tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4423802276620945726.post3022356594726432628..comments2023-10-31T06:32:05.082-05:00Comments on Biblical Manhood: "Be Fruitful and Multiply" (What It Really Means)Anakin Niceguyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09175647581810782580noreply@blogger.comBlogger65125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4423802276620945726.post-84931438613520914762008-09-26T08:05:00.000-05:002008-09-26T08:05:00.000-05:00I think you sort of answered your own question the...<I>I think you sort of answered your own question there, Christina. ;)</I><BR/><BR/>Lol, Triton...<BR/><BR/>That's why I said "minus" that.<BR/><BR/>Actually, Anonymous, some groups of Episcopalians and Anglicans do believe in transubstantiation. They are not, by any means, in agreement in that regard.<BR/><BR/>As for the "open door" policy and homosexual bishops, I said minus that because its still considered a "recent" development, there are still dioceses in the episcopal church who refuse to teach those things - my uncle and my diocese happen to be two of them (bishops have the overall authority of what's taught in their dioceses in the episcopal and anglican churches) - and half of the Anglican church (the African half, to be exact) refuses to accept these doctrine changes...<BR/><BR/>Classical Anglican and Episcopal doctrine is really very solid (I thought)...and I was also under the impression that the Anglican church did NOT give their blessing to the EUSA on their little trip off the deep end...<BR/><BR/>Hence why I asked if there was anything OTHER than that =pChristinahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10601086764216054255noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4423802276620945726.post-5569536338786045302008-09-25T23:36:00.000-05:002008-09-25T23:36:00.000-05:00And lets look at it minus the recent developments ...<I>And lets look at it minus the recent developments in the anglican and EUSA communions concerning the "open door" policy and homosexual bishops...</I><BR/><BR/>I think you sort of answered your own question there, Christina. ;)Tritonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08881747667052152482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4423802276620945726.post-69103292634900962122008-09-25T20:49:00.000-05:002008-09-25T20:49:00.000-05:00I don't think Anglicans or Episcopals believe in t...I don't think Anglicans or Episcopals believe in transubstantiation -- that's more of a Catholic thing.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4423802276620945726.post-25419757236940688572008-09-25T12:35:00.000-05:002008-09-25T12:35:00.000-05:00What's wrong with anglican doctrine?Lol.Note, I'm ...What's wrong with anglican doctrine?<BR/><BR/>Lol.<BR/><BR/>Note, I'm not asking about Episcopal Doctrine (though traditionally, in my experience, its been consistent with scripture...and pretty much ONLY scripture...except maybe the transubstatiation of the bread and wine...)<BR/><BR/>And lets look at it minus the recent developments in the anglican and EUSA communions concerning the "open door" policy and homosexual bishops...Christinahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10601086764216054255noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4423802276620945726.post-74793251031138975432008-09-25T07:35:00.000-05:002008-09-25T07:35:00.000-05:00Triton,When we talk about iconoclastic traditions,...Triton,<BR/><BR/>When we talk about iconoclastic traditions, we are talking about those who forbid the usage of images in worship. That was true of Ancient Israel, in fact, in distinction to its neighbors.<BR/><BR/>The question you bring up is a very interesting one, and that is why I am looking foward to the publication of this book. For example NIDOTTE, one of the standard Old Testament lexicons, says the following with regards to the term:<BR/><BR/><I>The term functions in a worship setting. In Hos 3:4-5 as punishment Israel will be without a ruler (David their king v. 5), and without Yahweh's cult items: sacrifice (= altar), pillars, ephod, or teraphim (T.:RFPIYM). In deuteronomistic history these words, apart from the teraphim, are standard equipment for a shrine, though condemned by the Jerusalem-centric writer. Similarly the shrine of Micah in Judg 17:5; 18:17, 18 (probably additions here), and 20 has ephod, teraphim, and P.ESEL W.MAS."KFH</I>.<BR/><BR/>What is going to be interesting about the book that is coming out, is that he is going to be discussing these cult objects, and their relationship to the other traditions in the ANE, and how they influenced ancient Israel. What is intersting is that, as the author of NIDOTTE mentioned, there were iconoclastic traditions that existed even at the time Hosea was written.<BR/><BR/>The short answer to your question is "sometimes yes, and sometimes no." For instance, the household gods of the book of Genesis have nothing to do with it, because these are family emblems, and have nothing to do with worship. The only passages that would be relevant are the passages in Hosea, and, as NIDOTTE points out, there is a strong tradition against them.<BR/><BR/>Sorry I can't give you a better answer. When it comes to the study of Hebrew literature, we are still waiting for someone to find us a library of writing in ancient Israel. We have only about as much writing as would fill the complete works of William Shakesphere. However, suffice it to say that, given the literature that we do have, we still have a strong iconoclastic tradition throughout the Old Testament, even given the sprinkling of this term in different contexts.<BR/><BR/>God Bless,<BR/>PuritanCalvinistPuritanCalvinisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03285973808564103125noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4423802276620945726.post-80878025742455031332008-09-25T01:20:00.000-05:002008-09-25T01:20:00.000-05:00Apparently, Iconoclastic traditions existed in...a...<I>Apparently, Iconoclastic traditions existed in...ancient Israel.</I><BR/><BR/>PC, did these traditions have anything to do with the household gods that seem to keep popping up in the Old Testament? Or were the icons you speak of something else entirely?Tritonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08881747667052152482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4423802276620945726.post-29732045222510814092008-09-24T22:52:00.000-05:002008-09-24T22:52:00.000-05:00Patrick Kelly,Understand what I just said. There w...Patrick Kelly,<BR/><BR/>Understand what I just said. There were entire councils that condemned Athanasius as a heretic. The question I asked you is how you know that these councils are false, and Nicea is correct. In essence, the reason why you believe this is because the Eastern Orthodox church says so. I always point this out to Roman Catholics as well. When you deny Sola Scriptura, and you allow the church to define what is tradition and what is scripture, and how to interpret scripture and tradition, you have just made the church the ultimate authority, and, rather than Sola Scriptura, you believe in Sola Ecclesia.<BR/><BR/><I>My point is that those who cite Athenasius as an authority to discover what is scripture then turn around and interpret those scriptures and apply them differently than he did. He did not hold to your modern notions of "sola scriptura", "original sin" or even your model of atonement and salvation. It is not hard to find documentation of the Liturgy he likely used, and it is not to be found in western, protestant worship services</I>.