| Bondage of the Blog |  |
Sunday, 28 March 2010
Pope Benedict XVI’s integrity is facing a new wave of attacks as revelations of his involvement in several pedophilia priest cases are surfacing. Already harshly criticized for his (mis)handling of abuse cases during his tenure as archbishop of Munich, more allegations are coming to light which incriminate him with suppressing information and failing to take disciplinary action while serving as head of the Vatican office responsible for disciplining priests.
As troubling as these charges are, what is even more disturbing is the reality that Rome will tell us Pope Benedict’s involvement in the entire affair has no bearing upon his authority as successor of Peter, and more specifically, his facility to speak ex cathedra. Indeed, the Roman Catholic Church defends the dogma of papal infallibility by drawing a distinction between infallibility (in matters of faith and morals) and impeccability. Meaning, the character of a pope--the Vicar of Christ--does not preclude one from rightly sitting in the chair of Peter and speaking authoritatively and infallibly on certain theological matters.
Even though history has amply demonstrated the nefarious practices and immoral lifestyles of popes, such as Stephen VII, Urban II, Sixtus IV, Alexander VI, just to name a few, the bishop of Rome is the rightful heir of Peter, regardless of personal conduct. Practically speaking, what this means is that even though popes have been known to have had concubines, illegitimate children, sold enemies into slavery, and engaged in simony, among other machinations, every single pope holds the office of universal head of the church with the potentiality of speaking infallibly--spiritual condition notwithstanding. Roman Catholic apologists nevertheless maintain a distinction between teaching as the universal head of the church and one’s private life. How one can differentiate between lifestyle and teaching is beyond my comprehension. Is not the example of one’s life part and parcel of the Christian message? After all, what do we say of people who preach one thing yet live differently? We rightly label them as hypocrites. Yet, Rome tells us hypocrisy does not preclude papal authority or infallibility.
Moreover, when drawing the distinction between impeccability and infallibility, Roman apologists, at the very least, tacitly imply the character of the men sitting in the chair of Peter is inconsequential. But, what does the Bible teach about such matters? Does the Bible allow for concupiscent elders in the church? What exactly are the qualification for being an elder? If the pope is the ‘Elder of the Elders,’ then is stands to reason he must also subscribe to the same requirements as any elder. That is, in my estimation and at the very least, a fair statement. Consider just several verses in reference to elders.
Titus 1:7, “For an overseer, as God’s steward, must be above reproach…”
1 Tim 3:1-2, “The saying is trustworthy: If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task. Therefore an overseer must be above reproach…”
What should be troubling for the Roman position is that the current universal head of the church, along with a number of popes in history, does not even meet the minimum (biblical) qualification for being an elder. The very first requisite listed would preclude a fair number of popes, including the current one--if the allegations against Benedict are true. In fact, according to Paul, Benedict does not even qualify to be an overseer in the apostolic church, yet every person is to be subject to his authority or fall under the pain of the eternal anathema. The overseer is to be above reproach, yet the current bishop of Rome is a man who, by all accounts, willfully suppressed information relating to the general welfare of children, and when informed, acquiesced.
The Bible is unequivocal in that the elder is to set an example for the flock (1 Pet 5:3), shepherd the sheep (1 Pet 5:2, Acts 20:28), rule well (1 Tim 5:17), and watch for pernicious influences to the flock (Acts 20:29-30). Scripture unabashedly mandates elders to be in conformity with these principles, yet the bishop of Rome, the spiritual head of the universal church, the man who binds and loosens souls on earth, does not even qualify to be an elder in Christ’s church. If these charges are proved true, every Roman Catholic should cry out in opposition and demands the pope’s removal. At the very least, it should give a precipitous rise to Sedevacantism, if not make one seriously reconsider the authority and theology of Rome altogether.
