Posted on 11/18/2011 6:13:09 AM PST by Alex Murphy
Next Thursday, as the rest of us tuck into our turkey feasts, hundreds of needy families in Southern California will open "Boxes of Love." Delivered by several churches led by Pacific Crossroads in Santa Monica, Calif., the boxes contain ingredients for a Thanksgiving meal for six. They allow impoverished families to skip food lines and neighborhood pantries and enjoy the holiday in their own homes.
What's unusual about the Pacific Crossroads congregation—and what underpins efforts such as Boxes of Love—is its theologically conservative raison d'être. A member church of the Presbyterian Church in America, Pacific Crossroads is committed to Reformation doctrines such as total depravity (every person is born sinful) and limited atonement (salvation is available only to the elect). These beliefs are typically regarded as ugly and inhumane by American culturati. Yet the church's pastor, Rankin Wilbourne, is happy to pepper his sermons with references to Bono and "Jersey Shore," and the church has grown to around 1,500 members from 500 in three years.
[SNIP]
And so in a city more often associated with Calvin Klein, John Calvin's teachings provide a basis for hope. In his commentary on II Corinthians 8, the 16th-century Swiss theologian connected Christians' assurance of salvation with their freedom to give to the poor:
"What makes us more close-handed than we ought to be is when we look too carefully, and too far forward, in contemplating the dangers that may occur—when we are excessively cautious and careful—when we calculate too narrowly what we will require during our whole life, or, in fine, how much we lose when the smallest portion is taken away. The man that depends upon the blessing of the Lord has his mind set free from these trammels and has, at the same time, his hands opened for beneficence."
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
“Paul is saying here that Isaac was elected (election) according to the purposes of God, before he was born.”
Elected to what? To saving belief? Or to being heir to the promise?
“This is predestination if I ever saw it. Esau will serve Jacob. 13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.”
Yet that quote comes from 1500 years AFTER Jacob and Esau.
As made clear in Romans 9, Jacob and Esau are types. Paul used Abraham as a type in Romans 4, and Adam as one in Romans 5. And now he uses Jacob and Esau.
And what point is he making with them?
” 6 I am not saying that the promise of God has failed; for not all the people of Israel are the people of God.7 Nor are all of Abraham’s descendants the children of God. God said to Abraham,
It is through Isaac that you will have the descendants I promised you.8 This means that the children born in the usual way are not the children of God; instead, the children born as a result of God’s promise are regarded as the true descendants.9 For God’s promise was made in these words:
At the right time I will come back, and Sarah will have a son.”
It is a serious error to interpret verse 10 without reading verses 6-9.
And on thru the end of the chapter, he contrasts those who trust to bloodlines with those who believe:
“30 So we say that the Gentiles, who were not trying to put themselves right with God, were put right with him through faith;31 while God’s people, who were seeking a law that would put them right with God, did not find it.32 And why not? Because they did not depend on faith but on what they did. And so they stumbled over the
stumbling stone33 that the scripture speaks of:
Look, I place in Zion a stone
that will make people stumble,
a rock that will make them fall.
But whoever believes in him will not be disappointed.”
Again, much of the confusion of Calvin comes from bad grammar. Subject / verb. Whoever - subject. Believes - verb. Subjects DO verbs. Verbs are not done TO THEM.
Yes, God hardens hearts. Paul says that explicitly in Romans 1 - but God doesn’t do it willy-nilly.
Romans 9-11 discuss the problem of the Jews. In Chapter 11, as he nears the end of this argument, he writes:
” 19 But you will say,
Yes, but the branches were broken off to make room for me.20 That is true. They were broken off because they did not believe, while you remain in place because you do believe. But do not be proud of it; instead, be afraid.21 God did not spare the Jews, who are like natural branches; do you think he will spare you?22 Here we see how kind and how severe God is. He is severe toward those who have fallen, but kind to you—if you continue in his kindness. But if you do not, you too will be broken off.23 And if the Jews abandon their unbelief, they will be put back in the place where they were; for God is able to do that.24 You Gentiles are like the branch of a wild olive tree that is broken off and then, contrary to nature, is joined to a cultivated olive tree. The Jews are like this cultivated tree; and it will be much easier for God to join these broken-off branches to their own tree again.”
