The Bubble

We Are the Brothers and Sisters

2012-01-24T07:56:00.001-05:00

"The mother of Jesus and his brothers arrived at the house.
Standing outside, they sent word to Jesus and called him.
A crowd seated around him told him,
"Your mother and your brothers and your sisters
are outside asking for you."
But he said to them in reply,
"Who are my mother and my brothers?"
And looking around at those seated in the circle he said,
"Here are my mother and my brothers.
For whoever does the will of God
is my brother and sister and mother."-Mk 3:31-35

This passage used to make me crazy. First of all, before becoming Catholic, I was taught that this was proof of the fact that Mary had other children after Jesus (along with passages that call James Jesus' brother). Aside from that, it seemed almost mean to me. I would read it and think, "Wow, he totally just blasted his mother and family." And then, of course, as a Protestant, there was that problematic statement about doing the will of God. You know, with the understanding of "once saved always saved" and "faith alone" I was good to go regardless of doing God's will.

Now, I almost chuckle when I think of how much it used to bother me, because today, reading this passage, I rejoiced! It seemed so fitting to me that this reading was chosen along with the Old Testament reading of David dancing before the ark, and praising God with the people. David's joy was in being a child of God and doing his will. Shouldn't ours be the same?

In today's Gospel, Jesus gives us a big clue into that, and into how to be sons and daughters of God. First of all, Jesus wasn't being mean, he was using the introduction of his family to make a point. As a teacher, we call those "teachable moments." Jesus was the master teacher, so of course he used whatever came along to his advantage in his teaching. Secondly, in the Jewish tradition, anyone who is related to you, and often even those who live within your community, are called your brothers and sisters. This is something that many people still do today. There is absolutely no proof that Mary ever had other children. As a matter of fact, there is actually more that proof that she didn't! And last, Jesus wanted us to be his brothers and sisters as well.

When he teaches that "whoever does the will of God is my brother and sister and mother," what he is saying is that he wants all of us to be adopted sons and daughters of God. How do we do that? We obey God's will. We accept the gift of grace and faith, and we allow God to work through us. Faith alone? No. I think not. Jesus NEVER taught faith alone. He taught that we are to "do" and to "obey" and most important to "love." What good are teaching and commandments if they aren't necessary. Jesus didn't say "do this because it is the nice thing to do."

So now, when I read this passage from Mark, I rejoice. Why? Because I now understand that what Jesus wants is me as his sister. That he is leading me to do God's will so that I might share in the inheritance of the Kingdom along with him and the saints that have gone before us. There is no greater joy.

Enlightened by Dogs

2012-01-18T13:23:00.001-05:00

I was watching my dogs sleeping on my bed just now. I reached down to pick up my hoodie that Lulu was resting on, and she barely opened her eyes to see what I was doing. Both of them lie curled up on my bed in the warmth of the house. They are both well fed, healthy, clean, and pretty well trained. Each of them has their own blanket, and we have three dog beds in various spots in the house for their comfort (in addition to sharing the bed and couch with them). I was kissing them on the heads and telling them how much I could stay home and curl up with them instead of getting ready for work, when I had an epiphany.
The thought crossed my mind, "What I really want is a dog's life..." and realized something. What I provide for my dogs, is everything God wants for us. I know that may sound crazy, but hang with me on this for a minute. Fellow animal lovers will know exactly what I'm talking about! We love our animals unconditionally, we provide everything they need to be warm, safe, and healthy. My dogs are so secure in my love for them, that I can run in the room and jump on the bed, and they both barely move to see why. They know I won't hurt them, I protect them. Even though I have to be the disciplinarian, they trust me in my love for them. Is this not exactly who God wants to be for us? He promises us his unconditional love. He begs us to have faith in this love enough to know that no matter what scary things come along, he is right there to protect us He may have to allow us to be taught something from time to time, but He does it lovingly and we should trust enough in his love to accept the "training" and be better people. He has given us everything on this earth that we need to be fed, warm, healthy, safe, and happy. People who love their animals like I love mine, are really only providing the basic necessities of life for them, and we add love to the equation and it becomes phenomenal. That is what happens when we open ourselves to God's love. The basics of life become something fantastic.
My dogs enlightened me today to the fact that what God really wants for us is a "dog's life."

Being called...too bad God doesn't text

2012-01-15T09:30:00.001-05:00

This week's theme, for me, has been all about being called. During class, we have been discussing the call of St. Paul, the apostle to the Gentiles. Paul was an avid and well taught Jew. He was a persecutor of the Christian church, and on his way to Damascus he was knocked off his horse by a vision of Jesus. Jesus called Paul to bring the gospel to the Gentiles. Some things changed about him then. He was baptized as a Christian, he no longer persecuted Christians, he left his home in Jerusalem to travel throughout "the world" to teach the Gentiles. But he was still Paul. He was still a Jew. He was still the same man, but with a new perspective and a mission.
Today's readings focus on being called. The Old Testament reading tells the story of Samuel sleeping in the temple, and hearing someone call his name. Finally, upon realizing it is the Lord, he answers, "here I am."
In the Gospel reading, Jesus is calling his disciples. When Simon comes to him, he gives him a new name, Cephas (Peter). He is still the same man, but now he has a calling and, eventually, a very strong mission.
What is awesome about all of these stories, is that these people heard and/or saw the the Lord. Bam! There he was, calling them to be in service to Him. Today's calls aren't always so easy, are they?
How many people do you know that can say, "I saw Jesus, and he said my mission was...." or "Yeah, I was sitting there, and clear as day I heard God say..."? Now, I'm not saying it doesn't happen. It still does, but it is not the rule, it is the exception. However, it is those stories that make us stop and go, "Wait...why haven't I been called to anything important?" How do you know you haven't? Are you listening?
Think about it...would you notice? With everything we have going on in our lives today to distract us from the one thing we should be focused on the most, how would we hear it? We have cell phones, tablets, flat screen tv's, satellite radio, ipods, computers, video games, etc. in our face and blaring in our ears 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Sometimes, I realize that just sitting in my home during the day it can be so loud! And I don't just mean noise, I mean overall distraction. We don't hear God calling, because we don't ever stop allowing ourselves to be distracted! When we pray, it is all about us...what we want, what our plan is...how we want God to work in our lives. That doesn't work. He isn't going to listen and text you later with an answer. God isn't going to email you your task. You have to stop. You have to shut up, and shut out the world around you. God will speak, he will lead, and if you don't listen, he will find a way to get through, but will you notice?
We should all be praying for God to speak to us and through us. We should be waiting for that call, because it will come. We may not be called to go out to other countries, or to be another Mother Theresa, but our mission will be just as important, or he wouldn't call us to it. So, listen, and when you hear God call you, answer "Here I am."

Ordaining Women? Good Grief...

2012-01-11T10:30:00.000-05:00

I have been hearing a lot of buzz in the last few years about this issue of "why can't women be ordained as deacons?" First of all, I will begin by saying that I don't know the "legality" of that issue within the church, but I do know that so far it is something that the church will not do, and that decision is based on years of tradition and scriptural understanding (as far as I know.) That really isn't the issue to me. The issue is this: Why, women, is there this constant need to prove somehow that "if a man can do it, so can we"? Let's get over it, please! I mean, really. Think about it.
God made men and he made women. If there wasn't a difference, and if there didn't need to be, he would not have created two distinct genders. Some may say that he "had" to for reproductive purposes. Ok, fine. But he is GOD. HE created the reproductive process. If there didn't need to be a difference, he wouldn't have created us that way!
Secondly, let me bring in another perspective. Why is our role in the church not enough? Do you think that Mother Theresa didn't make a big enough impact because she wasn't a priest? Look at the long list of saints who are women who did amazing things for the kingdom. Look at the women in your parish who lead various ministries and teach in various capacities. Are they not influential because they aren't wearing a collar?
What it really boils down to, I think, is pride. It has become a "women's rights" issue that has only to do with certain women feeling that they have been cheated. It has nothing to do with a God given call or desire to be in priestly ministry. It has nothing to do with what is best for the communities. It has EVERYTHING to do with women feeling some sort of personal need to fill and official role of power. Not at all different than that of being CEO or President. The deaconate and the priesthood have become another leadership position that isn't "fair" because women can't be there.
Is it not enough that we are mothers? We are the nurturing ones in the community. We are those that are called on at this point for almost every aspect of ministry within our church communities. Look around you. Who really has the most influence in your parish on a day to day level? It isn't an issue of it being a "man's world". It is an issue of it being God's world, and he has given us each our differences so that we can be strong together. Men and women were meant to work in a way that is compatible and in a way that allows us to take advantages of each other's strengths. There are numerous communities of women religious throughout the world that need members. Join them, teach in a more active capacity in your parish or archdiocese. Get involved in Catholic Charities. Believe me, if what you are feeling is a "call" to dedicated lifelong ministry, there are PLENTY of places you can be where the difference you will make is huge.
Let's stop wasting time, money, and energy whining about what we "aren't allowed" to do, and start working in the capacity God intended for us so that we can be who he made us to be.

Keeping the Commandments

2011-12-29T08:59:00.001-05:00

How often do we hear passages from scripture that tell us to follow the commandments...to keep to the teachings? Today's reading from I John tells us quite plainly what we must do to have "the truth" in us. Not only how we can know, but also how others will know. I often have the debate with some of my Christian friends that nothing is necessary on our part, because Jesus paid the price and sealed the deal for us. While it is absolutely true that Jesus paid the price, and that he is the "expiation" for our sins, it is also true that we have to do something! It is not something we have the ability to do on our own, or something we can do to earn heaven, but what we do to show that we have placed Jesus as the Lord of our life. How does it happen? How do we keep the commandments when we can't will ourselves to do it? We put Jesus in front of ourselves...we ask for his unending grace...we acknowledge that we can't, but that, through his love, we can and will.

In the Beginning

2011-12-27T09:03:00.000-05:00

The Bible begins with these three words, "In the beginning..." I think it is a great way to start a story. Of course, we are more accustomed to "Once upon a time..." I think it is interesting to think of the difference between the two. You could begin any story with "Once upon a time" couldn't you? I mean, everything is once upon a time! Anything that has happened in history could begin that way be it fact or fiction.
But you can't begin just any story with "In the beginning..."can you? How many beginnings do we have, really? You could say "in the beginning of...", but you can't just start with "in the beginning."
This phrase is found in Genesis 1:1, and again in John 1:1. We have, "In the beginning God created..", and we also have "In the beginning was the Word..."
John 1 is probably my all time favorite book of the Bible in the literary sense. I have other favorites, for other reasons, but John 1 is just beautiful. Take, for example, simply the first four verses--

        In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and Word was God. The same was
         in the beginning with God. All things were made by him: and without him was made nothing that
         was made. In him was life, and the life was the light of men.

So, "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth..." and "In the beginning was the Word..."
Jesus, the Word of God, the Word made flesh, was in the beginning with God, and "without him was made nothing that was made." That is just awesome! Every time I think of the connections between the creation story and Jesus as the Word, I get chills. We shouldn't even be able to think of creation without the acknowledgement that the Word was there with God from the beginning. John goes on to say, in John 1:14, "The Word was made flesh and dwelt among us..." The Word that gave life in the beginning to ALL of creation...THE Word...became flesh and dwelt among us. The Word that gave light and life. The Word that spoke light into the darkness. The Word that gave us the very ability to live. God...became flesh and dwelt among us. "In him was life, and the life was the light of men." And he lowered himself to become one of us.
Let's really sit and contemplate that for a moment. THE one..THE Word..THE creator...GOD lowered himself to become flesh. Without Him, we would have had no "In the beginning...". Without Him, we have had no light to pierce the darkness. Without Him, we are NOTHING. And he came to dwell among us, so that we might be reconciled with God and live as sons and daughters. So that we might call out "Abba, Father." He was born of a woman, raised by an earthly family, and hated by the very people he came to serve. He was tried, convicted, and executed for committing the crime of being the truth and the light. All of that, so that we could have our "In the beginning..."
Without the Word, and without the Word made flesh, our "In the beginning" came to an abrupt end a LONG time ago with the first sin. Thanks to Jesus, our story continues with love and light and hope.
Why? Because "the darkness has not overcome it."