<BR/><BR/>(Sigh) did you not even read my post? Since when is Josephus Athanasius? Since when is Jesus Christ, or Jesus bar Sirah Athanasius? The reality is, the Roman and Eastern view of the Canon was rejected throughout Jewish and Church history, and was rejected by Jesus Christ himself. I am relying on a whole lot more than just Athanasius to talk about the Canon. I even quoted scripture, namely, the words of the apostle Paul who tells us that we need to look at these things. To say that I am just taking Athanasius' word for it is simply not a very accurate reading of my post.<BR/><BR/><I>I don't know why you insist on declaring the 11th century as the beginning of the "modern" Orthodox Church when our Liturgy, practices, and "traditions" can cleary be shown to pre-date that by centuries</I>.<BR/><BR/>I didn't say that. I cited Larry Carrino who always tells this story of someone at Vladimir Seminary [An Eastern Orthodox Seminary!!!!!!] who said that. This man was an Eastern Orthodox seminary student!!!!!!<BR/><BR/>Not only that, but you can find beliefs of all three major branches of Christianity in the early church. I agree with Larry Carrino that Eastern Orthodoxy has an incredibly overlysimplistic view of how doctrine developed in the early church. First of all, as I mentioned, Eastern Orthodoxy is a development from Neo-Platonic ideas. Hence, when you quote these early church fathers who are holding neo-Platinic ideas, you are not viewing it from that perspective. You are viewing it in light of later developments of these platonic ideas. We know that Neo-Platonic thought influnced Christians at this time. We can see elements of these Platonic categories in Eastern Orthodox beliefs. In fact, many of the very things I have seen Eastern Orthodox theologians cite are viewed through the lens of Eastern Orthodoxy, and not through the lens of the Neo-Platonism of the time.<BR/><BR/><I>You throw around phrases like "established church" and "gnostic heresy" which you define based on your own biases and "traditions" of Calvin et al. Yet if you were to closely look at the practice of Athenasius and even Augustine you would find Orthodox liturgy, icons and "traditions" concerning Mary. They did not interpret the scriptures the way you do and had a completely different understanding of the nature and purpose of the Church</I>.<BR/><BR/>Well, first of all, neither Augustine or Athanasius knew Hebrew. So, I have strong leg up on them there. Not only that, but you might want to check this book out when it comes out:<BR/><BR/>http://www.eisenbrauns.com/wconnect/wc.dll?ebGate~EIS~~I~LEVIMAGES<BR/><BR/>Apparently, Iconoclastic traditions existed in...ancient Israel. Apparently, as well, Israel was unique in this. Hence, iconoclast traditions were pre-Church. Not only that, but I would not agree with the idea that the usage of images were universal, and, again, I would invite people to go and read the second Nicene council's decision on Iconoclastic traditions, and try to find any scriptural argumentation. You cannot do it.<BR/><BR/><I>You cannot even begin to see this because you're too busy proof texting the a very thin surface of patristic writings or scripture, mining for evidence of your pre-determined conclusions</I>.<BR/><BR/>That is the beauty of being a protestant. I do not have to turn the early church fathers into protestants. I can let the early church fathers be the early church fathers, and let the complexity of the teachings of the early church fathers develop into the modern state of affairs. It is *you* who have to force the the Early Church Fathers to be Eastern Orthodox. I can just let them speak for themselves and keep the good, and get rid of the bad. Hence, I don't look at the early church fathers through "predetermined conclusions." I allow them to speak for themselves, and evaluate them according to scripture.<BR/><BR/><I>Dig deeper through the dirt piled on by 9 centuries of Roman and Protestant diversions from The Orthodox Faith and you will find true treasure</I>.<BR/><BR/>Ok, then, if I need this "treasure", then how would a Jew living 150 years before the time of Christ be able to interpret scripture? Apparently, if you need this "treasure," they could not do so. You see, the real treasure in this sense is not the church [although the church is a treasure], it is the covenant. It is God's voluntary condescention to us to reveal himself to us. That has been going on since the beginning of time, and thus, cannot be limited to any visible church, Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, or otherwise.<BR/><BR/><I>Until then, I think we are talking past each other in a way which frankly cannot be resolved in a forum like this. The Orthodox Christian Faith is a real, authentic, in the flesh, experiential faith which I am seriously lacking the ability to present adequately here. Maybe bigger hearts and minds will do a better job than me, but this novice will go back to lurking and praying for now</I>.<BR/><BR/>That's fine, Patrick. However, I will continue to pray for you that you will come to know the real, authentic, fresh, and experiential faith of being a part of God's voluntary condescention to his people to do for you what you could not do for yourself. I have studied Eastern Orthodoxy for a while now, and I can honestly say that there is no more real, authentic, fresh, and experiential faith then knowing that you have a God who does for you what you cannot do for yourself, who saves you completely from your sin, when you cannot do anything to effect your own salvation. Knowing this kind of faith, and having this relationship with the savior, it makes Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism totally unappealing to me. I pray that one day you will come to see this for yourself.<BR/><BR/>God Bless,<BR/>PuritanCalvinistPuritanCalvinisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03285973808564103125noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4423802276620945726.post-90114161648339482752008-09-24T22:06:00.000-05:002008-09-24T22:06:00.000-05:00"Actually, *you* are the one who needs to read up ...<I><BR/>"<BR/>Actually, *you* are the one who needs to read up on your history. Have you not heard of the phrase "Athenasius contra mundum?" In fact, Athenasius was excommunicated from the church, and had to flee his see five times!<BR/>"<BR/></I><BR/><BR/>Excommunicated by who? From which church? The way you present "Athenasius contra mundum?" is as if he was literally the lone christian in the world, with everyone else turned Arian, which is just not true.<BR/><BR/>My point is that those who cite Athenasius as an authority to discover what is scripture then turn around and interpret those scriptures and apply them differently than he did. He did not hold to your modern notions of "sola scriptura", "original sin" or even your model of atonement and salvation. It is not hard to find documentation of the Liturgy he likely used, and it is not to be found in western, protestant worship services.<BR/><BR/>Sigh.. there are so many assumptions in your post and conclusions based on looking back at history through your modern, dark, post "reformation" lens that you cannot even recognize them.