There are a lot of things that ought to be done right now, but I feel to sick to do them. The children have been sick all week, and now I've got it too. How sick are they? Abigail asked at 7:00 if she could go to bed.
Anyhow, I can't take medicine, so I'm sucking on cough drops and trying to take it easy. It's hard to relax when there is so much to do. But on the other hand I have to keep reminding myself, I've got a little person to take care of inside of me. I'll have my first ultrasound May17, and I'll feel a lot better then.
On a completely unrelated note: Sunday at church Pastor Mike announced "starting next Sunday we will be undergoing a forty day period of prayer and fasting" "SAY WHAT???? Didn't we just finish Lent??" Okay, so obviously Lent is not the only time that we can fast. And while Lenten fasting is generally focussed on personal growth (at least for us) this fast is specifically about our church. Of course, I could argue that I'm exempt since I'm pregnant. Besides I've already given up, soda, coffee, sweets and most other junk food for the baby. But since I believe that our church is important, I decided to fast from reading advice columns. You know the Dear Abby sorts. It is one of my guilty pleasures and it really has no edifying value. I'm not sure what Paul will do yet.
And speaking of fasting, back during Lent I was discussing some theology and I left a few things hanging. Nobody has been clamoring for more religion but I thought I would bring it back up anyway.
First a synopsis on the sacraments:
Communion: The Real Presence of Christ but not technically blood and flesh (if Christ can be manifest in a human form, he can be manifest in the sacrament).
Baptism: Truly a sacrament, but it had no affect on a non-believing individual. The argument, from this perspective, for infant baptism is that a child can have faith long before he is old enough to understand the sacrament. Most families in our church do not baptize infants, we dedicate them. But this does not mean we do not view baptism as a sacrament. This is entirely different than the Baptist view which is that the baptism is merely symbolic.
Confession: We do not believe that priest mediated confession is necessary. Although confessing to the pastor is an option. However, confessing our sins and repenting of them is definitely a must.
Matrimony: Marriage is a life long commitment. Divorce is only allowable in the case that the spouse committed adultery. If a person is deserted by a non-Christian spouse, that person may remarry. However, divorces that occurred before the person came to faith are not counted against them. I totally do not understand the Catholic annulment thing. I think annulments are granted way too frequently.
Ordination: Certain people are called to ministry, they go to seminary and become ordained as ministers. Some ordained ministers also become deacons and bishops. Perhaps the one teaching of the Free Methodist church that I have never been able to really come to terms with is that they ordain women. They were actually one of the first denominations to come to this practice from my understanding. The logic is scriptural that in Christ we are "neither male nor female" still this doesn't sit right with me. On the other hand I am bothered by the Catholic demand for Celibacy since the Bible also says the overseer should be "the husband of one wife". Besides the fact that Peter was married (otherwise how could Jesus have healed his mother-in-law).
Anointing: When someone is ill (dying or not) they may request to be anointed. Sometimes there are special healing services. And usually this is accompanied by the laying on of hands of the congregation. Of course in some cases that is not possible. And sometimes a substitute is used for the laying on of hands. For instance when Sammy was in the NICU -- I was a stand in since the congregation could obviously not come in and see him. He was anointed once. It was kind of neat.
Confirmation: I don't know a lot about confirmation. People undergo classes then there is a ceremony in which they make professions and become full church members. If a person has a severe sin which needs to be remedied they can have a sort of probationary membership. For instance in our class there was a woman who was living with a man whom she was not married to. She went through the classes and ceremony with us. But was not a full member until she married him (she also could have moved out) but she didn't need any additional ceremony. The classes are very simple and much less rigorous than RCIA in part because the Free Methodist doctrine/discipline is oodles simpler. And the professions are very basic and any true Christian would agree with them even if they thought the church had a lot of other things backwards.
I think that's all the sacraments. We do truly believe in sacraments in our church. But usually if we say "the sacrament" we are referring to The Lord's Supper.
I think tomorrow I will give a discussion on Mariology. I will try to explain fairly what Catholic teachings say and why protestants are bothered by some of it. And I will also try not to offend anyone.
In the meantime I will go to bed and sleep.
I suppose I should put a disclaimer on my sight.
DISCLAIMER: Although I am a Free Methodist, I am not authorized to make statements on behalf of the church. So don't get mad if I said something wrong.
P.S. A lot of denominations recognize some of the sacraments but not others, this is sort of confusing to me.
P.P.S. Sometime in the next few days, I plan to post on all the things that really bug me about the Catholic church. So be prepared to defend yourselves, all you Catholics (I think that constitutes a vast majority of my readership). And all you non-Catholics, I could probably use some support?
Showing posts with label Religion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Religion. Show all posts
Thursday, April 19, 2007
Monday, March 26, 2007
Confirmation
Last night my parents were confirmed in the Catholic Church. It was an interesting ceremony.
I must admit that I felt a little awkward, since I had to sit all by myself (Paul was home with the children, and the only other people there I knew were in the "reserved" section. I did not know when I was supposed to do what or hymns we were supposed to be singing. Plus, since the congregation is huge, nobody knew that I was an outsider, and nobody went out of their way to be friendly.
There were eight people confirmed in the ceremony last night. All of them had previously been baptized in another Christian denomination. The other RCIA candidates (those who were baptized Catholic and those who are unbaptized) will all join church later, and the bishop, who was not present last night, will be there for those ceremonies.