Preparing for Christmas

2011-12-21T08:02:00.000-05:00

I woke up this morning, and the first thing that popped into my head was all of the stuff I have to do to get ready for Christmas weekend. Cards to be signed, gifts to be wrapped, bread to be baked, groceries to be bought, etc. Realizing that I was overwhelmed and stressed out, I stopped to take a moment to read the daily readings and try to relax. The beginning of the first reading is "Shout for joy." When was the last time I shouted for joy? Mostly, I'm just trying to keep my head above the water and struggling to breath through the craziness of daily life.
The gospel reading tells the story of Mary arriving at the home of her cousin, Elizabeth. She is greeted with "Most blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb...how does this happen that the mother of my Lord should come to me?" As I read this, two things crossed my mind. One..Elizabeth and her baby were filled with the Spirit and immediately recognized the Son of God. Two, "how does this happen that the mother of my Lord should come to me?" She was astounded by the presence of Mary. She was humble enough to acknowledge the blessing in this visitation. Wow. This really made me sit and think for a moment.
What am I preparing for? Gifts? Bread? Dinner? ....JESUS. This isn't about having everything finished, and perfect for guests, or for me as the personal over achiever that I am. This is about being prepared for Jesus to enter into my life, and being humble enough to recognize Him. Elizabeth was humbled by the presence of His mother. We have the gift of Jesus every day of our lives, and how often do we stop and think, like Elizabeth, "Who am I?"

Saying Yes...

2011-12-18T18:40:00.000-05:00

Today's readings found Mary being confronted with Gabriel, who greets her with, "Hail, Mary, full of grace", and then goes on to tell her she will conceive a son, and he will be the savior of the world. Here was Mary, a young girl who had promised her life to God, and who was betrothed to Joseph. A girl who was simple and lived in a simple town. She faced way worse than any married woman today would face as a woman who finds herself pregnant with the child of another. She faced exile, even death, yet she answered, "I am the handmaid of the Lord. Let it be done to me according to your word." She said, with full knowledge and consent, "yes." I'm not sure that just any girl of her age and of her time would have answered in that way. Furthermore, I think we might be hard-pressed to find anyone who would have succumbed to the will of God in the way that Mary did.
Now, I'm not saying that people don't answer God with a "yes", but let's be honest. First of all, how often do we allow ourselves to be "full of grace" enough to recognize God's will in our lives, much less put ourselves out on a limb to give ourselves over completely and freely to what He wants of us?
In her "yes", not only did Mary provide us with an amazing example of someone who chose to fully cooperate with the will of God, but she also participated in the most important event in salvation history, the Incarnation of Jesus. Many people would argue that statement. They would say that the crucifixion, or the resurrection, is the most important event, but I don't think so. They are both essential, and both powerful, but without the incarnation, there would have been no lamb to sacrifice and no man to conquer death.
I often hear people say that Mary had no role in salvation; that Jesus alone acted for our salvation, and that to say Mary had any role in God's salvation plan is wrong. I disagree strongly. Mary was the woman chosen by God from the beginning to be the mother of His son. Would God really have just chosen any common Jewish girl to be the mother of Jesus? Do you really think it was no big deal and nothing special that she was "full of grace" and "found favor with God?" And even more profound, that she said YES!! She accepted Jesus first, she carried him in her womb, she bore him and loved and nurtured him as a mother, and she stood by him beyond his death. She is the mother of God! I, personally, can't understand how anyone could think that isn't an amazing position to hold. We don't worship her, but we honor her. We admire and revere her. She said Yes!! Most of us can't even listen long enough to hear God at all, much less fully give our lives to Him. She held our savior in her arms in his first moments as man, and she held him in her arms in his last moments before being buried. If there are rewards in heaven, or special places given to those who have served God best, she has the highest. What mother, what human, can deny that they should aspire to be like Mary?

The Names Say Something

2011-12-16T10:21:00.000-05:00

The daily readings for the season of Advent are meant to be thought provoking and also, I think, they are meant to make us look into ourselves and think on a personal level how and why we are ready for the coming of Jesus.
There was a bit of a misprint, I think, in our Advent companion book that was given out at our parish, because the gospel reading it quotes for today is actually tomorrow's reading. So, as I was startled and confused, I decided to just go ahead and read both. Being in the mood I was in this morning, the names on the list began to speak to me in a way they haven't before. For example...Abraham. Okay, he is the greatest patriarch in the world. He was chosen by God to be the father of the chosen people, right? Well, what popped in my head was...Abraham--didn't have enough faith to keep himself from sleeping with Sarah's maid. Jacob--along with his mother, tricked his father into giving him, not Esau the birthright and blessing that was not his for the taking. Rahab--my favorite harlot...and so on.
Why did my brain go there? Then I started really thinking about it. I began to see these people as people in need of a savior. People no more astounding than you and me. People who have names, like ours, that say something about themselves. At this point in our lives, we have already established a reputation. When people hear your name, they automatically associate specific things.
None of us are too bad to be called by God to a purpose. None of us have strayed so far that He wouldn't welcome us with open arms. Abraham was impatient, and lacking in faith, but he was also the father of nations, whose descendents are as many as the stars in the sky. He wasn't perfect, he needed a savior, too.
So, I was then thinking to myself. The genealogy of Jesus, that traces him to Abraham, is filled with names. Each of those names say something of their greatness and of their shortcomings. It didn't stop with Jesus, though. It has continued now in a history of faith genealogies for two thousand years of names. Now those names include mine and yours, and all of the other men and women in the body of Christ. What does our name say about us?

How do you discern? What does that mean, anyway?

2011-12-06T22:07:00.000-05:00

I have been asked to lead a class this Sunday on discernment. The primary focus is for those who are considering proceeding with the process of entering the Catholic Church to consider the changes they have experienced, the conversion journey they have embarked upon, and whether or not they are in a place where they could say "yes" and "I believe" to the creed of the Church.
Now, this has really started my thinking wheels turning. Not simply about those considering a particular line of faith in a certain denomination, but all who consider themselves to be Christians. How do we discern, or do we ever stop to consider our faith journey? What does it really mean to discern, and why would it be necessary?
First of all, we should all take time to discern our faith journey and our "place" with God and our community on a regular basis. We may not always like what we see, but that is exactly why we should look! You have to remember that we are the only way many people will ever have a chance to hear of or be exposed to Christ. That, in itself, is probably a frightening thought for MOST people. It is for me. When I think that my actions, my words, my daily life is actually serving as an example of Christ to my family, my co-workers, my friends, the cashier at Pet Smart, etc., well, I kind of squirm with an uncomfortable embarrassment. I mean, how often do my words and actions actually turn people off, and possibly away, from Christ and His church?
So, that brings me to the next question: What does it mean to discern and how do we do it? Well, to discern is simply to take some time thinking of your true self. Not the one you "want" to be, or the person you "hope" is visible, but who you REALLY are. The deep down dirty depths of you. Gross, but real. Take time to ask yourself these questions--Do I reflect Christ, or do I hide Him under a dirty pile of human selfishness? Do my actions show my faith? How? Do people who see me know I'm a follower of Christ? How?
Now, your first inclination might be to say that what you do is your business, and that the reason you don't need a "church" holding you accountable is because no one is perfect, and "they" have no right to keep tabs on your decisions. You know what...I've been there. I've been one of those, "I don't need organized religion and its politics" people myself, but let me share the reality of that statement. What it really says is this, "I know God and Jesus. I read the Bible. I'm just fine living my life the way I want to, and I don't have to answer to anybody else." Unfortunately, it is way too easy to lie to yourself. The big problem is, with or without a community, you still, if you claim Christianity at ALL, can't continually ignore the teachings of Christ.
So, back to discernment. I try to teach my daughter to ask three questions when she is choosing music, books, TV shows, movies, etc. Is it true? Is it beautiful? Is it good? Do the things you expose your soul to uphold the truth, beauty, and goodness of God's will? Do they proclaim to the people around you that you are seeking to glorify God in the things you participate in and allow your children to be exposed to? We do live in this world where God isn't often recognized anymore as the ideal moral compass, but we can NOT allow ourselves to be of this world. We live in it, and we transcend it, because, for us, it is our temporary home. Our journey doesn't stop here.
Remember, it really isn't just about you. Faith is not just a personal thing. We are commanded to be disciples. You can't do that sitting on your couch by yourself. You don't have the strength to live a true life of faith on your own. We need to be fed and guided. But what you contribute, or refuse, your community can be either helpful or damaging to others. In your discernment, you need to consider that as well. By refusing to take part, you are committing a sin of omission. By refusing to work for Christ in the community, you are saying "no" to His command. Also, if you claim to be a member of community, as in the Catholic Church--in full communion, yet continue to live a life that does not agree with the teachings and guidelines of the Church, you are putting yourself and others in very grave danger. Do you want it on your head when you see God that someone turned away due to what they saw in your life? Or that you had the chance to make a difference for someone and instead you chose to be selfish and they never saw Jesus in you?

I could go on all night, and I think by now you've gotten the point. This may be continued...

Does Heaven matter now?

2011-10-31T08:19:00.000-04:00

Let's start with some common ideas of heaven. First of all, it is the opposite of hell. How many people have the "I'll choose heaven, because I certainly don't want hell" mentality? Second, it is a far off and distant place that we hope to get to one day, but we don't spend too much time worrying about it right now. Third, it is a mythologically beautiful place with gold streets and glittering mansions. Okay, I could keep going, but I think everybody is in the mind set at this point. What is heaven, really? Well, what we KNOW is that heaven is with God, and it is eternal joy. Do we need to know much else, really? I don't think heaven has streets of gold or glittering mansions. I think those are awesome ways to get worldy and earthly creatures to want to be there, or to understand the worth of heaven, but there is no materialistic desire in heaven, and streets of gold and mansions wouldn't really matter or mean anything to anyone there.
So, back to my original question, does Heaven matter right now? Should we be concerned with Heaven in our day to day earthly lives? Let me ask it this way...do the Braves care while they are playing the game if they win in the end? While you are killing yourselves to get a good GPA in college, do you care if you graduate and get a job? What is the POINT if your eye is not on the prize?
How would you feel if you passed all of your classes, and then found that there was no degree at the end? What a horrible trick that would be. Dr. Kreeft said, "Heaven gives life meaning. Without Heaven, life is a dirty trick." Let's think about that for a moment.
What we should do, I think, is focus on Heaven all the time. Everything we do, should be with Heaven in mind. Why? Not because it is the prize of gold streets and glittering mansions, but because it is eternity with God. We, as Christians, do the things we do (hopefully) because we love God, and we want to bring others into communion with us, and because we want to world to know His grace and love. We all wait "in joyful hope for the coming of our savior, Jesus Christ" so that we might join all of the saints of the earth in Heaven eternally. If you are living your life with that goal, then you can't be selfish. If you are continually focused on heaven, you can't help but want to do what is right for others. If you are continually focused on heaven, then you will seek to proclaim Jesus with every breath, and to love and to serve others unconditionally. "Life is precious, and earth is great, BECAUSE heaven is at the end...all things in earth that don't get boring are images of Heaven." (Dr. Peter Kreeft)

Back to the Blog

2011-10-31T07:42:00.000-04:00

I know it has been a while since I've written anything, but I went to hear Dr. Kreeft this weekend, and I am inspired. To be honest, I had grown a bit discouraged with blogging..but for all of the wrong reasons. See, it isn't about me or my feelings. It isn't about how people do or do not approve of what I'm writing. What it is about is why I started this in the first place, and that was to give myself and others a place to read and contemplate...not to debate and argue. If you choose to debate and argue, that is fine, but I am not going to participate. If those of you who are reading decide to argue amongst yourselves, that is fine, too, but I'm not jumping in to help or hinder in any way. This is a place for my thoughts and things I'm learning that I would like to share with others, because I like to share.

Creationism---7 Literal Days?

2011-08-23T07:30:00.000-04:00

"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." Gen 1:1

Did God create the earth in six 24 hour days? Or did God create the earth in six days, but it really took six thousand years, because a day to God is like a thousand years?

Well, let's break this down. Okay, I know I am treading on some toes when I say that science has totally blown the six day theory out of the water. For that matter, it has blown the six thousand year theory out of the water, too. Now I firmly believe that God created everything in his time and in his way. So, maybe God said, "let there be..." and BANG. The creation of the universe couldn't have been a peaceful and quiet event.