<BR/><BR/>You throw around phrases like "established church" and "gnostic heresy" which you define based on your own biases and "traditions" of Calvin et al. Yet if you were to closely look at the practice of Athenasius and even Augustine you would find Orthodox liturgy, icons and "traditions" concerning Mary. They did not interpret the scriptures the way you do and had a completely different understanding of the nature and purpose of the Church.<BR/><BR/>You cannot even begin to see this because you're too busy proof texting the a very thin surface of patristic writings or scripture, mining for evidence of your pre-determined conclusions.<BR/><BR/>It is clearly rapidly becoming tiresome trying to address every point because this whole pattern and method of examining such issues is frankly un-Orthodox in nature. There were so many errors upon errors by the time Luther and Calvin starting addressing these issues that they merely chose a different way of looking at a theology which was already foundationally flawed and built upon many of the innovations and mistakes of Augustine, Anselm, and Aquinas, which were never adopted as part of any of the eastern Churches, whether they were Greek, Armenian, Oriental, Coptic, or even Nestorian.<BR/><BR/>I don't know why you insist on declaring the 11th century as the beginning of the "modern" Orthodox Church when our Liturgy, practices, and "traditions" can cleary be shown to pre-date that by centuries.<BR/><BR/>Dig deeper through the dirt piled on by 9 centuries of Roman and Protestant diversions from The Orthodox Faith and you will find true treasure.<BR/><BR/>Until then, I think we are talking past each other in a way which frankly cannot be resolved in a forum like this. The Orthodox Christian Faith is a real, authentic, in the flesh, experiential faith which I am seriously lacking the ability to present adequately here. Maybe bigger hearts and minds will do a better job than me, but this novice will go back to lurking and praying for now.<BR/><BR/>the sinner patrick.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4423802276620945726.post-74914928693976351472008-09-24T21:15:00.000-05:002008-09-24T21:15:00.000-05:00Patrick Kelly,I should also note that, during the ...Patrick Kelly,<BR/><BR/>I should also note that, during the time Athanasius was driven from his see, there were Arian councils that met that condemned trinitarianism as a heresy. The question is, given your view, why is it that we should not be accepting the authorities of these councils, rather than the authority of the council of Nicea, expecially when these councils had a much larger percentage of the church believing their conclusions? If you really believe in the infallibility of the councils, then why is it we are not to accept these councils, but to accept Nicea? Why do these councils not bear infallible authority, but Nicea does?<BR/><BR/>PuritanCalvinistPuritanCalvinisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03285973808564103125noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4423802276620945726.post-67930809127659930652008-09-24T20:04:00.000-05:002008-09-24T20:04:00.000-05:00BTW,I wonder how Albert Mohler and the folks over ...BTW,<BR/><BR/>I wonder how Albert Mohler and the folks over at Boundless would feel if they knew that there were this many people out there who agreed with me that the only way you can hold to their position is to deny Sola Scriptura? Absolutely fascinating.<BR/><BR/>God Bless,<BR/>PuritanCalvinistPuritanCalvinisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03285973808564103125noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4423802276620945726.post-44329604460205921072008-09-24T20:02:00.000-05:002008-09-24T20:02:00.000-05:00Patrick Kelly,Actually, *you* are the one who need...Patrick Kelly,<BR/><BR/>Actually, *you* are the one who needs to read up on your history. Have you not heard of the phrase "Athenasius contra mundum?" In fact, Athenasius was excommunicated from the church, and had to flee his see five times!<BR/><BR/>Your mistake is thinking that the council of Nicea ended Arianism. It did not. In fact, if anything, it made matters worse. Arianism grew so large after this that it deceived the established church forced Athanasius from his see five times. It took time before Nicea became accepted by the established church. Now, I can say that it one out because it was the Biblical position. However, what are you going to say when you had the entire "Eastern Orthodox" church driving Athanasius from his see because he was not an Arian?<BR/><BR/><I>I'm not sure what your point is.<BR/><BR/>Paul does say that, but he does not define what is included in those "oracles".<BR/><BR/>I'm not that familiar with Cajatan or Luther, but that seems to be part of the Protestant reformation issues with Rome, and means little to me as an Orthodox Christian</I><BR/><BR/>That's fine. Western Orthodox Christians argue like Roman Catholics sometimes on this topic. The point is that we know what the canon looked like at the time of Christ. If you look at Roger Beckwith's excellent book <I>The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church</I>, you will find that the Jews rejected the apocrypha. Also, William Webster, who is likewise a church historian, has written a book with David King entitled <I>Holy Scripture, The Ground and Pillar of our Faith</I> He has reproduced the sections on the apocrypha here:<BR/><BR/>http://www.christiantruth.com/Apocryphapart1.html<BR/><BR/>http://www.christiantruth.com/Apocryphapart2.html<BR/><BR/>http://www.christiantruth.com/Apocrypha3.html<BR/><BR/>http://www.christiantruth.com/Apocryphaendnotes3.html<BR/><BR/>http://www.christiantruth.com/Apocryphaconclusion.html<BR/><BR/>His thesis is [and I would agree with him], that the apocrypha was rejected by the Jews, and was rejected by multiple church fathers in every century up until the time of the reformation. In fact, I am a M.A. candidate in Old Testament who has read a whole lot in this field and, given the current state of affairs in this study, I know of no one who is willing to defend the idea that the apocrypha books were ever accepted as canonical by the Jews. Not only that, but it was debated up until the time of the reformation, and, in point of fact [for all of those Roman Catholics out there], Trent probably made it scripture precisely because the rejection of those books was something totally protestant.<BR/><BR/>Hence, when Paul tells us that the oracles of God were given to the Jews, he is rejecting the apocrypha. Jesus, himself, speaks of a threefold division of the canon [Luke 24:44]. We know what this threefold division was, and it did not include the apocrypha. In a translation of Ecclesiasticus, Jesus ben Sirah, says that there is a threefold division of the canon in his day, and implies that it was this way at the time of his father.<BR/><BR/>Josephus likewise gives a 22 book canon [which would have excluded the apocrypha], and Philo, although he clearly knew of the existence of the Apocrypha, though he has a mountain of quotations from all the other books of scripture, never quotes the apocrypha.<BR/><BR/>These are just a few of the problems for the idea that the Jews held the apocrypha. In fact, so strong is the evidence, that there are many Eastern Orthodox Bishops that I have heard that are willing to reconsider whether or not the Apocrypha should be scripture. As I said, I know of almost no one who is willing to defend this given the current state of affairs in the studies of the Old Testament canon.