After the ceremony there was a reception for those confirmed. Unfortunately, the priest forgot to announce the reception. So there were about 20 people and enough food to feed at least 100 if not more. I felt bad for the person who had made the preparations. Fortunately, the high schoolers were also meeting last night. I am sure they were able to put a dent in the food.
My mother ended up choosing the name Monica for her confirmation name, her second choice was Bridget. My father went with Joseph. This is because he desires to be a protector of children, and not because he likes to be buried upside down. If you don't know what I'm referring to please check this out.
On a completely unrelated note: Paul and I have been learning a lot about Ninjas lately. If you need a good laugh, look here.
I must admit that I felt a little awkward, since I had to sit all by myself (Paul was home with the children, and the only other people there I knew were in the "reserved" section. I did not know when I was supposed to do what or hymns we were supposed to be singing. Plus, since the congregation is huge, nobody knew that I was an outsider, and nobody went out of their way to be friendly.
There were eight people confirmed in the ceremony last night. All of them had previously been baptized in another Christian denomination. The other RCIA candidates (those who were baptized Catholic and those who are unbaptized) will all join church later, and the bishop, who was not present last night, will be there for those ceremonies.
After the ceremony there was a reception for those confirmed. Unfortunately, the priest forgot to announce the reception. So there were about 20 people and enough food to feed at least 100 if not more. I felt bad for the person who had made the preparations. Fortunately, the high schoolers were also meeting last night. I am sure they were able to put a dent in the food.
My mother ended up choosing the name Monica for her confirmation name, her second choice was Bridget. My father went with Joseph. This is because he desires to be a protector of children, and not because he likes to be buried upside down. If you don't know what I'm referring to please check this out.
On a completely unrelated note: Paul and I have been learning a lot about Ninjas lately. If you need a good laugh, look here.
Monday, March 12, 2007
Sacred water cannon
I have never been a big fan of theology. When I have had to listen to theological debates, I have often felt supremely frustrated. Can't I just go and follow my Christ. Does all this really matter?
Last night I was reading John Calvin, and a discussion of baptism. It really surprised me when he said of the means of baptism (I paraphrase here) "We should really stop bickering, this doesn't matter." I told this to Paul, and his response was "Calvin said that? I thought he was all about bickering?" So we decided to call the belief of Calvin "sola bickeres"
Now before you Presbyterians (or other reformed traditions) are all on the attack. Please let me say that I admire many things about Calvin, if I did not I would not have been reading his work. But if you have read his work, you must admit that he is overly opinionated and able to reach grand conclusions from tiny statements in scripture.
So for all of you non-theologians who are really bored by my religion-minded blogs, I apologize. And for all of you theologians who are way smarter than me, I apologize. This is just me trying to muddle through things in my own way. I promise to include an amusing (to me anyway) anecdote at the end of the discussion.
Anyhow, I've been thinking about baptism a lot.
Does the method of baptism matter? I think I'm going to go with Calvin on this one and say no. I found an interesting passage about this in the Didache (dating to the second century) which said that it was best to baptize in living water (e.g.) a stream, but that any water would work, and that if immersion was not possible then pouring was acceptable. So immersion is preferable, but other baptisms are not considered any less effective. The Free Methodist Church teaches that the person being baptized (or parents in the case of a child) may choose which method they prefer.
Second, what is baptism anyway? I asked this to Paul. He said "You know it's that service at church when they dunk someone in the water." I gave him the look and he shrugged at me and said "An outward sign of an inward change?"
This sounds a lot like the baptist view point. According to the baptists (and some other denominations), baptism is merely symbolic. No actual grace is conferred through the act of baptism.
Then I wonder: Why get baptized at all? Since when did Jesus ever command us to do something that accomplished nothing and was merely symbolic?
Our churches official doctrine on baptism is that it is a sacrament, and therefore a method by which God confers grace onto the believer. It is also the symbol of belonging to the new covenant of atonement, just as circumcision was the rite of the old covenant. Because children are included in the new covenant, they may be baptized as infants. However, in our church very few people have their children baptized, instead we dedicate them to God. The dedication ceremony is very similar to a baptism in some senses. It focuses on the parents commitment to raise the child in the Christian faith. Moreover, as parents we are giving our children to God, understanding that they are gifts from him and that we will do our duty to teach them according to his ways. Then, the church also pledges to stand by the child and to help in his Christian upbringing.
Then when the child is old enough to understand, he may choose to receive the sacrament of baptism.
The more I research these ceremonies and the Catholic understanding of baptism, the more convinced I become that the baby dedication has come to be "Baptism without water" and that baptism for the dedicated child is standing in the place of confirmation.
You Catholics who understand these sacraments as actual conveyors of grace, may be cringing at all of this. And you may perhaps be wondering how a dedication could possibly have the same effect as a baptism. I'm sure the church would say that it did not. But I will also remind you that the Catholic church does say that although we know God works through the understood sacraments, that He is God and he is not tied to these sacraments (I am really wondering why I did not right the page number and exact quote for that down). The Catholic Church also teaches a "Baptism of Desire" in which the desire for baptism produces the fruits of baptism (water or no).
In my research I have found very little defense for the Baptism of adults only and very much for infant baptism. An interesting note about choice baptism advocates is that they tend to believe that a child has no guilt of sin until the age of understanding (and therefore no need of forgiveness). As a mother, I will vouch that my children can know very well right and wrong long before they are old enough to understand the theology of baptism. And at the same time they can know and understand that Jesus loves them is their helper. Should I deprive them of the benefit baptism affords?
