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.
Still relying on misunderstandings of Paul? Try the words of Jesus: Thou shalt love the Lord they God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets. Matt.22:37-40. Give up the pride, the hubris, the stiff neck and come back to Jesus.
Try reading the Bible and finding Jesus!
The Bible teaches against welfare and for capital punishement as stated clearly in both those verses I gave you.
Your posts would indicate that your knowledge of history is equivalent to your knowledge of Scripture. The Venerable Bede, Aldhelm and Aelfric (Old English)preceded Wyclif by many centuries. Orrm and Richard Rolle were two of the first to translate completely into Middle English.
None produced a complete Bible in English.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15367a.htm#english
So, you had better go and learn some history.
***The Roman Catholic Church preaches a false gospel of faith plus works and combines it with pagan traditions of Mary worship, rosary beads, thinking a piece of bread is God, Popery etc,*** ]
Boy, you seem to be really hung up on Rome. It is the Catholic Church (as opposed to an apostate one) to you and to the world since Jesus created it and the Holy Spirit commissioned it at Pentecost.
And the way you enter that church is by faith alone.
So, if you have another way to salvation, you belong to the apostate group.
We have the Gospel of Jesus given to us by Him and proclaimed by us for 2000 years. Catholics don’t worship Mary. The Rosary is a means to assist in prayer. I assume that your particular brand of theology allows prayer, right? The Eucharist, begun by Jesus who instructed us do this in memory of Him, is now declared false by pope ftD? Faith plus works is also false? Is James purged from your Bible? How about the Sermon on the Mount? Is that relevant or has that been snipped from your already abridged Bible? How many verses do you have left?
Oh stop your goofy word games.
Ofcourse you pray to Mary!
Yes, the rosary assists in prayer to Mary!
And the Lord's supper was never meant to be anymore than a simple remembrance (1Cor.11).
No one has the power to change a piece of bread into God.
James is not purged from my Bible, is Paul from yours?
James is speaking of being justified before men, Paul before God.
Two different aspects to justification noted in the dictionary meaning of the word.
***5 million people, 4.99 million illiterates and a couple of hundred copies created over 25 years. What was the effect on literacy? Almost nil. [ Actually, the thousands of Bibles that were created did a great deal to end illiteracy. ***]
Well, it didn’t help Protestant spelling very much. How great a deal did the couple of hundred copies created over 25 years make? Speak up now, don’t be shy.
There were thousands of copies made and when the printing press came hundreds of thousands and that is what broke the bondage of darkness of Roman ism that has spread over Western Europe.
***No thanks to the Roman Catholic Church who attempted to keep them in darkness and blindness.***]
The Church worked with Gutenberg to mass produce Bibles. Your mantra of darkness and blindness is seeming even more silly as time goes on.
The Church has never advocated giving Bibles to the common people and it was only with the rise of the Reformation Bibles that they felt compelled to make their own English translation.
[ ***The Roman Catholic Church had a control of Books just like it had a control of everything involved with the Government, since it was a branch of the Government. *** ]
Silly is as silly does. The Church was a branch of which Government? A one world government, or just selected countries?
And Rome didn't have a strong political influence in Western Europe before the Reformation?
Stop blowing smoke.
[ ***Freedom of speech is determined by the freedom to publish without restraints from any tyrannical organization. ***]
This is God’s truth. No wonder you guys vomit forth people that range from Rick Warren to John Calvin since you appear to be postulating that anyone can publish anything and claim its truth. Anyone can say anything and as long as they hang up a shingle and sell enough snake oil, they become the next Messiah until the church secretary tells TMZ about the menage a trois with the preacher, her and a male prostitute.
Thats right, and you freedom haters can do nothing but vomit out your venom.
[ ***The Roman Catholic Church did not have anything to do with the Canon. ***]
The Church declared it at a series of Councils. We determined it, you didn’t.
No, the church councils recognized what was already accepted by local churches long before.
[ ***Its Old Testament Canon is corrupt, having non-Canonical books in it and the New Testament was recognized by the real church before any corrupt religious organization got involved. *** ]
You believe the results of the Christian-rejecting Jamnia approximately 60 years after Jesus was resurrected and taken into heaven? Do you call yourself Christian or Jew?
