Posted on 11/23/2011 11:11:08 AM PST by marshmallow
A notoriously 'gay-friendly' parish in San Francisco has invited an openly homosexual Episcopalian cleric to lead an Advent Vespers service.
Most Holy Redeemer parish asked Bishop Otis Charles, a retired Episcopalian prelate, to lead the November 30 service. After serving as the Bishop of Utah from 1971 to 1993, he publicly announced that he is homosexual. Divorced from the mother of his 5 children, he solemnized a same-sex union in 2004.
Ezek 3:1-3 "Then he said to me, 'Son of man, eat what you find; eat this scroll, and go, speak to the house of Israel.' So I opened my mouth, and He fed me this scroll. And He said to me, 'Son of man, feed your stomach, and fill your body with this scroll which I am giving you.' Then I ate it, and it was sweet as honey in my mouth.
We can’t help it if Catholics don’t understand the answer.
You have no knowledge of what I do or do not believe about Scripture, so please do not presume to tell me what I ignore or dismiss. All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. (II Tim.3:16-17)
>> This verse DOES NOT prove Sola Scriptura.
The rite or ritual of water baptism is purely symbolic just as Peter explained.
>>Again, that is your INTERPRETATION of what St. Peter is saying.
The consensus up until Martin Luther was completely different, suggesting that water baptism is a supernatural event not unlike when Jesus used mud and spittle to heal the blind man.
But as you admit “My way of interpreting their interpretations is governed by my own cultural traditions, just as yours is.” Your cultural tradition starts with a presumption of egalitarianism ala America and a knee-jerk anti-Catholicism. Consequently, if Catholics believe A you believe B.
I’ve found similar polemics leveled against Lutherans because they are “too much like the Catholics” instead of a dispassionate look at Lutheran beliefs. I assure you Lutherans hate Catholicism as much as you do.
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Religions/Lutherans/luther_no_christian.htm
Take a look at the Catechism sometime, if you want to really see patchwork scripture to try to prove a position.
>>No different than what you do. At least the Catholics and Orthodox readily admit it.
Why you seem to insist that these verses PROVE your magesterium has carte blanche to define any “tradition” not recorded in Scripture as equal to Holy Scripture is not beyond me, because I know that they have used these verses to state such before and their intent is plainly visible. So if we want to live the “spirit” of God’s truths, we must know what they are first.
>>Because the apostles were Jews. Judaism has continually taught there is the Oral Torah and the Written Torah.
Catholic tradition corresponds to the Jewish Oral Torah.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oral_Torah
Protestants cut the cord of Christianity’s organic development out of Judaism. Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy cannot be understood without understanding pre-rabinnic Judaism. This is especially true of the Ethiopian Church, which largely converted from Judaism to Christianity.
The first Protestants instead reinterpreted the Bible in the light of the Nominalist culture that had begun to grow during the dark times of late medieval Europe when William of Ockham’s worldview had become prevalent.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nominalism
Glass half full, eh?
Seriously, I, obviously, enjoy debate, the more knowledgable the opponent, the more I learn.
What is different here is the, don’t know how else to put it, but the level of debate akin to Know Nothings or something expected during the Wars of Religion, the original content of the banned sites on the interweb.
I debate, discuss, participate in theological seminars a great deal with many Protestants, I respect much of the Protest Principle and it can be well argued by someone skilled and knowledgable. But here, based on not only credibility, but the ability to follow an argument honestly and coherently... a few on here, honestly, would not be asked back.
And there you have the glass half empty.
:)
Since the pope has not made an official pronouncement about the entire Bible verse by verse, each Catholic then becomes their own pope in the matter of interpreting Scripture the RCC is silent on.
>> Again, you show that you misunderstand Catholicism.
Unlike Protestants, Catholics show a bit more humility when it comes to their private readings of scripture with the exception of certain neo-Protestant “theologians” like Charles Curran. Unlike you, we don’t presume my own infallibility when we read the Bible.
And we look to Tradition for a proper understanding of difficult passages. Orthodox Catholics strive for a unity of interpretation in dogmatic matters, but we leave leniency for non-dogmatic ones.
The simplest road is not always the right one contrary to what William of Ockham might have thought.
OF COURSE!
However, when the faithful sheeple of the
Vatican Ashteroth-Mary-Goddess cult are awake and amongst the living—they can’t conceive of anything but slavish compliance . . . even if there’s nothing clear to slavishly comply with.
So they evidently pretend.
OF COURSE they are human and as scrappy as the next group—if not more so—however, they have such an overlay of ORGANIZATIONAL superiority and control—they would never admit even to their mirrors that their idiosyncratic theological permutations are anything but homogeneously lock-step with all the other billion plus members.
