Changing Doctrine?
If the apostles thought Jesus would return in their lifetime, does that mean the Church's teachings have "changed"?
No. I say Jesus' imminent return was something that was speculated about, and believed by many, but not the official teaching of the Church, not to be included in the deposit of faith that was to be believed by all Christians.
"Progressive Revelation"?
I viewed a sermon by a Church of God International minister who said we know things today that the authors of the Bible didn't understand fully.
Does that mean there is new revelation? Or does it mean, as the speaker said, that we have the benefit of looking through the spectrum of history and are able to see a clearer picture of "truth"?
That's what the Catholic Church believes about her own doctrinal clarifications and defined dogmas. Catholics believe that public divine revelation ceased at the death of the apostle John, but that the Spirit guides us into all truth, continues to help us deduce insights based on previously defined revelation.
Did God "Call" You?
In the same CGI sermon mentioned above, the speaker maintains that those who know the "truth" about the seventh-day Sabbath, the holy days, the mortality of the soul, prophetic scenarios, etc., have been called and drawn by God. The billions of others on this planet have not been "called" and are not being judged now, he says.
Yet, later, he quotes the scripture that says many are called but few are chosen, and he says that even though many are drawn and receive the same calling, those who are "chosen" are those who respond to this calling.
How is this so different from Catholic teaching, that we are judged according to how we respond to the light that we are given?
The CGI minister wants to simultaneously hold on to his church's traditional teaching (only those with their understanding are "called") and to what commonsense biblical teaching is (the "chosen" are those who respond to God's call). It is a contradiction, but he has a hard time letting go of his church's tradition
Still a Hypocrite?
I've heard it argued that a person can't "preach" to someone else about morals if the person has been guilty of the failing himself.
Example: If a father tells his son that he is not to smoke marijuana because it is harmful and illegal, can the son rightly ignore his father's instruction if it is known that the father tried it when he was younger? Does that make him a "hypocrite" with nothing to offer?
Notice Matthew 7:3-5:
Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, "Let me take the speck out of your eye," when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.It makes sense to me that a person can learn from his mistakes and sins by turning away from them, and then he is able (obliged) to help others. A father with a dubious past can indeed (and in fact must) pass along his wisdom to his son, even if the wisdom was acquired at the school of hard knocks.
A hypocrite is a person who preaches one thing and does another, but a person who conforms his actions with his preaching repents of the sin of hypocrisy, and is therefore no longer a hypocrite. He is now able to see clearly enough to take the speck out of his brother's eye.
In any case, correct moral teaching is still valid, no matter who speaks it.
"Call No Man Father"
The link to this article comes from Karl Keating's e-letter. It is an article written for The Christian Century in 1985. The article is titled "Are 'Mother' and 'Father' Appropriate Titles for Protestant Clergy?" The author is David L. Holmes, who teaches in the religious studies department at the College of William and Mary.
This explains that the title "Father" was used even in American Protestant circles in earlier centuries.
No comments:
Post a Comment