So what lesson can be learned here? At the very least, it should give every one pause and make him ruminate upon the dogma of infallibility once more. Creating a distinction whereby a pope can live a reckless lifestyle and still sit in the “chair of Peter” is meaningless. Instead, we should give careful attention once more to the words of the Roman Catholic scholar and Vatican I participant, Dr. Ignaz von Dollingar, who concluded on the matter of infallibility: “the theory of papal infallibility had been introduced into the church only by a long chain of purposeful fictions and forgeries.” (Dr. Dollingar was subsequently excommunicated for not accepting the dogma of papal infallibility.) Infallibility and impeccability belong to Christ Jesus alone. The Holy Spirit is the true Vicar of Christ on earth and every elder who preaches and teaches the pure, unadulterated apostolic message follows in the succession of Peter, not the singular bishop centered in Rome.
Monday, 22 March 2010
Once more, the sexual sins of pedophile priests within the Roman Catholic Church are being discussed in the world press. Associated Press Writers Nicole Winfield and Victor L. Simpson filed a report on Saturday March 20, 2010 to that effect. While reading the news articles from an Evangelical perspective, there were, however, three areas of concerns I had.
My first area of concern. According to the article, there was a confession of priestly sins by the leadership of the Catholic Church, minus the acceptance of ultimate responsibility.
"VATICAN CITY – Pope Benedict XVI rebuked Irish bishops Saturday for "grave errors of judgment" in handling clerical sex abuse and ordered an investigation into the Irish church but did not mention any Vatican responsibility.
In a letter to the Irish faithful read across Europe amid a growing, multination abuse scandal, the pope doled out no specific punishments to bishops blamed by victims, and Irish government-ordered investigations, for having covered up abuse of thousands of Irish children from the 1930s to the 1990s.
Ireland's main group of clerical-abuse victims, One in Four, said it was deeply disappointed by the letter because it failed to lay blame with the Vatican for what it called a "deliberate policy of the Catholic Church at the highest levels to protect sex offenders, thereby endangering children."
"If the church cannot acknowledge this fundamental truth, it is still in denial," the group said.
The letter directly addressed only Ireland, but the Vatican said it could be read as applying to other countries. Hundreds of new allegations of abuse have recently come to light across Europe, including in the pope's native Germany, where he served as archbishop in a diocese where several victims have recently come forward. One priest suspected of molesting boys while the future pope was in charge was transferred to a job where he abused more children."
My second area of concern involves a ecclesiastical threat of excommunication in order to cover up evil.
"While a cardinal at the Vatican, Joseph Ratzinger penned a letter instructing bishops around the world to report all cases of abuse to his office and keep them secret under threat of excommunication. Irish bishops have said the letter was widely understood to mean they shouldn't report the cases to police."
My third area of concern involves a failure to remove the root of unrighteousness.
"You have suffered grievously and I am truly sorry," Benedict said, addressing himself to Irish Catholics who suffered "sinful and criminal" abuse at the hands of priests, brothers and nuns and a botched response by their superiors.
"It is understandable that you find it hard to forgive or be reconciled with the church," he said. "In her name, I openly express the shame and remorse that we all feel."
Benedict used his harshest words for the abusers themselves, saying they had betrayed the trust of the faithful, brought shame on the church and now must answer before God and civil authorities.
"Conceal nothing," he exhorted them. "Openly acknowledge your guilt, submit yourselves to the demands of justice, but do not despair of God's mercy."
A New Consideration. While the Roman Catholic Church is to be commended for a public apology, in as far as it goes, the abuses will continue for centuries to come unless the Catholic Church moves beyond addressing the symptoms of evil to strike a blow at the root cause of the injurious behavior. To truly repent the Catholic Church must return to the authority of Scripture alone for its practices and conduct. When this is done three actions will take place.
First, ultimate responsibility will be accepted by the highest echelons of the church for official ecclesiastical policy that permitted evil to be practiced by protecting sex offenders. 1 John 1:8-9, "If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness."
Second, the threat of excommunication must not be used to bind the conscience. The conscience must be taken captive by God’s Word, especially when the alternative is to bind the conscience to enhance secret sin.