<BR/><BR/><I>Western christians seem quite fond of quoting Athanasius when defending whatever canon of scripture they have, but often ignore how he interpreted those scriptures and practiced his faith.<BR/></I><BR/><BR/>Well, Also, Eastern Orthodox Christians do not hold to everything Athanasius held to either. His view of scripture is something no Eastern Orthodox theologian could ever hold. The reality is that these things which Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism hold took time to develop, and many things, such as the perpetual virginity of Mary, are gnostic in origin. This view of Scripture plus tradition comes right out of the gnostic heresies who said that you needed their "secret knowledge" in order to interpret the scriptures correctly. In fact, Irenaeus faults them for this very thing!<BR/><BR/>Consider this, though. If you do believe that the Apocrypha is a matter of doctrine that you cannot reject, then you have to say that Athanasius is in hell right now because he removed books from scripture. Not only that, but you forget that we as protestants do not accept Athanasius as infallible. We test everything he said against the text of scripture, as, I am sure, he himself would want us to do.<BR/><BR/><I>This is one of many reasons it is difficult for those of us "eastern" christians to participate in these discussions. There are so many theological innovations and assumptions we just don't share with post-schism Rome and her children</I>.<BR/><BR/>I would not agree with this statement at all. The "innovations" are coming from Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy. When we look at the heresies such as gnosticism, we find that many of the developments of later Eastern Orthodox theology actually come from this neo-Platonic philosophy. Yet, it is interesting that, not only do I believe protestant theology is consistent with the scriptures, but I also believe that Eastern Orthodoxy has a significant break philosophically from Judaism. [This is one of my areas of interest, so, sorry I am rambling]. The Jewish philosophy of the Old Testament, for example, rejects the idea of images, and, in point of fact, the Jews were known for not having statues and images used in their worship. However, at the second Nicene council, you had already had a strong influence of Platonic philosophy come into the church, and, notice, there was really no argument made from the scriptures that we should use icons in worship.<BR/><BR/>Hence, I agree with John Calvin that, while all three traditions of Christianity hold beliefs that are ancient, Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism have chosen all of the bad things from Church History, rather than all of the Biblical things. In fact, Larry Carrino always tells a story about how he was visiting St. Valdimir's Seminary, and there were two student's talking about this. One student said "I am tired of hearing that the Eastern Orthodox church was the church Christ Founded. It isn't. It is an eleventh century Byzantine relic." He is right. The complex and complicated developments of church history have been so oversimplified in Eastern Orthodox writings. However, if you are a protestant, you can allow the early church fathers to be the early church fathers. You can test them by scripture, and keep the good things they say, and get rid of the bad, because you do not have to think that they are carrying some kind of tradition to which you are bound.<BR/><BR/>PuritanCalvinistPuritanCalvinisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03285973808564103125noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4423802276620945726.post-56343543665646822812008-09-24T18:31:00.000-05:002008-09-24T18:31:00.000-05:00Puritan, et al.,It looks like I am getting nowhere...Puritan, et al.,<BR/><BR/>It looks like I am getting nowhere fast, as the more I respond, the further I get from helping you to understand, for it really does appear that you understand little of what I have said. Perhaps I am weak in understanding what you are saying, but it seems to me that you are somehow making me party to an argument that I don't espouse, leaving me dumbfounded as to how to carry on a conversation.<BR/><BR/>That said I think I will hang up my hat for this thread. I easily grow weary.<BR/><BR/>May God guide you as you seek to know the truth.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4423802276620945726.post-16343395786699021882008-09-24T18:11:00.000-05:002008-09-24T18:11:00.000-05:00"Except maybe for the tradition that we accept fro...<I>"Except maybe for the tradition that we accept from some men as to what is included in that "Bible".<BR/><BR/>Yup, I guess Paul's statement that the oracles of God were given to the Jews [Romans 3:2] was just a tradition of men. I guess that Cardinal Cajatan, who was the Cardinal sent to interrogate Martin Luther, was just following a "tradition of men."<BR/>"</I><BR/><BR/>I'm not sure what your point is.<BR/><BR/>Paul does say that, but he does not define what is included in those "oracles".<BR/><BR/>I'm not that familiar with Cajatan or Luther, but that seems to be part of the Protestant reformation issues with Rome, and means little to me as an Orthodox Christian.<BR/><BR/><I>"At one point in time, Athenatius [sp?] was one of only a few people who believed that Jesus was God during the Arian controversy."</I><BR/><BR/>This is a bit of an oversimplification.<BR/><BR/>The real St. Nicholas also stood boldy against Arius as well as many others. Find a good book that goes into detail about this period of history and you may learn a few things.<BR/><BR/>Western christians seem quite fond of quoting Athanasius when defending whatever canon of scripture they have, but often ignore how he interpreted those scriptures and practiced his faith.<BR/><BR/>This is one of many reasons it is difficult for those of us "eastern" christians to participate in these discussions. There are so many theological innovations and assumptions we just don't share with post-schism Rome and her children.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4423802276620945726.post-79393117691576798872008-09-24T13:15:00.000-05:002008-09-24T13:15:00.000-05:00PC - I have to admit that your last post was a lit...PC - I have to admit that your last post was a little difficult to get through. Alas, I have finally done it! And in an effort to keep these comments from getting even longer, I hope to make this very short. Your argument on Genesis' story of creation has not convinced me. I still believe your interpretation is wrong. And I'll leave it at that. I'm sure there is a way to better express my understanding, but I have not quite found it. And yours has left me more than ever unconvinced. <BR/><BR/>However, I would like to draw your attention to an article I found today while I was surfing the net. It is well written, well-thought and, and has any interesting points. Some of these directly address your protests to my interpretation of Onan's situation. It also brings up other interesting factors to add to the discussion. <BR/><BR/>Check it out: http://ccli.org/nfp/morality/bible.php<BR/><BR/>Referring to an infertile marriage - seems pretty simple to me that they are infertile through no fault of their own. They were as open as they could be to the marital act... what more can the Lord expect? That argument seems silly. And now it seems that you are looking at exceptions to the norm. Doesn't make for a very good case.<BR/><BR/>Anyway, hope you take the time and interest to look at that article.