Notice again what he says: “They were broken off because they did not believe, while you remain in place because you do believe.”
Not because he doesn’t love them, and not because they lost a celestial lottery, but because of unbelief. And what will happen to Gentiles, if Gentiles abandon belief? “But if you do not, you too will be broken off.23 And if the Jews abandon their unbelief, they will be put back in the place where they were; for God is able to do that.”
No hint of a celestial lottery, but of belief and unbelief.
that’s because of the rift that formed. Read the history books.
Had the Black Death never happened during the 14th century the chances are that the Protestant Revolt never would have happened.
http://www.wordfocus.com/word-black-death-pt3.html
There is no such thing as the plain sense of the scriptures. Were the scriptures easy to understand, you wouldn’t be having this debate.
St. Paul repeatedly uses the word synergos, which is the root word of the English word synergy throughout his epistles to say that we work with God as his fellow worker.
http://www.greek-dictionary.net/synergos
The Greek Church has never adopted St. Augustine’s fatalistic interpretation of our role in salvation, which I might add was influenced by his time as a Manichean pagan.
This has mode of thinking has infected much of Western Christian thinking since from St. Thomas Aquinas to John Calvin.
I’d say the Greek Church understands Greek better than foreigners.
While it’s certainly refreshing to see an oftentimes ardent anti-Protestant polemicist such as yourself citing the Apostle Paul and holding him in apparently high esteem, I fail to see the disagreement between what I wrote and what you wrote.
No doubt native speakers of Greek grasp the Greek language better than those for whom it is a secondary language. But, what does that have to do with the subject at hand? Synergy? Of course there is synergy. There is no other way, whether man recognizes this or doesn’t.
Care to elaborate?
Why wouldn’t I hold St. Paul in high esteem? The only problem I have is with Protestants twisting his words to conform with their partisan biases.
Remember 2 Peter 3:15-16 NIV
Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.
Textual exegesis requires a cultural and linguistic understanding to remove contemporary biases.
Consequently, the Greeks understand the cultural and linguistic meanings of St. Paul’s writings better than Western Europeans or their descendants. They don’t believe in Monergism, which has been a hallmark of Protestant theology and never have.
I’d say that a lack of this sort of understanding has hampered Western Christian Biblical exegesis at least since St. Augustine’s day.
The Greeks never read St. Augustine until the Middle Ages when Greek scholastics translated his works into Greek.
So their theology has remained largely unaffected by his thinking. It was greeted with considerable hostility because it struck the Greeks as heretical.
http://www.orthodox-christianity.com/2011/10/augustine-the-source-of-eight-heresies/
http://www.orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/articles/dogmatics/golubov_rags_of_mortality.htm
All of the Protestant “Reformers” were profoundly influenced by Augustinian thought, which colored their thinking. St. Jerome mistranslated Romans
http://romanity.org/htm/rom.10.en.original_sin_according_to_st._paul.01.htm
You're just saying this because it's true.
There is a difference between the Western Protestants and the believing Western Catholics. There is little difference between Protestants and cafeteria Catholics.
Agreed. Cafeteria Catholics ARE Protestants. They are just too gutless to walk down the street to their nearest liberal Lutheran of Episcopal church, or other mainline Protestant sect for that matter.
A lot of American Catholics have an inferiority complex vis-a-vis their Protestant neighbors.
An American is more likely say to pick up on the nuances of American English than a Brit would even though we speak the same language.
But we speak different dialects. The same is true in reverse. Foreigners have difficulties with idiomatic expressions, for example.
“”The Greeks never read St. Augustine until the Middle Ages when Greek scholastics translated his works into Greek.””
To complicate this further,Saint Augustine was not very literate in Greek also.
As is pointed out in this very good article...
http://www.stmaryorthodoxchurch.org/orthodoxy/articles/2004-hughes-sin.php
Excerpts..
