Tag Archives: Christianity

•

"Papal Sin: Structures of Deceit" by Gary Wills.

This author is a (liberal) Roman Catholic and many★★★★★★ Roman Catholics will disagree with him and detest the book.

Many of the points that he makes (and conclusions he comes to) I disagree with. The main use that I would have for this book would be as a source for outside information (footnotes and citation lists, encyclicals, books and history).

AsI said, the author comes to conclusions that I would not come to, even after reading his book and finding the history accurate. Even in disagreement, I found the history fascinating.
I have a few books in my library that are very good resources - not for theology, but for the history. This may become one of them.

The first section of the book deals with the holocaust. The history is good, but it is history. Even if Rome had been more outspoken about what was happening, who can know how much of a difference it would have made? There is an interesting story of Ste. Teresa Benedicta of the Cross, canonized in 1998. Born Edith Stein, this Roman Catholic saint was a Jew who converted to Roman Catholicism and became a nun. She was killed (along with her sister Rosa and many other ethic Jews) at Auschwitz on August 9, 1942. Whether or not she died because the Nazis were killing Jews, or whether she died because she was preaching the Gospel is debatable. But she is now a Roman Catholic saint.

As a result of Wills' book, I've read about Stein and - wow. I'd urge you all to google and read, this was an incredible woman.

The second section is called "DOCTRINAL DISHONESTIES" - here is the list of chapter titles:

  • The Tragedy of Paul VI: Prelude
  • The Tragedy of Paul VI: Encyclical
  • Excluded Women
  • The Pope's Eunuchs
  • Priestly caste
  • Shrinking the Body of Christ
  • Hydraulics of Grace
  • Conspiracy of Silence
  • A Gay Priesthood
  • Marian Politics
  • The Gift of Life

Topics include contraception, the history of unmarried clergy, the various sexual scandals. On "excluded women", I believe that male clergy and leadership is right and Biblical, I do think that the way Wills describes Rome's way of getting there is convoluted and based on the magesterium, not the Bible.
The last third of the book looks at honesty and truth. A lot of time is spent on Augustine; I like the history.

MY CONCLUSION:

  1. If you trust in the infallibility of Rome, you will not like this book.
  2. If you are interested in the history of theology, you may like this book
  3. If you want the side of the Roman Catholic coin, from a man who does believe that Rome holds the truth but has erred in some places, this will be an informative book.

The next time I go through it, it will be with a highlighter and sticky tabs.

• 1 Comment

•

This essay was written by John MacArthur.

In this essay, MacArthur unapologetically answers Roman Catholic apologists.

The very first point is that we (as humans) have the tendancy to venerate tradition and there are many world religions that rely totally on tradition and oral transmission (Native American religions and Druidism, to name two.) Even among the religionsh, such as Hinduism, that use sacred writings, tradition is blended.

What happens is that it ends up that Scripture is read through the "translator" of tradition, thus rendering tradition the highest authority, because only through tradition can the Scripture be accurate.

Traditional Judaism follows this Scripture-plus-tradition pattern; the familiar books of the Old Testament alone are considered "Scripture", but the Jews have added the Talmud - this is the "lens" through which they read Scripture, rendering the Scripture in submission to the Talmud.

Christ told them:

"This people honors me with their lips,
but their heart is far from me;
in vain do they worship me,
teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.

You leave the commandment of God and hold to the tradition of men."

This was inexcusable; the Jews were in direct disobedience to God's Word: "You shall not add to the word which I am commanding you, nor take away from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you" (Deuteronomy 4:2).

MacArthur writes:

So the revealed Word of God, and nothing else, was the supreme and sole authority in Judaism. This alone was the standard of truth delivered to them by God Himself. Moses was instructed to write down the very words God gave him (Exodus 34:27), and that written record of God's Word became the basis for God's covenant with the nation (Exodus 24:4, 7). The written Word was placed in the Ark of the Covenant (Deuteronomy 31:9), symbolizing its supreme authority in the lives and the worship of the Jews forever. God even told Moses' successor, Joshua: "Be strong and very courageous; be careful to do according to all the law which Moses My servant commanded you; do not turn from it to the right or to the left, so that you may have success wherever you go. This book of the law shall not depart from your mouth, but you shall meditate on it day and night., so that you may be careful to do according to all that is written in it" Joshua 1:7 -- 8).

Thus, the principle of Sola Scriptura is given to us in the Word of God.

...continue reading →

• 6 Comments

•

I got a letter from my old church; a reply to my letter (read my letter here).

