolution and the Eucharist are explicitly Scriptural.
Grace is no longer grace, unmerited favor, but wages in exchange for doing, thinking, saying something.
Grace is God's aid to us, to enable us to be saved. Hardly wages. Remember the parable of the vineyard:
Matthew 20: 1 1 "The kingdom of heaven is like a landowner who went out at dawn to hire laborers for his vineyard. 2 After agreeing with them for the usual daily wage, he sent them into his vineyard. 3 Going out about nine o'clock, he saw others standing idle in the marketplace, 4 2 and he said to them, 'You too go into my vineyard, and I will give you what is just.' 5 So they went off. (And) he went out again around noon, and around three o'clock, and did likewise. 6 Going out about five o'clock, he found others standing around, and said to them, 'Why do you stand here idle all day?' 7 They answered, 'Because no one has hired us.' He said to them, 'You too go into my vineyard.' 8 3 When it was evening the owner of the vineyard said to his foreman, 'Summon the laborers and give them their pay, beginning with the last and ending with the first.' 9 When those who had started about five o'clock came, each received the usual daily wage. 10 So when the first came, they thought that they would receive more, but each of them also got the usual wage. 11 And on receiving it they grumbled against the landowner, 12 saying, 'These last ones worked only one hour, and you have made them equal to us, who bore the day's burden and the heat.' 13 He said to one of them in reply, 'My friend, I am not cheating you. 4 Did you not agree with me for the usual daily wage? 14 5 Take what is yours and go. What if I wish to give this last one the same as you? 15 (Or) am I not free to do as I wish with my own money? Are you envious because I am generous?' 16 6 Thus, the last will be first, and the first will be last." Man's efforts, whatever those might be, were simply inadequate to rescue his soul. Peter's good intentions notwithstanding, his thinking was from the pit. We submit that Rome is in the same boat.
Since you have demonstrated that there are some discontinuities between your understanding of the Faith and the real Faith, it is possible that your submission is flawed.
They likely mean well, but teaching the man-centered gospel they do makes their words directly from the pit, also.
Our Gospel is centered on Christ.
Matthew 22: 37 He said to him, 22 "You shall love the Lord, your God, with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind. 38 This is the greatest and the first commandment. 39 The second is like it: 23 You shall love your neighbor as yourself.
This is the core of Christianity. No limited atonement. No limited election. No limited salvation to the high school student council. Only unconditional love. Only with God's Grace shall we even step onto the first rung of that ladder. Mother Teresa and Pope John Paul II were two of the finest Christians that I have been privileged to have seen (from afar, of course). They imitated Christ far far better than I could possibly dream of. That is Christianity.