 |
| Thou art all fair, my love; there is no spot in thee. Song of Soloman 4:7 |
Doug said:
Holy Mackerel David...
Excuse the pun during Lent.
I'm having a real hard time wondering if you haven't lost something here.... or is that part of dying to oneself? You need to step back, take a big breath of fresh air and read what you posted and compare it to what the Holy Bible has to say.
Consider what your dear friend has posted in comment #1. His last sentence is something you should ponder.
Remember, the seed can make it all the way to the ground and sprout and then get tangled up in weeds and hence bear no fruit.
Consider this scripture, (it is Christ in us that does the work):
Gal 2:20-21 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.
I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.
David, you need to get back to the basics...maybe quote some scripture to back up your thought process here.
Love ya brother,
Doug
Doug,
Hey, believe me, when I read guys like C.R. Stam, I am saying "Holy Mackerel" the whole time too! Stinky stuff to my nose. By the way, it is stinky stuff to literally 99.999 percent of Christians as well. Of course just saying that does not convince you to abandon your Ultradispensationalism. You believe that your micro-small sect is correct, and all other Christians have gotten some pretty major things wrong. You could be right. We will let inquiring minds examine and decide how likely that is, and if Pauline or ultra Dispensationalism best represents Christian Truth.
I again want to say that the issue of authority will be at the root of any discussion between us. I submit to the living, breathing, Magisterium of the Catholic Church, and you submit to your interpretation of the Scriptures. So when those two authorities clash, we of course will each point to what we see as our higher authority. So our discussions will invariably always be funneled into that narrow alley. Perhaps we should just stay in that alley? But I suspect you may not desire to spend much time discussing these things because of farm business etc. If not, please ignore all that follows and go have a great day! The weather is great out there! How bout' them Vikings?!
As for me, I would rather have a slow, methodical conversation than the cluster bomb of scripture verses and topic changes like with Jed and Kendra. Also them having opinions on topics they could not even define was out of control. Like saying Vanilla is the best ice cream, and then asking what Chocolate and strawberry ice cream taste like.
Keep in mind that I believe every single verse of the bible. So simply quoting scripture will just make me nod my head in agreement. What counts is your interpretation of it.
Simply put, your comment was condescending. There also was very little real content. There was one scripture verse, with your interpretation of it, but the rest was just saying: "Wow, you are really screwed up and going to hell, bye." So again, if you want to actually talk, I am game. But if it will just be more of this type of throw-away comment, I will pass on further discussion. I take my time and put a lot of effort into these conversations, so I dont want to waste time like the last time. I did days of reading and research, and then a couple sentence throw away response from you. 9 months ago I took time and responded to you, and you never replied. You had called me out to prove a claim, I said I would reply with the proof, and then instead of a retraction from you, I got nothing.
So like I said, if you want to discuss, lets do that. Pick a topic from my post here or whatever you want, and let's focus like a laser beam on it.
If not, or if you don't have the time, that is fine as well, and I won't hold it against you! You are a busy guy!But If that is the case, please just disregard the following.
Anyway, on to your comment:
You said:
“I'm having a real hard time wondering if you haven't lost something here.... or is that part of dying to oneself?”
Doug, I don’t think you are really having a hard time with this! You disagree strongly. I get that. But I also already knew that. So it would be better to say something to convince me of the truth rather than to just say that I am wrong. I mean, I am not offended if you say I am wrong about something… not at all... iron sharpening iron and all that. But just saying we disagree or saying that I have “lost something” doesn’t help the “sharpening”. You need to show me what you believe I have lost. Until then, this is just handwaving.
You said:
“You need to step back, take a big breath of fresh air and read what you posted and compare it to what the Holy Bible has to say.”
Nah. I like to just make stuff up and ignore the Bible. More fun that way. Plus it says stuff that I dont like. So I like to just make crap up. ;-)
Come on Doug. This is just more handwaving.
And of course, as you might suspect, I have done that! And I do not see any contradiction with any of the 72 books of the inerrant and infallible written Word of God and Catholic teaching.