So why are there two creation stories in Genesis? What happened between Gen 1 and Gen 2? Anything?? Or are there simply two different stories that were passed down through the generations before Moses got around to writing them down?
From a literature and history background standpoint (and also after reading several theological opinions on this) I believe that there are two creation stories in Genesis because of oral tradition. If you look at other cultures from the earliest civilizations, they also have creation stories that are very similar to Gen. They also have a flood story!!! (which confirms that there was, in fact, a flood)
Here's the thing--for years and years and years and years, the only way information was passed around and/or taught was by word of mouth. There were no books. For a LONG time, there wasn't any form of actual writing at all! Things had to follow patterns and be told in a format that was easy to memorize and repeat. The POINT of all of this, was to explain that God created everything. Not to necessarily explain exactly how that happened.
Genesis is supposed to show us that God is the creator, that God established a relationship and a promise with mankind, and that we have the free will to choose to obey his will or to fall.

But, you may ask, if this is the case and Gen isn't a literal story, then how do we know the rest of the Bible is true?
Well, look at history. Beginning with Abraham, the Bible is an actual historical account of the Jewish people. It is okay that not all of the Bible is literal. We know that Jesus himself used parables to help people understand! God is not bound to the words of a book, the book was given to us to help us understand, and to tell the story of salvation history.

Journey Home - Former Bible Church Missionary - Marcus Grodi with David ...

2011-08-11T14:44:00.000-04:00

Forgive...or you are not forgiven

2011-08-11T11:09:00.002-04:00

Peter approached Jesus and asked him,
“Lord, if my brother sins against me,
how often must I forgive him?
As many as seven times?”
Jesus answered, “I say to you, not seven times but seventy-seven times.
That is why the Kingdom of heaven may be likened to a king
who decided to settle accounts with his servants.
When he began the accounting,
a debtor was brought before him who owed him a huge amount.
Since he had no way of paying it back,
his master ordered him to be sold,
along with his wife, his children, and all his property,
in payment of the debt.
At that, the servant fell down, did him homage, and said,
‘Be patient with me, and I will pay you back in full.’
Moved with compassion the master of that servant
let him go and forgave him the loan.
When that servant had left, he found one of his fellow servants
who owed him a much smaller amount.
He seized him and started to choke him, demanding,
‘Pay back what you owe.’
Falling to his knees, his fellow servant begged him,
‘Be patient with me, and I will pay you back.’
But he refused.
Instead, he had the fellow servant put in prison
until he paid back the debt.
Now when his fellow servants saw what had happened,
they were deeply disturbed,
and went to their master and reported the whole affair.
His master summoned him and said to him, ‘You wicked servant!
I forgave you your entire debt because you begged me to.
Should you not have had pity on your fellow servant,
as I had pity on you?’
Then in anger his master handed him over to the torturers
until he should pay back the whole debt.
So will my heavenly Father do to you,
unless each of you forgives his brother from his heart.”
When Jesus finished these words, he left Galilee
and went to the district of Judea across the Jordan.

Sola Scriptura: Death by a Thousand (or ten) Qualifications

2011-08-04T10:41:00.001-04:00

Sola Scriptura: Death by a Thousand (or Ten) Qualifications?

July 3, 2011

by Doug Beaumont

Introduction

The doctrine of sola scriptura (“Scripture alone”) began its life as a concern for proper authority in religious matters. By “authority” here I mean something like “that which has the right to compel agreement.” A religious authority would be one which has the right to compel faith (orthodoxy) and actions (orthopraxy). This does not mean that one cannot make free choices in these matters, but simply that in cases of faith and action, a person’s refusal to agree with the authority would signal an objective wrong on the part of the one refusing to submit (should that person wish to remain in the religion at least).
It seems clear that all human authority in religious matters would be superseded by God’s. Now, since God is clearly the authority for a Christian, and since the only record of God’s communication that all Christian bodies believe to be inspired is the Bible, the Bible must have the top spot as far as authorities go. This was the original sense of sola scriptura – the Bible is the ultimate authority in matters of faith and actions – not that it was the only authority (cf. The Shape of Sola Scriptura or Getting the Reformation Wrong).
Why call it “Scripture alone” then? Because all of the Protestant “sola’s” are contrasts with what the reformers saw as distortions in Roman Catholic theology. Salvation through “Christ alone” (solus Christus) obviously did not mean that, given Christ, salvation simply followed. Rather, “Christ alone” meant something like “Jesus Christ, without the addition of something else [church, priesthood, etc.], is all that is required to make salvation possible.” The reformers taught that faith is also required of course – but not faith plus works (thus, sola fide). Sola scriptura meant that Scripture alone was the ultimate authority in religious matters as opposed to including Church tradition or the teachings of men.
While sola scriptura is still sometimes expressed along the lines of Scripture alone having “supreme and final authority in faith and life” (source), many evangelical Christians couch sola scriptura more in terms of denying any authority outside of the Bible. If Scripture alone is the ultimate authority, then it is thought that to follow that a “Bible-only” methodology for doing theology will keep one safe from the errors of mere human teaching. (For a treatment of the original, and more conservative idea, see Keith Mathison’s The Shape of Sola Scriptura – and for critical responses to this view see CTC or NLG). The first page of a Google search brought up two representative statements of this popular understanding of sola scriptura:
“Scripture alone is called God’s word (cf. Jn.10:35; 2 Tim.3:16; 2 Pt.1:20), and in 1 Cor. 4:6 we are specifically told ‘not to go beyond what is written.’. . . Not once did Jesus speak well about traditions. Neither did Peter nor Paul as he states in Col. 2:8 ‘Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ.’” (Source).
“The only way to know for sure what God expects of us is to stay true to what we know He has revealed—the Bible. We can know, beyond the shadow of any doubt, that Scripture is true, authoritative, and reliable. The same cannot be said of tradition. The Word of God is the only authority for the Christian faith. Traditions are valid only when they are based on Scripture and are in full agreement with Scripture. Traditions that contradict the Bible are not of God and are not a valid aspect of the Christian faith. Sola scriptura is the only way to avoid subjectivity and keep personal opinion from taking priority over the teachings of the Bible.” (Source)
But can Evangelicals consistently reject extra-biblical authority? As will be made clear below, I do not think so. Bible-alone theology may sound very fine when constrained to an abstract ideal, but as Antony Flew once said, a good hypothesis can “be killed by inches, the death by a thousand qualifications.”
Even allowing that the Bible is the final and ultimate authority for Christian faith and practice, it still must be understood. That is, the Bible’s authoritative teaching resides in the message it conveys – not the physical book itself. And discovering the message of the Bible requires navigating through many layers of human interaction first. These layers of human interaction are like lenses through which the Bible’s message is seen. It seems to me, then, that to whatever degree these interpretive layers influence how one understands the Bible’s message, to that degree they have an authoritative function (at least practically speaking). This seems to introduce the very kind of human authority that the popular sense of sola scriptura claims to avoid. Below are presented ten such layers for consideration.

Linguistic Layer

The average-Evangelical-in-America-today often thinks that he “just believes his Bible” when it comes to his religious convictions. But if you asked him, “What exactly is the Bible?” he would probably answer, “The Word of God.” But the Bible he is holding almost certainly does not contain the literal words of God – at least not how he is probably thinking of them. Let’s begin here, for one important layer of authoritative reliance required for today’s Bible-believer is linguistic.
The Bible is actually a bound collection of writings written in three ancient languages: Hebrew, Aramaic, and (Koine) Greek. Since our average-Evangelical-in-America-today does not understand these ancient languages fluently, the Bible he holds is almost certainly a translation of the words of God. But there is a plethora of Bible translation “versions” on the shelf of the average book store, and translation issues are not always minor. For example, are we to “abstain from all appearance of evil” as the KJV has it, or are we to “abstain from every form of evil” as modern versions state? And try looking up Matthew 17:21 or 23:14 in the NIV sometime!
So how did our average-Evangelical-in-America-today choose from among them? Was his choice authoritative? And if so, was he operating as his own authority in the matter? Or, assuming he researched these versions, would not the source(s) he consulted for his decision have, in a sense, authoritatively determined what he is going to read in his Bible? Further, how were these authorities chosen? What if they were wrong? And how could he ever find out?
Suppose our average-Evangelical-in-America-today decides that trusting some extra-biblical authority to pick his Bible version is not a safe practice – for sola scriptura says no authority outside Scripture is trustworthy enough for such a decision. There seems only one way to solve the problem: stop relying on them. The only way he could authoritatively choose the best Bible version without invoking the authority of mere men would be to become an authority himself. That is, he will have to become an authority on the original languages for himself. But, of course, any teacher of biblical languages will herself be another extra-biblical authority. In fact, it is authoritative linguists that (hopefully) were responsible for the different Bible versions themselves. But if these authorities cannot be trusted to produce trustworthy Bible translations, how can they be trusted to teach others how to do so?
Further, how long will it take to achieve an authoritative linguistic status? Given the training available at many schools, 7-10 years is probably wildly conservative (and that’s if one does not add in Aramaic and any other cognate languages that factor into translation). This also assumes that our average-Evangelical-in-America-today can study full time.

Translational-Interpretative Layer

However, even after learning vocabulary and grammar, the fact is that words do not change into thoughts without interpretation. Even if our average-Evangelical-in-America-today learns the original languages, this does not mean that interpretation is not part of the process of translation. Translation involves far more than simple word replacement. Just like in English, the biblical languages do not come with neat, immutable dictionaries. Even theologically significant words like “save,” “justification,” “sanctification,” and “resurrection” are not always used the same way in Scripture.
To really translate the original languages correctly, one must be familiar with how that language was used at the time of the original writing. To do so, the other writings of the same chronological, geographical, and cultural background must be studied. Indeed, this is how the standard lexicons derive their data. But who can know which lexicon to trust? Biases come into play with lexicons as well (consider BAGD’s treatment of glossa where, after noting the term simply means “languages,” there is suddenly “no doubt about the thing referred to, namely the broken speech of persons in religious ecstasy”). Further, room must be left for linguistic innovation. The Bible was written in living languages, thus it is entirely possible that subtle usage changes were being made that are lost on later readers relying on typical usage.
But again, for sake of argument let us stipulate that our average-Evangelical-in-America-today has somehow overcome these issues too. After gaining unbiased insight into linguistic usage that even experts might have missed, he now needs to consider an even more difficult interpretive issue.

Hermeneutical-Philosophical Layer

Language and translation study may give our average-Evangelical-in-America-today knowledge of what ancient texts say, but understanding what they mean is another issue.
Hermeneutics is the science of interpretation of meaning. Is there an over-arching hermeneutic that works for the whole Bible? Do we simply take all words literally (at “face value”), or are some non-literal understandings actually more accurate? Literal hermeneutic theory might seem safest, but of course this will obscure any non-literal texts. The ancient Church had a four-fold hermeneutic. They believed for centuries that the Bible had literal, allegorical, moral, and analogical senses. While this four-fold hermeneutic is often decried today, consider the difficulty faced in taking many of the prophetic fulfillments of Jesus’ birth with a literal/grammatical/historical-only hermeneutic (e.g., Isa. 7:14 cf. Mt. 1:18-25; Jer. 31:15 cf. Mt. 2:16-18; or Hos. 11:1 cf. Mt. 2:13-15). Non-Christians have field days with the original “intent” of these passages and their alleged misuse by the gospel writers.
Few seriously argue that Scripture can be taken in a purely literalistic fashion, for at least some of the Bible is poetry, metaphor, hyperbole, etc. But recognition of these things requires extra-biblical knowledge – for the Bible itself does not always signal these elements. So, in many cases, hermeneutics becomes philosophy of language. But the Bible is not a useful source for coming to one’s philosophy of language either, for one must already have a philosophy of language before the Bible can be interpreted!
Further, literary devices like hyperbole and metaphor rely entirely on one’s experience of reality to recognize. But reality, too, must be interpreted. Thus, correct notions of metaphysics are necessary if we are to avoid subjectivity in biblical interpretation. Thus, one must get one’s metaphysics and linguistic philosophies correct before hermeneutic theories can be properly evaluated or applied. Either philosophical field could easily take up a lifetime.
But let us allow for super-human accomplishments on the part of our average-Evangelical-in-America-today, and grant that perhaps his view of reality and language are exactly correct, and his views are completely uncluttered by inaccurate understandings of his personal experiences. The authorities involved in such pursuits (even if they include only the philosopher himself) are going to once again be mostly (if not entirely) extra-biblical.
And the work is not over yet.