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4423802276620945726.post-8045385845750962432008-09-23T17:39:00.000-05:002008-09-23T17:39:00.000-05:00John,As to Puritan Calvinist and Triton's other co...John,<BR/><BR/><I>As to Puritan Calvinist and Triton's other comments in response to me, in an attempt to stay somewhat on topic ("Be Fruitful and Multiply" What it Really Means), I wish to delve a little into how we know what it means, since especially Puritan Calvinist seems to be flirting with the idea that no one knows what anything means</I>.<BR/><BR/>Actually, my point was that Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox use postmodern arguments to try to refute Sola Scriptura, and yet, they don't want to take them to their logical conclusion. All of the arguments you think are valid against me can be turned back on the Roman Catholic, and say that no want can no anything that the Roman Catholic Church says, either.<BR/><BR/><I>I don't think you realize how feeble your propositions to "be captive to the Word of God alone...Sola Scriptura!" are to a Catholic. What you are really asking me to do is not just "be captive to the Word of God alone," but to be captive to your own limited understanding of the Scriptures</I>,<BR/><BR/>So, are you saying that you have an exhaustive knowledge of the canons and decrees of the Roman Catholic Church? Have you read every church document? Do you know, infallibly, all of the background to those things? No, of course not! So, why the double standard.<BR/><BR/>The answer to all of these questions is that we do not have to because we believe in a God who has condescended to man. That is really the answer to all of these questions. We believe that God can communicate with man, because he has condescended to man. You have said that he has done so in the Roman Catholic Church. I simply say he has done so in scripture. Why do you not allow me to view scripture in the same way you view the church?<BR/><BR/>Not only that, but it is even worse for the Roman Catholic/Eastern Orthodox. How would a Jew living in 100B.C. Be able to interpret Genesis 1:28? Given your view that we need the Roman Catholic Church to interpret the scriptures for us, you would have to say it was impossible for a Jew to interpret the text at this time.<BR/><BR/><I>If so, then are you willing to accept that I approach the Scriptures honestly, just as you do, and find them admonishing me to submit to the Church, which is the pillar and foundation of the truth, and not to just Scripture alone?</I><BR/><BR/>Actually, if you go back and look at that verse, you will find it is in the context of the local church with elders and deacons. And, a pillar and foundation hold things up, and so, the local church holds up the truth of the scriptures for all to see.<BR/><BR/><I>You want me to recognize Scripture as the highest authority, but I cannot do that when the Scriptures themselves tell me not to</I>.<BR/><BR/>See Matthew 15:1-10, and follow Jesus' example when he subjects all tradition to scripture [including this tradition that the Jews believed came from Moses], and will only accept a tradition if it is consistent with scripture.<BR/><BR/><I>You will tell me that I misunderstand the Scriptures, but then I ask you, what happened to Scripture alone, if it takes some sort of understanding that I don't already have by coming to the Scriptures alone?</I><BR/><BR/>Because, when we speak of "Scripture Alone," we are talking about the rule of faith. We are talking about what is binding upon the Christian. It has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that God calls us to "rightly divide the word of truth."<BR/><BR/><I>Therefore I find myself very small and insignificant as an interpreter of Scripture without standing decidedly also on the firm shoulders of Sacred Tradition as my authority</I>.<BR/><BR/>That's and easy problem to fix. Read up on language, and upon language interpretation. Notice what you do in interpreting others, and how language interpretation applies to your daily life. Read up on logic as well. You will soon find that, with a little hard work and practice, you can become a wise interpreter of the word of God.<BR/><BR/><I>Hopefully you see why I would think it very unconvincing for someone to presume to tell me what "Be fruitful and multiply" "really means" when that person holds the traditional understanding of the passage in contempt</I>.<BR/><BR/>I understand, and that is why I have gone after the Roman Catholic concept of tradition. That is why it is really the issue.<BR/><BR/><I>It seems that the Councils/Popes are clear enough on the Bodily Assumption of Mary, Papal Infallibility, etc. that you have no trouble understanding these doctrines well enough to reject them. Are they not then clear enough for us Catholics to accept them?</I><BR/><BR/>However, Augustine wrote back to the Bishop of Rome, and told him to keep his nose out of North African affairs, since the Pope had ordered Augustine to let Pelagius and Coelestius back into the North African communion. At one point in time, Athenatius [sp?] was one of only a few people who believed that Jesus was God during the Arian controversy.<BR/><BR/>Not only that, but as I pointed out above, you have many people throughout the church today who are in good standing with Rome, and yet reject foundational Catholic belief. There is no clear testimony, and it is evidenced by the fact that Papal infallibility, The bodily assumption of Mary, and the Treasury of Merit, were things that were all unheard of in the first three centuries of the church. Rome's tradition hardly speaks with clarity.<BR/><BR/>Patrick Kelly,<BR/><BR/><I>Except maybe for the tradition that we accept from some men as to what is included in that "Bible"</I>.<BR/><BR/>Yup, I guess Paul's statement that the oracles of God were given to the Jews [Romans 3:2] was just a tradition of men. I guess that Cardinal Cajatan, who was the Cardinal sent to interrogate Martin Luther, was just following a "tradition of men."<BR/><BR/>God Bless,<BR/>PuritanCalvinistPuritanCalvinisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03285973808564103125noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4423802276620945726.post-28809233976550086422008-09-23T16:31:00.000-05:002008-09-23T16:31:00.000-05:00"Hopefully, any Christians who are around a thousa...<I>"Hopefully, any Christians who are around a thousand years from now will quote from the Bible instead of from any "traditions of men"."</I><BR/><BR/>Except maybe for the tradition that we accept from some men as to what is included in that "Bible".<BR/><BR/>;-)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4423802276620945726.post-16304981008912349552008-09-23T15:38:00.000-05:002008-09-23T15:38:00.000-05:00Most likely true. I think you're probably reading ...<I>Most likely true. I think you're probably reading a Bible that is missing a few books.</I><BR/><BR/>Oh, I readily admit that I'm not reading the same Bible they are. But all of the books in my Bible should also be in theirs, so they should be reading the same Bible I am. Get it?<BR/><BR/>It's those books - the ones we have in common - that I was referring to.Tritonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08881747667052152482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4423802276620945726.post-64677236460289295652008-09-23T14:49:00.000-05:002008-09-23T14:49:00.000-05:00Puritan Calvinist,It seems that the Councils/Popes...Puritan Calvinist,<BR/><BR/>It seems that the Councils/Popes are clear enough on the Bodily Assumption of Mary, Papal Infallibility, etc. that you have no trouble understanding these doctrines well enough to reject them. Are they not then clear enough for us Catholics to accept them?