Posted on 07/15/2005 11:29:25 AM PDT by nypokerface
JACKSON, Miss. - A Christian adoption agency that receives money from Choose Life license plate fees said it does not place children with Roman Catholic couples because their religion conflicts with the agency's "Statement of Faith."
Bethany Christian Services stated the policy in a letter to a Jackson couple this month, and another Mississippi couple said they were rejected for the same reason last year.
"It has been our understanding that Catholicism does not agree with our Statement of Faith," Bethany director Karen Stewart wrote. "Our practice to not accept applications from Catholics was an effort to be good stewards of an adoptive applicant's time, money and emotional energy."
Sandy and Robert Steadman, who learned of Bethany's decision in a July 8 letter, said their priest told them the faith statement did not conflict with Catholic teaching.
Loria Williams of nearby Ridgeland said she and her husband, Wes, had a similar experience when they started to pursue an adoption in September 2004.
"I can't believe an agency that's nationwide would act like this," Loria Williams said. "There was an agency who was Christian based but wasn't willing to help people across the board."
The agency is based in Grand Rapids, Mich., and has offices in 30 states, including three in Mississippi. Its Web site does not refer to any specific branch of Christianity.
Stewart told the Jackson Clarion-Ledger that the board will review its policy, but she didn't specify which aspects will be addressed.
The Web site says all Bethany staff and adoptive applicants personally agree with the faith statement, which describes belief in the Christian Church and the Scripture.
"As the Savior, Jesus takes away the sins of the world," the statement says in part. "Jesus is the one in whom we are called to put our hope, our only hope for forgiveness of sin and for reconciliation with God and with one another."
Sandy Steadman said she was hurt and disappointed that Bethany received funds from the Choose Life car license plates. "I know of a lot of Catholics who get those tags," she said.
She added: "If it's OK to accept our money, it should be OK to open your home to us as a family."
Bethany is one of 24 adoption and pregnancy counseling centers in Mississippi that receives money from the sale of Choose Life tags, a special plate that motorists can obtain with an extra fee.
Of $244,000 generated by the sale of the tags in 2004, Bethany received $7,053, said Geraldine Gray, treasurer of Choose Life Mississippi, which distributes the money.
"It is troubling to me if they are discriminating based on only the Catholics," Gray said.
Certainly you are accurate when you say we see things differently. John 21 records Jesus providing Peter an opportunity to make up for denying Christ 3 times by affirming his love for him 3 times. His command to Peter is to feed his sheep and to follow Christ. But he is not singled out among all Apostles as the primary one. In that same chapter, John is referred to as the disciple Jesus loved - not Peter.
I agree Peter was a spokesperson at times in the NT and a great guy, despite his failings (as we all have).
I guess when you initially stated that others recognized the primacy of Peter, I thought you meant scripturally - as opposed to "church fathers" doing it. I was looking to you for a passage of scripture that clearly stated such a thing. What I see is God putting Peter in charge of the ministry to Jews and putting Paul in charge of ministry to gentiles. Neither in charge of the whole church universal.
Again, if this was true - if it was a crucial structure of the church - it would be very clear. In the absence of scripture, we have opinion. It is apparently an idea that surfaced that went in search of scripture to support it and found little. So we are back to the Church fathers.
I wish you the best. See you around the forum.
best, ampu
One last thought before I run back to work...
The church fathers referred to in your thread were born anywhere from 297 AD to 540 AD - long enough after Christ that while they wrote interesting things, they are not authoritatively on par with the plain word of God. They were not witnesses to what happened, but second or third hand information or tradition or popular belief at the time.
best, ampu
That was a very graceful way to finish the conversation, kudos to you.
I wrote "They believed that Peter had primacy above the other apostles."
You asked "Would you be so kind as to share a passage of scripture where others did just what you wrote? Thanks"
Certainly. I would look to the first half of the Acts of the Apostles, first of all. Who is the focus? It is on Peter primarily. Very rarely do we hear about another apostle's exploits aside from Peter in the first half of the Acts of the Apostles.
Second, Jesus considered Peter primary to the others. The Gospels clearly show how Peter was the apostles' spokesmen. Peter is the one who received the keys, no other apostles did. This was understood as Christ giving Peter some special power over and above the others. John 21: 15-19 clearly shows that Peter is given some power above and beyond the other disciples. Peter ALONE is told by Jesus to "feed my sheep". In Luke 22, right after Jesus chides the apostles in their dispute over greatness, Jesus tells Peter in verse 32 that Jesus has prayed for Peter ALONE and that he may guide the other apostles back to faith after the inevitable scattering during the Passion.
To ask where is Peter's primacy in the Gospels and the Acts is to miss a major point of the writings themselves. Jesus left a visible figure of unity to continue His work here on earth. Without this figure, there could not have been a unity of belief.
Regards
Campion,
Have you noticed that RaceBannon now refuses to answer my question regarding oral traditions? It is clear that this person is not open to truth, but has already made up his mind, and it cannot be Catholicism (or at least the strawman that he has composed)
When I hear a legitimate answer from RaceBannon or anyone else on why Protestants insist on the man-made tradition of doing away with a Biblical injunction (hold fast to oral traditions), then perhaps we can move on. However, this lack of an answer merely proves the bankrupt theology of Protestantism - one that puts man's ideas of God ahead of God's revelation of Whom God is.
Regards
A Christian is one who is baptized in the name of the Trinity - one who has "confessed with your lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved" (Romans 10:10) - is a baptismal formula. By being baptized, we become children of God, and called Christians, and have the potential to achieve the promise of eternal life. Our response to our baptismal promise - our lived life - will determine our final destination. Whether we are judged as wheat or weeds is based on God's judgment of our lived response to His call and our promise at Baptism.