“his conclusions on the Atonement are (Romanides, 2002). Augustine, by his own admission, did not properly learn to read Greek and this was a liability for him. He seems to have relied mostly on Latin translations of Greek texts (Augustine, 1956a,
p. 9). His misinterpretation of a key scriptural reference, Romans 5:12, is a case in point (Meyendorff, 1979). In Latin the Greek idiom eph ho which means because of was translated as in whom. Saying that all have sinned in Adam is quite different than saying that all sinned because of him. Augustine believed and taught that all humanity has sinned in Adam (Meyendorff, 1979, p. 144). The result is that guilt replaces death as the ancestral inheritance (Augustine, 1956b) Therefore the term original sin conveys the belief that Adam and Eve’s sin is the first and universal transgression in which all humanity participates.
But in memorizing much of the Scriptures, I started to see that it was not me that gave me faith, but God that gives it (Romans 12:3) and not only that but a measure of Grace was given also (Ephesians 4:7). Slowly, I was turning away from man centered doctrine to what God has done.
Once I felt compelled to memorize Genesis 2:16-17 though I felt I knew it thoroughly. My attention became focused on the words "when you eat of it you will surely die" and remembered that they did not die physically that day. So my question became: What Death did they experience that day and what was the extent of it?
I soon realized that it was a Spiritual, inward death with many symptoms. In cataloging those symptoms (there in Genesis, Psalm 14/53 and other places) I realized the extent of that death upon mankind was much worse than I had imagined.
Psalm 14 and 53 showed that no one came to God on their own without His help. "The LORD looks down from heaven on the sons of men to see if there are any who understand, any who seek God. 3All have turned aside, they have together become corrupt; there is no one who does good, not even one". This is repeated by the Apostle Paul in Romans 3, a Triple confirmation. Not only this, Paul in Romans 5:12, indicates that that death spread to all mankind and that none were exempt.
I asked a Christian friend about this and he said that 'Sin was only learned not inherited'. This sounded fishy and in thinking about that a lot, I realized that if a person was to have no contact with another human being (IE like Romulus and Remus were reportedly), then logically there would be immortals (have no sin or death) if sin were only learned. And by the same logic, if a male and female baby grew up with no human contact they, logically, could create a culture of immortals by the same logic.
But we are not encountering such persons or such cultures and Paul in Romans 5:12 says that "Death came to All men" - Thus we will NOT. Thus the Sin Nature is inherited and Sin is learned from others, and both are unacceptable to God. Otherwise the problem of immortals comes up.
I think here, the problem is not with Predestination, Election, or Adoption but with Sin and its extent biblically. And a weak view of that gives rise to mans own power to save Himself by His choice.
And I found that God does much upon the Spiritually dead to bring them to life. And having forsaken belief that my own choice saved me, I wholly lean on what he has done and His love for this person who deserved it not and not for anything this person would do. But just because of His Sovereign love. He did all the work and gets all the Glory, not me.
I have not heard your biblical interpretation of the words 'Predestined', 'Elect/Election' and 'Adoption'.
Would you please give it to me?
“But in memorizing much of the Scriptures, I started to see that it was not me that gave me faith, but God that gives it (Romans 12:3) and not only that but a measure of Grace was given also (Ephesians 4:7).”
Well, then I suggest starting by looking at the context.
Romans 12:
3For by the grace given to me I say to everyone among you not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think with sober judgment, each according to the measure of faith that God has assigned. 4For as in one body we have many members, and the members do not all have the same function, 5so we, though many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another. 6 Having gifts that differ according to the grace given to us, let us use them...
The measure of faith refers to spiritual gifts, which is the subject of that paragraph.
Ephesians 4:7 likewise:
7But grace was given to each one of us according to the measure of Christ’s gift. 8Therefore it says,
“When he ascended on high he led a host of captives,
and he gave gifts to men.”
9( In saying, “He ascended,” what does it mean but that he had also descended into the lower regions, the earth? 10He who descended is the one who also ascended far above all the heavens, that he might fill all things.) 11And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers, 12 to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ...