Historical-Cultural Layer

Abstract language meaning might be objectively understood via a proper hermeneutic, but its specific referents can remain unknown. The particular realities that words pick out are not shared by the biblical writers and our average-Evangelical-in-America-today, for they are thousands of years, and thousands of miles, removed from one another.
Sometimes important cultural details are sometimes lost to history. For example, what exactly is the “head covering” Paul refers to in his letter to the Corinthians, and what was its purpose? What is this “baptism for the dead” Paul refers to in the same letter, and what was its purpose? Mere knowledge of language, even coupled to a good hermeneutic, cannot answer these questions. And sometimes we do not even know a question should be asked. When Jesus warns the Laodiceans to be either hot or cold, not many later readers recognized the import of those two temperatures to a city without its own water supply.
A thorough knowledge of history and culture is necessary to avoid anachronism and other such errors, and to catch subtle remarks that the original readers would have recognized. In the New Testament, for example, we come upon scribes, Pharisees, Sadducees, synagogues, and a Roman Government without much introduction or explanation in many cases. Yet none of these are known from the Old Testament. The Bible causes these issues, it does not solve them. But to whom can our average-Evangelical-in-America-today go to learn about these things if not extra-biblical authorities? Unless, of course, he simply becomes an expert on history on his own. A time machine (coupled with an anti-aging device) perhaps?
Assuming that our average-Evangelical-in-America-today somehow (miraculously?) manages to meet the above criteria, the job is still not done. For once one knows what a text says and what it means, one must then grasp what it teaches.

Applicational Layer

After discovering what a text says and what it means, it is time to get something out of it. Application answers the question, “What is the text teaching?” Here we run into more examples of Scripture not supplying easy answers.
Do the stories of people speaking in tongues in the Book of Acts teach us that believers today must do likewise? Is the head covering in 1 Corinthians a practice that has some parallel today? Does the acceptance of slavery throughout the Bible indicate that it has an acceptable place in the world today? Why do we practice the Lord’s Supper but not foot washing when Jesus commanded both during the same talk? These sorts of questions cannot be answered simply by knowing what the Bible says or means.
Discovering how the truths of Scripture apply to us today is the whole goal of Bible study – yet the Bible is rarely clear on just how to do so. Many disagreements over Christian practice do not involve issues of translation or interpretation, because knowing what the text means does not necessarily tell us what it teaches. Even in cases of prescription (rather than mere description), issues of cultural relevance, proper dispensations, audience similarity, general vs. particular commands, etc. all remain. Now subjects such as ethics, moral philosophy, theology, and others come into play. And, since it is the Bible that seems to raise the above issues, it seems that once again extra-biblical information is required.
But what if our average-Evangelical-in-America-today sought this extra-biblical information from God rather than man? Wouldn’t that solve the problem? It depends on who you ask.

Mystical Layer

The “mystical” layer is unique to this list in that it is both more and less controversial than the others – especially when it comes to authority. On the “less controversial” side, I think most Christians will agree that without the aid of God, the Scriptures cannot be fully “grasped” (I am being purposefully vague in order to make the statement general enough to be true). Now, whether this help comes in the form of direct explanation of textual meaning, divinely inspired objectivity, subjective personal application, or any of a host of other explanations – God is doing something when the faithful read His word.
The difficulty is the “more controversial” part. For one thing, there are a number of views concerning God’s role in interpretation (sometimes called “illumination”). Some believe that God only steps in to call the “close ones,” while others think they are getting a live feed from God’s mind via the pages of the Bible virtually every time they open it. In either case (and for any in between), if the Bible itself cannot settle a given view, then claiming that God’s aid sealed the deal would be to invoke divine authority for one’s own understanding. The result should be the very kind of extra-biblical authority that sola scriptura seems to seek to avoid. Further, to whatever extent God is helping out, that part of the interpretative process would seem to be free from error. But few will allow (whether theologically or pragmatically) for any infallibility being introduced into the process. For most this would smack of either infallible Catholic papal claims or charismatic prophetic craziness – neither of which comport with sola scriptura.
A more difficult fact to deal with is that while the Church underwent one or two important splits in its first 1,500 years, “sola scriptura Christianity” has managed to break itself into more than 20,000 denominations in the last 500. If God’s guidance in some way insured some allowable extra-biblical authority in understanding Scripture, then how could it be fairly determined which denomination (or, in many cases, which individual) has it? It all sounds very impressive when a preacher or teacher challenges his hearers to check his words against the Bible, personal study, or prayer – but with the abundance of interpretive options awaiting the researcher (consider, for example, the popular “multi-view” book series put out by more than one evangelical publisher), this challenge is hardly threatening.
I will leave additional theological issues with the mystical layer aside, for they do not necessarily help or hinder either side in the present consideration of sola scriptura. For now it is enough to note that whatever role God plays in the process of biblical interpretation, it does not seem to get what is needed to avoid extra-biblical authority. Even if a non-question begging sola scriptura theory of (and evidence for) mystical illumination were forthcoming, the chaotic theological results are not easily explained.
Our average-Evangelical-in-America-today will not, therefore, be able to trust in personal mystical guidance and follow sola scriptura at the same time. So for now, let’s just get back to the Bible – the one source we know we can trust.
If, that is, we really have one.

Textual Layer

Supposing that our average-Evangelical-in-America-today learns the original biblical languages so well that he can pick up an original Greek New Testament or Hebrew/Aramaic Old Testament and read it as easily as he can an English translation. He has overcome all interpretive and philosophical biases, and has learned enough about history and culture to catch every nuance that an original reader would have. He is also accessing God’s mystical guidance (if it is available) without distortion. No more “Bible versions” for this average-Evangelical-in-America-today, right?
Wrong.
Unfortunately, the Bible version issue does not disappear once one masters the original languages. Now he must also choose which “original Bible” to read. For the New Testament alone he must choose between the Minority and the Majority text traditions (and there are different versions of each of these forms, such as the Nestle-Aland or the United Bible Society’s, or the Textus Receptus – each having had numerous revisions). The Old Testament, too, has some textual issues – the most notable being that the Hebrew manuscript copies (the “Masoretic” texts) that we have are much later than the original writings. There is also the Greek translation of the Old Testament (known as the Septuagint, or “LXX”) which is quoted more in the New Testament than the MT, yet sometimes differs considerably from the Hebrew texts we have.
Arguments for each of these versions abound, and have spawned their own fields of study commonly referred to as Textual Criticism. Textual Criticism deals with issues arising from the fact that we do not have the original manuscripts of the Bible. What we do have are thousands of copies, some very early, that must be sorted through and compared for accuracy. As skeptics are happy to point out, few of these manuscripts agree completely. Now, this is not such a huge problem since given thousands of comparisons we can arrive at a pretty solid understanding of what the original must have said. But differences (“variants”) remain, and questions need to be answered when it comes to deciding which variants to use when producing the “original” edition. In how many manuscripts does the variant reading occur? What are the dates for these manuscripts? In what region of the world were these manuscripts found? What could have caused these varying readings? Which reading can best explain the origin of the other readings? Etc.
A lot of work, then, is needed just to produce an accurate original language Bible (assuming, of course, that the original wording has indeed been retained amongst all these disparate copies). How is our average-Evangelical-in-America-today going to choose between them? Well, unless he is willing to trust in the text-critical authorities, he’ll have to learn text criticism itself. Worse, unless he wants to trust in the people who typed up what is actually found on these ancient manuscripts, he’ll have to gain access to all of them directly, from all over the world, and make his own copies. To do otherwise would be to trust extra-biblical authorities (besides himself) with copying the words of God.
But let’s cut our average-Evangelical-in-America-today some slack and say that he does somehow gain the true perspective on text criticism and obtains his own copies of all available manuscripts. How long will it take to go through all these copies? Professionals spend their entire careers working on mere subsets of these document collections. This pushes the possibility of avoiding extra-biblical authority even farther from the already outrageous situation we have already granted to our average-Evangelical-in-America-today.
And speaking of collections – why does our average-Evangelical-in-America-today trust anyone to tell him which books he should even be including? Welcome to the canonical layer.

Canonical Layer

Despite what our average-Evangelical-in-America-today may have at once thought, he now knows that the Bible is not “a book.” Rather, it is a collection of various writings that are bound together for convenience. But who decided which books are in this collection? And how did they do so?
The official title of the biblical collection is “canon.” Now, the canon of Scripture did not begin to be solidified until the 3rd or 4th century. The Church was teaching from both oral and written traditions before that time, holding authoritative councils, writing the creeds that would determine Christian orthodoxy, and using all of these in the process of canonization. Thus, ironically, it would seem that to ignore this early extra-biblical tradition might also justify ignoring the biblical canon itself.
Is the average-Evangelical-in-America-today just as free to jettison the biblical canon as he is the traditional Church creeds and councils? Would an average-Evangelical-in-America-today feel free to dismiss certain books of the Bible if they did not sit well with him? Would he be free to add to the canon should he “feel led” to do so? If so, what is the standard by which he could or could not do so? And how would these arguments work with or against extra-biblical Church authority?
Numerous tests for canonicity have been suggested to avoid this problem, but many of them are the result of a-historical attempts at “reverse engineering” the canon. Tests include: evidence of inspiration, proper spiritual character, church edification, doctrinal accuracy, apostolic authorship or endorsement, general church acceptance, etc. The problem is that several of these rely on subjective criteria, others are objective but rely on the testimony of extra-biblical tradition for their evidence. To take just one example: the criterion of apostolicity relies on knowledge of who wrote the book in question and / or the author’s relation to an apostle. But several NT books do not name their author (e.g., the Gospels and Hebrews), and others are vague (e.g., James, Revelation). Moreover, even the books that do name their authors can only be trusted as far as they are deemed trustworthy in the first place. The Church did not accept the gospels of Thomas or of Mary – why not? The facts are that the members of the Church closest to the time of the apostles disputed the content of the NT canon, and that this disputation continued well into the Reformation (on both Catholic and Protestant sides), and disagreements of varying degrees continue right up to today. Thus the escape from extra-biblical authority sought by these tests is often lacking.
Now our average-Evangelical-in-America-today faces a critical dilemma: he’s spent years learning the languages, figuring out the best text-critical theory, and somehow obtained his own copies of all the relevant manuscripts – but he still has to trust extra-biblical authorities to even know which books belong in the Bible in the first place. But let us simply suppose once again that our average-Evangelical-in-America-today gets this one right. He nails the canon and somehow justifies his choices without any appeal to extra-biblical authority (perhaps he uses Calvin’s test of self-authenticating testimony . . . which of course is also extra-biblical). Is he done? Can he now be sure of his Bible’s teachings without relying on any outside authority?
Hardly. Indeed, he has only begun.

Traditional Layer

If the Church’s traditions are not considered authoritative, then not only are its biblical interpretations and extra-biblical teachings called into question – but so might its councils, creeds, and the canon of Scripture itself. For whatever arguments serve to create distrust in the authority of the early Church also makes other areas of orthodoxy open to criticism, and how can sola scriptura survive if we cannot be sure of what counts as “scriptura” in the first place? But many claim that the whole point of sola scriptura is to avoid traditions! Isn’t that what gets the Church into trouble in the first place?
Does Scripture teach the faithful to mistrust tradition? No, it does not. Rather, it warns of following false traditions (just like false philosophy, false religion, etc.). It’s the “false” part that is important. Claims such as the ones mentioned in the introduction concerning Scriptures’ alleged negative outlook on tradition must simply ignore other verses to remain consistent (which is made easier by the NIV translators who purposefully translated the Greek term paradosis as “traditions” in its negative contexts, and as “teachings” in its positive references!). For example, the same apostle who warned against following man-made traditions also said:

“Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle”
(2 Thessalonians 2:15)
“Withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us”
(2 Thessalonians 3:6)
“Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things and keep the traditions just as I delivered them to you”
(1 Corinthians 11:2)

Now, to be absolutely sure of one’s understanding of Christian doctrine from the Bible alone, at least three things must be the case:

First, authoritative tradition must have ceased with the apostles (to avoid the self-defeating proposition that the Bible – which teaches that traditions must be trusted – alone is trustworthy).
Second, the Bible would have to be perfectly clear in what it teaches (to avoid any possible misunderstanding, each part would have to have this clarity – for if it did not it may be the case that one part would alter another).
Third, everything the apostles wanted taught must have been recorded in Scripture (because the slightest bit of additional information could radically alter our understanding of anything else we read).

