I no longer post very often to this blog, (because I don't get any questions) but I do post regularly on my Contemplative blog. Please visit.
And, of course, I will be happy to try and answer here any question related to our faith. Send me an email.
Thursday, August 4, 2011
Sunday, July 10, 2011
Abortion and Withholding the Eucharist
In response to an online discussion I had with another Catholic about why I believe the Eucharist should be withheld from people – politicians or otherwise – who actively support abortion, I felt it important to write more than a paragraph or two. This subject is far too important to the souls of men and women – not to mention the more than 1,300,000 babies Americans kill each year in the womb.
The writer said, in effect, she did not believe withholding the Eucharist should be used as a weapon, to get people to obey Church teaching. And so, my response:
-------------
I understand the reluctance to engage in confrontation. Confrontation is often uncomfortable. But when it comes to protecting others from danger – in this case about abortion, the millions of Catholics who believe abortion is not a grave mortal sin – it is vitally necessary to confront others. Indeed, Jesus and the apostles, along with the Church, mandate excommunication for severe spiritual offenses. And for good reason, which I will illustrate below.
Excommunication (e.g. removing a person from participating in Christian rites and rituals, including the Sacraments) is designed to be both medicinal for the offender and protective for the Church. For example, we find in 1 Corinthians 5:1-7 that St. Paul orders the church to excommunicate the man who was sleeping with his father’s wife (1 Cor 5:1-7), telling them to “clean out” the leaven of wickedness. Leaven, as you know, spreads throughout the loaf (or in this case, the Church) and will wreck havoc among the faithful if the leaven is permitted to remain.
In this Corinthian case in particular, the excommunication proved medicinal for the church because, as we discover in 2 Corinthians, the excommunicated man repented of his sin and was then restored to full fellowship (2 Cor 2:1-11). It is quite probable that if the church had not sent the person away (thus avoiding the necessary confrontation), the man would have continued in his sin . . . and gone to hell.
Excommunication is also protective for the rest of the Church. If the Church permits sin to proceed unchallenged, then that unholy leaven will spread throughout the Body of Christ. And so St. Paul writes again to the Corinthians, “Do not be led astray: "Bad company corrupts good morals” (1 Cor 15:33). For the same protective reason he tells St. Timothy to remove Hymenaeus and Alexander from their fellowship because they were teaching heresy and hurting the faith of others in the Church (1 Timothy 1:20).
Excommunication is necessary also for Church discipline. The Lord Jesus tells us if a person refuses to obey Church teaching, he should be sent away from their communion: "If your brother sins . . . [and] he refuses to listen even to the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector” (Matthew 18:15-17).
There are many more New Testament examples that illustrate the importance of Church discipline, up to and including excommunication. But let’s look now at what the Church says about excommunication, and specifically related to those who promote abortion.
From the Catechism of the Catholic Church: (underlined texts are my emphasis)
2271 Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law . . . Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes.
2272 Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life. "A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae [my note: defined as a sentence already passed simply because of the act itself] “by the very commission of the offense . . .. The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy. Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society.
As for Canon Law, we find here: (I have lifted the following from http://www.catholicplanet.com/articles/article78.htm )
Canon 1398: “A person who procures a completed abortion incurs a latae sententiae excommunication.”
Canon 751: “Heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.”
-----------
St. Paul wrote to the Christians at Rome who, though they professed the faith, practiced sin and were not subsequently disciplined by the Church. He called them a scandal to the Body of Christ because their sins gave non-believers reason to mock and blaspheme God and His Church (Romans 2:17-24). He accused them of having a ‘form’ of godliness, the trappings of religion and the professions of faith – but they had denied that faith by their actions (see 2 Timothy 3:5 and Titus 1:16).
It is true, most of us do not like confrontation. But when it comes to the truths of our faith and the eternal salvation or damnation of souls, confrontation is an absolutely essential part of our call as witnesses for Christ and His Church. We are, as it were, Watchmen and women standing on the walls, charged with warning others of danger (see Ezekiel 33:1-9).