No Council determined the Jewish Canon, they only recognized it.
[ ***Freedom of speech means allowing those things that are untrue to be published, so that which is true can be as well. ***]
So by this analogy, it would be good to claim that my food product had 10 grams of sugar per serving when it actually had 50. Or, if you were my neighbour, it would be perfectly acceptable to take out a MySpace account in your name and publish child pornography on it. Nice.
It seems that you might have a spelling problem also, how do you spell neighbor?
No, you can decide what you want to read and reject it if you choose to.
But you showing how Roman Catholics deal with freedom of press and speech.
As for your analogy is simply as ridiculous as the rest of your post.
[ ***What Christians believe is that the Pope is nothing more than a lying anti-Christ deceiving millions with the help of his father the devil (Jn.8:44) ***]
John 8 relates the words of Jesus to the Pharisees in the temple. Christians do not believe anything of this kind about the Pope; however they do believe it when it relates to the WCF and other horrific works.
True Christians have always believed that the Pope is an anti-Christ.
The Pope may not be THE final anti-Christ, but he will do as a type of him until the real one shows up.
[ ***There is still time for you to reject the RCC lies and receive the free gift of eternal salvation through faith in the Blood of Christ.(Rom.3:25). *** ]
,I> Still relying on misunderstandings of Paul and denying the Gospel of Jesus (you may wish to crack open Matthew - chapters 5 through 7 are of particular interest).
And nothing in those chapters contradict what Paul is saying.
And nothing said in Matthew 5-7 refers to anything that the Roman Catholic Church teaches.
I see nothing about Mary, the wafer God, Popes, indulgences, etc in those chapters.
[ ***If you don’t, you will end up at the great White Throne Judgment with the rest of the Popes, Cardinals, Bishops, Priests, nuns who put their faith in an apostate, wicked organization instead of the Lord Jesus Christ.*** ]
So, in spite of the words of Jesus, you believe that you will not be Judged? Interesting. I’d love to be there to watch your reaction when you find yourself facing the Lamb of God.
Well, you won't see it because we are going to two different judgments.
I am going to the Judgment seat of Christ for believers and you are going to the Great White Throne Judgment for unbelievers, since you are clearly depending on your works for salvation.
You will have a long time to ponder why your rejected the clear words of scripture that stated salvation was by faith and not works.
The imprimatur does not legitimize misuse of the text, only the text itself.
It says that nothing is objectionable in the Bible-Nihil Obstat.
So, that note is not objectionable to the RCC.
You would have us believe that the Douay-Rheims commentators are lying instead?
Pitiful!
8 For by grace you are saved through faith: and that not of yourselves, for it is the gift of God. 9 Not of works, that no man may glory.- Not of works... as of our own growth, or from ourselves; but as from the grace of God.
http://www.newadvent.org/bible/eph002.htm
Romans 4: 4 Now to him that worketh, the reward is not reckoned according to grace but according to debt.
To him that worketh... Viz., as of his own fund, or by his own strength. Such a man, says the apostle, challenges his reward as a debt due to his own performances; whereas he who worketh not, that is, who presumeth not upon any works done by his own strength, but seeketh justice through faith and grace, is freely justified by God's grace.
5 But to him that worketh not, yet believeth in him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith (emphasis added) is reputed to justice, according to the purpose of the grace of God.
http://www.newadvent.org/bible/rom004.htm
Distinguo: "male" and "female" are about sex and sex is about procreation, and our Lord seems to say the angels in heaven don't do that.
I agree that angels don't procreate, however, and remembering that I have no firm stance on this, we could also say that God simply chose the sex (gender) of His Son even though no sex was involved. I also am not sure at all that the Incarnation even "counts" as "procreation" :) So, the possibility is that God simply chose for all of His angels to be male. I don't know. :)
I'm trying to make (though I'm not sure why) a distinction between Male and Masculine/ Female and Feminine.
Why do sailors call their boats "she"? Is there anything to that (especially since it may not be universal) -- anything unFreudian?
But one reason for the attempt is that While I guess you could have masculine and feminine angels, I'd tend to argue against male and female ones, since the only evidence would be those roly-poly ... ah forget it.