(There's a question at the bottom that I would dearly love to have somebody on the outside give some thoughts on...)

Up to this point, the differences have been largely about the decisions made by the pastors and elders, concerning who the allowed into their pulpit (guest speakers) and who the built ongoing relationships with. I have not had doctrinal disagreements with what I heard my pastors and board teaching, either from the pulpit or in a small group.

This week, that changed.

"Before", it was actions that concerned me - having a "relationship" with a church that didn't believe the same things was not the same as teaching those things.

"Before", a relationship with a church in New Orleans could be spun as rebuilding a "community center".

"Before", I questioned the discernment level that would allow Family Firehouse Ministries' apostle and prophet to speak from the pulpit at Sunshine...

"Before", as long as Sunshine wasn't teaching those things, it was a matter of behavior (what they did) and not a matter of doctrine (what they teach).

This week, that changed; I received a reply from my church board of elders.

...continue reading →

• 2 Comments

•

I'm posting a comment from Moonshadow and following up in a post - the only reason is that she asked good questions for a follow up and it's going to be long and have links - I's way rather do the links in a post than in a comment, since Blogger does it for you in a post...

anyway...Moonshadow said...

...continue reading →

• 2 Comments

•

 

Several years ago I was working with first graders trying to "get" math. One young lady really struggled with the concepts and one day she huffed and puffed and finally rolled her eyes and said, "I am so happy that Jesus invented erasers!"

Jesus is like that.

Psalm 103:12
as far as the east is from the west, so far has he removed our transgressions from us.

Isaiah 43:25
"I, even I, am he who blots out your transgressions, for my own sake, and remembers your sins no more.

It is people that have the eraser problem.

In another place, we're rehasing divorce and remarriage...Here is a quote from Mark Driscoll's church's position paper.

"...The consequence of sexual sin is grave and not resolvable for the offending spouse, outside the mercy and grace of the other spouse. Hardness of heart will demand punishment. Mercy and grace will work toward authentic repentance and restoration."

There are a couple of problems with this position.
1) This entire position leaves out GOD! Forgiveness and restoration depends not on God, but on people.
2) This position assumes that if the "offended" spouse refuses to forgive, it must be because the "offending" spouse is not authentically forgiven. It is dangerous to assume that.
3) Nothing is said of the sin of having a hard heart. If (generic) you refuse to forgive a repentant person, that is one of the things that should make you question whether or not you are even a Christian.

In this position, restoration depends entirely on another human being. A sinner can stand repentant before God and it just wouldn't matter.

Another place our human erasers have problems is with the false separation of forgiveness and restoration.

When we are forgiven by God, He does not hold our sins against us.
Often, when we are "forgiven" by people, we hear, "I forgive you, but I just can't..."

One (now departed) woman I knew said, "I forgive him, but I don't have to like him and I don't have to talk to him and I don't have to accept him." Is that forgiveness? It sure certainly isn't restoration.

And it is the opposite of 2 Cor 2:7-8 7 "...so you should rather turn to forgive and comfort him, or he may be overwhelmed by excessive sorrow. So I beg you to reaffirm your love for him."

There are three things needed for a sinner to be restored to the body. Forgiveness, comfort, reaffirming love.

Jay Adams says in "From Forgiven to Forgiving":

The word reaffirm is a specialized term...meaning to officially reinstate. When one repents and is readmitted into the church, he may not be accepted as a second-class citizen of the kingdom of God. God has no such citizens. The repentant one comes back with full rights and privileges of membership into the church...Now, in most reconciliation contexts, someone will not be reentering the church after having been disciplined out of it, but, in an unofficial way, the same thing holds. Neither you nor others should remain aloof from the brother or sister who is reinstated. Fu7ll fellowship must be restored. He should be restored with active, loving words and deeds by all..."

If you don't have this book, I strongly urge you to follow the link and get it (I don't get a cut, Baker is just my favorite Christian bookstore), read it and put it into practice. Putting the principles in this book into action has changed my relationship with my daughter. She knows that if she has repented for an action and I bring it up again, she can (and does) call me on it. I do the same with her. This recipricol accountability has changed things.

I know that it is impossible for a person to truly take a another at his or her word and forgive and not hold it against them. It is truly impossible. How can we comfort the person who sinned against us?!?

The answer is that we can't. Romans 7:18 says, "...For I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out. "

But there's hope, Philippians 4:13 says, "I can do all things through him who strengthens me."

A (then unsaved) friend of mine was once going through a very difficult situation and she said to me, "I'm not going to be able to do this without God, am I." Nope.