So again, I do not think your admonition here really has any traction. I have “compared it to what the Holy Bible has to say” and I believe it fits like a glove! Your incredulity at my belief does not in itself convince me to change my mind. We can debate specific passages I suppose, and get into the interpretation and exegesis and what-not, but the fundamental question of interpretive authority will always be the elephant in the room for us. At the end of the -what- of iron sharpening, who gets to decide which interpretation is true? Who am I? Who are you? Whose authority do we speak with? And yes, if you want I can show you from scripture where I believe you are wrong if you wish me to with a shower of verses and exegesis of each one. But I think this “authority” issue is really the root level disagreement between us. Doctrines about Mary are a leaf way out on the tip of a branch compared to the root issue.
Can you picture me saying:
“Doug, you need to step back, take a big breath of fresh air and compare your doctrine to what the Holy Bible has to say.”
I hope you said yes! Because I can see myself saying that same thing to you! My point is not that we should not disagree, my point is that just stating our disagreement gets us nowhere!
Doug, I think you need to step back and re-examine your paradigm. Not sure what saying that to you acomplishes.
Heck, we both disagree with tons of professors with multiple degrees in scripture and theology. Godly men like Wilson, Sproul, Billy Graham, Wesley, Luther, Calvin, etc. Would you advise them to "take a big breath of fresh air and compare their doctrine to what the Holy Bible has to say"? I think they might chuckle a bit at that one. If they all just read their bible again they would become your specific subset of Pauline Dispensationalists?
You said: “Consider what your dear friend has posted in comment #1. His last sentence is something you should ponder.
Remember, the seed can make it all the way to the ground and sprout and then get tangled up in weeds and hence bear no fruit.”
I’m not exactly sure what you mean here, but I think you are referring to the “sufficiency” Bob mentioned and how he thinks Mary makes Christ insufficient for Catholics and they end up worshipping Mary.
Again, Doug, I have “pondered” it. Do you think I have not considered these things at length? Do you think that I believe they contradict the bible and yet don’t care? No way. Everything I believe is consistent with scripture and can be either implicitly (Christ’s full humanity and divinity) or explicitly (the resurrection) found there.
Mary does not get in the way of Christ any more than my wife, or you, or Melissa, or Jed does. I have asked all of you to intercede for me to God before, and I do not believe that puts you in a position of me worshipping you. In fact, being an intercessor is exactly what St. Paul commands in 1Tim. 2:1-8, especially verse 1. Mary is just really good at it.
You apply Jesus’ parable of the Sower to me and warn that I may be the seed that is suffocated by weeds. I genuinely thank you for the concern Doug. I think every one of us needs to take Jesus’ words to heart there. Ironically, as far as I know, as a Pauline Dispensationalist you would apply that parable to the Jews and not to the gentile Church? Can a gentile believer like me who trusts in Christ be choked with weeds and go to hell? As a Catholic, I believe I can, but I thought you did not believe that. So I am confused with your admonition. Perhaps you believe my current belief about Mary means I never did really have a true faith? I can only guess what you are trying to say. Having said that, I will cautiously say that I don’t think the parable currently applies to me, although sometimes I do feel like I am in a jungle with a machete! I daily examine myself to see how I can conform myself to Christ in the sense of Galatians 2:20 (which I still have memorized KJV style by the way!) I trust in Christ for my salvation. He is the only way, His is the only path to get to heaven. And only by His merit will I get there! That is what I believe, and having that hope, I believe I have the hope of heaven. Everything, including intercession of saints, Mary, or you, or Melissa, etc… is SECONDARY to Christ’s FINISHED work of salvation on the cross. So again, thanks for your concern. And please pray for me! And I will pray for you bro! Lord knows we need it!
You said:
“Consider this scripture [Gal. 2:20-21], (it is Christ in us that does the work):”
1 Cor. 3:9 says we are God’s “sunergoi”, or co-workers. I will say it again, Christ did it ALL on Calvary. His finished work is what brings us salvation. YET, He also asks us to join in his work to bring His finished work to the world (including ourselves). He doesn’t need our help, but he does consider us co-workers. It absolutely IS Christ in us that does the work Doug! I agree! The Holy Ghost goes before our works and “tills the soil”. Without the Spirits work, our efforts and prayers are filthy rags. This is what Gal. 2 verse 21 is referring to.
By the way, Catholics believe that in Galatians St. Paul is warning against trusting in the Jewish ceremonial law. And righteousness does not come by that law. So that someone who just obeys with a rotten heart, without agape, can still be on the fast track to hell. Agape is love for God and neighbor by willing the good of the other for the others own sake. So this may be a fundamental interpretive difference between us. Catholics view Galatians and much of Romans as referring to the CEREMONIAL law when it talks about “the works of the law”.