I will also say that I do not believe that baptizing a child is a guarantee of salvation. And no matter how much I might will it, their is only so much I can do to bring about the salvation of my children. But with God's help I will claim his promises.
And as a mommy I ask myself: What would happen if we do have the children baptized. The church, I am sure would not have seen such a sight in quite some time!!! Can you imagine?
For now, Paul still has great qualms about infant baptism. And since he is the spiritual head of our home I will follow his lead. And I will trust in his decisions, knowing full well that God's grace is much more powerful than any sacrament can contain.
And now for that story I promised.
Yesterday in Sunday School we had this great conversation about how believing in Jesus causes us to have a water canon shooting out of our stomach. This was an excellent follow-up to the previous discussion about being cannibals and eating Jesus. At least I have to hope maybe the high schoolers are actually getting something out of Sunday school.
Anyway, since baptism is supposed to be with living water, all we need is to find a person with living water and have him stand over the children.
It makes me think of the time Abigail and I went for a walk and the fire hydrant on the corner was open (for no apparent reason). It gushed and gushed water and Abigail was soaked from head to toe. (I was only soaked up to my waist). In retrospect, I would have let her play even longer, since opportunities like that are rare.
Last night I was reading John Calvin, and a discussion of baptism. It really surprised me when he said of the means of baptism (I paraphrase here) "We should really stop bickering, this doesn't matter." I told this to Paul, and his response was "Calvin said that? I thought he was all about bickering?" So we decided to call the belief of Calvin "sola bickeres"
Now before you Presbyterians (or other reformed traditions) are all on the attack. Please let me say that I admire many things about Calvin, if I did not I would not have been reading his work. But if you have read his work, you must admit that he is overly opinionated and able to reach grand conclusions from tiny statements in scripture.
So for all of you non-theologians who are really bored by my religion-minded blogs, I apologize. And for all of you theologians who are way smarter than me, I apologize. This is just me trying to muddle through things in my own way. I promise to include an amusing (to me anyway) anecdote at the end of the discussion.
Anyhow, I've been thinking about baptism a lot.
Does the method of baptism matter? I think I'm going to go with Calvin on this one and say no. I found an interesting passage about this in the Didache (dating to the second century) which said that it was best to baptize in living water (e.g.) a stream, but that any water would work, and that if immersion was not possible then pouring was acceptable. So immersion is preferable, but other baptisms are not considered any less effective. The Free Methodist Church teaches that the person being baptized (or parents in the case of a child) may choose which method they prefer.
Second, what is baptism anyway? I asked this to Paul. He said "You know it's that service at church when they dunk someone in the water." I gave him the look and he shrugged at me and said "An outward sign of an inward change?"
This sounds a lot like the baptist view point. According to the baptists (and some other denominations), baptism is merely symbolic. No actual grace is conferred through the act of baptism.
Then I wonder: Why get baptized at all? Since when did Jesus ever command us to do something that accomplished nothing and was merely symbolic?
Our churches official doctrine on baptism is that it is a sacrament, and therefore a method by which God confers grace onto the believer. It is also the symbol of belonging to the new covenant of atonement, just as circumcision was the rite of the old covenant. Because children are included in the new covenant, they may be baptized as infants. However, in our church very few people have their children baptized, instead we dedicate them to God. The dedication ceremony is very similar to a baptism in some senses. It focuses on the parents commitment to raise the child in the Christian faith. Moreover, as parents we are giving our children to God, understanding that they are gifts from him and that we will do our duty to teach them according to his ways. Then, the church also pledges to stand by the child and to help in his Christian upbringing.
Then when the child is old enough to understand, he may choose to receive the sacrament of baptism.
The more I research these ceremonies and the Catholic understanding of baptism, the more convinced I become that the baby dedication has come to be "Baptism without water" and that baptism for the dedicated child is standing in the place of confirmation.
You Catholics who understand these sacraments as actual conveyors of grace, may be cringing at all of this. And you may perhaps be wondering how a dedication could possibly have the same effect as a baptism. I'm sure the church would say that it did not. But I will also remind you that the Catholic church does say that although we know God works through the understood sacraments, that He is God and he is not tied to these sacraments (I am really wondering why I did not right the page number and exact quote for that down). The Catholic Church also teaches a "Baptism of Desire" in which the desire for baptism produces the fruits of baptism (water or no).
In my research I have found very little defense for the Baptism of adults only and very much for infant baptism. An interesting note about choice baptism advocates is that they tend to believe that a child has no guilt of sin until the age of understanding (and therefore no need of forgiveness). As a mother, I will vouch that my children can know very well right and wrong long before they are old enough to understand the theology of baptism. And at the same time they can know and understand that Jesus loves them is their helper. Should I deprive them of the benefit baptism affords?
I will also say that I do not believe that baptizing a child is a guarantee of salvation. And no matter how much I might will it, their is only so much I can do to bring about the salvation of my children. But with God's help I will claim his promises.
And as a mommy I ask myself: What would happen if we do have the children baptized. The church, I am sure would not have seen such a sight in quite some time!!! Can you imagine?
For now, Paul still has great qualms about infant baptism. And since he is the spiritual head of our home I will follow his lead. And I will trust in his decisions, knowing full well that God's grace is much more powerful than any sacrament can contain.
