Emergent Church Movement

[Gold Dragon]

Originally posted by DHK:
#4. We do not define theology by Roman Catholic definitions; we define our theology by Biblical definitions, and by the Bible which never changes. The Catholic Church alwasy changes; the Bible never.
#5. Notice that you yourself have taken great pains to redefine what prayer is. In the Bible it is not so. Stick with the Bible, not with RCC definitions.

Just an fyi that I do not define theology by RC definitions and did not redefine prayer. I was presenting a RC perspective on prayer and why they believe what they believe because you completely misinterpreted the RC perspective on that issue.

I do not pray to Mary or the saints to intercede for me, but I disagree with the Catholic understanding of it, and not some misinterpreted understanding of what they do.

[ April 01, 2005, 04:45 PM: Message edited by: Gold Dragon ]

 

[Gold Dragon]

Originally posted by D28guy:
And you accuse evangelicals of circular logic???

I for one will not use circular logic just because some Catholics do.

I also find your illustration of the Catholic understanding of the authority of the Majesterium to be a terrible caricature.

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Gold Dragon:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by D28guy:
And you accuse evangelicals of circular logic???

I for one will not use circular logic just because some Catholics do.

I also find your illustration of the Catholic understanding of the authority of the Majesterium to be a terrible caricature. </font>[/QUOTE]Why? That is their appeal to authority; not the Bible. That is also the reason why they hate so much the doctrine of sola scriptura, as well as soul liberty--they have none. Every thing that they believe must be in line with the Magesterium. They cannot think for themselves. It must be according to the catechism, the papal bulls, the decrees of Vatican II, etc. They cannot study the Bible and come to any conclusion for themselves. Only the priest has the authority to "interpret" the Bible, and of course his interpretation will simply be a parroted answer of the catechism.
This in itself is a violation of Scripture. The Bible says that the Scripture is of "no private interpretation." The meaning of that verse is that no religion, (as the RCC) can claim to have their own interpretation of the Bible and force it on others, such as the Magesterium of the RCC has done. It is a direct violation of Scripture.
DHK

 

[Gold Dragon]

Originally posted by DHK:
Catholics worship Mary. Please don't tell me that they don't or I will post a whole slate of prayers to Mary that do nothing but worship and adore Mary, even beseechng Mary, rather than Christ as a mediatrix to the Father. She is the Queen of Heaven. She is adored and worshipped continuously. She has the quality of omnipresence, an attribute given only to God. For she is able to hear all the prayers of all the Catholics in all the world, at the same time. She has been elevated to a status of God. There is even a faction within the Catholic Church that are pressing to make her a fourth member of the trinity. I guess they don't know how to count.

I would join you in any rebuke of Marian worship in the Catholic Church and uses of titles such as Queen of Heaven and Co-Redemptrix in addition to teachings like Perpetual Virginity and the Immaculate Conception of Mary (commonly misunderstood to be about Jesus' birth). Those are valid criticism of Marian understanding in the Catholic tradition.

Originally posted by DHK:
Any prayer to any person is worship. Worship of any person other than God is idolatry. That is plain and simple.

I would disagree with this statement.

 

[Marcia]

Posted by Gold Dragon
I think two examples of this are Messianic Judaism and Native American Christians expressing their Christianity within their native spiritualist context.

The "Christian religion" is a construct that has a lot of cultural baggage that is additional to the essence of the gospel.

I am answering Gold Dragon and Tragic-Pizza here because they were both making the same points.

I agree that there is a lot of cultural baggage in Christianity that is not needed. But as far as sticking with Buddhist and Hindu culture as a Christian, how can that be since both Buddhism and Hinduism are religions completely opposed to Chirstianity???

Please give an example of how a Christian could still be Christian in a Hindu or Buddhist context. I can't think of one.

 

[Gold Dragon]

Originally posted by DHK:
Why? That is their appeal to authority; not the Bible. That is also the reason why they hate so much the doctrine of sola scriptura, as well as soul liberty--they have none. Every thing that they believe must be in line with the Magesterium. They cannot think for themselves. It must be according to the catechism, the papal bulls, the decrees of Vatican II, etc. They cannot study the Bible and come to any conclusion for themselves. Only the priest has the authority to "interpret" the Bible, and of course his interpretation will simply be a parroted answer of the catechism.
This in itself is a violation of Scripture. The Bible says that the Scripture is of "no private interpretation." The meaning of that verse is that no religion, (as the RCC) can claim to have their own interpretation of the Bible and force it on others, such as the Magesterium of the RCC has done. It is a direct violation of Scripture.
DHK

I guess we will have to go through all of the protestant misunderstandings of Catholicism before we are through.