You have no problem asking other people to pray for you. That makes them an intersessor, and a co-worker with Christ. Consider how God desires and responds to our mediation and intersession:
Scripture Catholic is a good source for the Catholic interpretation of many scriptures. The following can be found here.
James 5:16; Proverbs 15:8, 29 - the prayers of the righteous (the saints) have powerful effects.
Mark 16:20
Romans 8:28 God "works for good with" (the Greek is "sunergei eis agathon")
2 Cor. 6:1 - "working together" (the Greek is "sunergountes") with him.
Heb. 12:1 - the “cloud of witnesses” helps us on our journey.
1 Peter 2:5 - we are a holy priesthood, instructed to offer spiritual sacrifices to God.
Rev. 1:6, 5:10 - Jesus made us a kingdom of priests for God. Priests intercede through Christ on behalf of God's people.
James 5:16; Proverbs 15:8, 29 - the prayers of the righteous (the saints) have powerful effects.
Consider more of these scriptures about our mediation/participation with God.
You said: “David, you need to get back to the basics...maybe quote some scripture to back up your thought process here.”Which thought process? Is there something specific you had in mind? Many of the scriptures I just quoted back up the fact that creatures can be mediators and intersesors.
Doug, I could say the same... "you need to get back to the basics... etc." But what are the basics, and who gets to determine them? What do you think they are? Are you sure we disagree about the basics? Which "basic" have I left behind? While your at it, please show me your credentials to determine these things!
And I am not sure how quoting scripture will solve our disagreement Doug, although I have done so, and can quote more if you like. Who has the authority to declare the true meaning of the passages we both affirm yet disagree on?
From your perspective, the Bible says X, and Dave needs to listen to X.
From my perspective, the faith of the Apostles (in the Bible, Tradition and magisterium) says Y, and I need to listen to Y.
Who gets to decide who has the trump card Doug? Notice I didnt say who has the trump card, which is a secondary question, and of course we both think we have it. But who gets to decide who has it. What authority do you stand on when you make your claim to the trump card?
It really is the most simple and fundamental question:
"Jesus I know, and Paul I know; but who are you?”
If you ask me that question, I will refer you to my bishop. He believes the same stuff as the other 5100 bishops around the globe. He believes the same stuff that the guy who laid hands on him did. So on and so on back to the apostles. I believe whatever they believe, because they have the authority from Christ.
Anything I say here I encourage you to compare with the faith of the Church of all ages. Compare with the Word of God in both Scripture and Tradition. Look in the universal Catechism and correct me. I am speaking under authority not as an authority. I fully submit my every word to the living Magisterium of the Catholic Church, which can physically trace its line of succession to the apostles. This living Magisterium can say to me "yes, that is what we believe." or "No, that is not of the faith". The "authority" you claim in pronouncing the meaning of scripture can not do that. Your authority strangely seems to speak with a voice that sounds a lot like Doug. It doesnt sound like my brother, or my former pastor Josh Moon, or R.C. Sproul, or Billy Graham, or any other people claiming and preaching by the same authority. In fact there are some big diferences in belief. Hmm. Why is it that this "authority" seems to produce different adherents, different faiths? Well, it aint the authority's fault, that's for sure. The scripture says one thing. It is true. So it must be the ones claiming it as their authority that are wrong. And they must then also be wrong that it was ever meant to be their authority in the first place. Because God is not the author of confusion, and would not pretend to give them a reliable authority, but then pull the rug out from their feet. So again I say:
"Jesus I know, and Paul I know; but who are you?”
From my perspective, my Church put together the table of contents of your Bible. Unless, that is, you want to show me your inspired table of contents (you would be the first Protestant to claim that). Show me where the Bible even makes the slightest, weakest, in-passing attempt to say what the bible even is! Catholics know what it is because the successors of the apostles wrote the inspired table of contents. How do you know what it is without referring to that Tradition? Obviously that Tradition is not laid down in scripture, so how can that possibly fit with Sola Scriptura? And I agree with you that the Bible is great for doctrine, reproof and correction, but show me where your Bible says that only the Bible can be used for those purposes.
Because my bible says the opposite!
2 Thess. 2:15:
“Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.”