The first two points seem to be self-evidently required, but the first begs the question and is self-defeating because the Bible does not teach (at least not clearly) that authoritative tradition ceased with the apostles. If this is one’s theological position that is fine (and the theological layer is coming up!), but it must be recognized as such. As to the second criterion, the numerous and disparate interpretations of Scripture offered by the very people who proclaim its clarity seem to argue against that position. If one responds that proper hermeneutics/philosophy/ etc. are required to attain this clarity then we are back to additional layers of interpretation. The third point is even more seriously problematic for sola scriptura as it has been popularly defined, however. For even if Church tradition after the apostles is not authoritative, and even if Scriptures are perfectly clear, it would only have taken one extra sentence to change everything.
As an example, let’s consider communion (the Lord’s Supper / the Eucharist). Paul told the Corinthians concerning communion, “the rest I will set in order when I come,” (1 Cor. 11:34). Suppose that what he later said to them was, “By the way, Jesus Christ is physically present in the communion bread and wine.” That one sentence would be a game changer for interpretation of not only 1 Corinthians 11, but for John 6 and Matthew 26 as well! Now, we do not seem to know what Paul “set in order” concerning communion when he came to them later. 2 Corinthians says nothing about it. Paul does mention two other letters to the Corinthians that we do not have, so perhaps it was in those. Or maybe in the epistle that he sent to the church at Laodicea (Colossians 4:16) he said something of interpretive importance. Either way, it did not make it into the Bible – and to be 100% certain of his Bible-only understandings, our average-Evangelical-in-America-today would have to know for sure.
What we do know is that the Church held to a non-memorial-only view of communion for nearly 1,500 years. This view might not be clear from Scripture, but it is no less clear than Zwingli’s memorial-only view. How can sola scriptura solve this debate then? The same could be said for the Bishop/Elder distinction – this does not seem clear in Scripture, but it was recognized very early by the Church whose leaders were taught by the apostles. For the average-Evangelical-in-America-today, however, the early Church is not considered an authoritative source. So its tradition cannot be trusted to authoritatively solve the problem. This remains a problem even if some new bit of information surface, for these would be extra-biblical too.
Thus, even if our average-Evangelical-in-America-today can successfully demonstrate that no extra-biblical tradition is authoritative unless it accords with [his understanding of] Scripture, the issue remains. Judging extra-biblical tradition based on the Bible when the Bible is unclear is going to be a failed project. Yet for our average-Evangelical-in-America-today, it seems to be all he has to go on. Worse, in cases where extra-biblical traditions could legitimately overturn a Bible-only interpretation, then a Bible-only approach would never – even in principle – be able to authoritatively judge against extra-biblical tradition (for even apostolic teaching is extra-biblical if it did not make it into the Bible). Since such a situation is certainly possible, then given a Bible-only methodology, our average-Evangelical-in-America-today could only hope to arrive at probable interpretations. He would remain, ultimately, unsure of a great many things.
Now, mere logical possibility does not equal actual evidence. Perhaps arguments can be produced which support a contrary position, but since the Bible does not contain them, they are extra-biblical too. This should cause a problem for the popular view of sola scriptura, for these sorts of positions turn out to be not so much biblical as theological.

Theological Layer

Since the Bible does not say that it alone is trustworthy or authoritative, the idea that it is so is a theological one. In many areas holding to theological positions that are not clearly stated in the Bible is not necessarily a big problem, since many positions are based on theological speculation. Here, however, it becomes a bigger issue.
It would be incoherent to claim that the Bible alone is a trustworthy source of theological information when the Bible itself does not say that it alone is a trustworthy source of theological information. In addition, it would also turn out to be self-defeating since the Bible itself teaches that other sources of revelation exist (e.g., the principles of natural theology and law found in Rom. 1-2). And, since the Bible actually commands believers to hold to “traditions” that they “heard” (see above), it simply cannot be the case that the Bible’s position is that traditions do not become authoritative until they are written down. Something like this might be argued theologically, but it is not a teaching directly supportable from the words of the Bible. The same could be said for limiting authoritative “traditions” to the words the Apostles left us in Scripture – this is not what the early Church taught, and it pre-dated the New Testament itself.
But even our average-Evangelical-in-America-today (who stopped being average a LONG time ago!) could defend these theological positions, some extra-biblical authority is in the picture – for the Bible does not teach them directly. Even doctrines said to be derived from Scripture are still adding something to the mere words of the Bible and are, to that extent, extra-biblical. And once again, although attractive in the abstract, the ideal that theology can be directly supported from Scripture alone and achieve the authority the Church desires is a position held by the very theologians who disagree the most over theology! (Consider the popular Counterpoints series.)
And this brings us back to the original problem.

Conclusion

Bible-only theology sounds fine as long as it remains an abstract principle (or slogan). The reality is much messier. At least the following authoritative layers would need to be peeled back before a strict Bible-only theological method could even theoretically succeed:

Linguistic – to avoid having to trust non-authoritative translators.
Translational-Interpretational – to avoid having to trust non-authoritative interpreters.
Hermeneutical-Philosophical – to avoid having to trust non-authoritative philosophers.
Historical-Cultural – to avoid having to trust non-authoritative historians.
Applicational – to avoid having to trust non-authoritative teachers.
Mystical – to avoid having to trust non-authoritative personal views.
Textual – to avoid having to trust non-authoritative text critics.
Canonical – to avoid having to trust non-authoritative Church decisions.
Traditional – to avoid having to trust non-authoritative traditions.
Theological – to avoid having to trust non-authoritative theologians.

In the real world, reliance on extra-biblical authority is found at nearly every step of Bible study. Even if our average-Evangelical-in-America-today had the time, materials, and intellect for such an endeavor, he would still realistically have to rely on a host of extra-biblical authorities (teachers, authors, researchers, principles, etc.) to learn all that he would need to know to become a trustworthy [yet extra-biblical, and thus still fallible!] authority himself.
As stated in the introduction, it seems to me that to whatever degree these layers of human interaction influence how one understands the Bible’s message, to that degree they have a practical authoritative function. (Perhaps independent tests are available to assess each layer’s authoritative status without engaging in question-begging or misplaced confidence. If so, then these need to be spelled out more clearly.) Thus, it seems clear that the Bible in our hands can only be depended upon to deliver authoritative truth to the degree that the authorities at each layer can be trusted to deliver authoritative truth.
Now, if sola scriptura is understood as simply teaching that the Bible “alone is of supreme and final authority in faith and life,” then these problems may be avoided, for this would at least admit to the possibility (if not the necessity) of additional authorities. Under this view, sola scriptura can operate alongside extra-biblical authorities without necessarily placing any of them at a level that the Bible alone occupies. The pertinent question then becomes when these authorities can be considered trustworthy (when they are considered at all).

Walking on Water

2011-08-01T09:01:00.000-04:00

I was reading the daily readings for today. The Gospel reading is Matt 14:22-36. It is one of my favorites. Jesus walks on water, and Peter attempts to join him. For a moment, Peter has faith and trust enough in Christ to stand amidst the waves and walk on water like Christ. Then he looks around. He sees what is physically surrounding him. The waves, the boat being tossed. No doubt he takes his eyes off of Christ and no longer hears His voice, but instead he hears the sound of the water and the terrifying wind. Having lived near the ocean in an area where sudden storms would arise, I know how scary that is. Storms of that kind are loud and powerful. What happened when Peter turned from Christ and focused on the things around him? He began to sink. As long as his eyes were on Christ, and as long as he held his gaze in faith and trust, he was fine. No danger, no scary storm, no drowning. But Peter turned away. He allowed himself to focus somewhere else and his faith was immediately shaken. In just a matter of a second in time, Peter risked losing his life, because of his momentary loss of faith in Christ.
Of course, Jesus was right there! He saw Peter's moment of panic and his distress in realizing what he had done and what was happening. As soon as Peter cried out to him, he reached for him and pulled him to safety. He said, "Oh, you of little faith, why did you doubt?"
Of the twelve apostles, Peter and Thomas are my favorite. Thomas, the doubtful, who always needed proof, but who loved so deeply and followed so willingly. And then Peter, the Rock, the foundation of the Church who denied Christ three times. The one who seems to always be scolded for his lack of faith, or for speaking without thinking. Peter, who asks to walk on water with Christ. Ever doubtful, but always willing. Was it that Peter doubted Jesus, or that Peter knew too well his own personal inabilities? It was simply, in the walking on water story, that he took his eyes from Christ and allowed his faith to falter. How often do we do that? How often do we take our eyes from Christ only to find ourselves at some point calling out, "Lord, save me!" Just like in the story with Peter, he is always right there, waiting for us to call out to him, but we have the freedom to fall. We have the free will to turn away and sink. Notice that Jesus didn't jump to Peter and pull him up when he saw him sinking. Peter first cried out, "save me" and THEN Jesus reached out his hand and pulled him to safety.
I don't think Jesus would have let him die if he hadn't called out to him, but Jesus was one who liked to make a point, and poor Peter was always in a good position to have an example made of him.
Think about the Peter who looked away, the Peter who denied, the Peter who fumbled his words, and was rebuked. Then think about the Peter after Pentecost. The Peter who faced death daily to preach the Gospel of Christ. It is the difference between having something outside and in front of us that we can acknowledge, Jesus as he was as a man, and having something within us that drives out fear and regenerates our hearts and our souls so that we might be "perfect as the heavenly father is perfect." But we have to choose. We have to keep our eyes on Jesus and allow the Spirit to work in us and through us. We can look away. We can allow the distractions of the world around us to pull us under as the waves of the see in a storm. We can lose our faith for just a second, and risk our lives. Or, we can keep our eyes on Jesus. We can walk on water with him through the suffering, the pain, and the nightmares of this world and come out on the other side of that storm, having "persevered to the end."

Part II -- Looks Like we Agree....???

2011-07-28T08:34:00.000-04:00

"We further believe that in this Christian Church we have

forgiveness of sin, which is wrought through the holy Sacraments
and Absolution, moreover, through all manner of consolatory
promises of the entire Gospel. Therefore, whatever
is to be preached concerning the Sacraments belongs here,
and, in short, the whole Gospel and all the offices of Christianity,
which also must be preached and taught without ceasing.
For although the grace of God is secured through Christ,
and sanctification is wrought by the Holy Ghost through the
Word of God in the unity of the Christian Church, yet on
account of our flesh which we bear about with us we are never
without sin.
Everything, therefore, in the Christian Church is ordered
to the end that we shall daily obtain there nothing but the
forgiveness of sin through the Word and signs, to comfort
and encourage our consciences as long as we live here. Thus,
although we have sins, the [grace of the] Holy Ghost does
not allow them to injure us, because we are in the Christian
Church, where there is nothing but [continuous, uninterrupted]
forgiveness of sin, both in that God forgives us, and
in that we forgive, bear with, and help each other.
But outside of this Christian Church, where the Gospel is
not, there is no forgiveness, as also there can be no holiness
[sanctification]. Therefore all who seek and wish to merit
holiness [sanctification], not through the Gospel and forgiveness
of sin, but by their works, have expelled and severed themselves
[from this Church].
Meanwhile, however, while sanctification has begun and is
growing daily, we expect that our flesh will be destroyed and
buried with all its uncleanness, and will come forth gloriously,
and arise to entire and perfect holiness in a new eternal
life. For now we are only half pure and holy, so that the Holy
Ghost has ever [some reason why] to continue His work in
us through the Word, and daily to dispense forgiveness, until
we attain to that life where there will be no more forgiveness,
but only perfectly pure and holy people, full of godliness and
righteousness, removed and free from sin, death, and all evil,
in a new, immortal, and glorified body."
Here is Martin Luther again teaching, in his catechism, that the sacraments and absolution are necessary for the forgiveness of sins. And that we are NOT made completely holy, but that the Holy Spirit has to continue his work IN us.

Now, John Calvin had some similar views, but, as most of you who have studied the reformers know, Calvin and Luther did disagree on some points. It seems to me that, had I known them both, I would have enjoyed Luther's company as a person to share a drink with a LOT more than Calvin. Luther seems to have been driven by his passions and his true desire toward God, where Calvin seems...I don't know how to put it...controlling and in need of supreme authority?? Where Luther wanted to teach and spread the word, Calvin wanted to establish states and rule over them with an iron fist of religious weight. Again, just speaking of them from what I have read of and about their lives.
Anyway...Calvin also supported infant baptism and the necessity of baptism.

