Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
An admission that the Bible does not "self-interpret". Huzzah!
And then there's this:
Pastors (at times) abdicate any role of offering directive moral guidance through sermon or pastoral counsel. Christian tradition (at times) is sloughed off or treated primarily as a source of oppression.
Yes, very good. Tradition does have a place, doesn't it?
Although he gets cold feet when he gets to the subject of authority (OK, I'm a Catholic), I think he's heading in the right direction here.
A Christian with “cold feet when he gets to the subject of authority”?
Weren’t those the “Ten ‘Commandments’”? ‘Commandments’ carries a definite whiff of authority, or have we missed something?
Just wonderin’.
I know it was very uncomfortable for my sister to sit through hours of meetings with a priest, who’s never been married, and listen to him describe what sex acts were and weren’t permitted in a Catholic marriage.
Interpretation is one thing, a completely separate set of man-made articles, Canon law, is something else.
Nice try but Catholicism is 90% tradition and 10% scripture.
I was thinking maybe Jesus Christ and his teachings might take care of that...
...but what do I know?
Some person, office, or body must be responsible for “rightly dividing the Word of truth”
The Bible IS the authority. One should “Work out your salvation with fear and trembling.” A pastors duty is clear. And the congregation should read as much as he does, should understand as much as he does, that they may not be misled by an ‘errant’ pastor.
The Bible cannot self interpret.
I didn't say she stole my money - someone else said it
I didn't say she stole my money - I implied it
I didn't say she stole my money - I typed it in an email
I didn't say she stole my money - I said someone did, not necessarily her
I didn't say she stole my money - I considered it borrowed, even though she didn't ask
I didn't say she stole my money - only that she stole money
I didn't say she stole my money - she stole stuff which cost me money to replace
Seven words, seven different meanings. And people will bet their eternal salvation on the belief they get the words of Scripture right! Christians cannot agree on what the meaning of "is" is.
And all this and the fact:
1) Jesus NEVER gave instructions that the Christian faith should be based exclusively on a book.
2) Other than the specific command to John to pen the Revelation, Jesus never told His apostles to write anything down and compile it into an authoritative book.
3) Nowhere in the New Testament do the apostles tell future generations that the Christian faith will be based solely on a book.
4) The Bible does not have an inspired and infallible list of books that should belong in the Bible. Where did the table of contents come from?
(””Sometimes, though not always, they acknowledged that it is not quite sufficient to anchor down claims about biblical inspiration and authority. They acknowledged that the Bible is always an interpreted text. Some person, office, or body must be responsible for “rightly dividing the Word of truth” )”
(1 Peter 19-21)
19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:
20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
Let me tell you whom. The Lord Jesus Christ Himself and His Word, the Holy Bible. NOT MAN!!! I go by what the Bible says to do. I do not go by what a man, local church, or my domination, which is Southern Baptist, says do. If what they say conflicts with my Bible, then I ignore them and go by what the Scriptures tell me to do. I answer to Him and Him only. Not men, a church group here or a domination.
Sounds like some government bureaucracy think tank.
If I were in charge of this silly meeting, conference, or whatever this think tank is, I would say.
“The bible is the “Infallible Word Of God””.
“Go into the world and proclaim the Gospel, meeting adjourned.”
Only by another "organization" which intends to mimic the power of Rome, but under a different banner. All organizations are incorrect. Christ called individuals to associate in small independent congregations at homes/businesses. How do we know? The Scripture describes just this. Any more is part of the cult mentality that captured Rome and swept her away.
The article makes no sense. What is he concerned about? Church discipline? That is covered in scripture.
What else? How to interpret “Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.”?
Or is it just a plea to give pastors authority that scripture does not give them?
This by the same guy gives some idea of the motivation:
“As one of the two organizers of the event, and in hopes of clarifying a few things, here are my answers to those questions...
...Most Christians and churches still teach or assume that sexual contact is only legitimate between a man and woman in a lifetime marriage relationship. All other sexual contact is a sinful violation of God’s will. But today barely half of adults are married.
Marriages are initiated later and later in life, if at all. Vast numbers of adults are divorced. Rates of cohabitation are growing. Meanwhile gays and lesbians are asking for a reconsideration of this exclusively heterosexual ethic...
...The event does not symbolize a capitulation to sexual libertinism, but instead is grounded on and will be consistently characterized by commitment to the norm that Christians are called to make and keep exclusive, binding covenants as the structure for their sexual expression.
Fourth, the conference is about the most significant issues in contemporary sexual ethics, including but not limited to homosexuality...
...Fifth, the conference is about discovering whether the Baptist family (or any contemporary Christian group) is capable of respectful and meaningful engagement of diverse people and perspectives in a discussion of sexuality.”
http://www.abpnews.com/content/view/6872/9/
Looks like they are trying to move authority away from scripture so as to allow a ‘new authority’ to accept homosexuality.
What, a Roman Catholic starting a conversation on FR simply for the purpose of bashing a non-Roman Catholic denomination?
How predictable.
Try exalting Jesus for a change, and cut down a bit on the divisiveness.
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.