I don't know the angelology stuff real good. I guess the feminine ones stay home and, you know, iron the linens for the celestial altar? But the ones one hears about (except on flakey TV shows or whatever) seem to be of a distinctly guy frame of gender.
Certainly the Incarnation is kind of half procreation - As Chalcedon raises its ugly head - at least from Mary's point of view. But eternal begetting of the Son does not lead to an infant God, but to an infant who is God. Now THERE's a nice distinction!
Ask me again when the coffee reaches my head.
I had a friend who was a DJ. I had a little over $1k in my "Discretionary Fund". I went to Pat and said what do I have to do to get on the air?
From the Stations POV Sunday is (a) a waste of time and (b) kind of cheap advertising. So I got a tape recorder and stuff - soon I had three tape recorders and a dual casssette palyer and a CD player and a little, what do you call it, one of the boards which can take audio input from a number of places and shoot it all out on one or two tracks.
In the Pespicola Church, you have an OT reading, a Psalm or piece of one, an NT-excluding-the-Gospel reading , and a Gospel reading assigned to every Sunday. So I would study those assignments until I had a "talk".
I started at 15 minutes on tape, and went to 30 minutes live -- which, as I said, was way more fun -- if you like cardiac arrest, and I do. Bumped in to whatever music I felt like and bumped out to "Sheep May Safely Graze" (I was also running a flock of sheep at this time.)
SO I just ran my mouf. Raised enough to pay for the show and the equipment and to write a weekly check for the Home.
But the check wasn't nearly enough, though I got enough money for a generator and installation in one week! YEAH! And new gummint standards for care meant "least restrictive environment" which mean the kids all went to situations more like being foster children. There were a lot of tears when that happened. They really were a community.
It was fun. I'd do it again in a heartbeat, for free, you can keep your Fifty bucks a week!
Radio, I learned, is NOT preaching. It's intimate. You are talking as it were individually to your listeners, NOT addressing a crowd. The rhetoric is more conversational than oratorical. It's interesting. There you are in this little closet surrounded by electronics....And you are looking deeply into the eyes of somebody somewhere and showing them your heart.
It appears you do not understand what is meant thereby.
No, it appears you can't read clear English, even in your own Bible.
Eph.2:8-9 For by grace you are saved through faith: and that not of yourselves, for it is the gift of God. 9 Not of works, that no man may glory. Not of works... as of our own growth, or from ourselves; but as from the grace of God.
Well, just for the sake of argument, it looks like God pretty much just zapped Adam and Eve into their genders by fiat, so I was figuring He could have just done the same thing with angels. :)
Why do sailors call their boats "she"? Is there anything to that (especially since it may not be universal) -- anything unFreudian?
Probably because male captains thought of their boats as beautiful so it seemed fitting to give them a beautiful feminine name. I have no idea. :)
Certainly the Incarnation is kind of half procreation - As Chalcedon raises its ugly head - at least from Mary's point of view. But eternal begetting of the Son does not lead to an infant God, but to an infant who is God. Now THERE's a nice distinction!
I'll go with that. Well said. :)
That's great! Thanks for sharing about your experience. I think I can imagine it. It's interesting that Rush seems to have taken a different path, but most good hosts I think would fully agree with you.
***Try reading the Bible and finding Jesus!
The Bible teaches against welfare and for capital punishement as stated clearly in both those verses I gave you.***
ftD; I give you loving and merciful Jesus and you give me outraged and storming Paul. That sums up the differences between us.
You have lost Jesus and His message. If I were you I’d start with Matthew and read everything in order, then Mark, Luke and John.
Put away everything else until you have and you will see have deformed your beliefs are.
Jesus is the answer, the way, the truth and the life. Not a misinterpretation of Paul
***None produced a complete Bible in English.***
Yours is incomplete now. And it seems that it is missing more than the ordinary Protestant Bible is missing. It appears to be missing the Gospels.
***Oh stop your goofy word games.
Ofcourse you pray to Mary!
Yes, the rosary assists in prayer to Mary!
And the Lord’s supper was never meant to be anymore than a simple remembrance (1Cor.11).***
You have no idea what the Rosary is.
And you misinterpret Paul once again. Read the Gospels instead.
***The Church has never advocated giving Bibles to the common people and it was only with the rise of the Reformation Bibles that they felt compelled to make their own English translation.***
What about the millions of Greek versions out there? Or are you merely blinded as to Anglocentrism?