Third, the doctrine of forced celibacy whereby priests are forbidden to marry must be reversed and abandoned, for this doctrine is specifically said in Scripture to be associated with the devil himself. 1 Timothy 4:1–3, "Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth."
Saturday, 13 March 2010
The place of Seventh Day Adventism within the story of the church is difficult to assess. Some scholars argue that those who embrace the teaching of Adventism are cultic, while others argue they are part of the mainstream Christian heritage, but with some distinctive doctrinal differences. One of the main doctrinal differences from orthodox Christianity is a failure to embrace the concept of an eternal hell. Five reasons are given for their position in Questions on Doctrine, first published in 1957:
- Because everlasting life is a gift of God (Romans 6:23). The wicked do not possess this—they "shall not see life" (John 3:36); "no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him" (1 John 3:15).
- Because eternal torment would perpetuate and immortalize sin, suffering, and woe, and contradict, we believe, divine revelation, which envisions the time when these things shall be no more (Revelation 21:4).
- Because it seems to us to provide a plague spot in the universe of God throughout eternity, and would seem to indicate that it is impossible for God Himself ever to abolish it.
- Because in our thinking it would detract from the attribute of love as seen in the character of God, and postulates the concept of a wrath which is never appeased.
- Because the Scriptures teach that the atoning work of Christ is to "put away sin" (Hebrews 9:26)—first from the individual, and ultimately from the universe. The full fruition of Christ’s sacrificial, atoning work will be seen not only in a redeemed people but in a restored heaven and earth (Ephesians 1:14).
As attractive as these ideas are to the sensitive soul, the question remains, "But is it true?" For the conservative Christian, it is difficult to reconcile the five arguments advocating the annihilation of the wicked with the teaching of Jesus in Matthew 25:46. "And these shall go away into everlasting punishment; but the righteous into life eternal." It is instructive to note that the same word qualifying the punishment of the unbelieving also qualifies the life of the righteous. If there is everlasting life, there is everlasting punishment for individuals. "Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched" (Matt. 9:44, 46, 48). Moreover, the annihiliation theory fails to consider how the wrath of an almighty and infinite God can be placated through the temporal punishment inflicted on finite creatures. "Oh it is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God" (Heb. 10: 31), which is why the gospel must be embraced.
"Therefore, come ye sinners, poor and needy,
Weak and wounded, sick and sore,
Jesus ready stands to save you,
Full of pity, and love, and power.
Come you weary, heavy laden,
bruised and broken by the Fall,
If you tarry till you’re better,
You’ll never come at all.
Let not conscience make you linger,
Or of fitness fondly dream;
All the fitness He requireth,
Is to feel your need of Him.
Come ye thirsty, Come and welcome!
God’s free bounties glorify.
True belief, true repentance,
Every grace that brings you nigh,
Without money,
Come to Jesus Christ and buy."
Tuesday, 09 March 2010
The selling of Indulgences was the spark that ignited the Protestant Reformation. However, it is a terrible mistake to believe the issue of Indulgences is now relegated to the past, so says Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego, August 10, 2004.
Indulgences are Part of Catholic Dogma. "Those who claim that indulgences are no longer part of Church teaching have the admirable desire to distance themselves from abuses that occurred around the time of the Protestant Reformation. They also want to remove stumbling blocks that prevent non-Catholics from taking a positive view of the Church. As admirable as these motives are, the claim that indulgences are not part of Church teaching today is false.
This is proved by the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which states, ‘An indulgence is obtained through the Church who, by virtue of the power of binding and loosing granted her by Christ Jesus, intervenes in favor of individual Christians and opens for them the treasury of the merits of Christ and the saints to obtain from the Father of mercies the remission of the temporal punishment due for their sins.’ The Church does this not just to aid Christians, ‘but also to spur them to works of devotion, penance, and charity’ (CCC 1478)."
