Posted on 02/09/2011 3:51:50 PM PST by wmfights
Has the church misunderstood the Bible’s teachings on sexuality for over two thousand years? The current issue of Newsweek magazine reports on “new scholarship on the Good Book’s naughty bits” that is supposed to turn our understanding of the Bible’s teachings on sex upside down.
Lisa Miller, Newsweek’s religion editor, wrote the article entitled “What the Bible Really Says About Sex.” Well, the one thing you need to know up front is that the article falls far short of its title.
Miller bases her report on two recent books — Michael Coogan’s God and Sex: What the Bible Really Says and Jennifer Wright Knust’s Unprotected Texts: The Bible’s Surprising Contradictions about Sex and Desire. Neither of these books breaks new ground. Instead, the books distill arguments that have become common among liberal and revisionist Bible scholars and homosexual activist groups.
Coogan, trained as a Jesuit priest, has served as editor of The Oxford Annotated Bible, a favorite study Bible among theological liberals. He currently serves as director of publications for the Harvard Semitic Museum. In God and Sex, Coogan argues that the biblical condemnations of various sexual behaviors and relationships should not be considered normative for today. In his words, the biblical texts on sexuality “reflect the presuppositions and prejudices, the ideas and ideals of their authors.” He argues that we should not be bound by those same prejudices.
He rejects outright the belief that the Bible is in any objective sense the Word of God. The guild of academic biblical scholars has adopted a liberal approach to the Bible, he affirms, and the real problem is that the great multitude of church-goers have not joined the scholars in this liberal approach. Coogan laments the fact that “we have not succeeded in changing the way most nonspecialists and even many in the clergy think about the Bible.” Instead, “people still maintain that the Bible is God’s word, plain and simple: that God is the author of scripture.”
Yes, Dr. Coogan, people do still maintain that belief.
To his credit, Coogan does not argue dishonestly. He is straightforward in presenting his rendering of the key biblical texts, for his main point is that the church is not bound by the “presuppositions and prejudices” of those texts.
Jennifer Wright Knust follows a very different game plan in Unprotected Texts, though she shares Coogan’s rejection of biblical inspiration. Knust, who teaches religion at Boston University, bases her revisionism on the claim that the Bible simply lacks any consistent sexual ethic. “The Bible is not only contradictory but complex,” she insists. Some parts of the Bible “promote points of view that, from a modern perspective anyway, are patently immoral.”
An ordained American Baptist pastor, Knust argues that the Bible is so contradictory when it comes to sexual matters that we cannot gain any consistent sexual ethic from its pages. Her agenda is clear from the start — she wants to overthrow the normative authority of the Bible on matters of sexual morality.
Lisa Miller summarizes the arguments of Coogan and Knust by explaining that they are each attempting “to steal the conversation about sex and the Bible back from the religious right.” Putting the two books together, Miller explains that they argue along these lines: first, that “the Bible is an ancient text, inapplicable in its particulars to the modern world.” Second, that “sex in the Bible is sometimes hidden.” Third, that “that which is forbidden is also allowed.” And fourth, that “accepted interpretations are sometimes wrong.”
Well, one immediate problem with this set of arguments is that they are themselves contradictory. Is the Bible itself wrong, or just its interpretations? If the Bible is just an ancient text, which is not relevant in its particulars for the modern world, why argue over its interpretation? They need to get their story straight.
Knust and Coogan cannot even agree when it comes to the particulars. Knust claims that King David “enjoyed sexual satisfaction” with Jonathan, and that this thus serves as evidence of an authorized homosexual relationship within Scripture. Again, to his credit, Coogan is too careful a scholar to go with that kind of argument. David and Jonathan were covenant partners, he argues — “but despite the claims of some gay activists, they were not sexual partners.”
Lisa Miller notes that “Coogan and Knust are hardly the first scholars to offer alternative readings of the Bible’s teachings on sex.” As a matter of fact, almost all of the arguments made in these books have been around for the past thirty years. Miller argues that it is the populism of these books that sets them apart. “With provocative titles and mainstream publishing houses, they obviously hope to sell books,” she explains. “But their greater cause is a fight against ‘official’ interpretations.”
In response to that, Lisa Miller quotes me: “That’s why Albert Mohler, president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, that citadel of Christian conservatism, concludes that one’s Bible reading must be overseen by the proper authorities.” I enjoyed my conversation with Ms. Miller, but my point was not that the church needs “proper authorities,” but that just any interpretation of the Bible will not do. The authority in this issue is that of the Bible itself. Those who read it as bearing the very authority of God will read the Bible quite differently than those who see it as a human book conditioned and warped by human frailty and fallibility.
