we’re not mystics!
We’re not mystics! Everything we believe is completely explainable and can be easily rationalized. For goodness sake, it’s all written down so our faith can be read like a textbook. Who are all these crazy christians that believe our faith can best experienced in living in the mystical realities of this world. I mean, who would think this is mystical at all:
* The sovereign God sent His son to the planet to live a perfect life as completely man and completely divine
* God has His son killed as atonement for the sins of every man to come
* Anyone who receives Jesus, to those who believe in his name, they can become children of the divine. They can become heirs to this divine kingdom. (did I forget to mention that there was a divine kingdom that is continually expanding)
* Those who receive Jesus are born-again and will not suffer eternal punishment in a Lake of Fire. However, they will live forever and receive the Holy Spirit.
* The Holy Spirit is a person that lives inside of them, and speaks to them. Thru this person that speaks them, they can overcome sin, live with power and courage, and perform miracles.
* I forgot to mention that those with the Holy Spirit have a divine connection with God that allows them to speak directly with him, thru Jesus, anytime they want. AND, God speaks back to them
Na — there’s noting mystical about that, is there? All rational, everyday stuff.
October 1st, 2008 at 11:03 am
Nathan - this has always confused me. OK, we are not to empty our minds and invite thoughts of cosmic generalities and nameless deities, we all know that. So what is wrong with lighting a candle, burning incense, playing slow worship music, and quietly reaching out to Christ through meditation in the Spirit within the truths we already know?
I have done that to great spiritual benefit. Without mystery, you only have algebra.
October 1st, 2008 at 12:38 pm
Well perphaps that these were all Types / Representation which Jesus has perfectly fulfilled and they are no longer needed as we now have the indwelling Christ. It’s like setting up a picture of my wife and spraying her purfume in the air to get closer to her all the while she is sitting beside me.
P.S. I used candles religiously for two weeks before we got power back after Ike. Does that make me a mystic?
October 1st, 2008 at 12:49 pm
“I used candles religiously for two weeks before we got power back after Ike. Does that make me a mystic?”
No, that makes you purpose driven!
October 1st, 2008 at 12:58 pm
“* I forgot to mention that those with the Holy Spirit have a divine connection with God that allows them to speak directly with him, thru Jesus, anytime they want. AND, God speaks back to them”
How does the Holy Spirit/God speak to a believer??
October 1st, 2008 at 1:00 pm
John - do you bow your head for prayer? Do you close youreyes? Have you ever been on your knees? Does your church have special music?
The atmosphere I sometimes use is just a way to block out the world and meditate on my Lord. Like fasting.
October 1st, 2008 at 1:10 pm
Rick, what did I ever say to you to deserve that? You have wounded me to the quick sir!
October 1st, 2008 at 1:10 pm
if we arent mystics, why is so much mysticism being pushed in the church
by folks like Richard Foster and Dallas Willard and the shack author (Young)
October 1st, 2008 at 1:13 pm
I haven’t been to a church where they push mysticism. They push tithing, building fund, politics, sex, fellowship, and a host of other things.
Not much mysticism.
October 1st, 2008 at 1:21 pm
Yes as a sign of reverence, not as concentration technique.
Yes. But as I often pray while driving in to work I found that wasn’t working out too well.
Yes, but again as a sign of reference and submission, not as a concentration technique.
Yes, but 99% of the time used to directly worship God or edify the Saints. Rarely to set a “mood”.
Jesus would retire to the wilderness and get away from the crowds. Don’t see anywhere in the NT where techniques (other than fasting) are used. In all honesty I don’t believe these things are intrinsically wrong. Just unnecessary. I do see problems when they are viewed as some having instrinsic power in and of themselves.
October 1st, 2008 at 1:23 pm
Rick, have you tried a lava lamp? Just think’n out loud here.
October 1st, 2008 at 1:26 pm
Why are asking? Do you not believe God still speaks to us today?
I haven’t read Foster, but I have read a lot of Dallas Willard, and I really have a hard time understanding the hub-bub. He does mention a few Catholic writers in a positive light, so I guess that’s enough to put him in the “bad” category.
Jesus claimed to talk to God, so I guess that makes him a mystic.
October 1st, 2008 at 1:29 pm
Actually after Jesus ascended, Christians still worshiped at the temple. That’s why Peter and John are recorded as going to the temple to pray in Acts. So they were still practicing Jewish spiritual disciplines it seems.
Also none of the authors mentioned say that things like lighting candles or meditating have intrinsic power.
October 1st, 2008 at 1:31 pm
God speaks to me through Earnest Angley.
October 1st, 2008 at 1:33 pm
Well mystics say that God speaks directly to them aprat from His word. Like the good old fashion Quarkers. Who some of them would not get out of bed until promted by the Spirit, and then would not dress until the promting and so on and so on.
Very important, when you say God speaks directly to you, what does that mean? That you are a prophet and have closer access than others. Or do you mean that the Spirit speaks to you through the words or Christ and God that are found in the bible?
October 1st, 2008 at 1:34 pm
I think primarily through Scripture and secondarily through the “inner witness”.
But for a definitive answer you should ask Ken S. He seems to have a direct line.