May God help us to faithfully do so.
You can find more information at the following websites, or do an internet search for keywords of excommunication, catholic:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_excommunicated_by_the_Roman_Catholic_Church#21st_century
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2007/0711fea4.asp
The writer said, in effect, she did not believe withholding the Eucharist should be used as a weapon, to get people to obey Church teaching. And so, my response:
-------------
I understand the reluctance to engage in confrontation. Confrontation is often uncomfortable. But when it comes to protecting others from danger – in this case about abortion, the millions of Catholics who believe abortion is not a grave mortal sin – it is vitally necessary to confront others. Indeed, Jesus and the apostles, along with the Church, mandate excommunication for severe spiritual offenses. And for good reason, which I will illustrate below.
Excommunication (e.g. removing a person from participating in Christian rites and rituals, including the Sacraments) is designed to be both medicinal for the offender and protective for the Church. For example, we find in 1 Corinthians 5:1-7 that St. Paul orders the church to excommunicate the man who was sleeping with his father’s wife (1 Cor 5:1-7), telling them to “clean out” the leaven of wickedness. Leaven, as you know, spreads throughout the loaf (or in this case, the Church) and will wreck havoc among the faithful if the leaven is permitted to remain.
In this Corinthian case in particular, the excommunication proved medicinal for the church because, as we discover in 2 Corinthians, the excommunicated man repented of his sin and was then restored to full fellowship (2 Cor 2:1-11). It is quite probable that if the church had not sent the person away (thus avoiding the necessary confrontation), the man would have continued in his sin . . . and gone to hell.
Excommunication is also protective for the rest of the Church. If the Church permits sin to proceed unchallenged, then that unholy leaven will spread throughout the Body of Christ. And so St. Paul writes again to the Corinthians, “Do not be led astray: "Bad company corrupts good morals” (1 Cor 15:33). For the same protective reason he tells St. Timothy to remove Hymenaeus and Alexander from their fellowship because they were teaching heresy and hurting the faith of others in the Church (1 Timothy 1:20).
Excommunication is necessary also for Church discipline. The Lord Jesus tells us if a person refuses to obey Church teaching, he should be sent away from their communion: "If your brother sins . . . [and] he refuses to listen even to the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector” (Matthew 18:15-17).
There are many more New Testament examples that illustrate the importance of Church discipline, up to and including excommunication. But let’s look now at what the Church says about excommunication, and specifically related to those who promote abortion.
From the Catechism of the Catholic Church: (underlined texts are my emphasis)
2271 Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law . . . Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes.
2272 Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life. "A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae [my note: defined as a sentence already passed simply because of the act itself] “by the very commission of the offense . . .. The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy. Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society.
As for Canon Law, we find here: (I have lifted the following from http://www.catholicplanet.com/articles/article78.htm )
Canon 1398: “A person who procures a completed abortion incurs a latae sententiae excommunication.”
Canon 751: “Heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.”
Canon 1364 §1: “an apostate from the faith, a heretic, or a schismatic incurs a latae sententiae excommunication.”
Heresy is the obstinate denial of any truth of the Catholic faith, on a matter of faith or morals, which has been definitively taught by the Magisterium. The Magisterium has repeatedly and definitively taught that abortion is always gravely immoral. (CCC 2270 to 2275)
Those Catholics who promote abortion are automatically excommunicated for two reasons. First, they have fallen into the sin of heresy by believing that abortion is not always gravely immoral (canons 751 and 1364). Second, these Catholics are providing substantial assistance for women to obtain abortions by influencing public policy to make abortions legal, and to keep abortions legal, and to broaden access to abortion. Those who provide such substantial assistance commit a mortal sin and incur a sentence of automatic excommunication (canon 1398).