The most important point I made to Lisa Miller is that revisionist interpreters of the Bible are playing a dishonest game. Consider the audacity of their claim: they claim that no one has rightly understood the Bible for over two thousand years. No Jewish or Christian interpreter of the Bible had ever suggested that the relationship between David and Jonathan was homosexual — at least not until recent decades. The revisionist case is equally ludicrous across the board. We are only now able to understand what Paul was talking about in Romans 1? The church was wrong for two millennia?
I have far greater respect for the intellectual integrity of the scholar who reads the Bible and interprets it honestly, but then rejects it with candor. This is far superior to evasive and clever attempts to make the Bible say what it plainly does not say. The Bible is brutally honest about human sinfulness in all its forms, including sexuality. Nevertheless, the Bible presents a consistent and clear sexual ethic. The issue is not a lack of clarity.
The real problem here is not that the Bible is misunderstood and in need of revision. To the contrary, the real problem is that the ethic revealed in the Bible is both rejected and reviled.
"So you agree that “Protestants” trace their lineage back to Christ and the early Church, and that Roman Catholics aren’t the only ones who can claim a rich spiritual heritage going back 2,000+ years?"
As far as I know, ALL Christians trace their spiritual lineage back to Jesus Christ: our heritage includes, or ought to include, all of the Christian history we can get our hands on: the texts, the creeds, the councils, the catacombs and the martyrs, the great Christian teachers whose writings are still available to us from the first, second, third centuries AD, the preachers and writers from Jerusalem, Antioch, Rome, Alexandria, Milan, Hippo.
That constitutes a rich spiritual heritage. And it is, in a sense, more accessible now than it has been for the past 20 centuries. Our Christian family album, yours as well as mine!
"Most RC FReepers say that non-Roman Catholics trace their lineage only back to Luther, and that only Roman Catholicism goes all the way back to Jesus and His Apostles."
Find me the FReeper who says that, and I'll share the historic evidence I have. Or you do so: share the evidence, and ping me to it.
I don't know of any FReepers who would say that non-Catholics have no affinities to that historic "family" I mentioned above; for instance, Luther cited (in a positive and approving manner) various Fathers of the Church 14 times in the Augsburg Confession, and particularly admired St. Augustine, the founder of the religious order of which he had been a member. Luther even taught a course on Peter Lombard, who in turn quoted many of the Fathers. I find this fascinating! (More on that here: Concordia Theological Quarterly, first article [Link].)
"Would you say that the Baptist church down the street is an expression of Christ’s Church no less than the Roman Catholic church down the street?"
I must answer this as if I were answering my brother-in-law James, who is a Baptist pastor, my late father-in-law Robert, a Baptist and one of the founders of a local Christian school, or my husband FReeper Don-o. (You see I am surrounded by loving Baptist witnesses!)
I think that as believing Christians, Baptists are united with Christ in faith, just as I am. But the Baptist Church does not have, and does not claim to have, full and complete unity with the Church as a visible body with the Eucharist and the Sacraments and the Apostolic succession as Catholics understand those terms. Naturally, I am a Catholic because, examining the evidence, I have become convinced that the Catholic Church possesses this fullness.
But read on, brother. The Catechism says this:
|
. "Many elements of sanctification and of truth" are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements." Christ's Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him, and are in themselves calls to "Catholic unity."
|
If you want to, you can follow this link and read more, in context. The fuller answer may interest you.
This implies that the more we share in the written word of God, and faith, and grace, and the love of Christ, the more we will grow in that unity desired by Christ.
I think my Baptist kinfolk would approve. I hope we can, too.
Uh. Did you forget something?
“trained as a Jesuit priest”
whenever I see that phrase, I stop reading.
I do appreciate your gracious reply.
This is one key area where I disagree with Roman Catholicism, where you wrote that as a non-RC, I don’t enjoy “full and complete unity with the Church as a visible body with the Eucharist and the Sacraments and the Apostolic succession as Catholics understand those terms.”
That sentiment has been expressed before by RC FReepers (e.g., http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2654838/posts?page=32#32 ):
“While the worship of Christ outside of His church is possible, it is done in an imperfect manner befift of the sacramental graces designed to assist us thru our salvation journey.... Abandon the imperfect road to salvation and accept the apostolic church of Christ which has given us the Holy Scripture or continue to reside in a mirage of fantasy quite possibly a prisoner of Satan.”