And now for that story I promised.
Yesterday in Sunday School we had this great conversation about how believing in Jesus causes us to have a water canon shooting out of our stomach. This was an excellent follow-up to the previous discussion about being cannibals and eating Jesus. At least I have to hope maybe the high schoolers are actually getting something out of Sunday school.
Anyway, since baptism is supposed to be with living water, all we need is to find a person with living water and have him stand over the children.
It makes me think of the time Abigail and I went for a walk and the fire hydrant on the corner was open (for no apparent reason). It gushed and gushed water and Abigail was soaked from head to toe. (I was only soaked up to my waist). In retrospect, I would have let her play even longer, since opportunities like that are rare.
Friday, March 9, 2007
I stand alone on the Word of God
One of the key dividing points between Protestants and Catholics is the idea of sola scriptura, meaning by scripture alone. The Catholic belief is that of sola verbo dei (by the word of God alone), and prima scriptura (scripture first).
Obviously, no one believes that all truth is contained within the scripture. For example, it is true that I took my children for a walk today, the Bible does not deal with this at all. So what is supposedly contained in the scripture, all spiritual Truth? First I will say, all Truth necessary for salvation is contained within the Bible. The Catholic church would not dispute this. Honestly, all Truth necessary for salvation is probably obtainable given only any one of the four Gospels.
So what is the distinction between the Protestant and Catholic beliefs: Primarily that the Protestants say that the Word of God is Scripture while the Catholics say that it also contains sacred Tradition and the Magisterium of the church. In scripture, God promises severe suffering to whoever would take away from or add to his Word. The Catholics say that the Protestants have taken away from it, the Protestants say the Catholics have added to it. Who is right.
First of all, on tradition. Not all tradition is Sacred. The Sacred tradition comes primarily from the early church fathers, 100 AD - 800 AD. Most protestants (myself included) no little or nothing about these church fathers. The earliest of these received direct apostolic teachings. Among the sacred traditions are the Nicene Creed and the Apostolic Creed, which are accepted by most protestants. How can that be? They support the most basic tenets of the Christian faith, and are easily supported by scripture. Huh? How is this different from prima scriptura? I don't know. So sola scriptura seems to be faltering.
The second part of sola scriptura deals with the interpretation of scripture. Luther claimed that scripture interprets scripture well enough for itself and did not need an interpreter. Therefore, if the Bible was available to the common man that would be enough. Now I have had many arguments about various Biblical passages to know that not everyone interprets things the same way. Moreover, the need for translation introduces greater propensity for human error, plus the translator often intentionally or not adds his own interpretation to the scripture by the words he chooses. To solve this confusion on can find a plethora of commentaries. We have at least a dozen commentaries. Besides this, there are volumes upon volumes of books on Christian living. Then we go to church on Sunday to here the preacher speak on some topic. Moreover, as members of a church we are expected to follow that churches doctrines or disciplines (which denomination you attend greatly affects the degree and type of disciples you are expected to follow). So if there is no need of an interpreter, then why on earth don't we just sit and listen to someone read the scriptures straight up with no additions or explanations.
On the other hand, the Catholic Church is able to rely on the pope and his bishops to interpret the scriptures. They can live by the Magisterium. Unfortunately, many Catholics have a lack of sufficient experience with and understanding of much of the Bible. This does not mean there is a flaw in basic doctrine.
Moreover, if the Bible was all there is. That would mean that God had stopped revealing himself to man. I know from personal experience this is not true. I have heard the voice of God.
So what is left of the sola scriptura argument then. "I don't believe that I should have to follow traditions not stated in the Bible and I should not have to submit to The Church's interpretation of the Bible."
I guess what I have always believed in is the prima scriptura argument. The Bible is the ultimate expression of God's word and nothing that is contrary to it can possibly be true. I think at least that most evangelical protestants would say the same thing.
Furthermore, the person who first steps out believing sola scriptura may easily lead himself to the heresy of solo (alone) which is that Truth is found only in an individual's interpretations (meaning that truth is different for everyone).
P.S. Praise God for sunshine and warm weather!!!!!
Obviously, no one believes that all truth is contained within the scripture. For example, it is true that I took my children for a walk today, the Bible does not deal with this at all. So what is supposedly contained in the scripture, all spiritual Truth? First I will say, all Truth necessary for salvation is contained within the Bible. The Catholic church would not dispute this. Honestly, all Truth necessary for salvation is probably obtainable given only any one of the four Gospels.
So what is the distinction between the Protestant and Catholic beliefs: Primarily that the Protestants say that the Word of God is Scripture while the Catholics say that it also contains sacred Tradition and the Magisterium of the church. In scripture, God promises severe suffering to whoever would take away from or add to his Word. The Catholics say that the Protestants have taken away from it, the Protestants say the Catholics have added to it. Who is right.
First of all, on tradition. Not all tradition is Sacred. The Sacred tradition comes primarily from the early church fathers, 100 AD - 800 AD. Most protestants (myself included) no little or nothing about these church fathers. The earliest of these received direct apostolic teachings. Among the sacred traditions are the Nicene Creed and the Apostolic Creed, which are accepted by most protestants. How can that be? They support the most basic tenets of the Christian faith, and are easily supported by scripture. Huh? How is this different from prima scriptura? I don't know. So sola scriptura seems to be faltering.