October 1st, 2008 at 1:37 pm
And it also seems Paul had a little to say on that issue.
October 1st, 2008 at 1:39 pm
I think my wife is usurping the Holy Spirit’s role here.
October 1st, 2008 at 1:39 pm
Well, I’m a recovering legalist, but I’m still Pentecostal, so I still believe God uses the Gifts of the Spirit to speak to the Church as described in 1 Corinthians 14. I believe the main purpose of these gifts is for the encouragement and equipping of the saints. It’s not to establish doctrine.
So all prophecies, words of knowledges, etc. must be weighed against Scripture. But God is definitely still speaking…
In fact, He told me that He’s frustrated so many people aren’t listening
(I, kid, I kid)
October 1st, 2008 at 1:41 pm
It means I have a mystical/intimate relationship with Him and He speaks to me in unauditable, but non-the-less, very direct and undeniable ways.
October 1st, 2008 at 1:45 pm
Rick, you and I are probably the only two people here who know who that is. I just checked on the web. I can’t believe he’s still alive.
October 1st, 2008 at 1:45 pm
Well, Paul was specifically speaking against Judaizers - Jewish Christians who wanted to make gentile Christians follow the Torah. His point wasn’t that the Torah was bad, but that it was obsolete. It had done what it was supposed to do, but it was not required any longer.
Back to the case in point - that’s something similar I hear people advocating spiritual disciplines saying. No one is saying they’re required or necessary to be a Christian, just that they’re helpful. It’s like keeping a specific diet before running a marathon - it’s not required, but it is helpful.
October 1st, 2008 at 2:03 pm
Phil, I would dare say that if anyone just set aside the TIME to get alone with the Lord with Scripture meditation and prayer they would obtain the same **results** as the hours spent learning and applying all these techniques.
October 1st, 2008 at 2:07 pm
That is basically my point.
October 1st, 2008 at 2:10 pm
That’s basically what the “techniques” are. I don’t even think people read the books they trash. Spiritual disciplines are pretty much about training yourself to set aside time and to be deliberate about following God.
October 1st, 2008 at 2:12 pm
“* I forgot to mention that those with the Holy Spirit have a divine connection with God that allows them to speak directly with him, thru Jesus, anytime they want. AND, God speaks back to them”
The blog administrator here calls those who claim the above mentioned fact, “modern gnostics”.
God speaks through His Word. Therefore nothing that is revealed to the believer exists outside of, or in contradiction to, the scriptures.
The main problem with those that church has called mystics is that they are truly gnostic. Anyone who claims knowledge separate from the scriptures is a gnostic. Any one who uses sources outside of scripture as their primary hermeneutic is a gnostic.
The mystics of church history are, in a word, unbiblical.
I find it interesting that Paul would begin a sentence with “this is a mystery…” and then promptly reveal the mystery in the very next sentence.
So much for mystique.
BTW i have found this blog to be more textbook in it’s approach than the dreaded odms.
The Bible teaches facts which are true, and therefore must be taught as factual Truth.
October 1st, 2008 at 3:06 pm
I have studied two of Foster’s books including “Disciplines” and found him heretical. The “bad” far outweighs any good IMO.
I have not studied Willard.
I have also studied Bro. Lawrence and found him to be innocuous. Further, his main thesis “practicing the presence of God” is a very useful concept. Interestingly, he does not really posit any overtly mystical techniques, just constant prayer, meditation on scripture and the consistence practice of recognizing the presence of God. Good stuff.
October 1st, 2008 at 3:20 pm
Well, I haven’t read Foster, but I have read books that are heavily based on his ideas. What ideas of his do you find heretical?
October 1st, 2008 at 3:25 pm
John,
Maybe, maybe not. Not everyone “ticks” the same way. I know some people who are very methodical and can sense God’s presence in powerful ways through counted prayers (rosaries, for example) or through journaling. Others I know are not like this at all and pray while driving or walking out in nature.
We are all mystics in the sense that we dare to utter about the un-utterable. Even reading scripture that we confess is “inspired” of God through the Holy Spirit is by definition very mystical. The question to ask is how grounded are our “mystical practices” in the person of Jesus Christ. When I meditate am I focused on myself or Christ? When I look at icons is that to make an icon an idol or is it to draw me into deeper communion with Christ? When I take Eucharist am I idolizing the bread and wine or am I acknowledging the fact that in this special moment Christ is present in some very real, very mystical way?
peace.
October 1st, 2008 at 3:34 pm
“Rosaries”
Oye Vey.
October 1st, 2008 at 3:35 pm
What is wrong with rosaries?
Have you ever prayed with one?
October 1st, 2008 at 3:43 pm
Here we go again…
Jesus: “And in praying use not vain repetitions, as the Gentiles do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.”
Did the apostles and early church advocate for rosaries? Is Mary an intecessor for us?
It is a method of prayer that is highly pagan in origin.
October 1st, 2008 at 3:46 pm
Chad there is no intrinsic power in the physical word (i.e., the ink on the paper). Rather the power is from the Holy Spirit’s energization of that word and one’s faith in the God behind them. (Ref. Acts 19:15 - “I recognize Jesus, and I know about Paul, but who are you?”).