(At this point I end the citation from that aforementioned website)Heresy is the obstinate denial of any truth of the Catholic faith, on a matter of faith or morals, which has been definitively taught by the Magisterium. The Magisterium has repeatedly and definitively taught that abortion is always gravely immoral. (CCC 2270 to 2275)
Those Catholics who promote abortion are automatically excommunicated for two reasons. First, they have fallen into the sin of heresy by believing that abortion is not always gravely immoral (canons 751 and 1364). Second, these Catholics are providing substantial assistance for women to obtain abortions by influencing public policy to make abortions legal, and to keep abortions legal, and to broaden access to abortion. Those who provide such substantial assistance commit a mortal sin and incur a sentence of automatic excommunication (canon 1398).
-----------
St. Paul wrote to the Christians at Rome who, though they professed the faith, practiced sin and were not subsequently disciplined by the Church. He called them a scandal to the Body of Christ because their sins gave non-believers reason to mock and blaspheme God and His Church (Romans 2:17-24). He accused them of having a ‘form’ of godliness, the trappings of religion and the professions of faith – but they had denied that faith by their actions (see 2 Timothy 3:5 and Titus 1:16).
It is true, most of us do not like confrontation. But when it comes to the truths of our faith and the eternal salvation or damnation of souls, confrontation is an absolutely essential part of our call as witnesses for Christ and His Church. We are, as it were, Watchmen and women standing on the walls, charged with warning others of danger (see Ezekiel 33:1-9).
May God help us to faithfully do so.
You can find more information at the following websites, or do an internet search for keywords of excommunication, catholic:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_excommunicated_by_the_Roman_Catholic_Church#21st_century
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2007/0711fea4.asp
Friday, May 6, 2011
Sunday, April 24, 2011
Will Jews get another chance to know Jesus?
Anonymous asked: Does Ezekiel 37:1-14 mean all Jews will all get another chance to know Jesus as Messiah even if they rejected Him? Or is it talking about before David reunited Judah and Israel?
----------------
Hello, Anonymous. Your timeline is a bit off. David reigned several generations before Ezekiel wrote his prophecy. But, as for the Dry Bones prophecy, first let me give you some background:
David's grandson (Rehoboam) rejected the counsel of his elders and opted to do as his friends suggested regarding treatment of the people (see here for the Scripture text). As a result, civil war ensued and Israel was divided into two kingdoms -- North (called Israel) and South (called Judah).
Ezekiel's prophecy had a partial fulfillment after the Assyrian and then Babylonian captivities when (under the Persian king Cyrus) many of the captive Jews returned to Jerusalem to rebuild the Temple (you can read about it in the books of Ezra and Nehemiah). The nation was pretty much united under Ezra and Nehemiah -- albeit, with persistent pockets of rebellion into the period of the Maccabees, during which some Jews within the 'united' nation of Israel capitulated to the Greeks and fell again into idolatry. You can read about that in 1&2 Maccabees (Maccabees is found in the Catholic Bible). But the complete fulfillment of Ezekiel's prophecy will occur in the 'End Days' -- the time in which Jesus returns to earth (a time, by the way, which I believe is rapidly approaching). You can read an example of Scripture that speaks of the Second Advent here.
So, to answer your question about the "Dry Bones", the prophecy refers primarily to the time when the "Time of the Gentiles" is over (for example, see Romans 11:25-29), and God begins to deal more specifically with the Jewish nation (e.g. modern Israel). For a more full description of how God will again deal with the Jewish nation, see Romans 9-11, especially chapter 11.
I think what happened (admittedly, I could be wrong) when Israel rejected their Messiah in the first century, God sent His message of redemption to the Gentiles, primarily to move Israel to jealousy (and then to salvation). For example, see Romans 10:19 (quoting Deuteronomy 32:21); and Romans 11:11-21. But the time will come (in the "Last Days") when God no longer works primarily with the Gentiles, and will shift His attention to Israel (Romans 11:25-32, for example).
Some believe the "Time of the Gentiles" will end with the Rapture of the Church -- a time in which all Christians will be removed from the planet (not all Christians agree with this theology. See this Wikipedia article). At that time, God will shift His attention to the Jewish nation once again.