The second part of sola scriptura deals with the interpretation of scripture. Luther claimed that scripture interprets scripture well enough for itself and did not need an interpreter. Therefore, if the Bible was available to the common man that would be enough. Now I have had many arguments about various Biblical passages to know that not everyone interprets things the same way. Moreover, the need for translation introduces greater propensity for human error, plus the translator often intentionally or not adds his own interpretation to the scripture by the words he chooses. To solve this confusion on can find a plethora of commentaries. We have at least a dozen commentaries. Besides this, there are volumes upon volumes of books on Christian living. Then we go to church on Sunday to here the preacher speak on some topic. Moreover, as members of a church we are expected to follow that churches doctrines or disciplines (which denomination you attend greatly affects the degree and type of disciples you are expected to follow). So if there is no need of an interpreter, then why on earth don't we just sit and listen to someone read the scriptures straight up with no additions or explanations.
On the other hand, the Catholic Church is able to rely on the pope and his bishops to interpret the scriptures. They can live by the Magisterium. Unfortunately, many Catholics have a lack of sufficient experience with and understanding of much of the Bible. This does not mean there is a flaw in basic doctrine.
Moreover, if the Bible was all there is. That would mean that God had stopped revealing himself to man. I know from personal experience this is not true. I have heard the voice of God.
So what is left of the sola scriptura argument then. "I don't believe that I should have to follow traditions not stated in the Bible and I should not have to submit to The Church's interpretation of the Bible."
I guess what I have always believed in is the prima scriptura argument. The Bible is the ultimate expression of God's word and nothing that is contrary to it can possibly be true. I think at least that most evangelical protestants would say the same thing.
Furthermore, the person who first steps out believing sola scriptura may easily lead himself to the heresy of solo (alone) which is that Truth is found only in an individual's interpretations (meaning that truth is different for everyone).
P.S. Praise God for sunshine and warm weather!!!!!
Thursday, March 8, 2007
Help, I think I'm becoming Catholic!?!?!
Last night I just couldn't get to sleep. So what did I do? I decided to read something I thought would be tedious and boring. Apparently I chose the wrong book.
I picked Three Treatises by Martin Luther (obviously in an English translation).
Before I go further, remember back to what you have been taught. Why did the reformation happen? What was Martin Luther really beefed about?
Did you answer MONEY?
I wouldn't have.
Seriously, the book is page after page Ad hominem attacks on the pope whom he refers to as "The Avarice". And complaints because the Pope was asking the German people for money. Then he was sending Cardinals in to rule the German monasteries, and these cardinals were being paid money that had been going to the previous leaders. So as he saw it, Rome was taking over Germany by taking advantage of there piety and asking for money and submissions. Luther claimed then that Rome was using its power to live lavishly on the pains of others.
In actuality, at the time Rome was pretty much bankrupt. The reason is that the pope had waged wars that were far more than he could afford. This is why he asked for more, and this is why he allowed the sale of indulgences to occur.
It all seemed so petty that by page 50 I was in tears.
Don't get me wrong, I know there was a lot of worldliness in the church at that time which needed to be dealt with. Furthermore, the pope had clearly gotten himself into a quandry by becoming overly concerned with political things.
But to split the church over this? Not for all the truly legitimate gripes that I had previously heard (maybe those come sometime later in the book, I hope?).
Wow...
Coming soon:
What is sola scriptura?
Misconceptions about the Immaculate Conception
Assumptions about the Assumption
I am hoping that all of you whatever your beliefs will tune in and help me out with these weighty topics
In the meantime, you can sit and ponder another deep (or not) question:
How do you respond when your three-year-old matter-of-factly tells you "Mommy, all of the girls' leotards are more fancier than mine, aren't they?"
I said "yes" But I am doubting this answer remains satisfactory forever.
I picked Three Treatises by Martin Luther (obviously in an English translation).
Before I go further, remember back to what you have been taught. Why did the reformation happen? What was Martin Luther really beefed about?
Did you answer MONEY?
I wouldn't have.
Seriously, the book is page after page Ad hominem attacks on the pope whom he refers to as "The Avarice". And complaints because the Pope was asking the German people for money. Then he was sending Cardinals in to rule the German monasteries, and these cardinals were being paid money that had been going to the previous leaders. So as he saw it, Rome was taking over Germany by taking advantage of there piety and asking for money and submissions. Luther claimed then that Rome was using its power to live lavishly on the pains of others.
In actuality, at the time Rome was pretty much bankrupt. The reason is that the pope had waged wars that were far more than he could afford. This is why he asked for more, and this is why he allowed the sale of indulgences to occur.
It all seemed so petty that by page 50 I was in tears.
Don't get me wrong, I know there was a lot of worldliness in the church at that time which needed to be dealt with. Furthermore, the pope had clearly gotten himself into a quandry by becoming overly concerned with political things.
But to split the church over this? Not for all the truly legitimate gripes that I had previously heard (maybe those come sometime later in the book, I hope?).
Wow...
Coming soon:
What is sola scriptura?
Misconceptions about the Immaculate Conception
Assumptions about the Assumption
I am hoping that all of you whatever your beliefs will tune in and help me out with these weighty topics
In the meantime, you can sit and ponder another deep (or not) question:
How do you respond when your three-year-old matter-of-factly tells you "Mommy, all of the girls' leotards are more fancier than mine, aren't they?"
I said "yes" But I am doubting this answer remains satisfactory forever.
