Posted on 05/02/2008 2:09:51 PM PDT by Augustinian monk
Why Evangelicals are Returning to Rome
The Abandonment of Sola Scriptura as a Formal Principle
By Bob DeWaay
The February 2008 edition of Christianity Today ran a cover story about evangelicals looking to the ancient Roman Catholic Church in order to find beliefs and practices.1 What was shocking about the article was that both the author of the article and the senior managing editor of CT claim that this trip back to Rome is a good thing. Says Mark Galli the editor, “While the ancient church has captivated the evangelical imagination for some time, it hasn’t been until recently that it’s become an accepted fixture of the evangelical landscape. And this is for the good.”2 Chris Armstrong, the author of the article who promotes the trip back to the ancient church, claims that because the movement is led by such persons as “Dallas Willard, Richard Foster, and living and practicing monks and nuns,” that therefore, “they are receiving good guidance on this road from wise teachers.” This he claims shows that, “Christ is guiding the process.”3
Apparently, contemporary evangelicals have forgotten that sola scriptura (scripture alone) was the formal principle of the Reformation. Teachings and practices that could not be justified from Scripture were rejected on that principle. To endorse a trip back to these practices of ancient Roman Catholicism is to reject the principle of sola scriptura being the normative authority for the beliefs and practices of the church. In this article I will explore how modern evangelicalism has compromised the principle of sola scriptura and thus paved smoothly the road back to Rome.
New “Reformations” Compromise Sola Scriptura
Today at least three large movements within Protestantism claim to be new “reformations.” If we examine them closely we will find evidence that sola scriptura has been abandoned as a governing principle—if not formally, at least in practice. To have a new reformation requires the repudiation of the old Reformation. That in turn requires the repudiation of the formal principle of the Reformation. That’s where we’ll begin.
Robert Schuller and Rick Warren In 1982, Robert Schuller issued a call for a new Reformation with the publication of his book, Self Esteem: The New Reformation.4 Schuller issued this fervent call: “Without a new theological reformation, the Christian church as the authentic body of Christ may not survive.”5 He was apparently aware that his reformation was of a different type than the original: “Where the sixteenth-century Reformation returned our focus to sacred Scriptures as the only infallible rule for faith and practice, the new reformation will return our focus to the sacred right of every person to self-esteem! The fact is, the church will never succeed until it satisfies the human being’s hunger for self-value.”6 The problem is that Schuller based much of his self-esteem teaching on psychological theory and did not provide a rigorous Biblical defense of the idea. Thus his reformation was a de facto denial of the Reformation principle of Scripture alone.
For example, Schuller criticized the Reformation for a faulty doctrine of sin: “Reformation theology failed to make clear that the core of sin is a lack of self-esteem.”7 But Schuller does not discuss the many verses in the Bible that define sin. For example: “Everyone who practices sin also practices lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness” (1John 3:4). It is not hard to see that Schuller’s reformation constituted the abandonment of sola scriptura as a formal principle.8
In one sense, since Schuller’s call for a reformation based on self-esteem was made 26 years ago, one could argue that it never happened. Of course the idea of self-esteem is still around and taught by many evangelicals, but it never became the one key idea of the church. In another sense, however, Schuller’s reformation was broadened and transferred to others. In 2005 Schuller claimed the following as noted alumni of his institute: Bill Hybels, John Maxwell, Bishop Charles Blake, Rick Warren, Walt Kallestad, and Kirbyjon Caldwell. Bill Hybels himself credited Robert Schuller as a key person who influenced his ideas.9 Though Rick Warren disputes Schuller’s influence on his theology, he has carried forward Schuller’s idea of creating a church that meets people’s felt needs and thus attracts them.