"In the first place, then, it is a well-known doctrine, and one as to which all the pious are agreed, - that the right consideration of signs does not lie merely in the outward ceremonies but depends chiefly on the promise and the spiritual mysteries, to typify which, the ceremonies themselves are appointed. He, therefore, who would thoroughly understand the effect of baptism - its object and true character - must not stop short at the element and corporeal object, but look forward to the divine promises which are therein offered to us, and rise to the internal secrets which are therein represented. He who understands these has reached the solid truth, and, so to speak, the whole substance of baptism, and will thence perceive the nature and use of outward sprinkling. On the other hand, he who passes them by in contempt, and keeps his thoughts entirely fixed on the visible ceremony, will neither understand the force, nor the proper nature of baptism, nor comprehend what is meant, or what end is gained by the use of water. This is confirmed by passages of Scripture too numerous and too clear to make it necessary here to discuss them more at length. It remains, therefore, to inquire into the nature and efficacy of baptism, as evinced by the promises therein given. Scripture shows, first, that it points to that cleansing from sin which we obtain by the blood of Christ; and, secondly, to the mortification of the flesh, which consists in participation in his death, by which believers are regenerated to newness of life, and thereby to the fellowship of Christ. To these general heads may be referred all that the Scriptures teach concerning baptism, with this addition, that it is also a symbol to testify our religion to men. "

Now, I think where things get confusing with Calvin is where he speaks of it as a symbol, and people sort of latch onto that and run with it...but notice what he says is that it is "also a symbol" not only a symbol. Calvin also argued for the baptism of infants, because they are part of the covenant, and he understood the relationship between the old covenant sign of circumcision and the new covenant Baptism.

Here is more from Calvin on infant baptism...

"I am not moved by the objection, that the promise ought to be sufficient to confirm the salvation of our children. It has seemed otherwise to God, who, seeing our weakness, has herein been pleased to condescend to it. Let those, then, who embrace the promise of mercy to their children, consider it as their duty to offer them to the Church, to be sealed with the symbol of mercy, and animate themselves to surer confidence, on seeing with the bodily eye the covenant of the Lord engraven on the bodies of their children. On the other hand, children derive some benefit from their baptism, when, being ingrafted into the body of the church, they are made an object of greater interest to the other members. Then when they have grown up, they are thereby strongly urged to an earnest desire of serving God, who has received them as sons by the formal symbol of adoption, before, from nonage, they were able to recognise him as their Father. In fine, we ought to stand greatly in awe of the denunciations that God will take vengeance on every one who despises to impress the symbol of the covenant on his child, (Gen. 17: 15,) such contempt being a rejection, and, as it were, abjuration of the offered grace."

Looks Like We Agree on More than We Thought?? Part I

2011-07-26T23:04:00.000-04:00

I've been reading, again, Martin Luther's Larger Catechism. It's a serious piece of work, and very informative. I often hear people say, and I've said it before after reading some of the original works of the reformers, that what the evangelical churches and many protestant denominations are teaching is not the teachings of the reformers. I am beginning to fully agree that if Martin Luther and John Calvin were to come back today, they would not recognize the churches they left behind. The same is VERY true for the Catholic Church. I think they would be both surprised and happy to see that the "reform" they sparked branched over into the very place they felt needed it the most. As my parish priest once stated, "thank God for Martin Luther!" So, with that in mind, I am posting, in large chunks, pieces of Martin Luther's Larger Catechism for discussion. I would like for responses to ONLY reflect and respond to what is being posted, please. This is NOT a reformation debate. NOT a debate at ALL, but a discussion. I am not trying to prove anything. I am simply posting about information I have read and found to be of interest, and that I think a lot of people may find to be interesting as well.

I would like to begin with Luther's stance on the necessity of the sacrament of Baptism. Notice that, in his own words, he does refer to it as a sacrament and as something that Christians must adhere to as necessary for salvation.

"In the first place, we must above all things know well the

words upon which Baptism is founded, and to which everything
refers that is to be said on the subject, namely, where
the Lord Christ speaks in the last chapter of Matthew, v. 19:

Go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in the

name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.
Likewise in St. Mark, the last chapter, v. 16:
He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that
believeth not shall be damned .
In these words you must note, in the first place, that here
stand God’s commandment and institution, lest we doubt
that Baptism is divine, not devised nor invented by men. For
as truly as I can say, No man has spun the Ten Commandments,
the Creed, and the Lord’s Prayer out of his head, but
they are revealed and given by God Himself, so also I can
boast that Baptism is no human trifle, but instituted by God
Himself, moreover, that it is most solemnly and strictly commanded
that we must be baptized or we cannot be saved, lest
any one regard it as a trifling matter, like putting on a new red
coat. For it is of the greatest importance that we esteem Baptism
excellent, glorious, and exalted, for which we contend
and fight chiefly, because the world is now so full of sects

clamoring that Baptism is an external thing, and that external

things are of no benefit. But let it be ever so much an external
thing here stand God’s Word and command which institute,
establish, and confirm Baptism. But what God institutes and
commands cannot be a vain, but must be a most precious
thing, though in appearance it were of less value than a straw.

For to be baptized in the name of God is to be baptized not

by men, but by God Himself. Therefore although it is performed
by human hands, it is nevertheless truly God’s own
work. From this fact every one may himself readily infer that it
is a far higher work than any work performed by a man or a
saint...

Therefore I exhort again that these two the water and the

Word, by no means be separated from one another and parted.
For if the Word is separated from it, the water is the same as
that with which the servant cooks, and may indeed be called
a bath-keeper’s baptism. But when it is added, as God has
ordained, it is a Sacrament, and is called Christ-baptism. Let
this be the first part regarding the essence and dignity of the
holy Sacrament.
In the second place, since we know now what Baptism is,
and how it is to be regarded, we must also learn why and for
what purpose it is instituted; that is, what it profits, gives and
works. And this also we cannot discern better than from the
words of Christ above quoted: He that believeth and is baptized
shall be saved. Therefore state it most simply thus, that
the power, work, profit, fruit, and end of Baptism is this,
namely, to save. For no one is baptized in order that he may
become a prince, but, as the words declare, that he be saved."

Within Martin Luther's explanation of Baptism, he outlines perfectly the very definition of a sacrament as an outward sign of the grace they signify. It is by the Word of God being spoken, and the waters of Baptism being blessed, that the Holy Spirit moves through the actions of the sacrament to infer the grace of salvation. And, as you can see, Martin Luther clearly quotes the scriptures in which this sacrament was instituted by Christ as a salvific event.

Okay, now to quote from the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1257)
God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but He himself is not bound by his sacraments."

I encourage you to read further on this issue. The link to Luther's Larger Catechism is http://www2.hn.psu.edu/faculty/jmanis/m~luther/mllc.pdf

The link to the Catechism of the Catholic Church is http://usccb.org/catechism/

Snowflake Babies---a HUGE moral dilema

2011-07-18T11:39:00.000-04:00

So, most of us by now are aware that, due to the increase of IVF treatments in clinics all over the world, we now have a surplus of unwanted frozen embryos. These are viable embryos that were "conceived" outside of the mother's womb and frozen for future use or, as often happens, they end up being used for research or just dumped.
What happens is, when a woman goes for an IVF procedure, several embryos are made. The woman is encouraged to have at least two of the embryos placed in the uterus just in case one doesn't "take." Now, what happens to the rest? Well, the woman can pay to have it placed in "storage" or she can say she doesn't want them.
Now, I believe, as do most pro-life advocates, that life begins at conception. These embryos that are being stored, researched, dumped, etc are babies. They are children that are being chosen or refused.

Okay...the issue is that now it has come into question...can these "snowflake babies" be adopted? Well, the snap answer is yes. But I think we need to really stop and think about this. They are living beings, humans, people. They have, just as anyone does, a right to life. To adopt them would afford them that opportunity and provide for them loving and happy homes. What's the problem with that?
Well, possibly, there are two BIG problems with that.
#1--We can't be said to justify the immoral act by providing an "out"
#2--It could be seen as immoral based on the fact that it is a child conceived outside of the mother's womb and the adoptive mother would be acting as a surrogate.

Now, let me interject here that I know not everyone has an issue with #2. Based on my faith belief, I do, and I know there are many others out there who do as well. I am not trying to argue this point, or to open a debate on whether #2 is fact or fiction. The issue here is adoption of frozen embryos and I'm simply giving my thoughts on the matter. I am stating my personal faith based beliefs when I give #2 as an issue.
ALSO...I don't have a clear opinion of this issue one way or another at this point. I am simply putting my thoughts and feelings down and giving others the opportunity to share.

Okay, now that we have that out of the way.
#1--Just as with embryonic stem cell research, we have the moral issue of "does the end justify the means." Well, being pro-life, I am going to say no. Absolutely not. Just because a life can be saved, doesn't justify the murder of a child. Many many people have a "well, it's being done anyway, we may as well let something good come of it." The problem with that is, the act is wrong. The origin is wrong. The intent is wrong. But...we believe in a right to life. We believe that every life deserves the right to live. If life begins at conception, and these embryos are viable, they have a right to live. So, is it wrong for a man and a woman to decide that they want to provide a chance for these babies. If they are not refusing the possibility of their own children, and they are acting in love and charity to provide a life for a child, does it still qualify as wrong based on the original intent and what caused the baby to be in the limbo state it is in. Keeping also in mind that, most likely, the child will be dumped or used for research and killed. Where exactly would it be crossing the moral line? As things currently stand, this issue has not yet been decided.
#2--This is a BIG deal issue right here, but to give all sides, we have to go there. Now, I understand that not everyone holds the same fully pro-life stance as others. I also understand that many people will say that these methods are acceptable for a couple who can't have children. This is a particularly difficult issue for me because I am among those women. I have, by the grace of God a miracle child. I was told I would never carry to full term, and I did. Ten years later, I haven't been able to do that again as of yet. So, believe me, I KNOW the appeal of IVF treatments and surrogacy. But the problem is, God intended us to be family. Man and woman were intended to bring life through the sacramental union of marriage. What we do, as husband and wife, is a part of the covenant bond of marriage. So, if we go outside of that covenant bond for conceptions sake, well, we have made a way, of our own will, to bypass God's intention and His perfect creation. How perfect if conception can't happen? We may never know the answer to that question, but what I DO know, is that God will allow a barren woman to conceive when it is to his glory and of his will. It happened to Sarah, it happened to Elizabeth, it still happens.
Now, back to our issue of adoption of those embryos that were not conceived within the womb and are now in danger of death. Can we morally save them? Would that be surrogacy? Not really. Surrogacy is when a woman bears a child for another couple. Adoption of an embryo would be to provide a home and a pathway to life through the womb of the adoptive mother, and the purpose being for that adoptive mother to bring the child up as her own.

Here are a couple of links to articles regarding this specific issue

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2002/0201fea5.asp

http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/555780.aspx

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/column.php?n=1696

New Favorite Website!!!!

2011-07-18T08:16:00.000-04:00

I wanted to share this with everyone! I know some of you may know it already, and I have used it in the past, but, being on a particular rant lately, I have been reading it A LOT!! If you like the church fathers, if you want to explore particular topics....it's all right here!!!!!!!!

http://newadvent.org

It is an amazing resource and an awesome place to go to read some stuff!