Monday, March 5, 2007
Communion
This morning on my way home from the doctor's office, I was listening to Joni and Friends
on the radio. I am not a big fan of Joni Eareckson Tada, but her program is sandwiched between Money Matters and Focus on the Family. Anyhow, Joni was talking about communion and how sometimes when she was taking communion she found herself distracted, and not really thinking about what she was doing. She also noted that sometimes when the plate of crackers is past for communion in her church, people try really hard not to touch crackers other than the one they were taking. I thought this sounded rather odd.
Here is a description on communion in my church. The pastor reads scriptures pertaining to the sacrament of The Lord's Supper and follows the ritual which is given in the Free Methodist Book of Discipline. The bread and cup (containing grape juice not wine) are uncovered. The pastor breaks the bread and says "The Body of our Lord Jesus Christ given for you" and then he breaks a small piece from the bread, dips it in the cup and takes the sacrament. Generally there is an assistant who holds the cup (perhaps an associate pastor or elder). Then the pastor will say "Come as you feel led" (Or something like this). Meanwhile, in our pews we pray to make our hearts right with God. When a person feels ready, he approaches the pastor breaks a piece from the bread and dips it in the juice. (To each person the pastor says "The Body of our Lord Jesus Christ given for you"). Then the person may proceed to the altar to pray before actually consuming the sacrament, or he may return to his seat and pray.
By the way: The method of communion by dipping bread into the juice/wine is called intinction.
Now you might see why the idea of not touching someone else's cracker might seem odd to me, since we are all taking from the same loaf of bread. Those people would probably be disturbed by us, I guess.
A couple of things that I appreciate about this method is that it makes taking the sacrament both very individual and very communal. I also like having the chance to pray and reflect (also repent) beforehand. Also anyone who has a personal belief in Christ is welcome to partake of the sacrament.
I know that different churches have different views on what the sacrament of Holy Communion truly is. We believe that the Real Presence of Christ is in the bread and juice. However, we do not believe that the bread and juice are literally the flesh and blood of Christ. I am not entirely sure how this is different from the Catholic view or not. I have been trying to read the official doctrine but I keep losing myself in it. (It was obviously written by someone much smarter than me).
I remember at one point hearing a science fiction story in which someone was going to take the sacrament after transubstantiation and use it to gather DNA and clone Jesus. Obviously this notion is absurd. However, if you wonder who told me this story, and then used it to mock Catholicism, perhaps he will remember himself when he reads this and fess up. (He is now devoutly Catholic).
Awhile back I was reading The Institutes of Elenctic Theology by Francis Turretin. In that book he argues that the communion is merely a symbolic undertaking. He reasons that if God is omnipresent he cannot be present in one place more others. This seems like baloney to me, since by this logic Christ could not have been a man and still a member of Our Omnipresent Father.
on the radio. I am not a big fan of Joni Eareckson Tada, but her program is sandwiched between Money Matters and Focus on the Family. Anyhow, Joni was talking about communion and how sometimes when she was taking communion she found herself distracted, and not really thinking about what she was doing. She also noted that sometimes when the plate of crackers is past for communion in her church, people try really hard not to touch crackers other than the one they were taking. I thought this sounded rather odd.
Here is a description on communion in my church. The pastor reads scriptures pertaining to the sacrament of The Lord's Supper and follows the ritual which is given in the Free Methodist Book of Discipline. The bread and cup (containing grape juice not wine) are uncovered. The pastor breaks the bread and says "The Body of our Lord Jesus Christ given for you" and then he breaks a small piece from the bread, dips it in the cup and takes the sacrament. Generally there is an assistant who holds the cup (perhaps an associate pastor or elder). Then the pastor will say "Come as you feel led" (Or something like this). Meanwhile, in our pews we pray to make our hearts right with God. When a person feels ready, he approaches the pastor breaks a piece from the bread and dips it in the juice. (To each person the pastor says "The Body of our Lord Jesus Christ given for you"). Then the person may proceed to the altar to pray before actually consuming the sacrament, or he may return to his seat and pray.
By the way: The method of communion by dipping bread into the juice/wine is called intinction.
Now you might see why the idea of not touching someone else's cracker might seem odd to me, since we are all taking from the same loaf of bread. Those people would probably be disturbed by us, I guess.
A couple of things that I appreciate about this method is that it makes taking the sacrament both very individual and very communal. I also like having the chance to pray and reflect (also repent) beforehand. Also anyone who has a personal belief in Christ is welcome to partake of the sacrament.
I know that different churches have different views on what the sacrament of Holy Communion truly is. We believe that the Real Presence of Christ is in the bread and juice. However, we do not believe that the bread and juice are literally the flesh and blood of Christ. I am not entirely sure how this is different from the Catholic view or not. I have been trying to read the official doctrine but I keep losing myself in it. (It was obviously written by someone much smarter than me).
I remember at one point hearing a science fiction story in which someone was going to take the sacrament after transubstantiation and use it to gather DNA and clone Jesus. Obviously this notion is absurd. However, if you wonder who told me this story, and then used it to mock Catholicism, perhaps he will remember himself when he reads this and fess up. (He is now devoutly Catholic).
Awhile back I was reading The Institutes of Elenctic Theology by Francis Turretin. In that book he argues that the communion is merely a symbolic undertaking. He reasons that if God is omnipresent he cannot be present in one place more others. This seems like baloney to me, since by this logic Christ could not have been a man and still a member of Our Omnipresent Father.