But what interests us here is that Warren is now proposing yet another reformation:
And we've actually created what we call clinic-in-a-box, business-in-a-box, church-in-a-box, and we are using normal people, volunteers. When Jesus sent the disciples – this will be my last point – when Jesus sent the disciples into a village he said, “Find the man of peace.” And he said, “When you find the man of peace you start working with that person, and if they respond to you, you work with them. If they don't, you dust the dust off your shoes; you go to the next village.” Who's the man of peace in any village – or it might be a woman of peace – who has the most respect, they're open and they're influential? They don't have to be a Christian. In fact, they could be a Muslim, but they're open and they're influential and you work with them to attack the five giants. And that's going to bring the second Reformation.10
The problem is that solving the world’s five greatest problems as Warren defines them11 using anyone willing to help regardless of religion, cannot be justified on Biblical grounds. If sola scriptura were the formal principle in Warren’s theology, then he would provide vigorous, Biblical analysis using sound exegesis to ground his reformation on the authority of Scripture. But his teachings and public statements are not characterized by sound Biblical exegesis.
As I documented in my book on the Purpose Driven Movement, Warren’s reformation compromises sola scriptura in many significant ways.12These include the use of loose paraphrases that go so far as to change the meaning of various passages, the integration of unbiblical, human wisdom, serious misinterpretation of Scripture, and an unbiblical philosophy of ministry. Warren has an orthodox statement about the authority of Scripture on his church Web site. In fact, most evangelicals other than those who convert to Roman Catholicism do not overtly reject Scripture alone. But is it practiced?13
There is reason to believe that Warren’s reformation is the continuation of Schuller’s in a modified form. Warren has made finding one’s purpose the lynchpin of his teachings and practices. Finding purpose may not be identical to finding self esteem, but the idea is at least a first cousin. Also, both concepts derive their power from outside Scripture.
C. Peter Wagner
Another proposed reformation of the church is C. Peter Wagner’s New Apostolic Reformation. As I argued in a recent CIC article,14 Wagner sees the presence of apostles who speak authoritatively for God as the key to the church fulfilling her role in the world. He even speaks approvingly of the “apostles” of the Roman Catholic Church. Wagner and the thousands of apostles and prophets in his movement have shown as little regard for sola scriptura as any non Roman Catholic Christian group apart from the Quakers. So their reformation is a de facto repudiation of the Reformation. Their writings and messages show little or no concern for sound, systematic Biblical exegesis. If they were to adopt sola scriptura as a formal principle and rigorously use it to judge their own teachings and practices, their movement would immediately come to an end.
The Emergent Church
The third (if we count Warren’s reformation as a current replacement for Schuller’s) proposed reformation is that of the Emergent Church. In their case sola scriptura dies a thousand deaths. As we saw in the previous issue of CIC, Rob Bell denies it using the same arguments that Roman Catholics have used. The Emergent Church and its postmodern theology is noteworthy for being a non-Catholic version of Christianity that forthrightly assaults the type of use of the Bible that characterizes those who hold sola scriptura as the formal principle of their theology. The Emergent Church adherents reject systematic theology, and thus make using the principle impossible. For example, defending the doctrine of the Trinity using Scripture requires being systematic. I have read many Emergent/postmodern books as I write a new book, and each of them attacks systematic theology in some way.
The Emergent Reformation rests on the denial of the validity of foundationalism. Gone are the days when Christians debated the relative merits of evidential and presuppositional apologetics—debates based on the need for a foundation for one’s theology. Either one started with evidence for the authority of Scripture and then used the Bible as the foundation of one’s theology; or one presupposed the Bible as the inerrant foundation. But today both approaches are mocked for their supposed naïveté. To think that one can know what the Bible means in a non-relativistic way is considered a throwback to now dead “modernity.” The Emergent mantra concerning the Bible is “we cannot know, we cannot know, we cannot know.” Furthermore, in their thinking, it is a sign of arrogance to claim to know. For the postmodern theologian, sola scriptura is as dead and buried as a fossilized relic of bygone days.
So the Protestant (if the term even means anything today) world is characterized by reformations that have either rejected or compromised sola scriptura as the formal principle for their theology. No wonder few voices of concern are raised at Christianity Today’s proposed trip back to Rome to find beliefs and practices. Once sola scriptura has been rejected, there remain few reasons not to go back to Rome. If religious traditions can be considered normative, then why not embrace those with the longest history?