Deadliest of all Sins: Pride

2011-07-13T07:45:00.000-04:00

We've all heard the old Proverb--Pride goes before distruction, and haughty spirit before a fall. That one is actually in the Bible. Proverbs 16:18
What is pride exactly? Pride is a noun meaning a high or inordinate opinion of one's own dignity, importance, merit, or superiority, whether as cherished in the mind or as displayed in bearing, conduct, etc.
Okay, so I think I'm important, big deal. Yeah...it is a BIG deal. It is a HUGE deal...it is wrong. Why? Our society today teaches self importance. Everyone needs to feel special! Everyone needs to be the best and know that they are the best. Women especially are being taught from birth now that we have to be "proud" of our place as women, and we can even match men in strength, political office, etc.
We are saturated with this view in the media of how to act and look and measure up to the rest. I mean, if you don't then there is something wrong with you.
Why is it wrong to have pride? Well, who are you placing on high ground when you are prideful? How can you ever truly put others before yourself when you are prideful? If you have a high opinion of your importance, you are going to be viewing others as less than yourself and, eventually, you are going to show it.
Pride goes directly against what the gospels teach us of what we should be to others. Is is listed, often, with sins of defilement. Mk 7:21-22 "From within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, fornication, theft, murder adultery, coveting, wickednesss, deceit, licentiosness, envy, slander, pride, foolishness. All of these things come from within, and they defile a man."
Jesus said all of those things come from the heart. The source of our feelings which manifest themselves in our deeds. If you are harboring something in your heart, sooner or later your deeds will show it. In Luke 1:51, Mary acknowledges how God has "scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts." Wow...I love that line. Other translations say He has "dispersed the arrogant of mind and heart." Either way, that's a pretty awesome line.
In her Magnificat, Mary, the Mother of God, is ... wait, yeah, the MOTHER OF GOD...wasn't she supposed to feel special? Shouldn't she, according to our society standards, have been walking around going "Oh, yeah, God chose ME! I'm special. I'm the one that will be called blessed! Don't you wish you were like me?" No. Mary, in the passage in Luke known as the Magnificat is displaying just the opposite. She is displaying her total and complete humility. She knows where to acknowledge her goodness. She knows the source of her happiness. In the first lines, she says, "My soul magnifies the Lord, and my Spirit rejoices in God my savior."
So here we have the girl who was chosen, prepared even before birth, to be the mother of our Lord, and she is giving credit to God in a beautiful act of humility. I wish we could all be so honest and that our hearts could be so pure.
But why the deadliest of all sins? And what does that mean? Well, it means simply that if your prideful you are killing your soul. It means that you are putting yourself and your wants and your priorities and your plans above God. It means that, while your are saying, with your words that Jesus is the Lord, that in your heart that only goes as far as not getting in your way.
Let me ask this question. How can you serve others if you are prideful? Serving doesn't mean reaching out when it is convenient, or when the "extra" money is there, or when you don't have other plans. It means giving of whatever time, talent, and treasure you have until it hurts. It means saying, "Ok, God, this wasn't in my plan, or my budget, but I know it is the right thing to do."
Will you get your hands dirty? Does that homeless person who smells bad make you say, "I"m just not 'called' to that?" Guess what, get over yourself...we are ALL called to that.
Let me ask another question. When was the last time you looked at someone and honestly thought, "someone needs to teach her how to fix her hair". I'm sorry, oh prideful one, Jesus didn't plant that in your heart. Yeah, that's pride. That is thinking you are above that person somehow.
How many people don't have children, because they are too busy living out their plans. Was that God's plan for them?
How many people's homes are full of earthly treasures, and they give their $100 a month or whatever to church and charity? That's pride.
What is the opposite of pride, and how do we fix it, because we are all guilty? Humility. Pray to be humble. That doesn't mean walking around with your head hanging low and your shoulders slumped saying, "I know I suck and I'm worthless". We don't need that in the world, either. What we need are those who work in humility to perform works of greatness. Look at Mother Theresa!! Oh my goodness, what a perfect example of humility that was used to display the greatness of God! She never took anything for herself, and she never ever took credit for her work. It was Love, it was God. It was always others first. She was also known for her strength and her courage. But she was humble.
I want everyone to do me a favor. Go get a Bible. If you don't have one with you..go to biblegateway.com and look up 2 Timothy 3:1-9. Read it and think about what we see around us today.
Where is our humility? Where is our love? Do we use Biblical teachings as an excuse for our pride? Most of us are guilty of that from time to time. I've often heard, "the Bible says I am to..." as an excuse for neglect, or an excuse to hurt someone's feelings.
How is that humility? How is that serving others? You know what...I don't care who you think you are, or who you think you are supposed to put first, but unless it is God, then others, you are wrong.
Is your marriage important? Yes, please, make it a priority, but not at the expense of hurting others, because then you have made it something born of pride. Is your budget important? Yes, you have to feed your family, but when was the last time you took from the top and fed someone else? Not just with the leftover. Is your knowledge important? Yes, but when was the last time you really took the time in truth and love and FAITH, to seek out someone else's point to see if maybe, just maybe, you could meet them half- way?
Pride will not allow Jesus to work in you, because you have to be able to admit you are nothing. Pride will not allow the Holy Spirit speak to you, because you have to die to self. Pride will not allow you to do the will of God, because you are putting your will always ahead of His. The deadliest of all sins. The sin that will keep your heart from God. The sin that will not allow you, in truth and honesty to proclaim Jesus as your savior. Pride--the sin that makes Satan jump for joy, because in it he has you right where he wants you to be.

Justified...Part 2

2011-07-06T10:15:00.000-04:00

So, we left of with James explanation of faith and works. Let's go to Jesus next. How many times does he say faith alone? Now, let me clarify. There is no argument about grace alone. It is by God's grace alone that we have faith. Also, there is no argument that we must have faith in order to achieve salvation/justification. There is nothing we can do apart from faith to achieve salvation. The argument is whether it is faith ALONE that gives us our ticket to heaven. James stated very clearly that "it is NOT by faith alone."

In Matthew 5:30 Jesus says, "And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one of your members than to have your whole body go into Gehenna." In this passage, Jesus has first called to recollection the law "you shall not commit adultery." Notice that he doesn't say--that's the old law don't worry about it, no..he raises the bar, doesn't he. Pluck out your eye, cut off your hand. Why? If I'm saved by faith alone and my works don't matter, I can keep my hand....
NO, Jesus plainly says it will land you in hell with the rest of your body. In Matt 12:50 Jesus says, "Whoever does the will of my heavenly Father is my brother, and sister, and mother." Again, he is speaking of "doing" the will of the Father.

Ralph Martin, in The Fulfillment of All Desire, states that "Saving faith is a faith that issues in works. Saving faith is not just an inner act or disposition but the expression of that inner act or disposition in deeds. The final judgment is based not just on our interior faith alone but on actions we take in our lives by the grace of God, actions that flow from that faith."

Rev 22:12 "Behold, I am coming soon. I bring with me the recompense I will give to each according to his deeds."
Matt 16:26-27 "What profit would there be for one to gain the whole world and forfeit his life? For the Son of Man will come with his angels in his Father's glory, and then he will repay everyone according to his conduct."
Matt 25:41-46 "Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you accursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the Devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, a stranger and you gave me no welcome, naked and you gave me no clothing, ill and in prison, and you did not care for me. Then they will answer and say, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or ill or in prison, and not minister to your needs?' He will answer to them, 'Amen, I say to you, what you did not do for one of these least ones, you did not do for me.' And these will go off to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."

This does not, to me sound like Jesus is teaching us to have faith and continue to live how we choose. What this sounds like is that Jesus is plainly telling us that we will be judged according to our works, and that we can be sent away from Him if we have not lived according to His law. Now, St. Paul talks a LOT about "the law." It is important to understand that Paul is often speaking of the Jewish Mosaic Law that is the customs and traditions of the people. There were over 600 different laws that were written to be followed. Paul often speaks against the necessity of this law, especially for the Gentiles, because they aren't Jews! But, Paul does not say that we are not held accountable for our works. Paul actually says, quite plainly in Romans that those who persevere in good works will be saved.
Romans 2:5-11 "By your stubborn and impenitent heart, you are storing up wrath for yourself for the day of wrath and revelation of the just judgement of God, who will repay everyone according to his works: eternal life to those who seek glory, honor, and immortality through perseverance in good works, but wrath and fury to those who selfishly disobey the truth and obey wickedness."

The Council of Trent, stated, with regards to perseverance...
CHAPTER XIII.
On the gift of Perseverance.
So also as regards the gift of perseverance, of which it is written, He that shall persevere to the end, he shall be saved:-which gift cannot be derived from any other but Him, who is able to establish him who standeth that he stand perseveringly, and to restore him who falleth:-let no one herein promise himself any thing as certain with an absolute certainty; though all ought to place and repose a most firm hope in God's help. For God, unless men be themselves wanting to His grace, as he has begun the good work, so will he perfect it, working (in them) to will and to accomplish. Nevertheless, let those who think themselves to stand, take heed lest they fall, and, with fear and trembling work out their salvation, in labours, in watchings, in almsdeeds, in prayers and oblations, in fastings and chastity: for, knowing that they are born again unto a hope of glory, but not as yet unto glory, they ought to fear for the combat which yet remains with the flesh, with the world, with the devil, wherein they cannot be victorious, unless they be with God's grace, obedient to the Apostle, who says; We are debtors, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh; for if you live according to the flesh, you shall die; but if by the spirit you mortify the deeds of the flesh, you shall live.

Notice that the council refers to perseverance as a gift! It is by God's grace that we can persevere through good works. The Church does not, did not, and will not claim that it is by our merit that we can do good works. It is a gift of God's grace. I have often heard, in the sola fide argument, that the Catholic Church teaches that people can, through their own works, be saved. I have also heard it said the in the Catholic Church it is all about "what they do." This is not true. This is not the teachings of the Church. What the church actually teaches is this:

Catechism of the Catholic Church (1992) Justification has been merited for us by the Passion of Christ who offered himself on the cross as a living victim, holy and pleasing to God, and whose blood has become the instrument of atonement for the sins of all men.
(1996) Our justification comes from the Grace of God. Grace is favor, the free and undeserved help that God gives us to respond to His call to become children of God, adoptive sons, partakers of the divine nature and of eternal life.
(2008) The merit of man before God in the Christian life arises from the fact that God has freely chosen to associate man with the work of His grace. The fatherly action of God is first on his own initiative, and then follows man's free acting through his collaboration, so that the merit of good works is to be attributed in the first place to the grace of God,then to the faithful. Man's merit, moreover, itself is due to God, for his good actions proceed in Christ, from the predispositions and assistance given by the Holy Spirit.

Okay, I think that enough to chew on for today. I find it fascinating that there are so many against the Catholic Church over this very argument, yet, most don't know what the church is actually teaching. In reading Faith Alone, by Sproul, I grew very discouraged in that he uses little to no scripture to back up his doctrinal argument. He often quotes Luther or Calvin as if their words are gospel. He argues the catechism and the Council of Trent with quotes of response from Luther and Calvin, but there is no scriptural argument. The only thing I have found, is that maybe he doesn't use scripture to back up the sola fide argument because it isn't there. The only place I have found in scripture where the words "faith alone" are used is in James where it says "we are not justified by faith alone."

Justified...I think, maybe, or something like that....????

2011-07-05T12:08:00.000-04:00

This is going to take a while, so go grab some coffee, and maybe a bagel to go with it, put on your reading glasses, grab your Bible, and say a prayer.

Okay, here we go. I've been doing some reading. The primary list of books/documents being used for this discussion are as follows:
Faith Alone by R.C. Sproul, Radical by David Platt, The Council of Trent 1545 led by Pope Paul III, The Bible by God, and various other texts as necessary.

Seems to me there is this really big argument that has been going on for a while now between the Catholics and the former Catholics aka the Protestants. I say it this way because, it is important to remember, Luther was Catholic...Calvin was Catholic...and so on and so forth. It is not to offend those who are non-Catholic, but to set as a mental image of where the reformation began. There was a time when, if you called yourself a Christian, you would have been Catholic. Luther set out to bring to light some things about the church that were, for lack of a better word, embarrassing. No one is denying that there was a really B-I-G need for reform. If you haven't read Luther's 95 Thesis, now is the time..go..http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/history/95theses.htm. Okay, I hope you really did at least skim over that, because it is important.

Notice how, in Luther's 95 points, he doesn't declare The Church to be horrible or damned. What he does is uphold church and its doctrines. He was actually fighting FOR not AGAINST the church. He was supporting, not denying, the authority of the papacy. Luther did NOT set out to break away from the church, or to cause others to do so. What followed was, needless to say, a big debacle.

So, now that we have that out of the way, let's move on to the big issue. What is justification, and how do I get it? Is the argument simply a misunderstanding of language, or is there something more to it? What does the Catholic Church say about it, and what do the other churches say about it? (you might actually need some exedrine to go with that coffee) Don't expect this to all happen in one post, because that just isn't going to happen!!

Let's begin with the Bible. I think that is a really really good place to start. Oh, and I'm using the Revised Standard Version as well as the New American Bible.
First, Jesus gave us all the command, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to God's whole creation. He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned." Mark 16:16 Okay, so believe and be baptized...but wait, there is more!! "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day may will say to me, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?' And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from me, you evildoers.'"

So, in these two verses we see believe, baptize, and do the will of the Father. The scary part is that we can do things in his name, believing in Jesus, and if it isn't God's will, we are sent away. That's what he says, right? So works, obviously, aren't THE key, but part of it. In order to "do" the will of the Father, we have to "do" something!!

Jesus talks alot about fruit, trees, vines, etc. I like the image it brings. You have this beautiful fig tree. It has roots (God) it has even grown some leaves (belief in Jesus) but there is no fruit (works of faith) so it is cursed. It dies. Why? It had everything it needed to thrive and prosper! It chose not to produce fruit. It gave nothing to world.