What clueless nonsensical, hypocritical idiocy!
"...they follow him and no other shepherd do they follow"
To whom shall we go,He alone has the words of life!
Most are rather unfamiliar with scripture.
>>That’s an old stereotype that was more the case with the older generation. Catholic parishes have Bible studies all the time.
Vatican II put a strong emphasis on scripture reading. Catholic priests like quoting St. Jerome saying,”Ignorance of the scriptures is ignorance of Christ.”
Well, they could always start with the homilies of St John Chrysostom.
After the creeds of course...
More irrelevant rhetoric from an unlearned man.
Give him a break, his multi-colored font goddess death ray is on the blink. Likely Zargon from Golob stole it during the last abduction,..
Martin Luther writes in his Small Catechism:
VI. The Sacrament of the Altar
As the head of the family should teach it in a simple way to his household.
What is the Sacrament of the Altar?
It is the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, under the bread and wine, for us Christians to eat and to drink, instituted by Christ Himself.
Where is this written?
The holy Evangelists, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and St. Paul, write thus:
Our Lord Jesus Christ, the same night in which He was betrayed, took bread: and when He had given thanks, He brake it, and gave it to His disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is My body, which is given for you. This do in remembrance of Me.
After the same manner also He took the cup, when He had supped, gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Take, drink ye all of it. This cup is the new testament in My blood, which is shed for you for the remission of sins. This do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of Me.
What is the benefit of such eating and drinking?
That is shown us in these words: Given, and shed for you, for the remission of sins; namely, that in the Sacrament forgiveness of sins, life, and salvation are given us through these words. For where there is forgiveness of sins, there is also life and salvation.
How can bodily eating and drinking do such great things?
It is not the eating and drinking, indeed, that does them, but the words which stand here, namely: Given, and shed for you, for the remission of sins. Which words are, beside the bodily eating and drinking, as the chief thing in the Sacrament; and he that believes these words has what they say and express, namely, the forgiveness of sins.
Who, then, receives such Sacrament worthily?
Fasting and bodily preparation is, indeed, a fine outward training; but he is truly worthy and well prepared who has faith in these words: Given, and shed for you, for the remission of sins.
But he that does not believe these words, or doubts, is unworthy and unfit; for the words For you require altogether believing hearts.
I don't believe Jesus needed to make a "disclaimer". In fact, I absolutely believe what he said that we MUST eat his flesh and drink his blood or we cannot be saved. Yet, Roman Catholics interpret this to mean that somehow the bread and wine (now just bread) is mysteriously and miraculously changed into Jesus' actual flesh and blood and even though the "elements" do not appear to be changed, they just are. And that everyone MUST physically eat and drink these elements in order to be saved. Also, that doing this once is not enough to be saved, it must be repeated as often as one can, but that even if they do it every day, it STILL isn't enough if good works are also not accompanying it. Plus confession, plus penance, plus beatitude, plus...
On the other hand, I said I agree that we MUST eat and drink Jesus' actual flesh and blood in order to be saved. But I differ from the RC line. First, I believe as Jesus said we should, that BELIEVING in Him IS RECEIVING him. We ARE in this sense eating him and drinking him as he stated repeatedly we must believe that he is God, believe that he saves us, believe that he is our redeemer, believe that his body and blood were the sacrifice for our sins. I also believe Jesus that we WILL never die - and that of course MUST mean SPIRITUAL death. We receive him and we ARE saved. We WILL NOT come into condemnation, but HAVE passed from death unto life. That is why I do NOT believe that observing the Lord's Supper/Communion/Eucharist is propitiatory. It is done in REMEMBRANCE of him, what he did, what he gave us - eternal life.
I wish you a peaceful and blessed night.
LOL
LOL
Thanks for another example of the
EXTREME DESPERATE GROPING
of the Vatican Ashteroth-Mary-Goddess cult devotees.
I found an interesting critique of Evangelicalism by a Protestant author.
ave We Made the Bible Into an Idol?29 Comments
Have We Made the Bible Into an Idol?
Every now and then, I spot the following proclamation on a bumper sticker: “God said it. I believe it. That settles it.” If only Scriptural interpretation were really that easy!
After reading your responses to my post, “When a Theology Just Doesn’t Feel Right,” I felt it appropriate to address the topic of biblical authority, as our discussion often drifted in that direction. I’d like to explore the idea that the way the Bible is being used in modern Christian circles, particularly among conservative evangelicals, may in fact border on idolatry.