And your catechism restates it this way: “Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church.”
And that’s precisely what I’ve been saying: That Roman Catholics think they’ve got the only real, legitimate, highest expression of Christ’s Church on earth. See, your words betray your denominational condescension:
1) You either believe that I am not in “full and complete unity” with the Bride of Christ, because Rome is not part of my religious tradition. Or
2) You’re using the term “the Church as a visible body” as a synonym for “the Roman Catholic Church.” If that’s the case, then the implication is that non-RC churches are *not* “the Church as a visible body.”
It’s really this doctrine of yours that bugs me, the doctrine inherent in Roman Catholicism, that you’re part of the real Church, and that non-Roman Catholics are not part of the real Church, or experience it in a less-than-full way.
Now, on to your skepticism about RC FReepers’ saying that “Protestants” can only trace their heritage back to Luther ... you’ve been here seven years, and probably have participated on numerous RC-related discussions, and you’ve never seen Roman Catholics trying to delegitimize non-RC FReepers by saying that our history only began in the 1500s? Really?
I was hoping I’d get up today and find a response from you, and here it is. Thank you! This may turn out to be valuable for both of us.
By the way, I’m approaching this not as a way to convert you to my side, still less to prove you wrong, but more to get clear what you believe, and what I believe. If I mischaracterize anything on the Baptist side (I take it you’re a Baptist, right?) please jump right in and tell me where I’ve made an error.
And that’s precisely what I’ve been saying: That Roman Catholics think they’ve got the only real, legitimate, highest expression of Christ’s Church on earth.
”1) You either believe that I am not in “full and complete unity” with the Bride of Christ, because Rome is not part of my religious tradition. Or
2) You’re using the term “the Church as a visible body” as a synonym for “the Roman Catholic Church.” If that’s the case, then the implication is that non-RC churches are *not* “the Church as a visible body.”
If you mean your “Baptist” history, then present your Baptist historic evidence pre-Luther, and I’ll try to look it up. Historic evidence means names, dates, places, identifiable as Baptist, as demonstrated by writings, archaeological remains, tombs and inscriptions and that sort of thing.
I am highly interested in that: I’m here to learn.
If you mean your “Christian” history, then I suppose we share “Christian” history in every one of the 20 centuries going back to Christ. Augustine of Hippo and Nina of Cappadocia are part of your Christian history, if you want to affirm your relationship (and many do.) Name names, I’m taking notes!
If you mean your “Salvation" History, we can both claim David, Abraham, Abel, Eve. But I don’t think that makes them Baptists. Or Catholics. Or Christians. They weren't all even Jews... :o)
So clarify, provide me with specific ancient sources, and we’ll share (especially if I can look them up on the Internet). Now I’ve got to go do the dishes.
See ya!
Again, thank you for your gracious reply.
No, I am not Baptist. I’ve never mentioned the “denomination” of the church of which I’m a member, because that is SO unimportant. My passion is for my Lord, the One who has saved me, the One who brings meaning to my life.
That, again, is near the crux of my concerns about Roman Catholicism. Instead of simply looking to Jesus, this particular expression of Christianity promotes itself and its “saints,” and anytime someone is encouraged to look to the Magisterium or to Mary, they are implicitly encouraged to look away from the Scriptures and away from Jesus. The presence of a “co-mediatrix” distracts from the one Mediator.
Jesus saves, directly, and not through some repository known as the Roman Catholic Church.
You ask if “the Baptists don’t claim that the Church is a ‘visible body,’ do they?” Yes, of course it is, since the Church is made up of those whom the Lord has adopted into His family. The Church is both invisible, consisting of those in the faith who’ve died, and visible, consisting of those in the faith who are among us.
A lot of your discussion is about denominations — Roman Catholicism, Baptist, and so on. I think that may be part of the problem here. The Church is not a “denomination,” but the body of those whom the Lord has saved, and includes Christ-followers who associate with Roman Catholicism and Baptist doctrine, etc.
Thank you for clearing up that part about denomination. I’d thought you were a Baptist because you were asking me to affirm the historic legitimacy of the Baptist church; and also because this thread is about the article by Albert Mohler, a leading and respected (by me!) Baptist.
I assume you think of the Church as the Body of Christ (?) (again correct me if I’m wrong) and I assume that means you have a living connection with all Christians, who are members of the same Body.