Saving faith is NEVER described as coming from God. If it does, why did God hide that fact? Why do we see verses, hundreds of them, saying things like:
“13In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit...”
You. Subject. Heard and believed. Verbs. Subjects DO verbs. Subjects do not RECEIVE verbs.
“Psalm 14 and 53 showed that no one came to God on their own without His help.”
I strongly agree. If God did not reach down to us, none of us would even bother to try looking up. But when God reaches down to us, does he do so knowing he will not allow most of us to respond?
What does Jesus say?
“14And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, 15that whoever believes in him may have eternal life.”
WHOEVER. If Jesus meant, “Those that I picked must believe, because I will irresistibly give them faith, and give it to no others”, then Jesus lied when he said “whoever believes in him may have eternal life.”
“I have not heard your biblical interpretation of the words ‘Predestined’, ‘Elect/Election’ and ‘Adoption’.”
We are predestined, IN CHRIST, to become like the Son. IN CHRIST, we are the Elect, adopted by God. IN CHRIST.
This is from Zondervan’s NIV Life in the Spirit Study Bible:
“Election. God’s choice of those who believe in Christ is an important teaching of the apostle Paul (see Ro 8:29-33; 9:6-26; 11:5, 7, 28; Col 3:12; 1 Th 1:4; 2 Th 2:13; Tit 1:1). Election (Gk eklego) refers to God choosing in Christ a people whom he destines to be holy and blameless in his sight (cf. 2 Th 2:13). Paul sees this election as expressing God’s initiative as the God of infinite love in giving us as finite creation every spiritual blessing through the redemptive work of his Son (1:3-5). Paul’s teaching about election involves the following truths:
(1) Election is Christocentric, i.e., election of humans occurs only in union with Jesus Christ. “He chose us in him” (Eph. 1:4; see 1:1, note). Jesus himself is first of all the elect of God. Concerning Jesus, God states, “Here is my servant whom I have chosen” (Mt 12:18; cf. Isa 42:1, 6; 1 Pet 2:4). Christ, as the elect, is the foundation of our election. Only in union with Christ do we become members of the elect (Eph 1:4, 6-7, 9-10, 12-13). No one is elect apart from union with Christ through faith.
(2) Election is “in him…through his blood” (Eph 1:7). God purposed before creation (Eph. 1:4) to form a people through Christ’s redemptive death on the cross. Thus election is grounded on Christ’s sacrificial death to save us from our sins (Ac 20:28; Ro 3:24-26).
(3) Election in Christ is primarily corporate, i.e., an election of a people (Eph 1:4-5, 7, 9). The elect are called “the body of Christ” (4:12), “my church” (Mt 16:18), “a people belonging to God” (1 Pe 2:9), and the “bride” of Christ (Rev 19:7). Therefore, election is corporate and embraces individual persons only as they identify and associate themselves with the body of Christ, the true church (Eph 1:22-23; see Robert Shank, Elect in the Son, [Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers]). This was true already of Israel in the OT (see Dt 29:18-21, note; 2Ki 21:14, note; see article on God’s Covenant with the Israelites, p. 298).
(4) The election to salvation and holiness of the body of Christ is always certain. But the certainty of election for individuals remains conditional on their personal living faith in Jesus Christ and perseverance in union with him. Paul demonstrates this as follows.
(a) God’s eternal purpose for the church is that we should “be holy and blameless in his sight” (Eph 1:4). This refers both to forgiveness of sins (1:7) and to the church’s purity as the bride of Christ. God’s elect people are being led by the Holy Spirit toward sanctification and holiness (see Ro 8:14; Gal. 5:16-25). The apostle repeatedly emphasizes this paramount purpose of God (see Eph 2:10; 3:14-19; 4:1-3, 13-24; 5:1-18).
(b) Fulfillment of this purpose for the corporate church is certain: Christ will “present her to himself as a radiant church…holy and blameless” (Eph 5:27).
(c) Fulfillment of this purpose for individuals in the church is conditional. Christ will present us “holy and blameless in his sight” (Eph 1:4) only if we continue in the faith. Paul states this clearly: Christ will “present you holy in his sight without blemish…if you continue in your faith, established and firm, not moved from the hope held out in the gospel” (Col 1:22-23).