Whether the Rapture is a viable theology or not, St. Paul makes it clear (see the Romans passages above), as do many of the OT prophets and John's Revelation, God is not yet done with the Jews. He will again deal with them as a nation.
I hope that helps answer your question.
----------------
Hello, Anonymous. Your timeline is a bit off. David reigned several generations before Ezekiel wrote his prophecy. But, as for the Dry Bones prophecy, first let me give you some background:
David's grandson (Rehoboam) rejected the counsel of his elders and opted to do as his friends suggested regarding treatment of the people (see here for the Scripture text). As a result, civil war ensued and Israel was divided into two kingdoms -- North (called Israel) and South (called Judah).
Ezekiel's prophecy had a partial fulfillment after the Assyrian and then Babylonian captivities when (under the Persian king Cyrus) many of the captive Jews returned to Jerusalem to rebuild the Temple (you can read about it in the books of Ezra and Nehemiah). The nation was pretty much united under Ezra and Nehemiah -- albeit, with persistent pockets of rebellion into the period of the Maccabees, during which some Jews within the 'united' nation of Israel capitulated to the Greeks and fell again into idolatry. You can read about that in 1&2 Maccabees (Maccabees is found in the Catholic Bible). But the complete fulfillment of Ezekiel's prophecy will occur in the 'End Days' -- the time in which Jesus returns to earth (a time, by the way, which I believe is rapidly approaching). You can read an example of Scripture that speaks of the Second Advent here.
So, to answer your question about the "Dry Bones", the prophecy refers primarily to the time when the "Time of the Gentiles" is over (for example, see Romans 11:25-29), and God begins to deal more specifically with the Jewish nation (e.g. modern Israel). For a more full description of how God will again deal with the Jewish nation, see Romans 9-11, especially chapter 11.
I think what happened (admittedly, I could be wrong) when Israel rejected their Messiah in the first century, God sent His message of redemption to the Gentiles, primarily to move Israel to jealousy (and then to salvation). For example, see Romans 10:19 (quoting Deuteronomy 32:21); and Romans 11:11-21. But the time will come (in the "Last Days") when God no longer works primarily with the Gentiles, and will shift His attention to Israel (Romans 11:25-32, for example).
Some believe the "Time of the Gentiles" will end with the Rapture of the Church -- a time in which all Christians will be removed from the planet (not all Christians agree with this theology. See this Wikipedia article). At that time, God will shift His attention to the Jewish nation once again.
Whether the Rapture is a viable theology or not, St. Paul makes it clear (see the Romans passages above), as do many of the OT prophets and John's Revelation, God is not yet done with the Jews. He will again deal with them as a nation.
I hope that helps answer your question.
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
OT Sacrifices, Solomon's Sacrifice, How OT people were saved
Anonymous asked three questions:
1. Regarding OT sacrifices: what was their purpose, really?
-----------
The OT sacrifices served several purposes. For ease of reading and organization, I did a quick Google search for "Old Testament sacrificial system" and found a number of links. Many are cumbersome. Try these for a brief overview of the sacrificial system:
http://www.facingthechallenge.org/otsacrifice.php
http://www.gotquestions.org/difference-old-new-testaments.html
http://home.earthlink.net/~lionlamb/SacrificialSystem.html
http://www.healing2thenations.net/papers/sacrifices.htm
We also find in the Book of Hebrews the comparison between the Old Covenant sacrificial system and the New (Jesus being the sacrificial Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world). See especially chapters 8-10.