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4423802276620945726.post-4761318838987245972008-09-23T14:28:00.000-05:002008-09-23T14:28:00.000-05:00John: It's all about the credibility of those who ...John: It's all about the credibility of those who are telling me I must submit to them.<BR/><BR/>When they tell me to pray to saints, to worship Mary, or that I must earn salvation whereas Scripture clearly tells me I cannot earn it, tell me that--to be an overseer--I must be celibate, or insist that I must treat their supreme leader as if he is infallible, then I will give them all the authority they are due: none.<BR/><BR/>I doubt that any <EM>sola Scriptura</EM> advocate would suggest that there is no basis for accountability of the believer to the larger Body.<BR/><BR/>Even then, the Bereans held Paul accountable to the Scriptures, as they fact-checked what he said against the Scriptures.<BR/><BR/>Now are you suggesting that it is perfectly Biblical to assert that the Pope has even more authority than the Apostle Paul?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4423802276620945726.post-52145358272339254802008-09-23T12:47:00.000-05:002008-09-23T12:47:00.000-05:00Wow. I had no idea the RCC had been around for thr...<I>Wow. I had no idea the RCC had been around for three thousand years.</I><BR/><BR/>It hasn't. But in a thousand years it will.<BR/><BR/><I>Yeah, I think I'll stick with my own interpretation, thanks. I don't know how the RCC comes to the conclusions it does, but they sure don't seem to be reading the same Bible that I am.</I><BR/><BR/>Most likely true. I think you're probably reading a Bible that is missing a few books.<BR/><BR/>As to Puritan Calvinist and Triton's other comments in response to me, in an attempt to stay somewhat on topic ("Be Fruitful and Multiply" What it Really Means), I wish to delve a little into how we know what it means, since especially Puritan Calvinist seems to be flirting with the idea that no one knows what anything means.<BR/><BR/>I don't think you realize how feeble your propositions to "be captive to the Word of God alone...Sola Scriptura!" are to a Catholic. What you are really asking me to do is not just "be captive to the Word of God alone," but to be captive to your own limited understanding of the Scriptures. Am I being too harsh or presumptious of you? If so, then are you willing to accept that I approach the Scriptures honestly, just as you do, and find them admonishing me to submit to the Church, which is the pillar and foundation of the truth, and not to just Scripture alone? You want me to recognize Scripture as the highest authority, but I cannot do that when the Scriptures themselves tell me not to. You will tell me that I misunderstand the Scriptures, but then I ask you, what happened to Scripture alone, if it takes some sort of understanding that I don't already have by coming to the Scriptures alone? Therefore I find myself very small and insignificant as an interpreter of Scripture without standing decidedly also on the firm shoulders of Sacred Tradition as my authority.<BR/><BR/>Hopefully you see why I would think it very unconvincing for someone to presume to tell me what "Be fruitful and multiply" "really means" when that person holds the traditional understanding of the passage in contempt.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4423802276620945726.post-21085592400833658772008-09-23T12:30:00.000-05:002008-09-23T12:30:00.000-05:00Drina,Again, read the text consistently. What you ...Drina,<BR/><BR/>Again, read the text consistently. What you are saying is that you don't actually have to "fill the earth," you just have to contribute to filling the earth. However, what if I contribute to "Being fruitful and multiplying" in a way other than actually having the children? I can "contribute to being fruitful and multiplying" by promising to watch the children while married couples go out for a night on the town once the children are born. I can "contribute to being fruitful and multiplying" by suggesting a woman for someone else to marry who would like to serve God in this fashion, or helping married people with their income so that they can have a family. If this is the case, then I am both contributing to being fruitful and multiplying, as well as contributing to filling the earth without having children.<BR/><BR/>Also, it your interpretation is grammatically impossible. There is no such thing as a "contributive imperative" in Biblical Hebrew. It is always used for direct commands, with a few other unique usages. <BR/><BR/>As long as humanity is "Being fruitful and multiplying," then humanity is obeying the command, and this passage is both being obeyed, and there is no binding on individual couples to have children.<BR/><BR/><I>So, moving away from Genesis, we can see that the Psalms etc. speak tons on the blessing of children. (I read your post on this, so I know where you come from on this as well.) I see the blessing to be welcomed as the child first existing in the mind of the Lord (Jeremiah - before I formed you in the womb, I knew you.)</I><BR/><BR/>Of course, then the next question has to be, how do you know that every couple has a child being thought of in the mind of the God?<BR/><BR/><I>But, let's look at the Scriptures all together and move on to Malachi 2:15 which talks about God looking for Godly offspring from a marriage.</I><BR/><BR/>Malachi 2:15 shouldn't be used to prove anything. That text is so obscure that many people believe we don't even have the original text. Let me give you a sampling of some of the translations at this point:<BR/><BR/>Malachi 2:15 "But not one has done so who has a remnant of the Spirit. And what did that one do while he was seeking a godly offspring? Take heed then to your spirit, and let no one deal treacherously against the wife of your youth. [NASB]<BR/><BR/>Malachi 2:15 And did not he make one? Yet had he the residue of the spirit. And wherefore one? That he might seek a godly seed. Therefore take heed to your spirit, and let none deal treacherously against the wife of his youth. [KJV]<BR/><BR/>Malachi 2:15 Has not the one God made and sustained for us the spirit of life? And what does he desire? Godly offspring. So take heed to yourselves, and let none be faithless to the wife of his youth. [RSV]<BR/><BR/>Malachi 2:15 as not the LORD made them one? In flesh and spirit they are his. And why one? Because he was seeking godly offspring. So guard yourself in your spirit, and do not break faith with the wife of your youth. [NIV]<BR/><BR/>Malachi 2:15 Did he not make them one, with a portion of the Spirit in their union? And what was the one God seeking? Godly offspring. So guard yourselves in your spirit, and let none of you be faithless to the wife of your youth. [ESV]<BR/><BR/>Malachi 2:15 But did He not make them one, Having a remnant of the Spirit? And why one? He seeks godly offspring. Therefore take heed to your spirit, And let none deal treacherously with the wife of his youth. [NKJV]<BR/><BR/>To make a long story short, here are several unsettled questions. The first question is what the subject of the verb 'asa [To make] is, [is it the Lord, or "Not one?"]