Damnation Awaits a Rejection of Indulgences. The importance of believing in indulgences is manifested with the threat of damnation. Again, Bishop Brom: "Indulgences are part of the Church’s infallible teaching. This means that no Catholic is at liberty to disbelieve in them. The Council of Trent stated that it ‘condemns with anathema those who say that indulgences are useless or that the Church does not have the power to grant them’(Trent, session 25, Decree on Indulgences). Trent’s anathema places indulgences in the realm of infallibly defined teaching."
A Right to be Concerned. There are several good reasons why a Christian has a right to be concerned with the religious threat of eternal judgment for not believing in indulgences. First, there is the late origin of the theological construct of indulgences. As far as I can discover, it was during the First Crusade, in 1095, that Pope Urban II remitted all ecclesiastical penance for the armed "pilgrims" setting off for the Holy Land. Later, as the equally questionable and disturbing doctrine of purgatory evolved the practice and teaching on indulgences shifted to the shortening of punishments in purgatory for oneself or somebody else in exchange for a good deed done in this life. By the late Middle Ages the practice was filled with abuses by such gospel hawkers as the Dominican Johann Tetzel who would proclaim, "As soon as a coin in the coffer rings a soul from purgatory springs." With such techniques money was raised to build St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome.
A second concern is the lack of clear Biblical teaching on indulgences. If all faith and practice is to be based on Scripture alone, one looks in vain for justification to teach that the church can open to individuals some treasury of the merits of Christ and the saints so they can obtain the remission of the temporal punishment due for their sins.
"What can wash away my sins?
Nothing but the blood of Jesus!"
Third, if indulgences are efficacious, then salvation is not by grace through faith alone in Christ alone. Rather, salvation becomes a synergism of the redemptive work of Christ at Calvary plus the good works of an individual. On this point the Scriptures are crystal clear. Ephesians 2:8, For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.
For those who are taught to fear a religious organization and its alleged power to damn, there is this gospel word of comfort. "And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house" (Acts 16:31).
Tuesday, 02 March 2010
The story is told of a new pastor who visited a children’s Sunday school lesson. After standing quietly at the back of the room for a few minutes, he asked the young people, "Who tore down the walls of Jericho?"
"It wasn’t me," shouted young Tommy.
The pastor was unfazed and repeated the question to the children. "Come on now, who tore down the walls of Jericho?"
Suddenly alarmed, the Sunday school teacher took the pastor to one side. "Pastor, Tommy’s a good boy. If he said he didn’t do it, he didn’t do it. I believe him." The pastor was stunned. Later, he related the story to the Director of Christian Education.
The director frowned when the pastor was finished. "I know we have had trouble with Tommy in the past. I will have a word with him."
By now the pastor was totally baffled. He left the Director of Christian Education and approached a deacon. Once again he told the whole story, including the response from the teacher and the Christian Ed director.
The deacon listened patiently and then smiled. "Yes, pastor, I can see your problem. But I suggest we take the money from the general fund to pay for the wall and leave it at that."
I have long believed there is a need to encourage pastors, Sunday school teachers, and Bible teachers, along with every fellow laborer for Christ, to know the Scriptures thoroughly from a practical point of view. Much time and effort is spent learning about the Bible when perhaps more time is needed just reading each verse of Scripture and meditating on what is actually being said. To that end, we offer Simple Questions and Answers in Scripture.
The uniqueness of Simple Questions and Answers is that each verse of a book of the Bible has at least one question and answer. Most verses, however, have two or more. Special Notes are added for some verses in order to provide supplemental material and Old Testament reference cited or alluded to.
A Student’s Study Guide is available whereby the questions are asked but the answers are withheld so that a person can write in his or her own response to be reviewed with someone using the main text which includes the answers. The Student’s Study Guide is an excellent tool for private Bible study, parents who are home schooling their children, Sunday school classes, or small study groups.
Again, the primary objective is to stay close to the biblical text and consider what each verse of each Bible book is simply saying. We are continuously adding new Student and Leader Guides for each book of the Bible so check back often for updates.
|
|