2. And why did Solomon sacrifice 22,000 oxen and 120,000 sheep at the dedication of the temple (see
1 Kings 8:62-65)?
Solomon offered the oxen and sheep as an act of worship, devotion, self-consecration and thanksgiving. Such sacrifices were commonplace during the Old Testament period. For example, see this chart found at http://home.earthlink.net/~lionlamb/SacrificialSystem.html
3. How will people from the OT get to heaven, since they did not have Christ?
People in the Old Testament were saved in the same way people in the Christian era are saved: By grace through faith (see Ephesians 2:8-10). In the Old Testament, faith was placed in God and manifested through their sacrificial system and good works to prove their faith. The prophets talked about this kind of 'proof' of faith throughout their writings. As for the NT, according to the progressive revelation revealed by the NT writers, we are saved today by grace through faith, with the focus of our faith being Jesus the Christ, who is the Lamb of God (see, for example, Isaiah 53). Baptism and Circumcision are intimately related to these OT and NT salvation concepts, but I won't address that topic here. Furthermore, the NT writers also make it clear that the 'proof' of our faith in Christ is our works (e.g. Matthew 25:31-46; James 2:14-26.
I found this link that might also help answer your question: http://www.gotquestions.org/before-Jesus.html
Hope this helps. Sorry for the delay. Busy with Holy Week and work.
rich
1. Regarding OT sacrifices: what was their purpose, really?
-----------
The OT sacrifices served several purposes. For ease of reading and organization, I did a quick Google search for "Old Testament sacrificial system" and found a number of links. Many are cumbersome. Try these for a brief overview of the sacrificial system:
http://www.facingthechallenge.org/otsacrifice.php
http://www.gotquestions.org/difference-old-new-testaments.html
http://home.earthlink.net/~lionlamb/SacrificialSystem.html
http://www.healing2thenations.net/papers/sacrifices.htm
We also find in the Book of Hebrews the comparison between the Old Covenant sacrificial system and the New (Jesus being the sacrificial Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world). See especially chapters 8-10.
2. And why did Solomon sacrifice 22,000 oxen and 120,000 sheep at the dedication of the temple (see
1 Kings 8:62-65)?
Solomon offered the oxen and sheep as an act of worship, devotion, self-consecration and thanksgiving. Such sacrifices were commonplace during the Old Testament period. For example, see this chart found at http://home.earthlink.net/~lionlamb/SacrificialSystem.html
3. How will people from the OT get to heaven, since they did not have Christ?
People in the Old Testament were saved in the same way people in the Christian era are saved: By grace through faith (see Ephesians 2:8-10). In the Old Testament, faith was placed in God and manifested through their sacrificial system and good works to prove their faith. The prophets talked about this kind of 'proof' of faith throughout their writings. As for the NT, according to the progressive revelation revealed by the NT writers, we are saved today by grace through faith, with the focus of our faith being Jesus the Christ, who is the Lamb of God (see, for example, Isaiah 53). Baptism and Circumcision are intimately related to these OT and NT salvation concepts, but I won't address that topic here. Furthermore, the NT writers also make it clear that the 'proof' of our faith in Christ is our works (e.g. Matthew 25:31-46; James 2:14-26.
I found this link that might also help answer your question: http://www.gotquestions.org/before-Jesus.html
Hope this helps. Sorry for the delay. Busy with Holy Week and work.
rich
Thursday, April 14, 2011
Does God Work 'Quid Pro Quo'?
Jessica asked: Do you think God gives us blessings as a direct result of our obedience? If so, will He take those blessings away if I am disobedient?
---------------
You ask an important question . . . one that is fraught with peril because it is easy for us to develop a distorted view of God if we come up with the wrong answer.
Yes, many Scriptures tell us God blesses those who are obedient and disciplines those who are not. However, it has been my experience that His blessings are not often according to my expectations. In other words, just because God didn’t answer my prayers does not necessarily mean God is angry with me or I did something wrong. And just because something bad has happened to me does not necessarily mean God is angry with me or I did something wrong.
I have learned that to associate what we consider ‘blessings of God” according to a quid pro quo formula (e.g. God will do this, if I do that) can be very toxic to our faith.
Besides, life (and Scripture) suggests God sometimes answers prayers and blesses people even when they are not obedient. For example, "God causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous" (Matthew 5:45).