Regards
20 On that day I will summon my servant Eliakim, son of Hilkiah;
21 I will clothe him with your robe, and gird him with your sash, and give over to him your authority. He shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah.
22 I will place the key of the House of David on his shoulder; when he opens, no one shall shut, when he shuts, no one shall open.
In this context, Peter was to be the Prime Minister, if you will, with the power over the Keys of the Kingdom Christ was establishing on earth--His Church. Since Jesus is the Son of David [and the Son of Man], this makes sense. The Lord was establishing authority for His Church with Peter as head since he had, with the Spirit, recognized Jesus as the Christ, the Son of the Living God.
Frank
I don't think I posted to you, but I enjoyed reading your post.
I don't think you pointed to a passage that shows Peter as having primacy above the other Apostles.
In Acts, the pattern of development of the book is set forth in Acts 1:8 ("But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.") The Book of Acts unfolds exactly according to this pattern. You write that Peter is the main character during the Jerusalem phase. I agree. But that, in context, doesn't say he was ranked above the other Apostles.
I would also observe that it isn't the first half of acts, but the first 6 chapters where Peter is Central. By chapter 7 you have the martyrdom of Stephen that introduces the Apostle Paul... and the expansion of the Gospel away from Jerusalem.
you also wrote..."The Gospels clearly show how Peter was the apostles' spokesmen. [no, I don't think the Gospels show that Peter was the Apostle's spokesman] Peter is the one who received the keys, no other apostles did [I know Catholics make the statement about the keys into something big because it backfills an idea, but in context, again, I don't believe it says what you are implying]. This was understood as Christ giving Peter some special power over and above the others [who understood it that way? I am thinking only Catholics wanting to show Peter as above the others go back and make into something else].
Peter ALONE is told by Jesus to "feed my sheep" [Peter was having a private conversation with the Savior, so the fact that it was Peter ALONE is not significant]. In Luke 22, right after Jesus chides the apostles in their dispute over greatness, Jesus tells Peter in verse 32 that Jesus has prayed for Peter ALONE and that he may guide the other apostles back to faith after the inevitable scattering during the Passion [actually, again, Jesus was speaking directly to Peter so the ALONE thing is insignificant, telling him what is to happen to him - and he doesn't say Peter will bring them back to faith, but, "...once you have turned back, you must strengthen your brothers.]
So while I appreciate your posting, there really isn't a passage we can point to that says Peter was recognized by the others as ranking higher.
best, ampu
You have had a series of good posts, which have been interesting.
I realize the C's position using Isaiah 22:22. I believe it is a wrong use for the following reasons:
> First, the passage was written about a real person, Eliakim - not a future person. God was raising up Eliakim to replace Shebna, who failed to trust God. Ultimately, Eliakim would fail (v 25) - again emphasizing only to trust in God - not men.
> Second, the passage is about the judgements on Jerusalem and is a warning not to put Eliakim in the Lord's place. They were not to trust in even a very reliable person such as Eliakim, instead of God Himself. > Finally, the context of Isaiah 22 is the judgement oracles against the nations, and severe warnings to Jerusalem. It is not about a future representative of the church. There is no context in Isaiah 22 in regards to Peter. He is not there.
best, ampu
Campion, have you noticed that there is not one piece of evidence of just what tradition that Timothy was supposed to have been following?
If you can prove to me first:
What tradition did Timothy followed that Paul said was ok
and
2.)That the Roman Catholic Church is following that same tradition without any variation at all.
THEN, I will say that tradition is ok.
Until then, you have no argument except to add to Scripture what is clearly not there.
That is why the RCC is NOT Biblical Christianity, you do not follow the Bible, you follow what ever you like when you like and often reverse yourself over the course of time.
LOL!
No, I dont believe what you post because it is totally against what the Bible teaches.
That is the problem, you don't believe what the Bible says, you add to it, you change the clear meaning of simple verses, you change the meaning of clear simple verses to fit what someone told you it says.
If you just read it, you will see: NOT ONCE ARE PEOPLE TOLD TO PRAY TO DEAD PEOPLE.
And Lazarus wasn't praying to anyone, he was face to face with Abraham with a chasm that separated them, and that is not prayer. That is talking to someone you can see across the chasm that separates you from them.
That is the crux of the problem, it does not matter what the Bible actually says to some people, all you do is go back to some book OTHER than the Bible, then you refuse to read the simple English it is translated into, and then you ignore the context, you ignore the meaning of words and verses, and you refuse to just do a simple sentence diagram to examine the meaing of what you are reading.
The problem is not with what I do or dont do, the problem is that people are refusing to believe what the Bible clearly says.
that is more correct than what I posted, thank you, but still, Mary lived in a tent for a while in Egypt and while she travelled to Jerusalem to be taxed, so, why dont Israelis recite the HAIL JAEL prayer?
Sorry, doesnt fit the Bible test. Mary is certainly blessed, but to pray to her or through her is blasphemy. She is a wicked sinner just like Jael and just like you and me. And, she needed a saviour just like you and me.
And the Bible says so.
There is no need to laugh, people just need to think it through.
If Timothy's traditions are ok, first show me what they were.
THEN, show me you are doing the same traditions, not the ones you make up over 2000 years.
Until you can prove to me you are doing the same traditions that Timothy did, then to claim that it is ok to follow tradition because Paul praised timothy for following some unknown tradition when you have absolutely no idea what Timothy's traditions are...where in the world does the Bible ever say THAT is okay?
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.