***Silly is as silly does. The Church was a branch of which Government? A one world government, or just selected countries?
And Rome didn’t have a strong political influence in Western Europe before the Reformation?
Stop blowing smoke.***
The question still stands. You claimed that the Church was a branch of the Government. Which one?
***I am going to the Judgment seat of Christ for believers and you are going to the Great White Throne Judgment for unbelievers, since you are clearly depending on your works for salvation.***
Lucky you. Sounds like you’re actually going to the Judgement Seat of Pauline misinterpreters, since there is nothing of Christ in your beliefs.
ftD; I give you loving and merciful Jesus and you give me outraged and storming Paul. That sums up the differences between us.
I haven't given you an outraged and storming Paul, I gave you the scriptures that tell you what you have to do to be saved.
There is nothing about salvation in Matthew 5-7 for anyone today and if you think so, you will find out too late what happens when you reject the mercy of God.
You have lost Jesus and His message. If I were you I’d start with Matthew and read everything in order, then Mark, Luke and John. Put away everything else until you have and you will see have deformed your beliefs are. Jesus is the answer, the way, the truth and the life. Not a misinterpretation of Paul
Oh, this John?
3: 36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.
Pr.14: 12 There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.
Yours is incomplete now. And it seems that it is missing more than the ordinary Protestant Bible is missing. It appears to be missing the Gospels.
No, it has the Gospels and if you reject what Christ said to do believe on Him, His payment for your sins and resurrection, you will spend eternity in hell. (Jn.3:36)[ ***Oh stop your goofy word games. Ofcourse you pray to Mary!]
Yes, the rosary assists in prayer to Mary! And the Lord’s supper was never meant to be anymore than a simple remembrance (1Cor.11).*** ]
You have no idea what the Rosary is.
It is a bunch of beads that keep track of how many Hail Mary's and Our Fathers you say.
I believe the ratio is three or is it five hail Mary's to each Our Fathers?
Avoid vain repetitions-that is in the Gospels.(Matt.6:7).
And you misinterpret Paul once again. Read the Gospels instead.
No misinterpetation of Jn.3:36 and Mark 9 and Jn.3:16 so I go on?
[ ***The Church has never advocated giving Bibles to the common people and it was only with the rise of the Reformation Bibles that they felt compelled to make their own English translation.***]
What about the millions of Greek versions out there? Or are you merely blinded as to Anglocentrism?
What does a Greek version do for someone who doesn't read Greek.
It does the same as a Latin version does-nothing.
[ ***Silly is as silly does. The Church was a branch of which Government? A one world government, or just selected countries? And Rome didn’t have a strong political influence in Western Europe before the Reformation? Stop blowing smoke.***]
The question still stands. You claimed that the Church was a branch of the Government. Which one?
I Never claimed that they were a 'branch' of government, I claimed that they had power with governments.
Stop twisting words.
Those words about being a 'branch' of government are your words not mine.
[ ***I am going to the Judgment seat of Christ for believers and you are going to the Great White Throne Judgment for unbelievers, since you are clearly depending on your works for salvation.*** ]
Lucky you. Sounds like you’re actually going to the Judgement Seat of Pauline misinterpreters, since there is nothing of Christ in your beliefs.
Nothing 'lucky' about it, just the grace of God, based on the Atoning work of Christ, which you have rejected and will face God's wrath instead. (Jn.3:36)
***I haven’t given you an outraged and storming Paul, I gave you the scriptures that tell you what you have to do to be saved. ***
Your Pauline quotes are almost entirely from his admonitions to his straying churches. Outraged and storming.
What I have to do to be saved? Pardon me, I thought that you were of the Reformed crowd in which one needs do nothing, and indeed can do nothing to influence one’s final reward. I apologize and would ask that you elaborate further on your particular beliefs in that area.
***There is nothing about salvation in Matthew 5-7 for anyone today and if you think so, you will find out too late what happens when you reject the mercy of God. ***
I see. So the first 80% of the Gospels are useless? Fascinating. Why would the Church even include them in the Bible? I am gratified to see that you do understand that God’s grace is a gift that one may reject; your soul is apparently not as imperiled as some of your brethren.