Dallas Willard Leads Us Back to Rome
The cover of the CT article reads, “Lost Secrets of the Ancient Church.” It shows a person with a shovel digging up a Catholic icon. What are these secrets? Besides icons, lectio divina and monasticism are mentioned. Dallas Willard, who is mentioned as a reliable guide for this process, has long directed Christians to monastic practices that he himself admits are not taught in the Bible.15 Willard pioneered the rejection of sola scriptura in practice on the grounds that churches following it are failures. He writes, “All pleasing and doctrinally sound schemes of Christian education, church growth, and spiritual renewal came around at last to this disappointing result. But whose fault was this failure?”16 The “failure,” according to Willard is that, “. . . the gospel preached and the instruction and example given these faithful ones simply do not do justice to the nature of human personality, as embodied, incarnate.”17 So what does this mean? It means that we have failed because our gospel had too little to do with our bodies.
The remedy for “failure” says Willard is to find practices in church history that are proven to work. But are these practices taught in the Bible? Willard admits that they are not by using an argument from silence, based on the phrase “exercise unto godliness” in 1Timothy 4:7. Here is Willard’s interpretation:
“Or [the possibility the phrase was imprecise] does it indicate a precise course of action he [Paul] understood in definite terms, carefully followed himself, and called others to share? Of course it was the latter. So obviously so, for him and the readers of his own day, that he would feel no need to write a book on the disciplines of the spiritual life that explained systematically what he had in mind.”18
But what does this do to sola scriptura? It negates it. In Willard’s theology, the Holy Spirit, who inspired the Biblical writers, forgot to inspire them to write about spiritual disciplines that all Christians need. If this is the case, then we need spiritual practices that were never prescribed in the Bible to obtain godliness.
Having determined the insufficiency of Scripture, Willard looks to human potential through tapping into spiritual powers: “It is the amazing extent of our ability to utilize power outside ourselves that we must consider when we ask what the human being is. The limits of our power to transcend ourselves utilizing powers not located in us—including of course, the spiritual—are yet to be fully known.”19 So evidently our spirituality is to be discovered by various means that are not revealed by God in the Bible.
If the Bible is insufficient in regard to the spiritual practices that we need in order to become sanctified, where do we find them? Here is Willard’s solution: “Practicing a range of activities that have proven track records across the centuries will keep us from erring.”20 This, of course leads us back to Rome. Catholic mystics spent centuries experimenting with spiritual practices without regard to the Biblical justification for such practices. If evangelicals are going to join them in rejecting Scripture alone, AGAIN they might as well not reinvent the wheel—go to the masters of mystical asceticism.
Willard admires the monastics and suggests that solitude is one of the most important disciplines. He says, “This factual priority of solitude is, I believe, a sound element in monastic asceticism. Locked into interaction with the human beings that make up our fallen world, it is all but impossible to grow in grace as one should.”21 If it is impossible to grow in grace without solitude, why are we not informed of this fact by the Biblical writers? In Willard’s mind sola scriptura is a false idea, so therefore God failed to reveal to us the most important way to grow in grace! Willard says that solitude is most important even while admitting that it is dangerous:
But solitude, like all the disciplines of the spirit, carries its risks. In solitude, we confront our own soul with its obscure forces and conflicts that escape our attention when we are interacting with others. Thus, [quoting Louis Bouyer] “Solitude is a terrible trial, for it serves to crack open and bust apart the shell of our superficial securities. It opens out to us the unknown abyss that we all carry within us . . . and discloses the fact that these abysses are haunted.”22
This danger was shown by the early desert fathers, some of whom came under demonic torment in their solitude. Before following people whose practices are dangerous and not prescribed in the Bible, wouldn’t we be better off sticking to the safe ground of revealed truth?