Why does He do that? Because God is good. Because He is not willing that any should perish, but desires that all will come to repentance. And because His acts of goodness are intended to draw people to repentance (see 2 Peter 3:9 and Romans 2:4).
Why does He do that? Because God is good. Because He is not willing that any should perish, but desires that all will come to repentance. And because His acts of goodness are intended to draw people to repentance (see 2 Peter 3:9 and Romans 2:4).
As for me, though, I try to obey God – not because He will bless me if I obey, or whip me if I do not -- but because I love Him and I don't want to hurt Him. I am trying to learn that the bottom line – for me, anyway -- must be, “God is love” and that He does nothing for me (or to me) that is not good for me.
Perhaps one day also I will be able to internalize the attitude of St. Therese of Lisieux (I think I have quoted her before):
"Everything is a grace, everything is the direct effect of our father's love — difficulties, contradictions, humiliations, all the soul's miseries, her burdens, her needs — everything, because through them, she learns humility, realizes her weakness — Everything is a grace because everything is God's gift. Whatever be the character of life or its unexpected events — to the heart that loves, all is well."
But let me reiterate, because it is so important to ‘get this’ -- Quid pro quo by God is I think a common, but dangerous belief because such thinking commonly leads to a distorted picture of God. Focus on "God is love" (1 John 4:8). It will change the way you think about prayer, about holiness, about sin, repentance, your relationship with Him and His relationship with you.
rich
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
Did Jesus Question His Mission?
Anonymous asks: I have heard at one time Jesus questioned His mission. Is that correct?
Hello, Anonymous. Some people, I am sure, believe that. Frankly, I do not know where in the Bible they come up with that idea.
At the age of 12, Jesus knew He needed to be about His Father's business. In John 12 Jesus makes it very clear He knew exactly what His mission was (click here, see especially verse 27). And in the Garden at Gethsemane, Jesus knew His mission so well, He asked the Father if there might not be another way (click here).
The Lord knew the prophecies regarding His death and the purpose of His death (for example, see here, here, and here).
So, again, I do not understand why anyone comes up with those kinds of ideas. They certainly don't get it from the Scriptures. Nor do they get it from Church teaching, for example, see the Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraphs 612 through 617.
Hope this helps.
rich
Hello, Anonymous. Some people, I am sure, believe that. Frankly, I do not know where in the Bible they come up with that idea.
At the age of 12, Jesus knew He needed to be about His Father's business. In John 12 Jesus makes it very clear He knew exactly what His mission was (click here, see especially verse 27). And in the Garden at Gethsemane, Jesus knew His mission so well, He asked the Father if there might not be another way (click here).
The Lord knew the prophecies regarding His death and the purpose of His death (for example, see here, here, and here).
So, again, I do not understand why anyone comes up with those kinds of ideas. They certainly don't get it from the Scriptures. Nor do they get it from Church teaching, for example, see the Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraphs 612 through 617.
Hope this helps.
rich
Sunday, March 27, 2011
Didn't John the Baptist Know Jesus?
Anonymous asked: When John the Baptist meets Jesus to baptize him, Jn 1:29, he states and it certainly sounds like he does not know him. But they were related, were they not? John's mother, Elizabeth, is one of the first to acknowledge Mary as "the mother of my Lord", Luke 1:36,43. It seems like Mary and Elizabeth would have seen each other later with their boys. And wouldn't Elizabeth have told her son, John, about his relative, Jesus, and the circumstances of his birth?
-----------
I believe John knew his cousin, Jesus. But I don't think it surprising that John didn't recognize the office Jesus was about to enter into. And even though Elizabeth and Mary surely conversed often about the circumstances of both pregnancies, and most likely talked about the angelic visitations and such in front of the children, it appears even Jesus' kinfolk didn't know who Jesus was in His role as the eternal Son of God, Messiah, Redeemer, Lamb of God. For example, see John 7:1-10 , Mark 3:20-21, and Mark 6:1-6, especially verse 4.
