The Neverending Story (The New Christian Chronicles)

Southern Baptists ending talks with Catholic Church ^ | 3/24/01 | AP

[malakhi]

The Neverending Story
An ongoing debate on Scripture, Tradition, History and Interpretation.

Statesmen may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue. - John Adams

Thread 162
TNS Archives

[trad_anglican]

Of course the holy spirit is God. One and the same. It's just not a seperate "person" as presented in the trinity theory.

How does the HS's "lack of personhood" manifest itself?

[malakhi]

Hi Mojo, welcome aboard!

[ksen]

Hope you don't mind my jumping in ksen,....

Not at all. I am interested in hearing anyone’s comments.

...but here is the crux of the issue, it seems to me. God entered into history and revealed Himself directly to us through the incarnation.

I acknowledged that.

At the end of those 33 years, Jesus did something. He didn't write a book telling us what we should believe and what we should do. He left a visible Church as an extension of His incarnation to do that. Even in the absence of any scripture, we would still have the testimony of the visible Church (though it is hard to imagine 2000 years passing with nothing ever written down), so we could still know of Christ. He appointed leaders of His Church and gave them the authority to run it. And He sent the Holy Spirit to govern the Church through the hearts of the men whom He chose. And they chose others, first Matthias, then more.

Well, the Holy Spirit wrote 27 new books to add to the 39 that we already had. I think we lose sight of the fact that the Bible isn’t “one” book. It is 66 books, which are in perfect agreement with each other, contained in one volume.

You are not Roman Catholic, and you are not an Orthodox, so which Church did Jesus leave behind? I agree that He left a Church behind, wherever genuine believers are gathered together there is a visible manifestation of that Church. I think we just disagree on the visible form of that Church. (I still like you though.)

So to say the Holy Bible is the way God chose to reveal Himself to us is, in my opinion, incorrect for the Bible itself shows us these other "forms" of revelation.

The Bible is the yard stick by which we can measure all those other ways of Revelation that you mentioned. The written word does not change, oral traditions and traditions made by men have a tendency to change over the years. My point is that if any of those things (traditions, extra-biblical writings, etc.) dictated by men ever disagree with what is contained in the Scriptures, then we need to discard them (traditions, extra-biblical writings, etc.)

-ksen

[OLD REGGIE]

AC - Since you appear to be a reader of the ugh, Herald.

The following article pretty well sums up the direction of legislation in Massachusetts concerning child abuse. It also, I believe, corroborates what I have said in the last few days.

House closes loophole on clergy abuse
Churches back a compromise on reporting

By Michael Paulson, Globe Staff and Chris Tangney, Globe Correspondent, 2/27/2002

The Massachusetts House unanimously approved legislation yesterday that would require clergy and church employees to report suspected cases of sexual abuse to the state, closing what critics said were broad loopholes in a measure previously approved by the Senate.

The legislation, which is being rushed through the Legislature in the midst of public outcry over the Catholic Church's handling of pedophile priests, protects the confidentiality of allegations made during confession, but eliminates a proposed exemption for more general spiritual conversations.

Senate leaders said they would now negotiate a final version with the House. A spokeswoman for Acting Governor Jane Swift said the governor expects to sign the proposed legislation, which would make Massachusetts the 30th state to require that clergy report to authorities allegations of sexual abuse of minors.

The new, tougher language was agreed upon last weekend during negotiations between Catholic and Protestant leaders, who had been feuding over the legislation. The Catholic Church had initially wanted broader protection for conversations between clergy and parishioners, while Protestant churches wanted to force more reporting by clergy.

''This is a great piece of legislation, with real teeth to it,'' said the Rev. Nancy S. Taylor, president of the Massachusetts Conference of the United Church of Christ, the state's largest Protestant denomination. ''This legislation will help to protect the children who, until now, have simply not had the protection they deserve from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts or, sadly, from its religious institutions.''

Catholic leaders also welcomed the new version of the legislation. The church, which says roughly half the state's population are Catholics, had for years opposed legislation that would require clergy to report sexual abuse allegations, but switched its position last summer after publicity over the case of John J. Geoghan, a pedophile priest.

''It's our intention to support, in any way we can, mandatory reporting language,'' said Gerry D'Avolio, executive director of the Massachusetts Catholic Conference, which lobbies on behalf of the state's Catholic bishops.

The compromise was negotiated under the auspices of the Massachusetts Council of Churches, which brokered talks among five denominations concerned about mandatory reporting laws: the Catholic Church, the United Church of Christ, the Unitarian Universalist Assocation, the American Baptist Churches, and the First Church of Christ, Scientist. The compromise language exempts clergy from reporting information learned ''if disclosure is enjoined by the rules or practice of the church or religious body.''