Thursday, February 22, 2007
Amazing Grace
Yesterday was quite a day. I somehow managed to lock the keys in my van while at Walgreens. My father was at home watching the kids and did not have car seats for them, so he could not pick me up, plus the spare van key that was supposed to be at home was nowhere to be found. My mom and Paul both have spares, but they were both at work. So I ended up deciding to walk home. When I was at the corner of Pontiac and Hanna, my dad's friend Jonathon picked me up and drove me the rest of the way home. (Those of you who know Fort Wayne may be cringing at the location I was walking in, but I assure you that at 4:00 in the afternoon I was perfectly safe).
Fortunately, Paul thought it would be a good idea to go out to dinner last night after my ordeal. After all we had to get everybody out and around anyway. We had dinner at Casa D'angelo, a local Italian eatery. I had the eggplant parmigiano, which I share with Abigail and Isaac. It was delicious.
For those of you who were fast yesterday, I apologize for my discussions of food. If it makes you feel any better I am sorely missing coca-cola already.
I believe that my Lenten resolution will help to strengthen my faith in God, but man is it hard.
Before I start any religious discussions, please let me begin by sharing a little bit about my own faith background. My mother was raised in the Church of the Brethren, which is a conservative group stemming from the anabaptist movement. My father was raised United Methodist. When my brothers and I were born my parents attended an Episcopal church, but they left it before I was old enough to remember. Much of my childhood was spent church-hopping. For those of you unfamiliar with the term, church-hopping is when someone switches churches frequently. People do this for a variety of reasons, as a general rule, I think this is not a good thing to do. In any case, the churches which we attended for the longest were United Methodist and Missionary. When I was in high school we began attending a Dutch Reformed Church (RCA) which my mother still attends, although my father now attends the Episcopal church again. Both of them are now enrolled in RCIA and will be becoming Catholic in late March (they also attend Catholic Masses now). I am still grappling with their decision to become Catholic, and because of this I have been studying Catholicism in depth. I must admit though, that it is really hard to sit down and read the Catechism. I cannot handle more than a page or two at a time.
I seem to have gone off on a tangent though. Since being married, I have attended a Free Methodist church. Our church has gone through a great deal of struggling the past few years, but that is a whole different story which I will not share right now. Many of you may be scratching your heads and wondering what on earth are Free Methodists anyway. Methodism was a movement started by John Wesley in the eighteenth century. Wesley would speak to the working class and huge crowds would come out to hear him preach. Initially his group was a sort of club that met several times through the week. He did not have any wish to start a new church, he was more focussed on strengthening the faith of the people, who were still expected to attend to mass in the Anglican church. The term Methodist was a derisive term because the organization he designed ordered its religious societies into classes and bands which focussed on religious instruction and accountability. Although he was despised by many in the Church of England, he remained part of that body thoughout his life. It was not until later that the Methodists became a church unto themselves.
During the early nineteenth century, most churches in the Americas charged rent on pews. If you wanted a nice seat near the front of the church, you paid a higher price. Many in the Methodist-Episcopal church felt that charging rent on pews was wrong. Also, they believed that all men deserved to be free, and that slavery was wrong. Because of these issues the Free Methodist church was founded in 1860. Many of its early members were active in the Underground Railroad.
The Free Methodist Church is considered, with the Church of the Nazarene and the Wesleyan Church to be a Holiness church.
With that background given. I think I shall take the plunge.
Are you about ready to jump out of your seat and argue with me? I hope not. Please notice also, that I did not say Salvation is by faith alone (sola fide). It is my belief that these to statements are very often confused, but I would like to discuss the difference.
Imagine that someone is holding out a gift to you. You look at him and ask for the gift, he gives it to you. You say thank you. Then you say look! I have this great gift, and all I had to was ask for the gift. Therefore I earned the gift by asking. It's not a perfect analogy, I know. But this is a little bit like saying that salvation is by faith alone. It sort of implies that I earn my salvation simply by having faith. An even greater heresy that can stem from this is the belief that it does not matter what I believe, as long as I believe something. After all salvation is by faith.
Many protestant churches teach salvation by faith alone. So then people give a profession of faith and are "saved". Sometimes the profession of faith seems accompanied by a change of heart, sometimes not. Sometimes the person continues on sinning, but they have "asked Jesus into their heart" so they are ok, right? At this point people start debating Is it true that if a person is once saved they are always saved? Someone once asked me this. I was taken aback at first. I decided that yes. If a person truly receives salvation that this is something that cannot be lost. But I do not think that reciting a certain prayer is the same thing as actually being saved.
On the other hand, salvation by works, also called legalism, is a gigantic fallacy. Suppose you are handed a gift and reach out to receive it. To say that salvation is by works is like saying that you received the gift because you reached for it.
Salvation is God's gift to us. Both of the analogies are backwards because they imply that we get the gift because WE take the gift, not because God gives it to us. We cannot earn salvation, not by believing, not by doing good works.
Yes we do have to ask for the gift, yes we do have to reach out and take the gift. But it is not because of these things that the gift is given.
Child Evangelism Fellowship explains in three easy steps how we may be saved.
A. Admit you are a sinner.
B. Believe that Christ died for our sins.
C. Choose to follow him.
Faith comes in part B, works in part C. As it says in the book of James "faith without works is dead". (Presumably this is why Martin Luther did not think James should be part of the Bible). If we truly believe that Christ died for our sins, then it is only natural that we should strive to live as he would have us to live.