Spirituality for the Unconverted
The fact is that the various ancient practices of the Roman Catholic Church were and are not unique to Christianity. The meditative techniques that make people feel closer to God work for those who do not even know God. Thomas Merton (who is recommended by Dallas Willard) went to the East to find spiritual practices. They work just as well for those who do not know Christ, probably better. Many ancient Roman Catholic practices were invented at times when many illiterate pagans were ushered into the church, sometimes at the point of a sword. Those pagans were not exactly the type to search the Scriptures daily in order to find the things of God.
But why are literate American Christians running away from sola scriptura at a time when searching the Scriptures (especially using computer technology) has never been easier? On this point I am offering my opinion, but there is good evidence for it. I believe that the lack of gospel preaching has allowed churches to fill up with the unregenerate. The unregenerate are not like “newborn babes who long for the pure milk of the word” (1Peter 2:2). Those who have never received saving grace cannot grow by the means of grace. Those who are unconverted have not drawn near to God through the blood of Christ. But with mysticism, it is possible to feel near to God when one is far from Him. Furthermore, the unconverted have no means of sanctification because they do not have the imputed righteousness of Christ as their starting point and eternal standing. So they end up looking for man-made processes to engineer change through human works because they have nothing else.
Those who feel empty because of the “pragmatic promises of the church-growth movement” as the CT article calls them, may need something far more fundamental than ancient, Catholic, ascetic practices. They may very well need to repent and believe the gospel. Those who are born of the Spirit will find that this passage is true: “His divine power has granted to us everything pertaining to life and godliness, through the true knowledge of Him who called us by His own glory and excellence” (2Peter 1:3).
Conclusion
Perhaps the best antidote to rejecting sola scriptura and going back to Rome would be a careful study of the Book of Hebrews. It describes a situation that is analogous to that which evangelicals face today. The Hebrew Christians were considering going back to temple Judaism. Their reasons can be discerned by the admonitions and warnings in Hebrews. The key problem for them was the tangibility of the temple system, and the invisibility of the Christian faith. Just about everything that was offered to them by Christianity was invisible: the High Priest in heaven, the tabernacle in heaven, the once for all shed blood, and the throne of grace. At the end of Hebrews, the author of Hebrews points out that they have come to something better than mount Sinai: “But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to myriads of angels, to the general assembly and church of the first-born who are enrolled in heaven, and to God, the Judge of all, and to the spirits of righteous men made perfect, and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood, which speaks better than the blood of Abel” (Hebrews 12:22-24). All of these things are invisible.
But the life of faith does not require tangible visibility: “Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen” (Hebrews 11:1). The Roman Catholic Church has tangibility that is unmatched by the evangelical faith, just as temple Judaism had. Why have faith in the once-for-all shed blood of Christ that is unseen when you can have real blood (that of the animals for temple Judaism and the Eucharistic Christ of Catholicism)? Why have the scriptures of the Biblical apostles and prophets who are now in heaven when you can have a real, live apostle and his teaching Magisterium who can continue to speak for God? The similarities to the situation described in Hebrews are striking. Why have only the Scriptures and the other means of grace when the Roman Church has everything from icons to relics to cathedrals to holy water and so many other tangible religious articles and experiences?
I urge my fellow evangelicals to seriously consider the consequences of rejecting sola scriptura as the formal principle of our theology. If my Hebrews analogy is correct, such a rejection is tantamount to apostasy.