***Oh, this John?
3: 36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him. ***
Yup, that John. Did you have to search for a more complete Bible very long? You may wish to read the Gospels in the order that the Church put them in, though. It may enlighten you.
***No, it has the Gospels and if you reject what Christ said to do believe on Him, His payment for your sins and resurrection, you will spend eternity in hell. (Jn.3:36)***
Fascinating, you have discovered new things. Start with Matthew and read the Gospels through. It’s a good start.
***You have no idea what the Rosary is.
It is a bunch of beads that keep track of how many Hail Mary’s and Our Fathers you say.
I believe the ratio is three or is it five hail Mary’s to each Our Fathers? ***
I really like the way that you keep proving my points for me.
***Avoid vain repetitions-that is in the Gospels.(Matt.6:7). ***
See? But let’s preface that verse with the beginning of the chapter:
1
“(But) take care not to perform righteous deeds in order that people may see them; otherwise, you will have no recompense from your heavenly Father.
2
When you give alms, do not blow a trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets to win the praise of others. Amen, I say to you, they have received their reward.
3
But when you give alms, do not let your left hand know what your right is doing,
4
so that your almsgiving may be secret. And your Father who sees in secret will repay you.
5
“When you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, who love to stand and pray in the synagogues and on street corners so that others may see them. Amen, I say to you, they have received their reward.
6
But when you pray, go to your inner room, close the door, and pray to your Father in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will repay you.
Fascinating stuff. Is this in your Bible as well?
9
“This is how you are to pray: Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name,
10
your kingdom come, your will be done, on earth as in heaven.
11
Give us today our daily bread;
12
and forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors;
13
and do not subject us to the final test, but deliver us from the evil one.
14
If you forgive others their transgressions, your heavenly Father will forgive you.
15
But if you do not forgive others, neither will your Father forgive your transgressions.
According to you, praying the Pater Noster is vain babbling? Nice.
***And you misinterpret Paul once again. Read the Gospels instead.
No misinterpetation of Jn.3:36 and Mark 9 and Jn.3:16 so I go on? ***
I would encourage you to read the entire Gospels so that misinterpretations are lessened.
***What about the millions of Greek versions out there? Or are you merely blinded as to Anglocentrism?
What does a Greek version do for someone who doesn’t read Greek.
It does the same as a Latin version does-nothing. ***
Up until the 1600s, the two dominant languages of the civilized world were Greek and Latin; English was a relatively minor unknown, much like Finnish. This seems to be linguistic bigotry seen through the lens of 21st century USA, not an honest appraisal of the times to which you refer. It’s like accusing the Church of not letting the people learn to read and write in the era of close to 100% illiteracy.
***The question still stands. You claimed that the Church was a branch of the Government. Which one?
I Never claimed that they were a ‘branch’ of government, I claimed that they had power with governments.
Stop twisting words.
Those words about being a ‘branch’ of government are your words not mine. ***
You may wish to know that your posts are kept as a matter of record. You cannot ignore them like you apparently ignore history. I will quote:
***The Roman Catholic Church had a control of Books just like it had a control of everything involved with the Government, since it was a branch of the Government. ***
1,319 posted on Thursday, May 22, 2008 5:57:35 AM by fortheDeclaration (”Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people”.-John Adams)
It might help our discussions further if you would let me know if you are simply forgetful or some other condition exists.
***Nothing ‘lucky’ about it, just the grace of God, based on the Atoning work of Christ, which you have rejected and will face God’s wrath instead. ***
I didn’t realize that you had the power of Judgement over me or that you know what the condition of my soul is.
Fascinating, you have discovered new things. Start with Matthew and read the Gospels through. It’s a good start.
And you need to read John 3:36.
Nothing new about it.
[ ***You have no idea what the Rosary is. It is a bunch of beads that keep track of how many Hail Mary’s and Our Fathers you say. I believe the ratio is three or is it five hail Mary’s to each Our Fathers? ***]
I really like the way that you keep proving my points for me.
Actually, I have proven mine beause that is what a rosary is, a bunch of beads that religious people use to keep track of their prayers.