(5) Election to salvation in Christ is offered to all (Jn 3:16-17; 1Ti 2:4-6; Tit 2:11; Heb 2:9) but becomes actual for particular persons contingent on their repentance and faith as they accept God’s gift of salvation in Christ (Eph 2:8; 3:17; cf. Ac 20:21; Ro 1:16; 4:16). At the point of faith, the believer is incorporated into Christ’s elect body (the church) by the Holy Spirit (1 Co 12:13), thereby becoming one of the elect. Thus, there is both God’s initiative and our response in election (see Ro 8:29, note; 2 Pet 1:1-11).
Predestination. Predestination (Gk prooizo) means “to decide beforehand” and applies to God’s purposes comprehended in election. Election is God’s choice “in Christ” of a people (the true church) for himself. Predestination comprehends what will happen to God’s people (all genuine believers in Christ).
(1) God predestines his elect to be: (a) called (Rom. 8:30); (b) justified (Ro 3:24, 8:30); (c) glorified (Ro 8:30); (d) conformed to the likeness of his Son (Ro 8:29); (e) holy and blameless (Eph 1:4); (f) adopted as God’s children (1:5); (g) redeemed (1:7); (h) recipients of an inheritance (1:14); (i) for the praise of his glory (Eph 1:2; 1 Pe 2:9); (j) recipients of the Holy Spirit (Eph 1:13; Gal 3:14); and (k) created to do good works (Eph 2:10).
(2) Predestination, like election, refers to the corporate body of Christ (i.e., the true spiritual church), and comprehends individuals only in association with that body through a living faith in Jesus Christ (Eph 1:5, 7, 13; cf. Ac 2:38-41; 16:31).
Summary. Concerning election and predestination, we might use the analogy of a great ship on its way to heaven. The ship (the church) is chosen by God to be his very own vessel. Christ is the Captain and Pilot of this ship. All who desire to be a part of this elect ship and its Captain can do so through a living faith in Christ, by which they come on board the ship. As long as they are on the ship, in company with the ship’s Captain, they are among the elect. If they choose to abandon the ship and Captain, they cease to be part of the elect. Election is always only in union with the Captain and his ship. Predestination tells us about the ship’s destination and what God has prepared for those remaining on it. God invites everyone to come aboard the elect ship through faith in Jesus Christ.”
I think that gives a fairly simple discussion of corporate election. I prefer to think of it as tribal, because the Jews were a tribal people, and tribes still use some of the same terminology. When Paul wrote that we were “in Adam”, from a tribal perspective, he was simply stating a fact. And we need to ‘leave’ the Adam tribe and ‘join’ the Jesus tribe - which we can only do because Jesus wants us and initiates the action.
I knew that was coming. If one saves themselves by their choice, then they can unsave themselves by their choice as well. Of course, this presupposes that they are more powerful (in their choice) than God the Father who has them in His hand (John 10:29) in the first place.
I prefer to think of it as tribal
IE that Election is not Personal. Therefore one could only say that Jesus loved us Tribally and not personally. That is the other place that logic is going.
For me, I cannot deny His love is personal. It is most deeply so and my belief is that He puts this love in His elect as part of the new heart which He gives them. For the old heart was like Stone and wanted nothing to do with Him. Do you think that I have forgotten what that was like?
We believe in one can have absolute assurance of Salvation and going to heaven. The Evidence is our faith, which God has implanted in us so we could believe He died on the Cross for OUR (personal) sins.
Before, I leave this discussion (for either one trusts God for Salvation or one trusts in the sandy foundation in their choice), I leave you with the statement of a very Elderly lady at a nursing home where I was teaching a bible study.
She said, 'if you have any unconfessed sin in your heart when you die you will not go into heaven'. I asked her 'how she will know that' since "The heart is desperately wicked and who can know it" Jeremiah 17:9, that only one sin would be enough to prevent entry, and that the wife had seen folks thrashing on their death beds wondering whether they had gotten them all out and whether they were going to heaven while dying.