David Platt, in discussing the passage from Mark 16 says, "We have been told all that is required is a one-time decision, maybe even mere intellectual assent to Jesus, but after that we need not worry about his commands, his standards, or his glory. We have a ticket to heaven, and we can live however we want on earth. Our sin will be tolerated along the way. Much of modern evangelism today is built on leading people down this road, and crowds flock to it, but in the end it is a road built on sinking sand, and it risks disillusioning millions of souls."
Ouch. You mean we actually have to "do" something?? That makes this a bit harder, doesn't it?

Now, I'm not supporting the idea of earning points to heaven. That is not what anybody should be teaching. We have to first have grace to believe. Grace can only come from God, through Jesus and the Holy Spirit. Grace can lead us to faith, but we have to "do" something. We have to choose to accept that faith, we have to cooperate with God. We have free-will, and that means we can say no.
Once we have accepted that faith, and, through our baptism are adopted into God's family as sons and daughters, then what? James answers that question pretty well in James 2:14-26 (this is long, I know, but some people may not have Bible access right now, and I need to quote the whole thing)

"What does it prophet, my brethren, if a man says he has faith but has not works? Can his faith save him? If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and in lack of daily food, and one of you says to them, 'Go in peace, be warmed and filled,' without giving them the things needed for the body, what does it profit? So faith, by itself, if it has no works, is dead. But some will say "You have faith and I have works." Show me your faith apart from your works, and by my works will show you my faith. You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe--and shudder. Do you want to be shown, you foolish fellow, that faith apart from works is barren? Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he offered his son Isaac upon the alter? You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by works, and the scripture was fulfilled which says, "Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness, and he was called the friend of God. You see that man is justified by works and not by faith alone. And in the same way was not also Rahab the harlot justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out another way? For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead."

So, where does that leave us? What does that mean?

One Nation Under God...or what?

2011-07-04T10:52:00.000-04:00

I can't let the 4th of July pass without a little bit of the history nerd coming out to play. Why do we celebrate July 4th? Independence Day, July 4, 1776, several of our founding fathers gathered together to sign a document drafted by Thomas Jefferson. The Declaration of Independence outlined all of the reasons why we were seaking our freedom from the tyranny of King George III. Not only that, but it also explains why the colonists felt they had a "right" to declare that freedom. The opening lines of the Declaration of Independence are as follows:

"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

We are under the "laws of nature and nature's God" and the rights we hold are "endowed by [our] creator." When was the last time we stopped to think on that one? Our national motto is "In God We Trust," and our pledge declares us to be "one nation under God." What has happened to this country? We still give lip service to these things, but we sure aren't acting like we trust God or that we are under God. Instead we allow millions of babies to be murdered every year, we have become so "tolerant" of alternative lifestyles that there is no Bibilical standard. Our churches are even accepting and allowing atrocities, because, apparently, God has changed his mind on what He considers to be right and wrong...it goes on and on. Our government leaders are a joke. Not only do they not hold to any visible faith, but they have allowed those with no faith to remove God from this country. How do you think our founding fathers would feel to know that the people here who are holding on to God's moral law are now being persecuted and treated like idiots?

People say our Constitution is broken and no longer functional in "modern society" but it has less to do with how modern it is, and everything to do with what we have allowe this country to become. Our Constitution was written for a nation who trusted God and followed Biblical principals. Ben Franklin said, "Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicous, they have more need of masters." He also said that freedom is a "right that belongs to us by the laws of God."
John Adams said, "We have no government armed in power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Our Constitution was made only for a religious and moral people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other." That is one of my favorite quotes, but it also scares me. If what he says is true, and I believe it is, then our constitution is, at this point, inadequate. We no longer have a working constitution in this country. If you actually think we can, as a whole, still qualify as a "religious and moral people" then you need to wake up and smell the trash that is collecting all around us.

We are in line to be the next great failed country. Along with Rome, we will fall...and for very similar reasons. Here are a few reasons why, Historians believe, the Roman Empire collapsed:
Antagonism between senate and emporer
Decine in Morals--listed specifically is sexually explicite behavior, homosexuality, drunkenness, etc.
Political Corruption
Constant Wars and Heavy Spending
Failing Economy
Unemployment of the Working Class
Decline in Ethics and Values

Sound familiar? Of course, Rome, in its glory days, also killed thousands of Christians. I can't help but think that might have had something to do with it as well. But we can't ingnore the direction this country has turned. We can't sit around and pretend that there is not a problem.

Today we celebrate our Independence Day. America was founded to be a nation under God. Our Constitution of the United States of America was written to govern a God fearing people. How many July 4th holidays do you think we have left?

Forgive

2011-07-01T09:18:00.000-04:00

I've been thinking about the issue of forgiveness the last couple of days. We often say the words, "I'm sorry", but how often do we say(and mean) the words "I forgive you?" AND does forgiveness mean forgetfulness?

Let's start with defining the word forgive
–verb (used with object)

to grant pardon for or remission of (an offense, debt, etc.); absolve.

to give up all claim on account of; remit (a debt, obligation, etc.).

to grant pardon to (a person).

A good synonym for the word forgive is, one of my personal favorites, absolve. I like that word, because it sounds like dissolve. When I hear the words, "I absolve you", I picture my sins dissolving into nothing. They are no longer important.

So, back to my original query. We often seek forgiveness, but how often do we give it? We are supposed to forgive if we want to be forgiven, right? Matt 6:14-15 says, "For if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father also will forgive you, but if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will you Father forgive your trespasses." That is pretty plainly spoken, I think. If we hold onto anger, resentment, and hurt feelings toward someone who has wronged us, and yet we seek to be forgiven for what we have done, God is going to look at us and say "I'm sorry, you really need to get over yourself and forgive your brother first."

I used to think that wasn't cool. I mean, what I've done has nothing to do with what that inconsiderate person did to me, right? Or does it. Is it a sin to harbor resentment? Yes. And what happens when we refuse to let go of our sin?

We've all been there. We all know that there are things we just can't give up or get over. So, if we pray for the grace to forgive, and we do truly from the heart forgive the person who wronged us, does that mean we forget? Does God forget? If I were to commit a really big sin, like murder, and I realize it was horribly wrong and I ask God's forgiveness with a truly penetant heart I will be absolved of that sin. I am clean, and in my heart and soul that sin no longer exists. I am truly sorry. But what about the people we forgive who aren't sorry?

I think that, when we forgive freely, even when we know the person we are forgiving really doesn't care one way or another, we are still benefitting both that person and ourselves. Why? Well, it takes the weight of that burden off of us, we forgive them whatever hurt, hardship, resentment, anger, etc. that sin against us has caused so that we can move on with our lives and continue to pray for that person. When we truly forgive, we can honestly and with Christ's love, pray for that person who has wronged us. Do we forget what they did to us, well yes and no. We can't hold on to it anymore, we have forgiven them, but at the same time we aren't stupid. We don't just invite someone who doesn't acknowledge their own actions as wrong back into our lives. If that person doesn't think they have done anything wrong, chances are, they are going to do it again and again until somehow they know they are doing the wrong thing.

On the other hand, what if the person you are forgiving has sought your forgiveness and they are truly sorry. They know they have wronged you, and they know that they need to be forgiven so that they can move on with their life as well and do the right thing from that point on. Do you forgive and forget? Yes, I think so. We have to look at Christ's example in this. He forgave the scum of the earth. He dined with tax collectors and women who were "unclean" and he touched people who were sick and gross. He forgave them their sins and told them to "go and sin no more." They changed their lives, and that was the end of who they had been. Jesus didn't care that Matthew had been a tax collector!! He didn't walk around thinking, "well, I forgave this guy, but I better be careful. Any minute he may shame me by returning to his old ways." No, it was total forgiveness. Total absolution.

So, I believe that forgiveness is given freely to us and that we are expected to give it freely to others as well. I believe that we can't be absolved of our sins if we are refusing to forgive others. I believe it is very important to who we are as Christians to live a life that gives example to others and forgiving is a huge piece of that.

Protestantism and Authority

2011-06-29T22:48:00.000-04:00

I won't have much time to blog tomorrow, but sticking with the theme of authority and guidelines, I thought I would share this short video. Agree, disagree, or offer viewpoints...

The Law

2011-06-29T08:42:00.000-04:00

I watched something pretty cool this morning, and, as I watched I thought to myself..."wow, Stephanie, Brandon, and I JUST had this conversation two days ago!!! That is sooooo cool." Isn't it awesome how the Holy Spirit just steps in and says, "Hey, you need to think about this!" or "Now it is time to share this!"

So, we were talking about rules. Or, as the Jews would have said "the law." I have thought about this before in the context of what Jesus said in Matt 5:17-20

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfil them. For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the law until all is accomplished Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven."

Whew. He also says in John "If you love me, keep my commandments." I love that Jesus said what he meant!!

So, back to this conversation we were having. There are a lot of people who believe that Jesus, at some point, did away with the regulations and guidlines that are necessary to live a Christian life. No, let me rephrase that, because we in America have given that its own messed up meaning. There are many people throughout the world, who hold to the belief that at some point Jesus did away with necessity to follow any guidlines or rules in order to be Christians. People believe that, because Jesus died for us, that we are just good to go no matter how we live. If that's the case...just go ahead and throw away your Bible. You don't need it. You're good. Somehow, I don't get that from "unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and pharisees you will never enter the kingdom of heaven."

Come on, people, we are not following the Pirate's Code here, where we can say, "well, it's more like a suggestion."

Let me use an example that an awesome friend of mine gave. Our parents raised us to be, hopefully, responsible and successful people. In order to do this, they raised us in homes with rules to follow, and they gave us very clear consequences of what would happen if we didn't follow those rules. No child can just flip flop their way through life with no rules or guidelines and expect to come out on the other side as a model citizen. All parents want their children to be successful, and I believe that God wants us to be successful as Christians! I believe that God truly wants us to be with Him in heaven some day.

So, did God give Israel the law so that Jesus could come along and tell us we don't need it? Did He say, at ANY point in scripture, that keeping His commandments was just a temporary thing? How can we be expected to live a fruitful life as Christians if we don't have to follow any rules. Just pray this one prayer this one time, and you are good. From then on, no rules. No, Jesus actually taught the exact opposite. He gave us very specific rules, and they all mirror the original 10 Commandments. Now, do we have to follow all 618 or whatever laws of Jewish tradition? No, but the law of God, the 10 Commandments (along with any addendums Jesus may have given) is still very much in place.

Jesus is constantly telling us to "do what I tell you" and to "do the will of the Father." Think about the house on the sand. Why did it fall to ruin? "He who hears my words and does not do them is like a man who built a house on the ground without a foundation."

What happens to the tree who bears no fruit? What happens to the salt who loses its flavor? Can we lose our flavor? Oh yes, we can. What happens to the evil doers?...death.

In Luke

12:45-46

"But if that servant says to himself, 'My master is delayed in coming,' and begins to beat the menservants and maidservants, and to eat and drink and get drunk, the master of that servant will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he does not know, and will punish him, and put him with the unfaithful."

Uh, oh.

Creating my blog

2011-06-28T23:48:00.000-04:00

The first step in my journey into the world of blogging was not so smooth. I thought this was easy, but NOOOOOO.
Thanks to Brandon, I have a name. No thanks to Google, I ended up with 3 blogs, because they kept giving me an error page. Hopefully things will go smoothly from this point on.

First things first...why do I have a blog? Well, this is NOT of my choosing. At some point, about a year ago, I began to feel that I was supposed to do this. I keep getting all of these questions about my beliefs and why I chose them, and I realized that I can't answer "off the cuff" so well. Aside from that, God made me a writer more than a speaker. I can teach, when prepared, but to just be asked questions like, "Hey, why do Catholics pray to Mary?" or "What is this Tradition stuff?" or even worse, "Don't you believe that we are saved by faith alone?" my mouth goes dry...I start to pray, and I answer as best I can. The problem is, I never feel that I answered completely, or that the discussion went quite as well as it could have. Honestly, I often step away knowing that I could have said that better if I had some time to think, process, etc. So, this blog is a two part invention (and no, Lacy, I'm not going to play Bach now). What I mean is...it is to share my ongoing conversion AND to give a place for discussion, questioning, etc about my faith.

I hope we can all play nice and be respectful. Or at least share in honesty our feelings without anyone getting their feelings hurt.

Oh, and one more thing...as much as possible...what is said on the blog stays on the blog. This will not be carried over into family discussions round the campfire or over birthday cake : )