Over and over the scripture itself points to the apostles and their successors as the ones we should listen to in preference to our own interpretations, and shows that the laying on of hands by a legitimate bishop in succession is necessary:
http://www.scripturecatholic.com/scripture_alone.html#scripture-I
Go ahead and read the bible, it is very profitable. But when you disagree with the bishops in succession, the scripture tells you to obey the bishops. When the Jerusalem council ruled on the circumcision controversy, they didn’t then send out a memo of their “interpretation” as a suggestion to all the Churches! They had the legitimate authority, and they demanded obedience, as was their right. The ones who disagreed (possibly many, many, Jews) were required to obey… even if they disagreed!
My Bishop, who can trace his ordination by laying on of hands to the apostles themselves, is Archbishop John Nienstedt, who’s apostolic throne (cathedra) is in the Cathedral of Saint Paul in St. Paul MN. Who is your Bishop? And per 2Timothy 2:2, can I see his credentials please?
Luke 10:16 - Jesus tells His apostles, "he who hears you, hears Me."
2 Tim. 2:2 – You will find FIVE levels of apostolic succession in this verse! This is how St. Paul commands that authority be passed down- NOT through each person interpreting scripture on their own.
1 John 4:6 - whoever knows God listens to us (the bishops and the successors to the apostles). This is the way we discern truth and error (not just by reading the Bible and interpreting it for ourselves).
Luke 22:29 - the Father gives the kingdom to the Son, and the Son gives the kingdom to the apostles. The gift is transferred from the Father to the Son to the apostles.
John 13:20 - Jesus says, "he who receives anyone who I send, receives Me." He who receives the apostles, receives Christ Himself. He who rejects the apostles and their successors, rejects Christ.
John 14:10 - Jesus says the Word He speaks is not His own authority, but from the Father. The gift is from the Father to Jesus to the apostles.
Many, many more examples from scripture showing how authority is passed down (Apostilic succession through the laying on of hands) in the Church. There are so many, I really should just put the link instead of writing them all down:
http://www.scripturecatholic.com/apostolic_succession.html#apostolic-II
That is what the bible says about our authority. But for proving sola scriptura, you will find nothing. The only verses you can provide will simply say how great scripture is. That it is inerrant, infallible, and useful for use in and by the Church. You will show Bereans using the Old Testament to verify Paul’s account of Jesus. Great. But Catholics already believe all that. What you must show is that scripture is the ONLY thing Christians can use for our authority.
It bears repeating. For sola scriptura to be true, What you must show is that scripture is the ONLY thing Christians can use for our authority.
And that “only” is exactly what the scripture never says or implies. In fact it says the exact opposite in 2Thess. 2:15 and elsewhere.
First I challenge you to respond to the evidence I provided on the mediaval Bible availability.
Then I challenge you to show me, using only scripture, the "Sola" (only) in sola scriptura in your Bible. And I challenge you to show me the divinely inspired table of contents in your Bible.
Show me even one of them and I will renounce Catholicism on the spot.
Peace to you and the whole family!
David
""Jesus I know, and Paul I know; but who are you?”
ReplyDeleteIf you ask me that question, I will refer you to my bishop. He believes the same stuff as the other 5100 bishops around the globe. He believes the same stuff that the guy who laid hands on him did. So on and so on back to the apostles. I believe whatever they believe, because they have the authority from Christ. "
Apostolic succession is also present in many other churches. While I don't agree with Doug on his ultra-dispensationalism, finding an apostolic church does not necessarily mean finding Rome. There are plenty who have had apostolic hands laid on them that are in disagreement with and outside of Papal authority.
From Wikipedia:
"Churches that claim the historic episcopate include the Roman Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Assyrian, Independent Catholic, the Anglican Communion, and several Lutheran Churches "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostolic_succession#Churches_claiming_apostolic_succession
FYI, I am still growing in my understanding and appreciate the (small o) orthodox understanding of the Nicean creed - especially the 'communion of the saints'. My pause is at ascribing pontificates to Mary, and giving her roles for which she is not suited. Analogies of the hose to the spigot through which 'all grace' flows smack of idolatry. I am even uncomfortable with titles like 'queen of heaven' - which is the old title given to Asherah (you can thank her for christmas trees too).
I guess what I am saying is that one can affirm communion of the saints without tipping the scales into the RCC teachings. And those teachings are not agreed on by all apostolic-appointed bishops.
You are correct - all discussions end up in the narrow alley of authority. I agree with the bishops of the EO and Anglicans that the bishop of Rome needs to repent and return his authority to pre-schism levels and stop acting unilaterally. Only then will we have unity in the Church.