? Next, what is the term "reminant of spirit?" Next, is the subject of the seeking: "God," or the "not one."<BR/><BR/>However, I have done work on this text, and I have come to several conclusions. First of all, I believe the ESV to be the most correct:<BR/><BR/>Did he not make them one, with a portion of the Spirit in their union? And what was the one God seeking? Godly offspring. So guard yourselves in your spirit, and let none of you be faithless to the wife of your youth.<BR/><BR/>You are obviously right in your interpretation that this is talking about the purpose of marriage. Of course, the problem is you ignored the context of the passage. If, indeed, marriage is the context of the passage, and one of the purposes of marriage is being laid out, then most probably this is going back to the institution of marriage. Hence, The discussion of the passage is to why it is that God instituted marriage in the first place. That is why I believe the ESV is correct here to translate this participle as an imperfect "was seeking."<BR/><BR/>However, notice the more broad context being spoken of here. We are not talking about whether or not you have children, but the relationship out of which these children come! The context is about priests who have been faithless to their wives, and the context is a rebuke of these men for so doing. This changes what the text means when it says he is seeking Godly seed dramatically. Hence, Godly seed is not something every couple must have, but, if a couple decides to have seed, it must be Godly seed.<BR/><BR/>In other words, God could have made human beings out of thin air when he created, but, instead, he made two human beings. However, before they had a child, God made them one. What Malachi is saying here is that God instituted marriage, because, outside of marriage, there can be no "Godly seed," because Godly seed can only come from a legitimate marriage. That is, the only way children can lawfully be brought into this world is if the couple having the children are first united as one. Hence, because these Godless priests are not doing this, they are not bringing children into the world in an illegitimate fashion, and thus, do not have the Godly seed that God was seeking when he instituted marriage.<BR/><BR/>Hence, the attack here is not upon whether or not the priests are having children [they are], but upon the fact that they are not having these children within the one flesh union with their wife. Hence, the text is saying that, if you are going to have children, you must be producing Godly seed, and not seed of a faithlessness.<BR/><BR/>However, again, this is just my interpretation of this passage. There are many other competent Hebrew exegetes who would even say that the ESV is wrong here, and that, for instance, the NASB should be accepted, and they have totally different way of understanding the passage. That is why I said that this text should not be cited to prove anything!<BR/><BR/><I>Looking at all these things all together, they confirm my belief that the Lord is the Giver of life and should give it as He sees fit. I believe a man and woman who are married should be open to let Him bless them as He sees fit. This seems to make perfect sense to me. Why would I want to interfere with his plans</I>?<BR/><BR/>First of all, I am an Orthodox Presbyterian, so, I don't believe that we *can* interfere with his plans. Second, follow this logic to it's conclusion. We must be open to every blessing. Therefore, if it is in any way possible for us to have a particular blessing, we must have it. For instance, it is still really hot up here in North Chicago. I have several friends who have swimming pools that they use to cool off, and, yes, they are a wonderful blessing. Now, let us say that I have the money to buy a swimming pool. However, I decide that I would rather put the money in the bank, or I would rather get a copy of the Dictionary of Northwest Semitic Inscriptions. Does that therefore mean that I am doing something wrong because I am not open to God blessing me with a swimming pool on a hot day? Such makes absolutely no sense. In fact, the Bible says that the earth is the Lord's and the fulness therin. Hence, should I not be open to him blessing me "in any way he sees fit, including with a swimming pool on a hot day?"<BR/><BR/><I>This doesn't mean that I try to have as many children as I possibly can. Neither does it mean that I try to keep from it</I>.<BR/><BR/>However, it <I>is</I> the logical conclusion of what you have said. Let me ask you, if the first child is a blessing, is not the second child a blessing? The third child? The twentieth child? The thirtieth child? Given your logic, if you must be open to God blessing you in whatever way he sees fit, then you must be open to him blessing you with a family of thirty children. In essence, this argument is an argument against contraception in general, and not against those who would say it is not wrong to not have children.<BR/><BR/><I>And after having just one child, I must say that I see God within her - she truly is made in his image. That in an awesome thought! And who am I to limit God to the number of His children? (For she truly is His, not mine.) I choose to cooperate with His own will, that he may populate the kingdom of Heaven just as he wishes</I>.<BR/><BR/>Well, again, while I agree that it is truly amazing that God has created that new child in your womb, and I do believe she is created in God's image, and a gift of God, we must go back to the fact that, I as a Calvinist, believe that God ordains whatsoever comes to pass. I believe that no purpose of his can be thwarted, and that he does as he pleases in the host of heavens, and among the inhabitants of the earth. Hence, God will bless you in whatever way he wants to, and we cannot thwart it. The only way you could deal with this is if you say that it is a sin to not have chldren. However, that is the whole subject we are discussing. Yes, God will punish sin, and it is sometimes by giving chastisement rather than blessing. However, we must first establish that this is sin.<BR/><BR/><I>You might say, well that's ok for you, but not everyone has to do that. Well, I believe it's more than "just a personal choice." I believe it is within the nature of marriage as God intended it</I>.<BR/><BR/>I understand that, but I just don't believe that a person can consistently read the scriptures in this fashion. Not only that, but, if it is the nature of marriage, as God intended it, then does it not then follow that marriage to an infertile woman is invalid? If you marry a woman knowing that she will never bear children, does that mean that it is not truly a marriage?<BR/><BR/>Again, Drina, if it were just a matter of freedom, I would agree. However, when we do not believe that the Bible teaches this, and, consistently study, and find that the interpretations of scripture used to support it are inconsistent, and the logic used to support it is self refuting, then don't we have to question whether this is coming from scripture, or from extrabiblical tradition? If it is not coming from scripture then, as a consistent protestant, I must reject it. That is the issue.<BR/><BR/>God Bless,<BR/>PuritanCalvinistPuritanCalvinisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03285973808564103125noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4423802276620945726.post-74985591385447869602008-09-23T12:12:00.000-05:002008-09-23T12:12:00.000-05:00One more thing: I wonder if the views of many theo...