Issue 105 - March / April 2008
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
End Notes
Chris Armstong, “The Future lies in the Past” in Christianity Today, February 2008. I wrote a critique of Armstrong’s article here: http://www.christianworldviewnetwork.com/article.php/3174/Bob_DeWaay Mark Galli, “Ancient-Future People” in Christianity Today February 2008, 7. Armstrong, 24. Robert H. Schuller, Self Esteem The New Reformation, (Waco: Word, 1982). Ibid. 25. Ibid. 38. Ibid. 98. I wrote an article some years ago about Schuller’s self-esteem reformation: Robert Schuller, Your Church as a Fantastic Future, (Ventura: Regal Books, 1986) On pages 227, 228 Hybels testifies of Schuller’s influence. http://pewforum.org/events/index.php?EventID=80 page 16. [Accessed 8/27/2005] The five are spiritual darkness, lack of servant leaders, poverty, disease, and ignorance. Bob DeWaay, Redefining Christianity—Understanding the Purpose Driven Movement, (21st Century Press: Springfield, MO, 2006). My claim is that sola scriptura no longer serves as the formal principle of their theology in practice. This is seen whenever important religious claims (such as the need for a reformation) are not accompanied by rigorous, systematic, Biblical exegesis on the topic at hand. I say that because by implication, Scripture alone means that beliefs and practices are normative if—and only if—they can be shown to be Biblical. Binding and loosing have to be in accordance with the teachings of Christ and His apostles. Warren’s practice belies his statement of faith.
http://cicministry.org/commentary/issue103.htm I critique Dallas Willard’s theology as taught in his popular book The Spirit of the Disciplines in CIC Issue 91: http://cicministry.org/commentary/issue91.htm Dallas Willard, The Spirit of the Disciplines, Understanding How God Changes Lives, (HarperCollins: New York, 1991). 18. Ibid. emphasis his. Ibid. 95. Ibid. 62. Ibid. 158. Ibid. 162. Ibid. 161.
Douay Bible
The original Douay Version, which is the foundation on which nearly all English Catholic versions are still based, owed its existence to the religious controversies of the sixteenth century. Many Protestant versions of the Scriptures had been issued and were used largely by the Reformers for polemical purposes. The renderings of some of the texts showed evident signs of controversial bias, and it became of the first importance for the English Catholics of the day to be furnished with a translation of their own, on the accuracy of which they could depend and to which they could appeal in the course of argument.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05140a.htm
The Church has always proclaimed the Gospel of Jesus Christ and rejected all heresies. Hardly ignorance and darkness. The Mass readings are from the entire Bible - normally the OT, the Epistles, and the Gospels at every Mass. I get more Scripture at Mass than I have ever seen at a Pentecostal or Baptist service.
We were talking about Bibles.
The people are suppose to check to see if what they are being told is correct (Acts 17:11).
[ ***First, there was always a great demand for them as seen by the popularity of the Wyclif translation. Second, it was the printing press (the first book ever printed was a Bible) that forced the Roman Catholics to adjust its tactics since they couldn’t control the output anymore.*** ]
How many Wyclif translations were ever hand written? Hint: not many.
Actually many copies were made and the Lollards carried them and became a large threat to the Religous structure.
Hence, the typical Roman Catholic recourse to persecution when they control the State apparatus.
Gutenberg printed his Bibles with full and complete backing of the Church. I know that real history is hard to accept when it contradicts one’s bigotry.
Did I say that Gutenberg didn't print with offical approval?
First, why should anyone have to print with anyone's approval-a fact that doesn't seem to bother you and your fellow Roman Catholics, all who claim to love American freedoms, freedoms that came from the Protestant Bible, not any Roman Catholic one.
Second, the only bigotry that is made clear is your obvious inability to read what is actually written and to twist it to make it fit your own preconceived views of truth.
Remove the thin veneer of American values from you and most of the other Roman Catholics on these threads, and none of you would have any problem obeying Roman Catholics decrees attacking those same freedoms and using any means to do so.
The Roman Catholic Church doesn't teach the Gospel of Jesus Christ, it teaches a false gospel of faith plus works.
That is why Bibles are necessary, so people are damned to hell by the Roman Catholic false teaching.
The average person in England didn't want to read the Koran, they wanted to read the Bible, that is why supply could not keep up with demand.
Contrariwise, the masses could have learned Latin if the upper classes hadn’t wanted to keep it as their special preserve of the cultured, and then abandoned it because of its association with the Holy See. Catholic schools taught the thoroughly-middle-class Shakespeare his Latin, after all.
Latin was a dead language, English a live one and that is the language that people wanted their Bible in.