And If I asked your Anglican vicar for his credentials, the conversation would go to the next level of determining between the 7 ecclesial bodies you mention. Incidentally, are you now convinced of the need for true, physical succession? If you hang around conservative Anglicans you are perhaps being convinced of that biblically and historically. If so I am glad.
ReplyDeleteBut if so, Bob, sorting through that (relatively short) list is a discussion for you and me. But Doug will deny the whole list in the first place in favor of an invisible Church. Yet, as you may be realizing, that position is totally inconsistent with Scripture and Tradition. That is why I brought it up with Doug.
"Apostolic succession is also present in many other churches"
I couldnt disagree more. There are not many at all. You will run out of fingers counting the ones with a plausible claim. Compare the ~7 who claim succession to the # of Protestant bodies who do not claim succession... uh oh... there are literally 10's of thousands.
"My pause is at ascribing pontificates to Mary"
I dont understand this.
"giving her roles for which she is not suited."
According to you.
Obviously Catholics and Orthodox disagree.
"Analogies of the hose to the spigot through which 'all grace' flows smack of idolatry."
A Catholic hears you say that and thinks to himself: "then you praying for your wife or her praying for you must "smack" of idolatry as well."
"I am even uncomfortable with titles like 'queen of heaven' - which is the old title given to Asherah (you can thank her for christmas trees too)."
Well, you were uncomfortable with the pointy bishop hat (mitre) so I am not surprised. Like I said before, Christianity can take worldly things and make them something else. And often those things are shadows of Christianity in the first place. Think about the Incas and human sacrifice. They had the right idea! Human sacrifice IS necessary! But of course it is Christ's sacrifice, not their twisted ones. So an observer can (and many have) look at Christianity and say that we are just doing what religions have always done with the whole "Jesus' sacrifice saves us" thing. But we know better.
As a Christian (even before I was a Catholic) when I look at my Christmas tree, I first think of Bethlehem (the star on top) then my eye is drawn down at the decorations representing the beauty of the incarnation which came down to us.
Next I think of St. Boniface. He was the 8th century saint who CHOPPED DOWN (with the help of a miracle) the "sacred oak" of the pagans in Germany. This was the beginnings of Christianity in Germany. Many were converted because of that event, and St. Boniface. Some say the practice of doing a Christmass tree comes from devotion to St. Boniface. Makes sense. So I think of St. Boniface also when I look at the tree. What I don't think about is Asherah poles.
And just because we call Mary Queen of Heaven does not mean we are pagan any more than you talking about the beauty of Christ's human sacrifice makes you a pagan.
Just because the pagans walk on their feet doesnt mean we should walk on our hands!
Cont...
...Cont...
ReplyDelete"I guess what I am saying is that one can affirm communion of the saints without tipping the scales into the RCC teachings. And those teachings are not agreed on by all apostolic-appointed bishops."
Your statement is just a statement of fact. So I agree. Of course you can and do affirm all sorts of things that Catholics and Orthodox affirm. You probably believe in baptismal regeneration now that yuo are going the conservative Anglican route and looking at the creed. (...One baptism for the forgiveness of sins). Ok, that is cool. So do lots of people believe it. The problem is not the agreed upon points, but who decides about the ones we disagree on. Does the presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church of the U.S. Katharine Jefferts Schori get to decide? Or A.O.C. Rowan Williams? Who breaks the tie?
And I would add that Arius was also a valid bishop in the line of apostolic succession. He was also excommunicated, which I assume you agree was a good decision, seeing as he denied the divinity of Christ. So obviously there is more at work than merely having succession. Nestorius and Arius were very popular bishops in the succession. They are also heretics. So MERELY showing credentials (as I asked Doug to do) is not enough. But it is the first step!
"You are correct - all discussions end up in the narrow alley of authority."
Yep. Which is why we ignore commercials and salesmen and politicians. No authority, no listen.
"I agree with the bishops of the EO and Anglicans that the bishop of Rome needs to repent and return his authority to pre-schism levels and stop acting unilaterally. Only then will we have unity in the Church."
And then Rowan Williams And Katharine Jefferts Schori would be invited to the next eccumennical council?
Rome would allow women priests, and openly, activly gay and/or femalebishops, contraception, abortion, etc, etc.?