For you see, one either trusts in what God has done - all the way - Personally, or is trusting on the shifting sands.
Farewell.
“If one saves themselves by their choice, then they can unsave themselves by their choice as well. “
What does scripture say?
19 Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence to enter the holy places by the blood of Jesus, 20by the new and living way that he opened for us through the curtain, that is, through his flesh, 21and since we have a great priest over the house of God, 22let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water. 23 Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for he who promised is faithful. 24And let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works, 25 not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near.
26For if we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, 27 but a fearful expectation of judgment, and a fury of fire that will consume the adversaries. 28 Anyone who has set aside the law of Moses dies without mercy on the evidence of two or three witnesses. 29How much worse punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the one who has spurned the Son of God, and has profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has outraged the Spirit of grace? 30For we know him who said, “Vengeance is mine; I will repay.” And again, “The Lord will judge his people.” 31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.”
Nor do I “save myself”. God offers salvation. I believe Him. Or not. But I do not “save myself”, except for the way of the Philippian Jailer:
“30Then he brought them out and said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” 31And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.” 32And they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house.”
Please notice they did NOT say, “Blasphemer! How dare you suggest you can do ANYTHING to be saved! Go to bed, and find out tomorrow if God has made you one of the Elect!”
Instead, they tell him what HE must DO: “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved...”
“IE that Election is not Personal. Therefore one could only say that Jesus loved us Tribally and not personally.”
If you do not understand what I write, ask. Do not put words into my mouth. According to Jesus, he loves the world - but not all will accept him.
“14And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, 15that whoever believes in him may have eternal life. 16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. 17For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. 18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.”
God loves all of us individually, but those who refuse his offer will be damned. We become part of the Elect by being IN CHRIST - two words Calvinists are good at ignoring. Of course, Calvinists are also good at ignoring “Whoever” and “believes”...
“She said, ‘if you have any unconfessed sin in your heart when you die you will not go into heaven’. I asked her ‘how she will know that’ since “The heart is desperately wicked and who can know it” Jeremiah 17:9, that only one sin would be enough to prevent entry, and that the wife had seen folks thrashing on their death beds wondering whether they had gotten them all out and whether they were going to heaven while dying.”
This has absolutely NOTHING to do with anything I wrote. I have never, ever, said that an unconfessed sin would prevent one from entering Heaven. Those who argue that do not understand what being born again means. But what does scripture say?
“29How much worse punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the one who has spurned the Son of God, and has profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has outraged the Spirit of grace? 30For we know him who said, “Vengeance is mine; I will repay.” And again, “The Lord will judge his people.” 31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.”
That hardly describes an unconfessed sin...but it also describes someone who was sanctified by the blood of the covenant, yet then profaned it, spurned the Son of God, and outraged the Spirit of grace.
Before you say farewell, ask yourself what this means: “For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness.”
Please review the meaning of “Subject” and “Verb”...
You say had the black death happened at a different time, the Reformation would have never occurred.
I guess this is toward a proof that it is of God.
I don’t know about God. After all, 1 Corinthians 14:33 says: “33 For God is not a God of disorder but of peace—as in all the congregations of the Lord’s people.”
The so-called “Reformation” only brought division, divisiveness, and ultimately the destruction of a united Christendom in Western Europe.
Not so. Many people are strongly committed to a view of the Scriptures which comports to their group's world view. For example, the Roman Catholic Church is not committed to the plain sense of the Scriptures, but rather the authorized view submitted by the Vatican. Many of its doctrines claim support from the most abberant stretches of the text, not the plain sense.
Many liberal organizations are committed to an allegorical view of the Scriptures and have no intention of considering the "plain sense". This error provides for any and everything to be taught by the text.
In the case at hand, the plain sense of the Scriptures is the hermeneutic to which (I would assume) both of us are committed. But, that plain sense is being mangled by a previously derived conclusion and an attempt to make the text teach that conclusion. I am simply asking for a return to a minimum textual resistence.
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.