Even when used as the “sword of God” it is our faith in the God behind the words that is effective, not an expression of an ex operato power from the words themselves.
Having said that I do however recognize that Christianity by definition has a mystical component and am not overly “anti-mystical” from the evangelical definition of the word.
October 1st, 2008 at 3:47 pm
This has nothing to do with praying a rosary. You could say the same thing about our praying the Lord’s Prayer every day. Is that vain repetition?
I dunno. Maybe, maybe not. The apostles also settled decisions by casting lots. Do you follow that?
I never mentioned Mary. Why are you?
So is baptism.
October 1st, 2008 at 3:48 pm
Cool
October 1st, 2008 at 3:56 pm
The key word there is “vain”, not “repetition”. Actually, in the NIV that phrase is translated “babbling”. So he’s probably talking about something along the lines of pagan chants. There are actually many examples of Jewish prayers that are numbered or stepped, and meant to be repeated at different times. It also was common for rabbis to give their students a prayer for them to repeat. The idea behind repetition isn’t to make something trite, but rather to teach the person praying something and instill the ideas in that person’s heart.
I’m not saying we all need to pray the rosary, but if someone finds it helpful, I don’t see that it’s forbidden anywhere.
October 1st, 2008 at 3:58 pm
well said, Phil.
October 1st, 2008 at 3:58 pm
Because Mary worship is the reason for the rosary - which wasn’t actually developed until the 11th or 12th century.
No doubt, the Rosary can be prayed with the best of human intentions, but this doesn’t change the truth that it is of pagan origin.
Also, as I asked, is Mary set up as any form of intercessor, or any of the saints for that matter?
I think you know very well that they did not.
October 1st, 2008 at 4:03 pm
Perhaps because it wasn’t in existence until 1000+ years after Jesus?
The rosary is “vain repitition” - the saying, over and over again, of the same prayers. Jesus couldn’t be clearer.
October 1st, 2008 at 4:04 pm
not necessarily, and certainly not in the context I am speaking of it here. The rosary is simply a way to center or focus oneself and to pray religiously. No more, no less. I don’t do it myself but have in the past and know that for some it is powerful for them in the same way journaling is for others (or any other practice).
No, actually I really don’t. I wasn’t there and don’t contend that the Bible is an exhaustive concordance of what has and has not happened in the past.
Do you cast lots to determine your next leader? This is something we know with certainty that they did and yet don’t you find it odd that we dismiss it?
October 1st, 2008 at 4:05 pm
Paul-
Did you read anything Phil wrote? Obviously it is not clear else there wouldn’t be a discussion.
If I pray the Lord’s Prayer several times a day am I guilty of “vain repetition”?
October 1st, 2008 at 4:10 pm
Paul-
I remember you being vehemently anti-Catholic in our past discussions. I’m not here to convince you that there were Christians before the 1500’s so I won’t waste my time and yours going down this rabbit trail, albeit an important discussion to be had but only when all parties haven’t already closed the door.
grace and peace.
October 1st, 2008 at 4:11 pm
“Hail Mary, full of Grace. . . Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death. Amen.”
Deut 18:10-12 - “There shall not be found among you anyone who makes his son or his daughter pass through the fire, one who uses divination, one who practices witchcraft, or one who interprets omens, or a sorcerer, or one who casts a spell, or a medium, or a spiritist, or one who calls up the dead. ” For whoever does these things is detestable to the LORD; and because of these detestable things the LORD your God will drive them out before you.”
Mary is dead, i.e., her soul and consciousness have left her mortal body and passed from the physical realm into the spiritual. God prohibits contact from the physical realm with the spiritual realm. It is detestable to Him. Therefore to call upon the dead is contrary to the clear prohibition of God.
Further, to call upon Mary to grant any favors or boon with Jesus Christ is to usurp the role and prerogative of the Holy Spirit. (It is also a direct affront to the office of the priesthood of Christ who intercedes to the Father directly for the believer as we have bold access to the throne of mercy and grace through Jesus). We need no intercessor other than the Holy Spirit to intercede on our behalf to Christ. It is an insult to the Spirit of Grace to think Christ’s sacrifice was not sufficient and that we need “outside” help when He has sent to us THE Helper.
October 1st, 2008 at 4:13 pm
I did. I disagree in that the focus is on simply “empty repitition”. And when Jesus outlined what we now call the “Lord’s Prayer” He wasn’t advocating that this be the prayer we all say everyday, word for word. He meant, in context, stop praying repititiously and for long periods thinking that your sacrifice will somehow be heard on high, but when you pray, say something simple to your Father, like this, “Our Father…”
The process of bead-praying is of the highest antiquity, and almost universally found among Pagan nations. The rosary wasn’t adopted by Catholics until the 12th century.
This seems to be a mistake that Peter made in his haste to fill Judas’ position.
October 1st, 2008 at 4:14 pm
Yes.
October 1st, 2008 at 4:16 pm
Though not directed to me the Rosary is a Marian veneration tool through and through as any article on the Rosary will fully attest.
October 1st, 2008 at 4:17 pm
Ahhh… a plain speaking man - how refreshing.