I gotta run now but I'll see if I have time later to present an accurate Catholic view from all the mistruths you have presented above.

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Gold Dragon:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by DHK:
Any prayer to any person is worship. Worship of any person other than God is idolatry. That is plain and simple.

I would disagree with this statement. </font>[/QUOTE]Acts 10:25-26 And as Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him, and fell down at his feet, and worshipped him. But Peter took him up, saying, Stand up; I myself also am a man.

What exactly do you think the "worship" was that Peter rebuked?

 

[Gold Dragon]

Originally posted by Marcia:
Please give an example of how a Christian could still be Christian in a Hindu or Buddhist context. I can't think of one.

Not exactly Buddhism, but the Chinese Rites controversy is a good example ways to handle Christianity in the Chinese context. I believe the Jesuits had it right.

 

[Gold Dragon]

Originally posted by DHK:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Gold Dragon:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by DHK:
Any prayer to any person is worship. Worship of any person other than God is idolatry. That is plain and simple.

I would disagree with this statement. </font>[/QUOTE]What exactly do you think the "worship" was that Peter rebuked? </font>[/QUOTE]Sorry, I meant I disagree with the part that any prayer is worship.

The second part is true. Worship to anyone other than God is idolatry.

 

[DHK]

What is prayer?
Prayer is speaking to God.

1 Samuel 1:13 Now Hannah, she spake in her heart; only her lips moved, but her voice was not heard: therefore Eli thought she had been drunken.

What does prayer involve?
Confession.
Praise.
Thanksgiving.
Intercession.
Petitions.

All of the above are directed to God, and God alone. They are all a part of one's worship. Prayer is worship. When the Catholics beseech Mary on their behalf to intercede for them it is still worship, for prayer belongs to God and only to God. It is worship. All prayer is worship. If you pray to Buddha, are you not worshipping Buddha? Of course you are, and you are worshipping the demon that is behind the idol. Likewise in Catholicism. Praying to the dead is nothing short of necromancy--something strictly condemned in the Bible, and even punishable by death.
DHK

 

[Marcia]

Originally posted by Gold Dragon:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Marcia:
Please give an example of how a Christian could still be Christian in a Hindu or Buddhist context. I can't think of one.

Not exactly Buddhism, but the Chinese Rites controversy is a good example ways to handle Christianity in the Chinese context. I believe the Jesuits had it right. </font>[/QUOTE]But McLaren specifically said "Hindu" and "Buddhist" contexts. I'd still like an example.

 

[Gold Dragon]

Originally posted by Marcia:
But McLaren specifically said "Hindu" and "Buddhist" contexts. I'd still like an example.

I'm not too well versed in the history of Hindu and Buddhist converts and their struggles or the Hindu and Buddhist religions.

But I would think a Buddhism convert would have very few problems being a Christian in a Buddhist context.

The ideals of doing no harm and doing things in moderation are extremely compatable with Christianity.

The puruit of enlightenment is also something Christians share, except that the source of that enlightenment has shifted to the person of Jesus.

Meditation and the monastic life is also something Christians share.

I recognize that new life in Christ is about turning away from the sinful past and there are many elements of Buddhism that a Buddhist Christian would have to repent and turn away from.

I'm not well versed in Hinduism at all but I'll do some research and get back to you.

 

[Gold Dragon]

Marcia, I've just finished the current book I've been reading and will be moving on to A Generous Orthodoxy. When I get to the part where he talks about this, I'll remember to elaborate here on what Brian McLaren meant.

 

[cherylz]

DHK YOU HAVE IT RIGHT!!! I quess it takes an ex-catholic, like you, like myself, (baptized baptist as a child, then spent 40 yrs in the catholic church, and finally removed from the blasphemy by the Holy Spirit! realizing by all these years of rejecting their doctrine, ie, praying to God for forgiveness of sins, knowing I was forgiven and my sins forgotten at that moment rather then to an intercessor who gave me repetitive prayers, never praying to Mary, never understood praying the Rosary, etc, realized I was never Catholic returned to my Baptist roots)

 

[DHK]

Welcome to BB Cherylz. There are a number of ex-Catholics hanging around here. You're in good company.
DHK

 

[Marcia]

Originally posted by Gold Dragon:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Marcia:
But McLaren specifically said "Hindu" and "Buddhist" contexts. I'd still like an example.