And no, forgiving God's way requires God. It keeps us humble and it keeps the forgiven one restored.

I think God planned it that way.

•

In the “Allegory of the Cave”, we see an example of people seeing “through the glass dimly.” Plato describes a group of people in a cave since their childhood, chained so that they cannot move their heads. I could not picture this until I saw the illustration, but imagine a fire behind the people, casting shadows on the wall in front of them. There is also a walkway and animals, people and things are carried along between the fire and the wall in front of the prisoners.

All these people know of the world are the shadows on the wall in front of them. In fact, they may not even know that there is a world outside of those shadows. All they can see – all they can know – are the flickering shadows on the wall in front of them.

Imagine that one of these prisoners is set free. He stands up and turns around, seeing the fire for the first time. This is the first time he sees the direct flame and he is blinded. At first, before his eyes grow accustomed to the light, the objects that cast the shadows seem unreal – less real than the shadows. He rebels – this is not what he is used to!

(continue reading)

• 4 Comments

•

Yes, I know that McLaren and Driscoll are on "Out of Ur" but that's not what I'm writing about.

I firmly believe that homosexualty actions are wrong - sin. Of course, so are a lot of other things that are right out in the open at church. How homosexuals should be treated should very much depend on whether or not they are in the church (professing Christians).

Wherever they are at, whatever they are doing, our motive should be love.

But on to the real topic.
...and my struggle with gentleness...I'm going to be writing a letter to the editor and need to focus on gentleness and respect. My first letter "went away" when somebody rebooted the computer before I saved it and I think God's hand was in that.

I got my February copy of "The Banner" and read a couple of things that kind of mystified me.

The First Christian Reformed Church in Toronto, Ontario announced three years ago that it would allow its members living in committed gay and lesbian relationships to be nominated as elders and deacons.

In December 2005, after being on the brink of being disaffiliated, "The Council of First Christian Reformed Church, Toronto...resolved[s] to acknowledge the CRC guidelines with respect to homosexuality and agrees to tailor its ministry accordingly."

So far so good. Next up: First CRC plans ask the synod to revisit the CRC's position on homosexuality. So, they're going to go through the normal channels to get gays and lesbians into the formal leadership of their church. (Here's where I start to lose the "gentleness" thing.

I'm not mystified by this; I'm glad that the denomination's structure brought enough pressure to bring the church into line. The structure did its job.

What mystifies me is another article on "General and Special Revelation in Conversation" by Dr. Donald Oppewal at Calvin College (words from the article in blue. Special revelation is the Bible and general revelation is:
- an embodiment of the divine thought in the phenomona of nature;
- the general composition of the human mind and
- the facts of experience or history.

Oppewal maintains that special revelation alone is inadequate; the two sources are interdependent and...that general revelation promotes a proper understanding of special revelation."

(This is where I really start to lose my gentleness - not with sinners, but with the denomination)

Oppewal's final paragraph reads: "The Spirit moves most surely among us when Christians read the "facts of experience or history" as well as when we read the Bible. Christian thinkers in the vaeious disciplines, including theology, can give us counsel as we try to walk together toward that day when we shall all see more clearly the will of God for our communal lives, both in church and in society."

(Here's where I have to work to stay focused on gentleness)

Apply that final paragraph to Oppewal's final point.

"It remains to be seen how the question of homosexuality as a lifestyle comports with a Christian view of sexuality. But we can hope that the church will examine the evidence from general revelation just as seriously as it does the evidence from special revelation.

"Without also considering the evidence from biology concerning how sexuality is shaped, and without turning to the actual sociological evidence about same-sex relations, we'll end up doing only half our homework as Reformed Christians."

What Oppewal appears to be saying is that we have to look at God's Word through the lens of "sociological evidence" - not the other way around.

My desire is (with gentleness and respect) state clearly that we should be looking at the world through God's lens - not looking at God's Word through the lens of the world.

• 6 Comments

•

I just posted on hope - and how knowing the future can interfere with it.

It's Wednesday now and I've had a little more "processing time" after seeing the "prophet" at my church. I've been waiting on a call from my pastor since Monday (sometimes it takes a while to get through his assistant, who was out of the office).

I've led a sheltered life. This is the first time that I've seen (in person) a "modern day prophet" in action.