As a member of Christ’s Body, the other members cannot be “SO unimportant.” Rather, they areso vitally essential to me, because they are --- as Paul says --- the eyes, ears, nose, hands, feet of my Lord, the One who has saved me, the One who brings meaning to my life.
It is sad to think of the eye saying to the ear, “I don’t need you,” and of the hand saying to the foot, “I don’t need you.” It is sad also that some Christians see our departed as if they were, not only unimportant, not only un-needed, but “dead”. Jesus rejected such thinking on the part of the Sadducees when he said that our God is the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob ---“ and He is not the God of the dead, but of the living, for to him all are alive.”
Thus those who look away from the other members of the Body through twenty centuries of church life, are looking away Scriptures and away from Jesus.
This body includes Christ-followers who associate with Roman Catholicism and Baptist doctrine, etc. – in your words --- and it includes saints both canonized and uncanonized, both on earth and in heaven. We have a living, vital connection with them and always want to be ever-stronger linked to them; learn from them and never stop learning from them; love them and never stop loving them.
But to move on to what really concerns me here:
All this leaves unmentioned the initial problem posed by Mohler, which is that there are active homosexual Christians "out there" ---
Take a look: http://tinyurl.com/GayChristian101
--- who assert that they love and serve the Lord Jesus Christ, who disagree with the"errors" of the "tranditions of men" and the lexicons which translate "arsenokoitai" and "molokai" as homoxual tout court, and who claim that by adherance to Christ Alone, they can be practicing "gay Christian" -- pracitcing gay and practicing Christians.
I think, of course, that their arguments can be refuted; but not, however, without making reference to what 2,000 years of living Church teaching had to say about "arsenokoitai" and "malakoi".
Please do check this out http://www.gaychristian101.com/Malakoi.html --- becuase my underlying concern is to combat erroneous "Jesus-only" "gay scripture scholarship" that cares not what the Church has said for 2,000 years.
Um. Huh? I don’t understand this sentence that you wrote: “As a member of Christ’s Body, the other members cannot be “SO unimportant.’”
Are you saying that members of the Church are unimportant? Because I sure didn’t.
I said that, in comparison with Jesus, “denominations” are unimportant. I’m concerned that you make much of your denomination, at the expense of making much of Christ. You claim that the RCC is the repository and fullness of truth (dissing other Christ-followers by doing so), rather that promoting Jesus as the repository and fullness of truth.
I also said that drawing attention *to* Rome and its artifacts necessarily causes people to look *away* from Christ.
Regarding the rest of your comment, I agree that 2,000 years of Scriptural analysis by Christ-followers should not be rejected out-of hand, as “gay theology” does.
I see I misunerstood you as saying the members of the Church over the ages are unimportant, when actually you said “denominations” are unimportant. Thanks for the correction, which I will keep in mind.
Someone who regarded the Church as human institution only, bearing nothing but the sins and stinks of humanity, could set up a duality and say, "Honor one: the Church, or Christ. The Church must decrease, and Christ must increase!"
But a person who sees the Church as the Body of Christ, cannot even conceive of such a dualism. We honor Christ as the Head of the Church, and honor the Church as the Body of Christ: we don't see how they can be separated.
So I as an individual can be justly accused of any fault, (and my faults no doubt impair my witness--- I must examine my conscience on this), but as a Catholic I cannot be faulted for putting my Church above Christ, since that is a conceptual impossiblility: Christ is the Head of His Body, the Church.
We tend to understand the word "Church" in diverging ways, and this leads to serial failures to "mesh gears" in a real discussion, since half the time we're puzzling over what the other one really meant. For instance, when you say "Rome and its artifacts," I'm thinking, "Huh? Does Theo really think that the city of Rome is the author and perfecter of my faith? Or 'artifacts'? What's that: buildings? baldacchinos? bank accounts? Whattheheck is Theo talking about?"
So it's a good idea to step back once in a while (as both of us have done) to take a breath and say, "Hm, maybe I'm running down the wrong rabbit-trail here."
I am grateful that you said you agree that "2,000 years of Scriptural analysis by Christ-followers should not be rejected out-of hand, as “gay theology” does." I think that was the main point... about 80+ posts ago!
I appreciate the good discussion.
Hm. I’m not sure we’re able to make too much progress. You believe that the One True Church finds its earthly home in Rome, with the Pope as its head, with the episcopacy codifying doctrine. I don’t. Such a presupposition hinders doctrinal reconciliation.