October 1st, 2008 at 4:18 pm
Amish cast lots to pick leaders. The gather the qualified men, and then cast lots to see who will be the man preaching/elder. Goats in the OT were chosen by lots.
October 1st, 2008 at 4:20 pm
Vain means without meaning. If you are mediating and thinking of what the word means when you say the Lord’s pray then it is not vain.
October 1st, 2008 at 4:21 pm
Chad **please**. That is a disingenuous statement. It is a direct plea for the intercession of Mary. It’s history is self-admittedly by the Catholic Church from the school of “Christ Through Mary” adherants of Roman Catholic theology.
October 1st, 2008 at 4:22 pm
Yes, this would be the thing that bothers me more than the repetition. I really don’t like the idea of praying to Mary. I know many Catholics will say they aren’t praying to her, and I have to take them at their word, I suppose. But it still seems unnecessary to me.
I think that’s a bit of a stretch from the plain meaning there. It seems pretty obvious that Jesus is giving a prayer to be repeated and learned, not just a model.
Also since the prayer is recorded both in Matthew and in Luke with some minor differences in it, it seems likely that Jesus gave the teaching more than once.
October 1st, 2008 at 4:23 pm
John,
Many people pray the rosary without the Mary veneration. If that offends you that is fine and I can see why it offends some.
However, many prayer a rosary (a beaded chain) as a way of counting prayers. They may do so while praying the Jesus Prayer, for instance, where one repeats “Have mercy on me Jesus, Son of God, a sinner.”
I am surprised that you feel praying the Lord’s prayer daily is “vain repetition.” It is disheartening to me to see people who detest Catholicism to such a degree go as far even to diminish the prayer our Lord taught us to pray specifically.
I disagree with Paul’s very subjective view of why Jesus taught that prayer. Talk about reading into the text our own presuppositions!
October 1st, 2008 at 4:27 pm
Perhaps rather than saying “rosary” and thus setting off the Catholic alarm I should have simply said “counted prayers.” My apologies for upsetting the righteous reformed lot
October 1st, 2008 at 4:28 pm
Pray then like this:
Like, it is a model of what pray is. And the rosary is idoltary no matter what you say you are using it for. I scarfice in Baal temple becasue it makes me fell religious. That is just garabage.
October 1st, 2008 at 4:30 pm
That’s what Jesus says - “like this”. It is not meant to be a repititious prayer which would dismantle his statement in the verse before it. My goodness - that much should be clear.
Prayer is communicating with your Father from your heart. I am no prayer warrior, believe me, but it is a matter of repeating phrases which was what Jesus was communicating. It’s not that difficult to grasp unless you come at it with preconceived notions.
October 1st, 2008 at 4:32 pm
Actually, Paul, it would only dismantle your intepretation of “vain repetition,” which Phil has already offered a more accurate reading of what that means.
exactly.
October 1st, 2008 at 4:35 pm
Paul brings up a good point. Just before Jesus instructs us not to pray with “vain repetitions” and then when asked how to pray what does he do? Does he say, “just pray from your heart whatever is on your mind”? No, he does not. Instead, he gives his followers a prayer - pray like this….
So whatever “vain repetition” means it most certainly does not mean simply repeating a standard, liturgical prayer or else Jesus is talking nonsense.
October 1st, 2008 at 4:38 pm
OK Chad - I guess you’re right on this one. Prayer beads are a-OK, the rosary might even get a pass except with the “righteous reformed lot”, as you say.
No real difference. As one writer says, “the Buddhists of the far East, the Brahmans of India, the Lamas of Tibet, the old pagans of Rome, all existing before the Roman Catholic Church came into existence, constantly used beads in reciting their many prayers.”
You miss the point that prayer, as I understand it (and I need a lot of growth here) is communicating with your Father… Would God be pleased with someone saying, over and over again, “Our Father”? Or is it more simple and true than that.
People get a lot out of praying the rosary (to Mary) but that doesn’t make it right or acceptable, does it?
You miss the point of what Jesus said in the verse before it (by the way, you accept Phil’s point simply because it agrees with your own stance - does that make it official?)
October 1st, 2008 at 4:38 pm
Actually, my preconceived notions of it were pretty much in line with what you say. I pretty much always viewed the prayer as a model or guideline, not something that Jesus was giving His disciples to use. But doing some more research into it has actually changed my mind.
I’m not saying you can’t use it as a model or that it’s mandatory to say the Lord’s prayer even. But I think it was meant as a tool for us to use. Jesus didn’t say, “this is an example of how you should pray”. He said, “this is how you should pray”. It makes perfect sense if you look at how rabbis typically taught their students during the time period.
October 1st, 2008 at 4:41 pm
So now we’re putting the only Son of God in the same bucket as the rabbis “during the time period” as some sort of litmus test of what he actually meant? Now that’s a stretch.
Agreed.
October 1st, 2008 at 4:47 pm
Paul-
Just because it is used by pagans does not mean it is beyond redemption.
Like I said before- baptism is from pagan origins.