I didn't trust her. Here's what happened. The "apostle's" wife (the prophet) came up on the stage at the end of the service and offered a prophecy to the pastors and their wives. She had talked about the time they had all spent together and the prophecy didn't seem like anything that she would not have gleaned just from being with these people for several hours over dinner. Then she "prophesied" over the church. Basically, follow your leaders. (I think there might be a reason for that.)

Then, after the congregation was released, she stayed on the stage and "prophesied" over individuals. Some things I'm pretty sure that she could not have known, others she might have asked a question or two and found out something.

But there was a crowd of people who wanted to know what was in their future. Is this what God wants for us - really?

Does He really want us chasing after the Christian equivalent of fortune tellers, or does He want us leaning on Him; trusting in His goodness?

God didn't send His prophets to tell His people that they (as individuals) were going to marry this man or that woman; that they were going to move to a different city, that they were going to change jobs or that their future was rosy.

No.

When God sent His prophets, they told the people exactly what they did not want to hear.

The woman I saw on Sunday told people only good things. And vague things. And things that will be forgotten in a short time.

We laugh at the "prophet" on the street corner. You know - the one that doesn't look the way we think a prophet should look. The one that probably looks the way John the Baptist looked after living in the desert and eating grasshoppers for a few months. The one that tells us that the end is near. Yeah. That one.

But the pretty one in the nice suit, we flock to. You know - the one that tells us that everything is going to be good. The one that tells us we're going to lose weight. Or that we're not going to be alone. Yeah. That one.

It brings doubts to my mind when we only embrace the "prophet" that tells us the pretty things.

thought?

• 6 Comments

•

I have days when I feel like I have no future. It’s not that it’s not there…it’s just that I can’t see it. And that’s a good thing. Not so long ago I thought that I knew what my future would be. It might not have been great, but it was at least consistent.

Now – not so. I don’t know what the future holds – it’s hidden from me. And that’s a good thing.

We had a “prophet” at our church on Sunday. It disturbed me. A lot.

I sat in the sanctuary for the time that she was speaking (after the service) and just watched. I’d really like to be able to look into the future and see how a couple of different things turn out – but I didn’t want to ask a “prophet”. There were other reasons, but my spirit just wouldn’t let me.

It dawned on me yesterday. It’s hope.

If you already know what is ahead of you on this earth – there is no reason to hope.

Romans 8:24 “For in this hope we were saved. But hope that is seen is no hope at all. Who hopes for what he already has?”

We run around like mice worrying about the future.

Matthew 6:27 “Who of you by worrying can add a single hour to his life ?”

Planning this way and that way.

Matthew 6:34 “Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own.”

Planning our own plans, going our own way, but we just don’t get it.

Proverbs 20:24 “A man's steps are directed by the LORD. How then can anyone understand his own way?”

Who do you (I) trust?

Psalm 52:8 “But I am like an olive tree flourishing in the house of God; I trust in God's unfailing love for ever and ever.”

Do we really trust God?

Psalm 91:2 “I will say of the LORD, "He is my refuge and my fortress, my God, in whom I trust."

Are you (am I) in a hurry, or do we rest (wait) in the promised of God?

Psalm 130:5 “I wait for the LORD, my soul waits, and in his word I put my hope.”

How do you (I) get this hope? It is through the trials of life.

Romans 5:3-4 “And not only this, but we also exult in our tribulations, knowing that tribulation brings about perseverance; and perseverance, proven character; and proven character, hope; and hope does not disappoint… “

Is it really worth it – all this “hope”?

Romans 5:5 “And hope does not disappoint us, because God has poured out his love into our hearts by the Holy Spirit, whom he has given us.”

A long time ago, I had a friend whose brother died at age 29 of a heart attack. She went with her sister to consult a psychic. He told them what they wanted to hear and he sent them away with hope.

On Sunday, I went to church and saw people crowd around a “prophet”, who told them largely what they wanted to hear and she sent them away with hope.

But that is not where our hope should be. We don’t need to know the future – in fact, if we do know the future, we are less dependent on God’s promises!

People can (and will) disappoint us. The “prophets” of today can (and will) disappoint us. Ecclesiastes 8:7 “Since no man knows the future, who can tell him what is to come?”

But hope will never disappoint us.

Read that last verse again – “Hope does not disappoint us, because God has poured out His love into our hearts by the Holy Spirit, whom He has given us.”

Today, I do not have my future. God does. My hope lies in Him.

I don’t need a prophet to tell me that God holds my future in His hands. That’s what I’d really like to sink in (for me).

I don’t know what lies ahead for me – but my trust is in God.

Psalm 13:5 “But I trust in your unfailing love; my heart rejoices in your salvation.”