Just like the German people got a Bible in their language, the French in theirs and the Spainish theirs.
Ofcourse, the major problem the Roman Catholic Church had was keeping the right Bible out of the people's hands, the Bibles from the Received Texts that sparked the Reformation.
The Bible says there is but one Mediator. I'm guessing that would be Jesus Christ, right? (And I got that before 7:30 in the AM! I am sharp today!)
Did you note Kolo's response to my rant? Not only was it extremely gratifying to me (which is unimportant) but I think it conveyed how deeply this line of thought goes in our shared tradition and how "getting" it is a critical part of "Getting" what we proclaim and how we 'think' (if you'll pardon the self-flattery).
As I thought of how to respond to you, I thought that there could be an interesting category of "'apostolic' theological 'worm-holes'". "Eternity" would be one and "in" would be another.
Yes, there is one and only one mediator, and — from the first creative Word of the Father's through until the end when He hands everything to the Father — what He does is mediate between God and Creation and make reconciliation. That the Father's intention that there be light comes to pass in creation is through His mediatory work. And that at the end God will be all and in all is through His mediatory work.
And in these latter days, that some of us hand our sinful selves to Him and that He accepts and amends them is that aspect of His mediation which touches us most nearly in time and in our hearts.
But, I think we would say, we are "in" Christ (and He in us.) And so we share or participate in His mediatory work.
Let me lower my head and take another run at it, this time using the "eternity" wormhole. As I said earlier, the Son throughout time is mediating. When we close our prayers with "through IHS XP our Lord," we are "drawing on" that mediating work. Another way of saying that is we are "applying" not only the 3 hours on Calvary, but everything about the Son to our prayer so that our prayer may be, as we might say, conveyed to God.
We do this in obedience, sure, but we do this almost "by nature" -- by our new nature, that is. We are Baptized into Christ, and, at least for those of us who would claim some kind of "born again" experience, that incorporation has reached our consciousness, our hearts and wills, at least partially and fleetingly. So we, sometimes at least, will and assent to that incorporation.
In this "schema", my big line, Col 1:24, is able to mean (almost) what it seems to say in the simplest sense. Leaving aside the "Free will" or resistability of Grace" questions (which we can do because however they come out, certainly the "saved" are given grace willingly to assent to their salvation, right?), what can figuratively be said to be "lacking" in the sufferings of Christ as far as each one of us is concerned, is OUR participation. This would be like saying, that only thing left to do with this morsel is eat it. All has been given, now all that's left is for us to receive it. (And even that is given, just as a good dancing partner can follow her partner's lead best when she stops trying to.)
All this, I think, is packed into "in". But wait, there's more:
I just can't imagine sharing in something only God can do.I think imagining doing it is not so hard. Imagining how it could be ... that's a different thing. We do not know how to pray as we ought, so the Holy Spirit intercedes for us with sighs too deep for words. And this promise is part of Paul's advancing on a broad argumentative front to show in how many ways we cannot be separated from the Love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord. Why, His Spirit is IN us! Even US! Our weakness and incapacity against internal and external enemies is not just compensated but taken up and used as one of the means God draws us ever more deeply into His Son.
So it is not by my capacity or sanctity (since I have none of either but what I am given at each instant) that enables me to make up what is lacking or to unite my tears to Christ's Blood. It is His grace which not only sweeps away all that filthy barrier I built up between Him and me, but fills me with new life, with HIS life, which declares me a son, and if a son, then an heir, and which then grants substantial tokens of the full inheritance which is promised to the sons.
Between the person and God! Yes, even you, even THAT! I don't know if you have little ones, but if you do, you know you are their first evangelist and evangelism is a work of mediation. NOt a complete work, to be sure.
, then Mary would be the greatest, thus having something I won't have.
Distinguo: She will have nothing that is denied to the other saints,. She has it in a greater degree, but it's the same stuff. A Jeroboam and a thimble both can hold the same wine.