I'm not too well versed in the history of Hindu and Buddhist converts and their struggles or the Hindu and Buddhist religions.

But I would think a Buddhism convert would have very few problems being a Christian in a Buddhist context.

The ideals of doing no harm and doing things in moderation are extremely compatable with Christianity.

The puruit of enlightenment is also something Christians share, except that the source of that enlightenment has shifted to the person of Jesus.

Meditation and the monastic life is also something Christians share.

I recognize that new life in Christ is about turning away from the sinful past and there are many elements of Buddhism that a Buddhist Christian would have to repent and turn away from.

I'm not well versed in Hinduism at all but I'll do some research and get back to you. </font>[/QUOTE]I was involved with Hindu and Buddhist beliefs and practices for a number of years before I trusted Christ. I studied Tibetan and Zen Buddhism and learned several types of meditation.

Eastern meditation is not compatible nor does it have anything to do with biblical meditation, which means to reflect on God's word or memorize it. I have an article on this topic here:
http://cana.userworld.com/cana_ContemplativePrayer1.html

In fact, I was just on a radio show on this topic 2 days ago (KFUO, St. Louis, "Issues, Etc." at www.kfuo.org) Eastern meditation teaches that one must go beyond the mind and beyond thought so that one can reach a state of "pure consciousness" in which one realizes one's inner divinity. It's more complicated than that, but that's the general idea.

While there are some ethical teachings in Buddhism that might be compatible with Christianity, the purpose for them is completely different. The whole central teaching of Buddhism is that suffering is caused by desire and so one must learn to detach from desire (for anything). Everything is by works.

Jesus never said do things in moderation. I'm not saying that is a bad thing in most cases, but that is just not necessarily compatible with biblical teachings. For example, it does not go along with letting the old self die and becoming a new creation in Christ. That is not moderation. Nor is surrender to Christ supposed to be moderate. It is supposed to be total.

Enlightenment is something that comes from within in Eastern beliefs and by going beyond the mind through meditative techniques and other practices. It is a teaching that cannot be combined with Christian teachings in any way - we are not seeking enlightenment unless you change the meaning of the word to fit a Christian context. Enlightenment in an Eastern context means an awakening to the inner divine nature.

There is just nothing that meaningfully can be said to be Christian in a Buddhist and Hindu context such that one could agree with McLaren's statement. To remain Christian in such a context would mean compromise or syncretization.

 

[Marcia]

Originally posted by Gold Dragon:
Marcia, I've just finished the current book I've been reading and will be moving on to A Generous Orthodoxy. When I get to the part where he talks about this, I'll remember to elaborate here on what Brian McLaren meant.

Okay, that would be interesting. This thread might be closed by then so be sure and start a new thread I'll recognize so I can find your comments.

 

[Gold Dragon]

Originally posted by Marcia:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Gold Dragon:
Marcia, I've just finished the current book I've been reading and will be moving on to A Generous Orthodoxy. When I get to the part where he talks about this, I'll remember to elaborate here on what Brian McLaren meant.

Okay, that would be interesting. This thread might be closed by then so be sure and start a new thread I'll recognize so I can find your comments. </font>[/QUOTE]Will do.

 

[D28guy]

Cherylz,

I'm one, too.

Pulled out of the grip of Catholicism by the sweet Holy Spirit 23 years ago...after about the same amount of years as a Catholic.

What a change! I cant even put it into words. And the thing is, after being born again I didnt know much about true christianity, and there was absolutly nobody pulling me out of Catholicism and warning me to not go back. I had no external influence in any way. I dont recall one single person ever telling me to flee catholicism or telling me it was false.

And yet, right from the 1st day as a christian I "knew that I knew that I knew" that I no longer belonged in it. I thought to myself, "How can it be true, if I was in it all these years and never heard the gospel??? And was never born of the Spirit?"

And then as I began feeding on the truth of the scriptures I saw the Catholic Church absolutly identified...in an exceedingly negative sense...over and over and over again. What a sad thing it is.

Good to have you on BB.

God bless,

Mike

 

[D28guy]

"I guess we will have to go through all of the protestant misunderstandings of Catholicism before we are through"

Lets see, I was a Catholic for 24 years. 8 years of parochial school, religion class, catechism class, I was an altar boy, CCD class, Mass every Sunday, etc etc etc.

DHK has a backgroand similar to mine.

But we have "protestant misunderstandings" of Catholicism?

This seems a bit odd to me.

Mike