[ ***Avoid vain repetitions-that is in the Gospels.(Matt.6:7). *** ]
See? But let’s preface that verse with the beginning of the chapter: 1 “(But) take care not to perform righteous deeds in order that people may see them; otherwise, you will have no recompense from your heavenly Father. 2 When you give alms, do not blow a trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets to win the praise of others. Amen, I say to you, they have received their reward. 3 But when you give alms, do not let your left hand know what your right is doing, 4 so that your almsgiving may be secret. And your Father who sees in secret will repay you. 5 “When you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, who love to stand and pray in the synagogues and on street corners so that others may see them. Amen, I say to you, they have received their reward. 6 But when you pray, go to your inner room, close the door, and pray to your Father in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will repay you. Fascinating stuff. Is this in your Bible as well?
Yes, it is and it doesn't change the fact that Christ also said not to use 'vain repetitions as the heathen do', which is what a rosary does, prayer without thought.
9 “This is how you are to pray: Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name, 10 your kingdom come, your will be done, on earth as in heaven. 11 Give us today our daily bread; 12 and forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors; 13 and do not subject us to the final test, but deliver us from the evil one. 14 If you forgive others their transgressions, your heavenly Father will forgive you. 15 But if you do not forgive others, neither will your Father forgive your transgressions. According to you, praying the Pater Noster is vain babbling? Nice.
It is when you say it as a 'vain repetition', which is what is done with a rosary.
And don't forget the 'hail mary's', praying to Mary as well.
***And you misinterpret Paul once again. Read the Gospels instead.
Above is your statement, not mine.
[ No misinterpetation of Jn.3:36 and Mark 9 and Jn.3:16 so I go on? ***]
What part of John 3:36 do you not understand?
I would encourage you to read the entire Gospels so that misinterpretations are lessened.
And I would encourage you to read the entire New Testament to find out how you must be saved.
You clearly do not know and aren't.
***What about the millions of Greek versions out there? Or are you merely blinded as to Anglocentrism?
Again, above is your statement.
[ What does a Greek version do for someone who doesn’t read Greek. It does the same as a Latin version does-nothing. *** ]
Up until the 1600s, the two dominant languages of the civilized world were Greek and Latin; English was a relatively minor unknown, much like Finnish. This seems to be linguistic bigotry seen through the lens of 21st century USA, not an honest appraisal of the times to which you refer. It’s like accusing the Church of not letting the people learn to read and write in the era of close to 100% illiteracy.
Latin stopped being a common spoken language hundreds of years before the 1600's.
As did Kione Greek.
Your ignorance never ceases to amaze me!
***The question still stands. You claimed that the Church was a branch of the Government. Which one?
Again, your statement, not mine.
[ I Never claimed that they were a ‘branch’ of government, I claimed that they had power with governments. Stop twisting words. Those words about being a ‘branch’ of government are your words not mine. *** ]
You may wish to know that your posts are kept as a matter of record. You cannot ignore them like you apparently ignore history. I will quote: ***The Roman Catholic Church had a control of Books just like it had a control of everything involved with the Government, since it was a branch of the Government. *** 1,319 posted on Thursday, May 22, 2008 5:57:35 AM by fortheDeclaration (”Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people”.-John Adams)
Well, I stand corrected, and my initial statement was a true one, the Roman Catholic was a branch of the medieval governments-the religious one.
Role of the Church in Government Often, in the Middle Ages, the churches and governments ruled together. Bishops and Abbots would read and write for kings and often became vassals. Local priests were appointed by local lords, and so were expected to uphold their wishes. Thus, the role of the church and rulers was interconnected. http://mr_sedivy.tripod.com/med_hist3.html
It might help our discussions further if you would let me know if you are simply forgetful or some other condition exists.
You don't intend to keep spaming me with your innane posts do you?
You clearly have nothing factual to say.
It is indeed amazing that you have been wasting my time for this long with your godless pratter.
[ ***Nothing ‘lucky’ about it, just the grace of God, based on the Atoning work of Christ, which you have rejected and will face God’s wrath instead. ***]
I didn’t realize that you had the power of Judgement over me or that you know what the condition of my soul is.
I know you have rejected the grace of God and I can tell the condition of your soul by your posts.
So, my initial point was a correct one, the Roman Catholic Church was directly involved in government, so much so they might be called a 'branch of Government'.
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.