''The challenge was, how do we honor the free exercise of these different religious practices, but make it clear that except in very narrow places we want to have clergy be mandated reporters and that everybody clearly has the well-being of children uppermost in their minds,'' said the Rev. Diane C. Kessler, executive director of the Massachusetts Council of Churches.

The proposal to require clergy to report allegations of abuse is complicated by the fact that the state's religious denominations have varying attitudes toward the confidentiality of conversations between congregants and clergy.

For Catholics, private confession is a mandatory sacrament, and penitents are promised that whatever they tell a priest in confession will be kept secret. Priests who reveal information they learn during confession are subject to automatic excommunication.

For Christian Scientists, conversations between a member and a a Christian Science practitioner, who works to heal illness through faith, are accompanied by a promise of confidentiality.

But most Protestant denominations do not have a tradition of private confession. Today, liberal Protestant denominations are relatively unsympathetic to the notion that clergy might keep knowledge of a crime secret under any circumstance.

For example, the Massachusetts Conference of the United Church of Christ went to court last summer to defend its decision to turn over to prosecutors a church employee who confessed to ministers that he had sexually abused children. The employee argued that his confession was confidential, and he lost his case because of the specific circumstances of his conversation with church leaders. But the case illustrated the murkiness of the state's mandatory reporting law.

''For Unitarian Universalists, the protection of children has always been our prime concern,'' said Rev. William G. Sinkford, president of the Unitarian Universalist Association. ''By making clergy mandatory reporters, this bill increases protection of children from the crime of sexual abuse, while also respecting the traditions of different communities of faith.''

Lawmakers, who have been spurred to action by the Globe Spotlight Team's reporting on clergy sexual abuse, were generally delighted with their proposal, even as they continued to argue over the details.

''Our first and highest priority is to protect the safety of our children,'' said Representative Antonio F.D. Cabral, a New Bedford Democrat who sponsored the House version of the legislation, which passed by a voice vote.

A cautionary note was sounded by Representative Francis L. Marini, Republican of Hanson and the House minority leader, who said that relatives of abusers might be reluctant to seek counsel from clergy because of concern about getting family members in trouble. But Marini ultimately voted for the legislation.

Senate advocates of the legislation welcomed the House changes, but said they would have to negotiate the details. They pledged speedy action on the measure.

''We're all working in the same direction,'' said Senator Cheryl A. Jacques, Democrat of Needham.

But Jacques said she believes that the House legislation is still too broad and would allow cults to keep sexual abuse allegations private. She also said the House legislation doesn't go far enough in requiring retroactive reporting of allegations.

Senator Susan C. Tucker, Democrat of Andover, said: ''The Senate wants to pass legislation with the fewest loopholes that will pass constitutional muster. If this had been done years ago, we could have avoided a lot of the problems that we see now.''

The compromise was welcomed by victims' advocates, who had been unhappy with the Senate legislation.

''The unfortunate reality of the prior language was that the loophole was too large,'' said Nancy L. Scannell, legislative director of Jane Doe Inc., a state coalition against sexual assault and domestic violence.

Scannell said that rape crisis counselors, like clergy, face some tension between their desire to offer confidentiality to callers and their need to report certain allegations to the state.

''We fully understand that it can be difficult to balance the confidentiality of communications with the protection of children, but it is possible,'' she said. ''We've been doing it for years.''

Michael Paulson can be reached by e-mail at mpaulson@globe.com.

This story ran on page A1 of the Boston Globe on 2/27/2002. © Copyright 2002 Globe Newspaper Company.

[SoothingDave]

God is all Spiritual?? So Jesus was all spiritual???

No of course not. Jesus was physical while here on earth. He's spiritual now.

So Jesus doesn't have a physical presence anymore? He doesn't have a glorified Body? He is just a spirit now?

SD

[DouglasKC]

Now Jesus referred to the Spirit as a He, which implies personality.

It does if Jesus or anyone else actually referred to the holy spirit as "he". Most times in the bible the pronouns are implied by their context. The usage of "he", "him", "it" is determined by the context and/or the judgement of the translator. Sometimes a greek pronoun IS used. The most often used one is Strong 486, "autos", but this word is gender neutral so again it's usage is dependent upon context and the belief and/or bias of the translators.

Since the catholic church has defined the Holy Ghost as a "person" and since to hold another view is deemed by many to be not "Christian", then it's no wonder that the pronouns are nearly always personalized when they should more properly be translated "it".