And you miss my point if you think this is about subjective feelings. No doubt you “feel” very close to God when you read scripture, as you should. What gives us the right to be judgmental about the ways in which they pray? Do you pray kneeling or standing? Do you pray as the early Christians did standing with arms open before you and stretched out to heaven in a posture of reception? Do you pray with eyes closed or open? Bow your head? Count them?
You claim yourself that the Lord’s Prayer is not how we should pray but a mere model. Fine. I disagree but let me conceed that point for the moment. If this is the case than you would have to also admit that we are not given very much to go on in terms of how to pray exactly. We are given some sort of model or guidline and told to just go at it. Why do you think your model and approach is better or more righteous than the next? Isn’t that just like the Pharisee who prayed and said, “thank you God for not making me like that person”?
I would argue that a person who is in the daily practice of counting prayers is structuring their life in such a way that God is at the center in all that they do. I would further say that such a person is in far less danger of being “wrong” as the person who would suggest that Jesus didn’t really mean we had to pray the Lord’s prayer even when saying “pray like this.”
October 1st, 2008 at 4:52 pm
Well, Jesus lived, ate, drank, danced, etc. in the Jewish culture of the time. He communicated in a way that made sense to His audience.
So there are several roles that Jesus operated in while He was on earth. His ministry was similar to the other Jewish prophets in many respects, in the sense that his proclamations were followed with mighty acts of power. The way taught was similar to itinerant teachers, or rabbis, of the time. He did this, but as one who “had authority”. So even though He had similarities, the crowds recognized there was something unique about Him.
It’s not diminishing His stature at all to recognize these cultural clues in the text.
October 1st, 2008 at 4:58 pm
*Sigh* Chad, you come with the standard fare argument of self-righteousness every time someone disagrees with your point.
No where did I insinuate I was better than anyone. I was simply stating a fact that repeating “liturgical” prayers (as you put it) over and over, whether with beads or on a rosary, go precisely against what Christ was teaching. He came to break down the barriers between man and religion (part of it being excessive and empty ceremony) but it is in man’s nature to be religious while at the same time resisting God. The rosary, or prayer beads, which you are advocating for, fall into this bucket in my view.
Take my statements as you like.
Really? I wonder how many people really understood His messages. The fact He ended most sessions with “He who has ears to hear, let him hear.” Probably not so plain. The truth is He was unlike any rabbi of his time.
October 1st, 2008 at 5:07 pm
They understood to some extent. They understood He was pronouncing judgment on Israel, and that the way to escape from Roman rule was not through force. They understood enough to realize that He was disrespecting the symbols and foundations of Israel’s nationistic hopes.
The disciples did not understand that by going to Jerusalem that Jesus was planning to die, but they did understand that He was ushering in the Kingdom. They just didn’t understand what that all entailed.
I’m near the end of N.T. Wright’s Jesus and the Victory of God right now and it’s about this very thing. I can’t recommend that book highly enough. It’s really like reading the gospels for the first time again.
October 1st, 2008 at 5:16 pm
huh…who’d a thunk that my use of the Anglican rosary–the prayers of which are all Scripture verses for the most part–was ontologically evil and idolatrous?
I didn’t know that a physical object that helps me keep on track with a list of ordered prayers was so bad?
My utilizing scripture with beads to help me concentrate and stay on track makes Jesus an idol?
I think we need to be careful not to write off a “form” just because the “form” has been filled with some “bad content” by others…
It’s not good to condemn what you fully do not understand.
It’s not wise to start speaking when you don’t grasp the full range of realities in the history of certain practices.
and…
at the end of the day…
no one here can judge what is in my heart simply by virtue of the fact that I hold some beads in my hand.
Their just beads…sheeesh…not a syringe of heroine.
Yikes.
October 1st, 2008 at 5:17 pm
huh…
so set prayers, read with deliberateness, prayerfulness and sincerity of heart is inherently bad?
October 1st, 2008 at 5:30 pm
That thumping sound you hear is Chad’s forehead bashing repeatedly into his monitor
October 1st, 2008 at 5:33 pm
Now you know!
October 1st, 2008 at 6:10 pm
Not that I want to get back into the rosary thing, I would just note that the prayer shawls worn by Jesus (and other first century Jewish teachers) had various knots tied on them for mnemonic purposes, and were used as such during the daily prayers, the Shemoneh Esrei (which were also rote, not free-form)…
October 1st, 2008 at 6:18 pm
John,
“Rick, you and I are probably the only two people here who know who that [Ernest Angley] is. I just checked on the web. I can’t believe he’s still alive.”
Wrong. I know full well who he is. I have a cousin who went to him. He used to be on one of our local stations twice per day.
jerry
October 1st, 2008 at 6:41 pm
Ha! I think you wrote that at 5:30 pm, Corey. It is now 6:35…i’m just coming to
October 1st, 2008 at 7:43 pm
My wife, who is an ex-Roman Catholic, says she couldn’t possibly ever consider doing the rosary again. She definitely doesn’t see it in the positive light that some do here. But she also went to a lifeless dead parish until she met me….
She has some interesting insight but alas, I can’t get her to consider joining the blogosphere either! Best I can get is her looking over my shoulders sometimes.