You wrote, “Someone who regarded the Church as human institution only, bearing nothing but the sins and stinks of humanity, could set up a duality and say, ‘Honor one: the Church, or Christ. The Church must decrease, and Christ must increase!’”
I have no idea where that came from. I surely didn’t say that. Of COURSE the Church is the Bride of Christ, and though its members are daily in need of a Savior, we are considered by God to be “kings and priests” (Rev. 5:12). Though we are sinful, we are also set apart by God to be holy. We will be presented to Christ in spotless condition, and some day together enjoy a great heavenly feast. The Church is not a mere human institution (though it is made up of humans); it is conceived by God Himself.
And so it is right to give appropriate honor to the Church — not the Roman Catholic denomination in particular over other expressions of Christ’s Church, but to the Church universal which finds its fount not in Rome but in Heaven.
Again, yes, I do believe that denominations (such as the RCC) should humble themselves and affirm that ALL those whom the Lord has adopted into His family are on equal footing before Him. No particular denomination (such as the RCC) is the prime repository of the Lord’s grace and truth.
When I speak of “Rome and its artifacts,” I’m speaking of the denomination whose headquarters are situated in the Vatican, and the particular traditions observed by those in the RCC that are not explicitly Scriptural. The distinctive garments, the cathedrals, the incense, the formalized confessionals, the extraordinary deference given to Jesus’ mother, the shape of “the host,” the embracing of the Apocrypha as as legitimate as the Old and New Testaments, statues of “saints,” Canonization — those things are not prescribed by Scripture in the way they’re traditionally observed within the RCC.
I could talk of “Baptists and their artifacts” in the same way — organs, altar calls, Bible-thumpers, tent meetings. Those things are not specifically prescribed by Scripture, and are typically associated with denominations such as the Baptist denomination.
Anyway, I suppose our conversation is helpful in that it reminds me how grateful I am for the way God Himself cares for and prunes His Church, for the way He draws out a remnant (see Romans 11:5) from among people who have grown stagnant and wayward.
It's this: I know a few things about your religious beliefs
And yet, I have little basis for knowing anything, confidently, about what you might or must therefore believe.
Now this is paradoxical, because one would think that if a person said "I believe in Christ and I believe in the Bible," a second person could reasonably deduce what they believed in terms of faith and morals.
But one can't. For instance, I don't know whether you think drinking a shot of whiskey is permitted, prohibited for some, or prohibited for all (a controversy which is now raging amongst the Christian FReepers at http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2672733/posts.)
I have no clue where you'd stand on that. Or onthe following:
(Omit all the following if it gets tiresome or offensive, and go straight to the bottom)
|
. Is Jesus Christ a human person, a divine person with a human nature, or a human being who was made divine? Or something else? Is God one Being? Is God one Person? Is God male? One male? Two males? Three males? Both male and female? Neither? Babies may be / must be / must not be, baptized? Human beings have/don't have a free will? Were some people created/predestined to be damned eternally? Do we inherit our human nature from our parents, or direct from God? Do we inherit our soul from our parents, or direct from God? Can a person attain true knowledge about God via natural human reason? Will a person who has accepted Jesus as their Savior by faith, still be saved even if they become a Muslim, commit suicide-bombing and die unrepentant? Are pious Jews who died before Christ, in heaven? How about pious Jews who died after Christ? Little Muslims who died in childhood? Aborted babies? The babies whom Herod had murdered in Bethlehem? Are there animals in heaven? Will Christians someday be raptured up to meet Jesus in the air? Can God change His mind? Is He changeable? Is His law changeable? Who, if anybody, has the authority to add or remove verses, chapters, or books, to or from the canon of Scripture? (a) first-century AD non-Messianic Jewish rabbis (b) 17th century Christian scholars in Britain (c) Nobody. If there were a dispute about that (say a Torah scroll of Exodus turns up at an archaeological dig, well-preserved, provably older than any existing manuscripts, with a few amazingly clarifying verses replacing what were admittedly disputable/obscure/garbled/fragmentary verses in other versions) who would have the authority to resolve the dispute? (a) the best Hebrew Torah scholars (a) a church council (c) each individual believer (d) nobody? Who, if anybody, had the authority to “change” the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday? Is the religious celebration of Christmas and Easter permitted? Required? Or forbidden? Was Noah a just man? Or is there no man just? Is dismemberment of an unborn baby morally permitted to save the mother's life? In-Vitro fertilization? Torture for the purpose of interrogation? Whipping as a punishment for adultery? Masturbation for the purpose of marital insemination? Remarriage after divorce? Levirate marriage? Killing of civilians via city-targeted “carpet-bombing” in war? May a person do evil that good may come of it? Is pornography OK when provided by a therapist for the purpose of improving marital relations? Consensual anal intercourse of husband and wife? Snake-handling as a demonstration of faith? Removal of non-viable embryo in ectopic pregnancy? Sex-change surgery as a treatment for gender dysphoria? Exorcism as a treatment for self-harming hallucinatory behavior? Is there an unforgivable sin? If so, what is it? Final impenitence? Sorrow for sin that despairs of forgiveness? Dying ignorant of Christ? Accepting Christ but rejecting the Holy Spirit? Apostasy? Is polygamy ever permitted? Concubinage? Execution of captured enemy combatants? Sexual intercourse with female prisoners of war? .