But I thought that much/most of Mary's "greatness" is attributed to her free will, no interference from God,
HECK no! Theologically impossible even before we get to the all-sufficient sacrifice! Everything Joe Namath or John Elway have is from God and we rejoice in His wonderful work in them, as touching football. And we might send our thuggish sons to their football camp to learn what they could teach. But if anyone thinks that muscles the size of anchor hawsers and reflexes and judgment and all that are not gifts, he's a dunce. (Oops, okay, that wasn't parliament'ry, I confess it.)
Mutatis mutandis with our Lady: It is as the declaration says, by "a singular grace of God" (or words to that effect), that she is as she is, and not by her work. Allow me to repeat: Heck no. (This is Dawg's new cleaned up language. In previous versions published in the European markets, the word Heck was replaced with *@#$(**#$!)
The Bible actually surprises me a little in how NOT like this the relationship between Jesus and Mary was described. That's why it is extra-hard for me to see it your way.
We're always going to come up against the Bible's not being a comprehensive work even of some critical points (in our humble opinion).
Since the Bible is silent on it, I'm not sure that we can or should expect anything in particular. Mary appears to behave as any honorable mother who truly loved her son would.
See I think we're allowed to use our heads (once and as long as we offer them to God, minute by minute.) A lady touches the hem of IHS garment (and that lady was probably NOT a sophisticated Calvinist theologian and no doubt her Christology was severely lacking) and is healed. Can we not reasonably think that His lips at her teats would be doing more than receiving?
The whole "elevation" section. (Thank you for your kind words about my chaplaincy. Sometimes I wonder why I ever tried any other kind of ministry. It was da BOMB!)
Elevation is funny. I have had some funny eperiences. George Allen, the politician, is form my part of VA and he rides in our $th of July Parade (which wins the funkiest parade of all time award) When he Congressional seat was gerrymandered out of existence (see previous posts for "being" and "existence") I yelled (we'd met a few times and corresponded) to Him, "Run for Governor!" and he looked from his horse and said, "I will." There had been no announcement at that time.
Paul Harris, who was our State Delegate (in George's former seat) until Dubya hired him for some job in the executive machine, know each other a little and we engaged in a ridiculous finger-pointing "You da man!" pantomime exchange during one of the parades, both grinning like idiots. His successor, Rob Bell, and I cracked jokes whenever we were in court together, he as attorney and I as bailiff. All this commerce with the "powerful and famous" is fun, but it's a bagatelle. Those guys are sure a whole lot better at getting elected than I would ever be, and I sort of kind of abase myself to them, sort of kind of, because they "represent(ed)" me. But I know I'm a better thinker than George, and Paul and Rob couldn't shear a sheep to save their lives (and would probably lose the poor sheep's life as well as their own) and I have other gifts they don't have.
So I kind of elevate them, and kind of think of them as, well, one of us. In their order, they are my superior. In mine they are my inferior. As children of God, we are brothers and only envy worries too much about who is 'Above" whom.
Problems always come up when free will is linked into the discussion.
That there is a HUGE 10-4!
FK, MD spoke of the way we, meaning the Latins and the Orthodox, think about theology and theosis. It can never be said enough that if you observe how and what we pray you will see and understand, if not accept, what we believe. Here is a theotokion we Orthodox chant at every Divine Liturgy just after the Consecration of the Bread and Wine into the Body and Blood of Christ:
“It is truly meet to bless thee, O Theotokos,
ever blessed, and most pure, and the Mother of our God.
More honorable than the cherubim,
and beyond compare more glorious than the seraphim.
Without corruption thou gavest birth to God the Word.
True Theotokos, we magnify thee.”
Having read that, FK, understand that we Orthodox and Latins see her womb as the throne of the universal, beginningless, Creator of all Creation, the Pantokrator and that her outspread arms, as depicted in so many of our icons, enfold all of us as truly her children. We love our mother, FK and in the words of a marvelous prayer, we are wont to flee to her as “poor banished children of Eve.”
I thank you for this post, Kolo.
And MD, thanks for yours which precedes Kolo’s.