<I>One more thing: I wonder if the views of many theologians in the past were based on the mistaken assumption that men alone carried the life force of reproduction (his seed was a living organism unto itself). I think would explain not only the condemnation of birth control but also masturbation ("Killing one's seed.").</I><BR/><BR/>This "killing the seed" is clearly a case of ignorance from people all around. Makes no difference physiologically: Whether it's celibacy (or a vasectomy, for that matter), the male body continues to produce sperm cells, and unused sperm "dies" and is absorbed back into the body. While masturbation is normally the culprit for "killing the seed" by critics (most likely due to the guilty pleasure motivated by it), any form of abstinence is biologically "killing the seed", also!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4423802276620945726.post-58015968842569336022008-09-23T10:39:00.000-05:002008-09-23T10:39:00.000-05:00Anakin - I tend to agree with John about not knowi...Anakin - I tend to agree with John about not knowing the context of the quotes you just gave. Even Scripture can speak of women in similar ways, when talking about a sinful woman/a woman leading a man into sin etc.<BR/><BR/>I also glanced at your link. I guess what I am trying to get at is that the traditional teaching on contraception backs up what Scripture says. (I know you disagree with me on that.) <BR/><BR/>PC - I follow the "logicality" of your him/them argument, but I don't think it holds up. "...male and female he created them. And God blessed them. And God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it..." Seems to me that being fruitful, multiply and filling the earth are part of, and follow from, the male and female coming together. Even with reading the man as mankind, male and female come together and together take part in the command to mankind to be fruitful, multiply and fill the earth. Does that mean each couple fills the earth on their own? No, but they take part in filling the earth, as they take part in being fruitful. Simple as that.<BR/><BR/>So, moving away from Genesis, we can see that the Psalms etc. speak tons on the blessing of children. (I read your post on this, so I know where you come from on this as well.) I see the blessing to be welcomed as the child first existing in the mind of the Lord (Jeremiah - before I formed you in the womb, I knew you.) But, let's look at the Scriptures all together and move on to Malachi 2:15 which talks about God looking for Godly offspring from a marriage. <BR/><BR/>Looking at all these things all together, they confirm my belief that the Lord is the Giver of life and should give it as He sees fit. I believe a man and woman who are married should be open to let Him bless them as He sees fit. This seems to make perfect sense to me. Why would I want to interfere with his plans? This doesn't mean that I try to have as many children as I possibly can. Neither does it mean that I try to keep from it. Just be open to the Lord's work. And after having just one child, I must say that I see God within her - she truly is made in his image. That in an awesome thought! And who am I to limit God to the number of His children? (For she truly is His, not mine.) I choose to cooperate with His own will, that he may populate the kingdom of Heaven just as he wishes.<BR/><BR/>You might say, well that's ok for you, but not everyone has to do that. Well, I believe it's more than "just a personal choice." I believe it is within the nature of marriage as God intended it. I don't judge, because I don't know the hearts of others, but that's a different matter.<BR/><BR/>"Let the children come to Me!"<BR/><BR/>Pax.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4423802276620945726.post-80501694354614257012008-09-22T22:41:00.000-05:002008-09-22T22:41:00.000-05:00And hopefully a thousand years from now, Catholics...<I>And hopefully a thousand years from now, Catholics will no longer be castigated for intellectual dishonesty</I> <BR/><BR/>Well, John, there are a number of steps the RCC can take to prevent such castigation. Most of those steps involve following Scripture instead of being in outright opposition to it.<BR/><BR/>As long as they follow the same course as the Pharisees, though, and place their own traditions in a superior and opposite position to Scripture, they will continue to be considered by many as "white-washed tombs, full of dead men's bones and all things unclean".<BR/><BR/><I>when they defer to three thousand years' traditional understanding of Holy Scripture</I> <BR/><BR/>Wow. I had no idea the RCC had been around for three thousand years. <BR/><BR/><I>as against their own private interpretation.</I><BR/><BR/>Yeah, I think I'll stick with my own interpretation, thanks. I don't know how the RCC comes to the conclusions it does, but they sure don't seem to be reading the same Bible that I am.<BR/><BR/>It could be worse, though. They're not nearly as bad as the Anglicans, whose doctrine is downright heathen.Tritonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08881747667052152482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4423802276620945726.post-24484405624866553652008-09-22T20:35:00.000-05:002008-09-22T20:35:00.000-05:00John,I neglected your other point about Father Ram...John,<BR/><BR/><I>I neglected your other point about Father Ramond Brown, but I don't know who he is, and it doesn't mean a whole lot to me anyway. I can find a few Catholic priests myself who promote same-sex "marriage," but that doesn't change the constant Catholic teaching that a valid marriage can only be between a man and a woman. But this continues further off-topic, as I'm afraid I've already done in previous response</I>.<BR/><BR/>The problem is, John, that these people are in good standing with Rome. All of the priests that you just mentioned are doing these things in full communion with the Roman Church. For instance, Raymond Brown, who does not even believe in inerrancy, has served on Pontifical commissions! These men are in good standing with Rome. Here is the problem. You are not the magisterium of the Catholic Church, and therefore, according to the Roman Church's teaching, you have no right to question the orthodoxy of someone that Rome says is orthodox.<BR/><BR/>Again, having an authority whether it be the pope or the councils will not help you here. You have to interpret those papal decrees and those councils. <BR/><BR/>And if what Vince says is true that you need extrabiblical authority to settle the issue, or, otherwise, you become your own "infallible council," then, when the disagreements are pressed amongst those who claim this "infallible authority" [Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, etc.], you are stuck having to be your own "infallible church council" to decide which one of them actually has that "infallible authority."<BR/><BR/>John, that is why I must keep telling you that running off to extrabiblical authority will not help you work through these issues. We must stand upon the word of God alone. Yes, Acts 15 was a council, but it was a council that was writing scripture, and, the only reason why it is binding upon the Christian, is because it was writing scripture. Our contience is to be held captive to the word of God alone...Sola Scriptura!<BR/><BR/>God Bless,<BR/>PuritanCalvinistPuritanCalvinisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03285973808564103125noreply@blogger.com