We must remember that it is by grace, through faith that we are saved.
"Amazing Grace, How Sweet the Sound!
That saved a wretch like me.
I was was lost, but now am found.
Was Blind, but now I see."
-John Newton
Fortunately, Paul thought it would be a good idea to go out to dinner last night after my ordeal. After all we had to get everybody out and around anyway. We had dinner at Casa D'angelo, a local Italian eatery. I had the eggplant parmigiano, which I share with Abigail and Isaac. It was delicious.
For those of you who were fast yesterday, I apologize for my discussions of food. If it makes you feel any better I am sorely missing coca-cola already.
I believe that my Lenten resolution will help to strengthen my faith in God, but man is it hard.
Before I start any religious discussions, please let me begin by sharing a little bit about my own faith background. My mother was raised in the Church of the Brethren, which is a conservative group stemming from the anabaptist movement. My father was raised United Methodist. When my brothers and I were born my parents attended an Episcopal church, but they left it before I was old enough to remember. Much of my childhood was spent church-hopping. For those of you unfamiliar with the term, church-hopping is when someone switches churches frequently. People do this for a variety of reasons, as a general rule, I think this is not a good thing to do. In any case, the churches which we attended for the longest were United Methodist and Missionary. When I was in high school we began attending a Dutch Reformed Church (RCA) which my mother still attends, although my father now attends the Episcopal church again. Both of them are now enrolled in RCIA and will be becoming Catholic in late March (they also attend Catholic Masses now). I am still grappling with their decision to become Catholic, and because of this I have been studying Catholicism in depth. I must admit though, that it is really hard to sit down and read the Catechism. I cannot handle more than a page or two at a time.
I seem to have gone off on a tangent though. Since being married, I have attended a Free Methodist church. Our church has gone through a great deal of struggling the past few years, but that is a whole different story which I will not share right now. Many of you may be scratching your heads and wondering what on earth are Free Methodists anyway. Methodism was a movement started by John Wesley in the eighteenth century. Wesley would speak to the working class and huge crowds would come out to hear him preach. Initially his group was a sort of club that met several times through the week. He did not have any wish to start a new church, he was more focussed on strengthening the faith of the people, who were still expected to attend to mass in the Anglican church. The term Methodist was a derisive term because the organization he designed ordered its religious societies into classes and bands which focussed on religious instruction and accountability. Although he was despised by many in the Church of England, he remained part of that body thoughout his life. It was not until later that the Methodists became a church unto themselves.
During the early nineteenth century, most churches in the Americas charged rent on pews. If you wanted a nice seat near the front of the church, you paid a higher price. Many in the Methodist-Episcopal church felt that charging rent on pews was wrong. Also, they believed that all men deserved to be free, and that slavery was wrong. Because of these issues the Free Methodist church was founded in 1860. Many of its early members were active in the Underground Railroad.
The Free Methodist Church is considered, with the Church of the Nazarene and the Wesleyan Church to be a Holiness church.
With that background given. I think I shall take the plunge.
Salvation is by Grace Alone
Are you about ready to jump out of your seat and argue with me? I hope not. Please notice also, that I did not say Salvation is by faith alone (sola fide). It is my belief that these to statements are very often confused, but I would like to discuss the difference.
Imagine that someone is holding out a gift to you. You look at him and ask for the gift, he gives it to you. You say thank you. Then you say look! I have this great gift, and all I had to was ask for the gift. Therefore I earned the gift by asking. It's not a perfect analogy, I know. But this is a little bit like saying that salvation is by faith alone. It sort of implies that I earn my salvation simply by having faith. An even greater heresy that can stem from this is the belief that it does not matter what I believe, as long as I believe something. After all salvation is by faith.
Many protestant churches teach salvation by faith alone. So then people give a profession of faith and are "saved". Sometimes the profession of faith seems accompanied by a change of heart, sometimes not. Sometimes the person continues on sinning, but they have "asked Jesus into their heart" so they are ok, right? At this point people start debating Is it true that if a person is once saved they are always saved? Someone once asked me this. I was taken aback at first. I decided that yes. If a person truly receives salvation that this is something that cannot be lost. But I do not think that reciting a certain prayer is the same thing as actually being saved.
On the other hand, salvation by works, also called legalism, is a gigantic fallacy. Suppose you are handed a gift and reach out to receive it. To say that salvation is by works is like saying that you received the gift because you reached for it.
Salvation is God's gift to us. Both of the analogies are backwards because they imply that we get the gift because WE take the gift, not because God gives it to us. We cannot earn salvation, not by believing, not by doing good works.
Yes we do have to ask for the gift, yes we do have to reach out and take the gift. But it is not because of these things that the gift is given.
Child Evangelism Fellowship explains in three easy steps how we may be saved.
A. Admit you are a sinner.
B. Believe that Christ died for our sins.
C. Choose to follow him.
Faith comes in part B, works in part C. As it says in the book of James "faith without works is dead". (Presumably this is why Martin Luther did not think James should be part of the Bible). If we truly believe that Christ died for our sins, then it is only natural that we should strive to live as he would have us to live.
We must remember that it is by grace, through faith that we are saved.
"Amazing Grace, How Sweet the Sound!
That saved a wretch like me.
I was was lost, but now am found.
Was Blind, but now I see."
-John Newton
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