You two have made my forays into the religion forum a blessing and a true learning center.
I admit that I pass by most of the posts on the forum, but I always stop to read what Kolo and MD have to say.
And FK, you have been a great example of Christian good will in your exchange with Catholic FReepers. It helps to soften some of the more harsh rhetoric aimed at us. Thank you.
Blessed be the name of Jesus.
ROE
Close.
It was printed to provide an accurate alternative to all the garbage translations floating around at the time....Geneva's just one of them.
Not possible, and logically absurd.
Must be a typo in there somewhere. Did you mean to say "so many..."
It's still a load of hooey, but at least it should have its own internal logic.
Reading minds of other posters is a form of "making it personal."
Well, the English tyranny had been Protestant for about 100 years at the time! ;-)
Do you have numbers on any of this?
***Paper was made from linen rags and was expensive; it was a time- and labor-intensive process. And each individual folio (or quarto or whatever) had to be pressed separately for printing on a hand-operated press — twice, once for each side. The paper was so expensive that if a mistake was noticed, it was corrected by hand and the page was still used. Books were assembled individually, by hand***
There are still some that believe that the Bible Jesus used was the KJV in English. They have no understanding of history and culture and in their anti Catholic mindset, devolve to the point where they muster ‘proofs’ based upon the events of their current day culture.
***So religious tyranny and secular tyranny both attack freedom-what a shock!***
We are talking about God’s Truth here, not personal freedoms. Remember that Paul writes of himself as a slave to Christ.
***We were talking about Bibles.
The people are suppose to check to see if what they are being told is correct (Acts 17:11).***
No, you stated that the Church wanted control to keep the people in ignorance and darkness. The Church proclaims the Gospel of Jesus Christ in greater quantity and more frequently (a minimum of once per calendar day) than any Protestant church that I have ever observed.
Acts 17:11 - These Jews were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with all willingness and examined the scriptures daily to determine whether these things were so - refers to their reception of Paul and Silas and whether or not their preaching checked with the Old Testament. Remember that the NT was not yet written - presumably some early Pauline letters only - and therefore your conclusion is obviously wrong.
***Actually many copies were made***
How many? Estimated population of Italy, the British Isles,
France, Iberia, Germany and Scandinavia was 55 million in 1300. A few hundred were made. How did that help the 54.9 million illiterates?
***Did I say that Gutenberg didn’t print with offical approval?
First, why should anyone have to print with anyone’s approval-a fact that doesn’t seem to bother you and your fellow Roman Catholics, all who claim to love American freedoms, freedoms that came from the Protestant Bible, not any Roman Catholic one.***
You are the one claiming hat the Church wanted to keep everyone in ignorance and didn’t want people reading Bibles. Why would the Church push Gutenberg to publish Bibles if they didn’t want people to read them?
Why are you going on about freedoms? We want accuracy when it comes to the Word of God, not the freedom to publish any old crap that it occurs to one to publish. We have several editions such as the New Inclusive Translation which is the logical outcome of ‘freedom’.
***Second, the only bigotry that is made clear is your obvious inability to read what is actually written and to twist it to make it fit your own preconceived views of truth.***
2000 years of watching people try to put a new spin on the Good News of Jesus Christ all the time gives one a good perspective on things.
*** Remove the thin veneer of American values from you and most of the other Roman Catholics on these threads, and none of you would have any problem obeying Roman Catholics decrees attacking those same freedoms and using any means to do so.***
In other words, you claim that freedom entails the right to print lies and call them truth; to twist meanings and call them real and to make up theology as you go along.
***That is why Bibles are necessary, so people are damned to hell by the Roman Catholic false teaching.***
Your Bible damns people to hell? Wow. Do you worship it too?
***The Roman Catholic Church doesn’t teach the Gospel of Jesus Christ, it teaches a false gospel of faith plus works.***
The Church, created by Jesus Christ, and commissioned by the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, teaches us what Jesus wants us to know. Who created your church, when was it created, and what is its message?
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.