October 1st, 2008 at 7:46 pm
Oh yeah, I knew Earnst was still alive and kicking……I give him this. The man lives very humbly compared to most that ones see on the tube.
October 1st, 2008 at 8:37 pm
I used to post on a forum that trashed Foster regularly. Every month I’d read his newsletter. Examine it for heresy, find none (can’t find what’s not there) and then post my lack of findings on their forum.
The facts didn’t seem to persuade those who were convinced he advocated astral projection because he wrote: “Imagine you are looking down on the eath…”
Arm-Chair Heresy Hunters too often find what they want…. whether it’s there or not.
October 1st, 2008 at 8:49 pm
I agree, Neil. I happen to like Foster. I know of Willard moreso, but he and Foster are good pals.
October 1st, 2008 at 8:56 pm
Here Ken shows his lack of discernment… or his ability to twist an argument.
True enough, someone IS advocating a false way who promotes an asceticism as “a” or worse “the” way to God. Yet this IS NOT what Foster does.
First off, Foster writes to Christians. He is assuming a relationship with the Father through Christ has already been established… so nothing he writes is based on another way of knowing the Father, he assumes people already know THE way. Christ alone. Silva either misses or ignores this fact.
Second, what Foster advocates in the disciplines are methods to help people foster a deeper sensitivity to spiritual things. Think of the thorns in the parable of the sower. Foster is advocating methods to help weed the garden. To help the believer in Christ minimize the daily rush of things that would compete for our attention.
It is as simple as that. Once again a method has been mistaken for a message.
October 1st, 2008 at 9:34 pm
John Calvin
October 1st, 2008 at 9:37 pm
Martin Luther
October 1st, 2008 at 9:38 pm
Ulrich Zwingli
October 2nd, 2008 at 12:47 am
Growing up Catholic…
I was taught in catechism that praying the Rosary, the Catholic one (nc lol), is a prayer to Mary, to pray for her help, guidance, and protection. There were other prayers to Jesus, other saints etc that we learned.
I am incredibly uncomfortable now, and would be totally uncomfortable praying the Rosary as I was taught in catechism.
My grandparents, who are devout Catholics, (and many other Catholics I know through them, at a pretty mainstream Catholic Church) pray the Rosary as penance, forgiveness of sins, based on the allowance of their priests. ie “Father (priest) I did such and such…” and he tells them “it’s okay, pray 5 hail mary’s and 6 Jesus prayers and all is well”. So used in that way, it’s even more uncomfortable to me.
Now, as for prayer beads, counted prayers, focusing prayers, yadda etc etc…That all seems very fine to me, helpful, and godly. But the Mary thing is not okay at all for me (praying to her, asking for help, for her prayers, etc). Not at all. Nor is prayer to any saint. Prayer to the dead is just freaky either way. No thank you. I don’t believe it’s godly. Take it for what you will. And since I’m not reformed, I think those quotations from Martin Luther and Calvin are WEIRD. “Mother of God” always gets me…
Anyways, just my 2 cents. Keep in mind, I share the chapel I go to and serve at with a Catholic Parish, so I know many fantastic Christians who are Catholic, but the Rosary (to Mary) is not a good practice at all, I feel.
Joe
October 2nd, 2008 at 5:53 am
Even though they claim otherwise, praying to and venerating Mary is to deify her. Some Catholic theologies refer to her as Co-Redemptrix as well, and the Roman Catholic Church teaches she was born without sin and when she died her body was taken to heaven.
Paul never refers to Mary, a curious omission if she holds such a high place in heaven. Roman Catholicism is a torured mix of Old Testament practices, superstition, man made doctrines, but worst of all a salvation by works that must be finally earned by a purification of your sins, not be Christ’s blood, but by your own personal works of suffering and punishment in purgetory.
Mary is only one example of an aberrant teaching. In my opinion it is a dangerous religion that has historically prostituted Christianity. God’s Spirit has successfully reached some withing the church to bring them to Christ, but millions are still bound within the bondage of its ceremonialism and works based salvation.
October 2nd, 2008 at 8:06 am
I’m shocked! Shocked I say!
October 2nd, 2008 at 8:09 am
Nothing wrong with admiring and honoring the memory of Mary and evening emulating her obedience and gody life. Totally different animal to call upon her for intersession, boons and benefits which are the sole purview of the Holy Spirit.
October 2nd, 2008 at 8:11 am
BTW - I’m neither Lutheran or reformed. Just say’n.
October 2nd, 2008 at 8:49 am
Martin Luther always retained some aberrant beliefs from his former church. Infant baptism, anti-semetic feelings, Mary, and many others. In the end, who cares what Luther thought. I only care what the Scriptures say and what I believe about them.
Life would be so much easier if every believer camo to his own views and did not need convincing from the hero of his choice.
October 2nd, 2008 at 8:56 am
Joe C-
Hey brother. I did not grow up Catholic and was taught at least implicitly that Catholics were evil and perhaps even the antichrist. I obviously do not feel that way anymore. What I find sort of ironic in my life today is how I am now one who defends Catholics! lol. God has a sense of humor!
I wonder why you find “Mother of God” so offensive. I can recall when I did as well but I found it offensive in large part because I did not understand what it means to call Mary the theotokos. In fact, I don’t think most Catholics fully understand the significance of this (which is no real surprise - most Protestants don’t understand their faith practices either).