Quoting now:

The Holy Spirit is spoken of in many ways that demonstrate that it is not a divine person. For example, it is referred to as a gift (Acts 10:45; 1 Timothy 4:14). We are told that the Holy Spirit can be quenched (1 Thessalonians 5:19), that it can be poured out (Acts 2:17, 33), and that we are baptized with it (Matthew 3:11).

People can drink of it (John 7:37-39), partake of it (Hebrews 6:4), and be filled with it (Acts 2:4; Ephesians 5:18). The Holy Spirit also renews us (Titus 3:5) and must be stirred up within us (2 Timothy 1:6). These impersonal characteristics are certainly not attributes of a person.

It is also called “the Holy Spirit of promise,” “the guarantee of our inheritance” and “the spirit of wisdom and revelation . . .” (Ephesians 1:13-14, 17).

This Spirit is not only the Spirit of God the Father, for the Bible also calls it the “Spirit of Christ” (Romans 8:9; Philippians 1:19). By either name, it is the same Spirit, as there is only one Spirit (1 Corinthians 12:13; Ephesians 4:4). The Father imparts the same Spirit to true Christians through Christ (John 14:26; 15:26; Titus 3:5-6), leading and enabling them to be His children and “partakers of the divine nature” (Romans 8:14; 2 Peter 1:4).

In contrast to God the Father and Jesus Christ, who are consistently compared to human beings in Their form and shape, the Holy Spirit is consistently represented, by various symbols and manifestations, in a completely different manner—such as wind (Acts 2:2), fire (verse 3), water (John 4:14; 7:37-39), oil (Psalm 45:7; compare Acts 10:38; Matthew 25:1-10), a dove (Matthew 3:16) and an “earnest,” or down payment, on eternal life (2 Corinthians 1:22; 5:5; Ephesians 1:13-14, KJV). These depictions are difficult to understand, to say the least, if the Holy Spirit is a person.

In Matthew 1:20 we find further evidence that the Holy Spirit is not a distinct entity, but God’s divine power. Here we read that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit. However, Jesus continually prayed to and addressed God the Father as His Father and not the Holy Spirit (Matthew 10:32-33; 11:25-27; 12:50). He never represented the Holy Spirit as His Father. Clearly, the Holy Spirit was the agency or power through which the Father begot Jesus as His Son.

[SoothingDave]

Re 30344

There is no valid reason to insist Latin is the language of the RCC unless you also acknowledge the RCC began with Constantine. Now, this I accept.

Did Constantine invent the Latin language? I don't understand why you insist on pinning the use of Latin to him. Latin was in use before Constantine and after him. He had nothing to do with it. Nothing.

Accept that.

SD

[DouglasKC]

Of course the holy spirit is God. One and the same. It's just not a seperate "person" as presented in the trinity theory.

How does the HS's "lack of personhood" manifest itself?

Not sure I understand your question, but refer to my previous answer to JohnnyM...

[DouglasKC]

How can a non-personal thing like an interaction be said to "know" anything?

Your missing what I'm saying. When I interact with you, is it me interacting? Of course it is. The Holy spirit is God interacting. It's still God, it's still holy, it's just not a seperate person in heaven.

[SoothingDave]

Re 30346

Are you under the impression that no one in the Christian West spoke Latin before Constantine? Maybe that's the source of your error. Reggie, Constantine did not invent the Latin language.

Are you under the impression that Latin was not the language of the Apostles? Maybe that's the source of your error. Dave, a part of the Christian Church became the RCC with the advent of Constantine.

That is your fantasy. This hasn't been proven and even if it were true, has no bearing on this conversation. Constantine didn't invent Latin. It was in use before him in the Church that he "legalized."

As to your question (see how I answer them), I am not aware that any of the Apostles spoke Latin. I am also not aware that any of them did not. There is no Biblical proof either way.

You seem to be under the impression that the Latin Mass, which most people including the Priest, don't understand, is the correct Mass. Once again you concentrate on form, not function.

Oh please tell me which Mass is the "correct" one, oh wise master. I recognize that the use of the vernacular is prone to experimentation and ad libbing. The use of Latin is a way of preventing this, thereby preserving the Rite in its entirety. It also has benefits in making the Church universal. A Latin Mass in Japan is as good as one in Brazil. Latin is the catholic language of the Catholic Church.

And your snide comment that neither the priest or laity understand the Mass is perhaps colored too much by your own experience. It is an insult to the vast majority of Catholics who care enough to learn how to participate in the liturgy.