Not to mention many other conflicting doctrines. Neither Anglicans nor Rome would want that kind of "unity". Serious Anglicans and serious Catholics who want unity do not want it at the cost of having a unity of faith. ONE faith, ONE Lord, ONE baptism. We both believe that. Therefore when examining two differing ecclesial bodies like Catholic and Anglican, we know either one or both are wrong. Therefore either one or both will need to change so that both can have the unity of faith Christ spoke of in John 17.
I suggest the Anglicans make a very small start in the process by getting rid of their female and openly gay priests and bishops. This is a visible, obvious hindrance to reunion, that makes any talk of reunion comical to Orthodox and Catholic. That would be one small and easy step among many, many more steps.
The steps between Catholic and Orthodox are exponentially shorter. When I talk with my Orthodox friend Nick, whether about Mary, Lent, saints, prayer, Succession, Tradition, Scripture, contraception, abortion, the priesthood, the sacraments, etc. etc... we agree. Our beliefs are so similar that my CHurch considers his Church to have valid sacraments! That is how close we are in belief! Even he would agree that we are very, very close in belief. Yet we each would still not take communion in the others Church. But whenever we talk about the faith, we agree 99% of the time!
To him Anglicans appear the same as snake handling pentecostals. No offense, but them is the facts.
-Dave
Here is some good info on Saint Boniface. The Wiki is not to bad either.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02656a.htm
"I suggest the Anglicans make a very small start in the process by getting rid of their female and openly gay priests and bishops. This is a visible, obvious hindrance to reunion, that makes any talk of reunion comical to Orthodox and Catholic. That would be one small and easy step among many, many more steps."
ReplyDeleteThat may well be true, but the Anglicans and Orthodox could say the exact same statement - substituting gayness with Papal infallibility (or some other RCC innovation).
The point is, sin is sin. Both sides are wallowing in it... Anglicans are struggling when it comes to sexuality, and the RCC is struggling when it comes to authority and unilateral action.
And this is where the rubber hits the road. The Anglican church 'can' change and repent of its ways. Rome can't (or won't)... especially when it comes to doctrine, even doctrine determined at non-ecumenical councils.
"A Catholic hears you say that and thinks to himself: "then you praying for your wife or her praying for you must "smack" of idolatry as well.""
We are mixing 2 arguments here. The common understanding of the communion of the saints allows and supports intercession. The Catholics have unilaterally taken it one step further and ascribed special properties or abilities to Mary that no other saint gets... specifically being the hose through which all grace flows (to use the analogy). It is this second function that has not been determined by an ecumenical council, and yet there is support for this idolatrous belief within the RCC.
"The problem is not the agreed upon points, but who decides about the ones we disagree on. Does the presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church of the U.S. Katharine Jefferts Schori get to decide? Or A.O.C. Rowan Williams? Who breaks the tie?"
Do as was done in the first 7 ecumenical councils. 1 Bishop (even the bishop of Rome) doesn't get to decide unilaterally. It never worked that way. There is a vast difference from being 'tie breaker' and 'dictator'. Just because the pope may have had the first honor doesn't mean he gets the 2nd authority.
"Incidentally, are you now convinced of the need for true, physical succession?"
No. It isn't the laying of hands (or the words spoken) that causes validity. God calls a person, which is affirmed by the laying of hands. I believe that God continues to call those outside of 'apostolic' churches, and those callings are valid, even if the specific laying of hands doesn't extend unbroken to the apostles.
So what about errant doctrine? God can (and does) use crooked plows to work his fields. Who am I to question the plow, or question God on it's use?
"Do as was done in the first 7 ecumenical councils."
ReplyDeleteTotally arbitrary. And disingenuous considering you think the use of images, which are allowed by the 7th ec. council, are idolatrous. Unless, of course, you have changed your mind and now accept the 7th council. If you want to abide by the first 7 councils, you will need to submit to the magisterium on that issue and start using images in worship. Let me know which icons/statues you choose, I would be interested.
And why should we all not accept only the first 3 councils so that the Oriental Orthodox would be happy? Does accepting the 4th through 7th councils make the Orthodox and Catholics arogant?
Where does the pandering end? There are 21 councils. The same criteria were used in declaring them eccumenical in all 21. I see no reason to reduce that number just because some sub-group is uncomfortable.
And you have no non-arbitrary reason to go with the first 7 councils (which, like I said YOU DO NOT go with all 7 as it is) and not 6,5,4,3...