One thing I love about being a Methodist is we are in a real sense mongrels. We have stolen the best pieces (IMO) from everyone. From the Catholics we have kept the mysticism and the theosis - along with a deep appreciation for sacraments. I am grateful for that.
grace and peace.
October 2nd, 2008 at 9:00 am
Rick -
Luther was wise in that he recognized you do not throw out the baby with the bathwater (even while there are infants in it!)
For us to each come to our own conclusions is individualism run amuk (sp?) I know we have had this discussion before. I maintain that it is a dangerous and very anti-biblical thing to simply depend on yourself for your spiritual revelation. We should not despise the shoulders of those we stand on. Rather, we should seek to hear what it is they have to say and appropriate their wisdom for our communal life in the present.
peace.
October 2nd, 2008 at 9:00 am
That’s exactly what I was thinking when I read those quotes, as though the words of these men somehow trump the apostles and Christ Himself. Praying to Mary is plain idolatry, just as praying to saints is. There is no room for debate on the issue as the Bible is clear.
Catholicism is not representative of Christ’s body.
October 2nd, 2008 at 9:03 am
But you are?
How can you say this, Paul, without blushing? Is the adulterous woman representative of Christ’s body? Is the woman at the well? Are you saying Christ had no representation for 1500 years before Luther?
I think Christ’s body is far bigger than you give her credit. I think it is highly arrogant and judgmental for anyone of us to declare who and what is or is not representative of Christ’s body.
October 2nd, 2008 at 9:07 am
Chad - here is a little quote from a greater thesis by your founder, John Wesley:
“Speaking of the Papacy, John Wesley wrote, “He is in an emphatical sense, the Man of Sin, as he increases all manner of sin above measure. And he is, too, properly styled the Son of Perdition, as he has caused the death of numberless multitudes, both of his opposers and followers… He it is…that exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped…claiming the highest power, and highest honour…claiming the prerogatives which belong to God alone.” — Antichrist and His Ten Kingdoms, by John Wesley, pg. 110.”
You guys are significantly different than what Wesley once taught.
October 2nd, 2008 at 9:31 am
And that is exactly why I put those quotes up they were men interpreting what they thought scripture said. It doesn’t diminish what they did through the reformation.
I believe all of those men were Christians who loved Jesus who had bad theology. Just like I believe there are Catholics who love Jesus who have bad theology. Just like I believe there are (insert your ‘flavor’ here)
As the Bible is also clear on…a thousand other things that have been debated for thousands of years.
The Bible’s also clear on senseless arguments but I don’t see any of us gearing up to follow that command anytime soon.
October 2nd, 2008 at 9:42 am
So now we’ve reduced idolatry to “bad theology”.
It is amazing how Paul notes Hymaneus and Philetus do err. Why? Because they had “bad theology”. Their “bad theology” will not only eat away at your soul as a cancer but actually overthrew the faith of some of the hearers.
It seems Paul was not as gracious as some of us here.
No I am not saying this. Their were always true believers in the midst of the scourge of the dark ages. In fact, Luther is held up as the poster boy of the reformation (perhaps rightfully, God knows) but there were always people, many who died for their faith, who would not bow the knee to Baal, so to speak.
Chad, again, you always run to the self-righteous argument. This is poor reasoning, causing you not to seriously consider the difference between truth and error. I am no better than anyone, and am nothing more than a sinner whom Christ found.
Your “everything goes” theology appears generous and grand, but is based in error.
October 2nd, 2008 at 10:15 am
No; we’ve taken bad theology and not elevated to a place of castigating an entire sect of Christianity as idolatrous.
As many here have said,I grew up in the Catholic church as well. After making a commitment to Christ I was so brazen to go back to my priest and announce he was heretical. Then in my best 19 year old, I’m smarter than you, I’m enlightened voice, I preached at him the “turn or burn” message I heard for the last two years. He laughed and then proceeded to walk me through the history of the Church, gave me some books to read, and sent me on my way. 16 years later, him and I still talk and I’ve yet to hear him venerate Mary in any of our prayer times. I’m no longer a member of the Catholic church but I strongly believe that it was the starting point of my faith.
“The more I learn the less I know”
October 2nd, 2008 at 10:28 am
chris - that is a very limited view of Roman Catholic history and theology. The views of individual priests vary widely, however the official doctrines of the church can be read in Vativan II as well as other official doctrinal papers.
The veneration of Mary is an official Cathonlic teacxhing. However, that is not the core of their heresy. Salvation by baptism, church membership, good works, and punichment in purgatory should settle that for any serious Bible student.
October 2nd, 2008 at 10:37 am
It just seems to me that Protestants have an easier time accepting the fact that a person can be a member of a Protestant church but not buy into everything the institution represents than they do with Catholics.
I don’t think many Catholics would affirm salvation by baptism, church membership, or good works, really. As far as purgatory goes, that doctrine actually has some historical basis. It was distorted and abused throughout the years, though.