SD

[DouglasKC]

God is all Spiritual?? So Jesus was all spiritual??? No of course not. Jesus was physical while here on earth. He's spiritual now.
So Jesus doesn't have a physical presence anymore? He doesn't have a glorified Body? He is just a spirit now?

What's your definition of glorified body? I think it's apparent that since he returned to God in heaven that his interaction with us is on the spiritual plane.

[Joyful Wisdom]

This is the best I can do.

I think you did a very good job. I think my confusion comes from differences in the use of words. Or maybe my confusion comes from confusing differnt concepts on my part.

On the same subject if you have a second: If OSAS, how can your faith be tempted. Again I may be confusing concepts but I was under the impression and have heard many IFBBs talk about their faith being challenged. IF OSAS, then there is no real challenge to the faith only if you are not really OSAS.

[SoothingDave]

Re 30352

And I would like to ask you the same question...when you are saying it's not Christianty, are you saying that my repentence, belief, baptism and gift of the holy spirit are invalid? That I'm not really on the road to salvation? That despite following every biblical injunction on how to believe and how to express my faith that it's all invalid I'm not a Christian, because I don't happen to agree with a doctrine that was developed more than 2 centuries after the death of Christ?

I know you didn't ask me, but here goes. From what I have heard it would seem that your repentence and baptism are valid. You are outside of the bounds of orthodox Christianity, but you already knew that. I would say that you are attempting by your best lights to discern Truth and follow Jesus.

You are also demonstrating the folly (IMHO) of relying only upon oneself to judge the mysteries to be found in Revelation.

SD

[JohnnyM]

So let me get this straight. I'm trying to understand your thought process. You say that Spirit of God and God are different, but that the Spirit is not a separate entity. Your main justification for the Spirit not being a "person" is that He is not in Heaven. So then was Jesus not a person when He was on the earth. It seems to me that you are rejecting the Trinity based soley on your aversion to Catholicism. Since it is a supposed "Catholic" doctrine, then somehow it must be wrong. I am not a Catholic, but this doctrine is Biblically supported. You also mentioned convention of writing. So are you saying Jesus did not refer to the Holy Spirit as a He, that it was just a translational flaw as defined by your church?

John 15:16-18
16 And I will pray the Father, and he will give you another Counselor, to be with you for ever,
17 even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him; you know him, for he dwells with you, and will be in you.

Also, on the other point, was His resurrected body Spiritual???

JM

[SoothingDave]

What's your definition of glorified body? I think it's apparent that since he returned to God in heaven that his interaction with us is on the spiritual plane.

You said that Jesus was "physical" while He was on earth. From this I was wondering if you meant that He had no body now. I read "physical" to mean "having a body." If this is not what you meant, I apologize. It is generally understood that Jesus was Resurrected into a glorified, or perfect body. Much like we will some day also be resurrected into an incorruptible body.

(We also believe that Jesus is physically present in the Eucharist, that we can touch, taste, smell, etc. Him in the Bread and Wine, but that's a different subject.)

SD

[Mojo-jo-jo]

Will a homosexual burn more or less in hell for being chaste?

I know you very well know the answer to this question, but the NEED to ask it; even sarcastically, demonstrates how the new moral relativist psychology has entered into the church. Its offending to say homosexuality is wrong, its offending to say sin is wrong. Its not PC, its not comfy feely, its hurts our "self esteem", how can it be wrong when it might seem right to someone else. To reason away homosexuality is to reason away sin. And thats not shocking, our fleshly nature forces us to reason away sin, and the society in which we live can reason away just about anything...including murder. Thank God there is a Savior. Sin is sin, in thought and in action.

[Invincibly Ignorant]

So Jesus doesn't have a physical presence anymore? He doesn't have a glorified Body? He is just a spirit now?

Do all spirits eat broiled fish?

[SoothingDave]

Re 30355

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, 141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered." 142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved. 2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition. 2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

Which is shorthand for "make what you will of it and if it sounds accusatory, we'll duck it." Let's look at what it does say. It says that homosexuality is a disorder which leads to sin. The Bible does not say it leads to sin, it says that it is sin. And rather than disuading people from being homosexual, your doctrine persuades them to be chaste rather than sinless? Will a homosexual burn more or less in hell for being chaste?

Havoc begins his collossal misunderstanding of the idea of the difference between proclivities and actions. Let's watch.

I find, of all the things Havoc misreads here, the most interesting is his insistence that chastity is some type of sin, for which those with homosexual tendencies will die for anyway.

SD

[SoothingDave]

Do all spirits eat broiled fish?

Just on Friday. :-)

SD