As Micah noted, even a Christian apologists committed to the doctrine of inerrancy has suggested that something is amiss. Apologist J.P. Morland wrote in a 2007 article, “Today, I am more convinced of inerrancy than at any time in my Christian life, but the charge of bibliolatry, or at least a near, if not kissing cousin, is one I fear is hard to rebut. To be more specific, in the actual practices of the Evangelical community in North America, there is an over-commitment to Scripture in a way that is false, irrational, and harmful to the cause of Christ.”
Moreland’s main objection seems to be with the notion that the Bible is the sole source of knowledge about God, morality, faith, and practice, when there are other forces at work, such as reason, experience and historical Creeds. I share in Moreland’s reservations in this area, but also have concerns about how the term “inerrant” is used.
Rollins on Conceptual Idolatry
This topic coincides nicely with some ideas put forth by Peter Rollins in our Book Club selection for the month of May, How (Not) to Speak of God.
In Chapter 1, Rollins briefly explores the notion of idolatry. He writes that “the term can be understood to refer to any attempt that would render the essence of God accessible, bringing God into either aesthetic visibility (in the form of a physical structure, such as a statue) or conceptual visibility (in the form of a concept, such as a theological system.)…The only significant difference between the aesthetic idol and the conceptual idol lies in the fact that the former reduces God to a physical object while the latter reduces God to an intellectual object.” (12)
Rollins clarifies that “idolatry does not rest in the idea of the object itself but rather in the eye of the beholder. In other words, it is the way one engages with an object or idea that makes an idol and idol rather than some kind of property within it.” (12)
Rollins suggests that something like idolatry may be going on in the Western Church in regard to the Bible.
He writes that “in the Bible we find a vast array of competing stories concerning the character of God that are closely connected to the concrete circumstances of those who inhabit the narrative. Just as personality tests offer us an unrealistic image of ourselves as a single whole, overlooking the fact that we are not only many different things in many different situations but also changing over time, so Western theology has all too often reduced the beautifully varied and complex descriptions of God found in the Bible to a singular reading that does violence to its vibrant nature.” (12)
At the end of the post, you will see how Rollins resolves this issue, suggesting that the very nature of the Bible protects it from becoming an idol.
Picking and Choosing: Everybody’s Doing It
Last week, a reader responded to one of my posts by saying, “I guess I don’t have the luxury of picking and choosing scripture for my own personal comfort and conscience.” Another wrote, “The cold, hard fact remains that if you don’t accept all of the Bible, then you are the ultimate judge of which parts you do accept. That leaves you in the position of picking and choosing. This is a dangerous place to be since by nature we are all evil, corrupt people, bent on our own self desires.”
But don’t we all pick and choose which portions of the Bible we take literally? Very few evangelicals support polygamy, which was practiced by the godly patriarchs of the Bible. I don’t know a whole lot of friends who refuse to eat shrimp because they think it’s an abomination, as it was described in the Old Testament, (using the same terminology used to describe homosexuality.) Most mainline evangelical churches do not require women to cover their heads, despite Paul’s most emphatic admonition in 1 Corinthians that they do so. And I’ve only met a few people who have taken Jesus literally and sold all of their belongings to give to the poor.
We pick and choose which Scripture we want to take seriously every day! We do it with our theological positions as well. For example, as an inclusivist, I really like the Revelation 5:9 passage in which the saints claim of Christ that “with your blood you purchased men for God from every tribe and language and people and nation.” You might say that I take that verse literally. Now, I could claim that exclusivists are “picking and choosing” which passages they take literally, to the neglect of this one. However, I also see that there are other passages that can be used to support the exclusivist view, so despite the fact that I interpret those passages differently, I’m not prepared to claim that exclusivists are the ones picking and choosing. We all are!
An Infallible Scripture Requires an Infallible Reader
This brings me to my main objection to the use of the term inerrancy A friend of mine once summarized his commitment to inerrancy by proclaiming that “the Bible is the only thdoctrine of ing unaffected by the Fall.”
While I appreciate such reverence and respect for the Bible, I think the problem with this statement, and with the doctrine of inerrancy as it is often explained, is that it (inadvertently) relies on the inerrancy of the reader to hold together. You see, the Bible must ALWAYS be interpreted. It does not exist in a vacuum. As Crystal Downing argues, “The Bible is not self-interpreting. Humans must infer meaning even as they seek to extract God’s truth.” Intuition is not the only thing subject to (mis)interpretation.
God has chosen to reveal Himself with human words, written by human hands, read by human eyes, interpreted by human brains. Mitch is right when he says “we are all evil, corrupt people, bent on our own self desires.” Whether we like to admit it or not, whenever we read the Bible, we bring with us those selfish desires, those fallible minds, those cultural constructs and presuppositions. I really struggle to embrace the idea that a person can somehow read the Bible with 100 percent objectivity without interpreting it and without being influenced by his or her interpretive community. It doesn’t make sense to me.