|
Did you skip all that? No problem! :o)
I'm not saying this to aggravate you. Nor am I expecting you to answer all these questions. (Though it would be fascinating and thought-provoking if you did!) But the fact is, a person saying "I'm a Christian and I believe in the authority of Scripture alone" doesn't give me any sure information about what they actually believe about right, wrong, God, man, faith, morals, life, death.
Self-identified Bible-believing Christian FReepers could, I’ll bet, be found to answer every one of these questions in every contradictory way imaginable and some which you and I could never have imagined.
Isn’t that strange?
What do you make of it?
Actually, that’s a fun “test.” Here are my answers:
Jesus Christ is God incarnate.
God is one being, expressed as a community of three Persons; He is not “male” or “female,” but seems predominantly masculine, though sometimes described in feminine terms.
Only those who repent of their sins and follow Christ are to be baptized; babies are unable to do that, so they may instead by “dedicated” by their parents or guardians.
Free will vs. predestination? Not sure. I guess I lean more toward predestination, though we appear to have free will to do certain things.
God knows who will be “damned eternally”: I suppose we could call that “predestined,” as He knows the outcome right now.
I don’t understand the next question; I guess I’d say we inherit our human nature from our parents, our sin nature from the first Adam.
We need the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and the Holy Scriptures to gain knowledge of God; it’s helpful to have the Scriptures “unpacked” by wise men and women.
If someone becomes a Muslim, then I doubt they were truly saved in the first place. And “die unrepentant”? I’m not sure what that means. We all sin daily, and some of those sins go unrepented-of. Christ saves His own, even when they’ve left some sins unrepented-of.
Scripture indicates that some people who lived before Jesus was incarnated are indeed saved, by faith in the promised Messiah. I do believe that those who’ve not reached the age of accountability will be in heaven. Animals? I think there are some animals in heaven, as Revelation speaks of horses and such.
The rapture does seem to be a biblically-supported belief.
No, God cannot change His mind. His mind is perfect as it is; no need to change it. :-)
Scripture is set; through the first few centuries, it became evident which books should be included in the Canon, and which were kinda important but didn’t rise to the level of Scripture (e.g., the Apocrypha).
We’re not going to find scrolls of Exodus that are significantly different from what we already have.
The Sabbath? We’re commanded to work six days and rest one day. Where that day falls is irrelevant; God cares about the heart of the matter.
We’re free to observe Christ’s birth and resurrection. God chose Noah to accomplish His purposes, as He chose Mary to accomplish His purposes.
Yes, I believe a woman is permitted to defend her life by taking another life. That is extremely tragic, and a woman is permitted to either have the D&C (e.g., in the case of ectopic pregnancy) or continue the pregnancy trusting that the Lord will achieve His will through the situation.
In-Vitro Fertilization produces lots of fertilized eggs that will likely be destroyed. I think that’s tragic, and I’m opposed to IVF for that reason.
Hm. I’m starting to get tired. These are interesting things about which to form opinions, and I do enjoy thoughtful discussion about these things. But one is not saved by having correct doctrine or correct positions on these issues. One is saved by turning from sin and turning to Christ as Messiah. The RCC is not a necessary part of salvation. That’s my big point.
I do believe the RCC has it right in a lot of areas, and has gotten it wrong in some areas. Just like most Christian organizations, and just like Al Mohler. Regardless whether we associate more with the RCC or Mohler, let us pursue Christ above all.
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.