October 2nd, 2008 at 10:38 am
This very day there are scores of people in Sprinfield rsuhint to see and pray to an image on a window some say looks like Mary (they call her the Virgin Mary). People interviewd say they get hope, and they say people want to be saved. The video report is on msn.com.
That is the superstition and idolatry that is encouraged by the RCC.
October 2nd, 2008 at 10:42 am
“It just seems to me that Protestants have an easier time accepting the fact that a person can be a member of a Protestant church but not buy into everything the institution represents than they do with Catholics.”
That is another issue about which I agree, however the issue about which we speak is what the RCC actually teaches. It cannot be Biblically defended.
October 2nd, 2008 at 10:43 am
Chris, I too grew up as a very, very lukewarm (OK, cold) Catholic. But I got through the paces like every other kid in the class - infant baptism of course, followed by confirmation and all that. Went to church a half dozen times through the teen years.
I don’t dispute there are many well-meaning, sincere, devout and more pious and charitable Catholics than myself and probably many of us.
Have you read what Christ says to the 7 churches of Asia Minor in Rev 2 & 3. Read it again. See if Christ’s theology matches up with our politically correct version today.
It is utter falsehood and to call it by any other name is completely anti-biblical.
Exactly right. They actually draw attention to these things (apparitions and the like as well).
Christ, the apostles and prophets are our foundation. Here’s a thought: the field (world) has been sown down with tares (resembling true wheat). Who is responsible for this?
October 2nd, 2008 at 10:44 am
Rick sorry I wasn’t able to lay out every nuance of my views on the Catholic Church.
October 2nd, 2008 at 10:49 am
Yeah and I currently attend the Church of Ephesus!
They are as Reformed as they come. Want to talk about faith by works and trying to earn salvation, my church has got in spades. But they’re not Catholic so we’re good. They still do infant baptism, catechism, and recite the creeds weekly.
I see very little difference between my church and the Catholic church I attended as a kid.
October 2nd, 2008 at 10:53 am
So switch churches.
October 2nd, 2008 at 10:54 am
I am not one who obsesses over every point of doctrine, or who openly expresses disdain for Catholics or their church. That is usually counter productive. However some doctrine does matter, but if God accepts Roman Catholic doctrine then the Bible is a nebulous story and all doctrine must be an over focus on constructed particulars and not the leading of the Spirit.
October 2nd, 2008 at 10:59 am
Well originally it was conceived as a place of purification, or cleansing, not punishment. There are many verses I could point to, but probably the most frequently used is this in 1 Corinthians 3:10-15.
So Paul is saying we will undergo some sort of judgment involving a “purging” of some sort. So it’s a matter of choosing to submit ourselves to the sancification process now or later.
October 2nd, 2008 at 11:01 am
Can’t God called me here. I’ll leave when he tells me. Oh great we’re back on mysticism again!
I’m not asking God to accept RC doctrine but I would suspect that God is capable of looking past flawed doctrine into the hearts of people.
October 2nd, 2008 at 11:04 am
Please, Phil, that verse does not deal with salvation. It confirms that Christ is the foundation and our works will be judged. The RCC teaching of purgatory deals with punishment for sins in order to be allowed into heaven, not rewards.
There are other verses that support that and none that support the Catholic invention.
October 2nd, 2008 at 11:05 am
By the way, Phil, they also teach that the prayers and monetary gifts of believers can shorten their time in purgatory. It is indefensible.
October 2nd, 2008 at 11:08 am
By believers I mean living believers getting their friends and relatives out of pergatory. My wife’s uncle was killed as he came to the rescue of a woman being mugged in NYC. After the funeral they received a call from the priest who informed them that the Bishop called him and told him that because he was a good Samaritan he went straight to heaven with no purgatory. It seems like a religious game.
October 2nd, 2008 at 11:13 am
As I stated earlier, the doctrine has led to a lot of abuse and has been mis-applied. I was simply stating that there was some historical basis for some concept of purgatory. It wasn’t something that was invented out of whole cloth.
I think it’s hard for us to imagine because so many of us in America have grown up with a Christianity that is essentially costless. We really don’t make any sacrifices to follow Christ, and we are told we don’t have to. So to speak of Christ purging us from stuff kind of grates against us.
October 2nd, 2008 at 11:16 am
“We really don’t make any sacrifices to follow Christ, and we are told we don’t have to. So to speak of Christ purging us from stuff kind of grates against us.”
I wholeheartedly agree. However the purging will be while we live, the afterlife burning is a metaphor concerning our careless lives and should exhort us to the sacrifice you referenced. It has nothing to do with entering heaven which is completely by faith in Christ.
October 2nd, 2008 at 12:26 pm
Hello All,
Funny how most of these squabbles between “evangelical?” Christians ends up being the fault of the Pope or Mary somewhere down the line.
If these statement in correct, I hope John Hughes, Rick Frueh, and Paul C never go to their family or fellow church members for intercessory prayer; instead of going straight to the Holy Spirit.
Rick, if you have any evidence to the contrary I would love to see it. Maybe we could all make a pilgrimage to her gravesite and pray the rosary together.
Again funny, as a card carrying member, I’ve always found Catholicism to be completely Christocentric, and clearly based on salvation by Grace.