A lot of Protestants object to the Catholic dogma of papal infallibility. As evangelicals, have we perhaps transferred that dogma to the Bible, resulting in the splintering off of countless denominations as each claims its interpretation as God’s own?
Of course, I’m not saying that we cannot interact with God through the Bible or make truth claims about what it says. However, I think that as evangelicals we must keep in mind how often we create the Bible in our own image. We must be wary of claiming that our interpretations are infallible, using the doctrine of inerrancy to immediately discount any ideas that differ from our own. And I think we must be wary of claiming that we can somehow read the Bible objectively, without a variety of other factors (tradition, experience, and reason) playing a role…which brings me to the lovely Wesleyan Quadrilateral.
Sola Scriptura?
We’ve got to keep in mind that having four different versions of the Bible stacked on top of one another in our bedrooms, available for reading at any time, is a relatively new phenomenon. For centuries, Christians have interacted with Scripture without being able to read it for themselves. They relied on priests or on oral tradition to learn and interpret the beloved Bible stories with which we are so familiar today.
(I think we underestimate the role that the Enlightenment has played in our belief in objective observation. This modernist-influenced hyper-individualism, the idea that “it’s just me and the Bible,” is naïve in that it ignores the other powerful ways in which God speaks to us…both today and throughout the Church’s history.)
As I mentioned before, I’m a big fan of what has been called the Wesleyan Quadrilateral. John Wesley used four different sources in coming to theological conclusions:
1. Scripture
2. Tradition (Church history)
3. Reason (rational thinking and sensible interpretation)
4. Experience (intuition, personal spiritual journey, etc.)
It is hard to argue that one can exist independently of the others. For example, we must have faith in our Christian tradition in order to give authority to the Bible because members of the early church picked which writings would be included in the Bible. We have to use reason to interpret the Bible and to pick and choose which traditions are most fitting in our culture. All of this is filtered through the lens of our experience. To say that one of these epistemological pillars ought to be elevated over the others…or that one doesn’t need to be there…throws everything off balance.
As I mentioned before, this is the attitude rejected by Moreland. However, Moreland still argues that Scripture is the ultimate authority.
The Purpose of the Bible
Finally, I think it’s appropriate to examine what the Bible says about itself.
Paul wrote that “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.” (I Timothy 3:16-17)
I believe that the primary purpose of the Bible is to equip us to do good works, not to help us win arguments, not prove other people wrong, and not to support our own lusts for power or domination of others.
I like what Brian McLaren says about this in A Generous Orthodoxy:
“Interestingly, when Scripture talks about itself, it doesn’t use the language we often use in our explanations of its value. For modern Western Christians, words like authority, inerrancy, infallibility, revelation, objective, absolute, and literal are crucial. Many churches or denominations won’t allow people to become members unless they use these words in their description of Scripture…Oddly, I’ve never heard of a church or denomination that asked people to affirm a doctrinal statement like this: The purpose of Scripture is to equip God’s people for good works. Shouldn’t a simple statement like this be far more important than statements with words foreign to the Bible’s vocabulary about itself?” (182-183)
Rollins on the Bible as Idolatry-Proof
In How (Not) to Speak of God, Rollins concludes that the greatest hope for escaping an idolatrous relationship with the Bible is finding refuge in the dynamic and diverse narrative of the Bible itself. In one of my favorite passages from the book, he writes:
“The Bible itself is a dynamic text full of poetry, prose, history, law and myth all clashing together in a cacophony of voices. We are presented with a warrior God and a peacemaker, a God of territorial allegiance and a God who transcends all territorial divides, an unchanging God and a God who can be redirected…
“Evidently, such conflict were not judged to be problematic [by the writers and compilers of Scripture], but were accepted. Indeed, such fissures help to prevent us from forming an idolatrous image of God, ensuring that none of us can legitimately claim to understand God as God really is. Consequently, the text bars any attempt at colonization by individuals or groups who claim to possess an insight into its true meaning.” (13)
So what do you think? Have we made the Bible into an idol? Does the concept of inerrancy place too much emphasis on the infallibility of the reader? What is the primary purpose of the Bible?
http://rachelheldevans.com/article-1210736874
I think you're on to something there. The latest news is that arsenic has been found in a lot of those juices. Maybe it's all part of the continuing diabolical plan!!! Oh, noos. :o(
The end of the Real Presence for those outside the Church began when? Zwingli?
Luther and Zwingli almost came to physical blows over it.
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.