By the way, the criteria for an eccumenical council, including approval by Peter, that were used in the first 7 have been used in the 8th through 21st. Which incidentally, is why the Orthodox have not been able to declare any councils eccumenical. They know they need Peter to declare it valid, and therefore they are in quite a quandry.
Google pan-orthodox council for some fun reading. As beautiful and ancient as their Church is, they are a multi-headed hydra that cannot get anything done. They need Peter.
David,
ReplyDeleteJust want to let you know that I haven't forgotten about you or your comments and questions.
The roof is 1/2 off of the house (must be finished ASAP) the calves are all moved and the farm clean-up is underway, the garden is being prepared along with the daily milking and feeding of animals and caring for my family (with teens that means alot of talking!)
I'll get to this in time. Check out my blog and my sola pictura! http://milkingforallitsworth.blogspot.com/
My blog tells you how much time I have and how fast I am at typing. My speed will improve...you know I will not stay out of the fray forever...
Remember us peasants.. we have to do manual work that makes us tired. This creates short spans of time for reading too long dissertations about ??? And a non answer does not mean that we do not have one!!!!!
I was not intending to be condescending. I am concerned for you as a father would be for his son...or an older brother for his younger brother perhaps?... take that however you want but nothing bad is meant. Condescension is something you know something about yourself by the way...perhaps I contributed to this ability of yours??? Forgive me if I did.
By the way, are the Vikings Catholic? Maybe the Packers are Protestant...and Billy Graham??? You know better. Do not insult me to that level publicly. You have never seen me reading or listening to him...and I was reading Wilson and friends when you were barely out of high school.
Maybe we should be nice.
Can we?... cut from the same cloth and all.....
Doug,
ReplyDelete"Just want to let you know that I haven't forgotten about you or your comments and questions."
Please, by all means forget about them! The only thing that irked me was when you asked for my response on the supposed medieval bible unavailability in front of a large group of people, and then did not acknowledge your error when I responded to you. I TOTALLY GET IT that you don’t have much time for debates, THAT IS FINE, but then accordingly, you should not make such bold statements about things you know nothing about. Or at least, when you do, you should acknowledge correction. What you present instead is the image of the busy peasant with the opinions of seasoned a theologian... ready to say bold things about how there was no access to the Bible in the medieval period, but then no time to be rebutted.
A peasant should not have time for the claim if he does not have time for the claim to be challenged. Don't write the check if you cant cash it.
You said:
"Remember us peasants.. we have to do manual work that makes us tired. This creates short spans of time for reading too long dissertations about ???"
There is absolutely nothing wrong with being a peasant. Hard work is a gift from God and a peasant cant be expected to debate theology all day. Which is precisely why peasants should not make themselves popes.
And if my post was "too long" for you, then please, let’s forgo any further discussion. Like I said, if a peasant doesn’t have the time for the debate, then he should not have time for the pontificating either. That is immodest and embarrassing for the peasant and those listening to the pontificating. And if you thought of my post as “a long dissertation about ???”, then I guess I am not very good at conveying my thoughts, so we should certainly forget any further discussion.
"Condescension is something you know something about yourself by the way...perhaps I contributed to this ability of yours??? Forgive me if I did."
Yes, Doug, I forgive you for contributing to my ability to be condescending.
"By the way, are the Vikings Catholic? Maybe the Packers are Protestant...and Billy Graham??? You know better. Do not insult me to that level publicly."
And I don't understand your last paragraph. Vikings and Packers? Huh? I certainly didn’t mean to insult you saying anything about Billy Graham? My point was actually that he is a godly, smart guy... just like Wilson, just like Luther, etc. My point was to show that they all are godly Christian men (like you), and yet they all disagree, so how should a Christian choose who's opinion to follow? That was all I was trying to say.
On a different note, Doug, I decided that we will be going to mass on Holy Thursday after all. I don't know if that affects your plans or not. You folks are welcome to go of course. I think it will be at 7:30pm at our Church in St. Louis Park. So we wouldnt be home till ~9:15.
Later,
David
Hello David,
ReplyDeleteI think Doug is not lacking reasoning skill, but humbleness. Although your defense of our faith is right, but it's also too sharp for his ego. Let's just pray for him. It's already a good thing he has such enthusiasm to argue with you, at least it shows that he cares for Jesus. We could only hope that he cares as much for his Church.