Furthermore, Scripture says fairly often that Jesus' words were 'hidden' from even His disciples (for example, see the Emmaus Road event in Luke 24:13-31; Luke 9:44-46; Luke 18:31-34.
And so, for these reasons it does not surprise me His mission was also hidden from people -- even His family -- until the time set by the Father.
Good question. Hope my answer helps.
rich
-----------
I believe John knew his cousin, Jesus. But I don't think it surprising that John didn't recognize the office Jesus was about to enter into. And even though Elizabeth and Mary surely conversed often about the circumstances of both pregnancies, and most likely talked about the angelic visitations and such in front of the children, it appears even Jesus' kinfolk didn't know who Jesus was in His role as the eternal Son of God, Messiah, Redeemer, Lamb of God. For example, see John 7:1-10 , Mark 3:20-21, and Mark 6:1-6, especially verse 4.
Furthermore, Scripture says fairly often that Jesus' words were 'hidden' from even His disciples (for example, see the Emmaus Road event in Luke 24:13-31; Luke 9:44-46; Luke 18:31-34.
And so, for these reasons it does not surprise me His mission was also hidden from people -- even His family -- until the time set by the Father.
Good question. Hope my answer helps.
rich
Saturday, March 26, 2011
The Holy Spirit manifestations, and Prophecy
Jeff asked a couple of more questions in his earlier post:
Something I have always wondered- how did Holy Spirit manifest Himself in OT? I know there are places where it says, "the spirit of the Lord came upon him", as for Samson, and even for David where "the spirit of the Lord was with him". In this passage, the Holy Spirit left Saul, implying He was with him all the time until that point?
------------
Typically, the Holy Spirit manifested Himself through prophecy (either a word of knowledge, or a 'forthtelling [see next question]), or in displays of strength through an individual (as in the case of Samson). For example, see: Genesis 41; Exodus 31; Numbers 24 (Note, Balaam was not an Israelite, AND turned out to be an enemy of Israel. Nonetheless, God's Spirit had him prophesy); 1 Samuel 10; 2 Chronicles 24. There are other examples, but I think these will make the point. Actually, the Holy Spirit's role in the Old Testament is no different than His role in the New. For example, Acts 2; Acts 4; Acts 10; Romans 8; 1 Corinthians 12 and 14.
3. What does it mean when the Bible talks about people prophesying?
As we see in the Scripture examples in the last question, Biblical prophecy takes two primary forms -- foretelling (e.g. telling what will happen in the future), and forthtelling (e.g. making proclamations about God, holiness, sin, etc.). Technically, when a pastor gives a homily under the anointing of the Holy Spirit, he is 'forthtelling.' St. Peter, when he made his proclamation to the crowd in Jerusalem (Acts 2) was 'forthtelling.' St. John, in his Revelation, was 'foretelling.'
Hope that helps. Thanks for asking.
rich
Something I have always wondered- how did Holy Spirit manifest Himself in OT? I know there are places where it says, "the spirit of the Lord came upon him", as for Samson, and even for David where "the spirit of the Lord was with him". In this passage, the Holy Spirit left Saul, implying He was with him all the time until that point?
------------
Typically, the Holy Spirit manifested Himself through prophecy (either a word of knowledge, or a 'forthtelling [see next question]), or in displays of strength through an individual (as in the case of Samson). For example, see: Genesis 41; Exodus 31; Numbers 24 (Note, Balaam was not an Israelite, AND turned out to be an enemy of Israel. Nonetheless, God's Spirit had him prophesy); 1 Samuel 10; 2 Chronicles 24. There are other examples, but I think these will make the point. Actually, the Holy Spirit's role in the Old Testament is no different than His role in the New. For example, Acts 2; Acts 4; Acts 10; Romans 8; 1 Corinthians 12 and 14.
3. What does it mean when the Bible talks about people prophesying?
As we see in the Scripture examples in the last question, Biblical prophecy takes two primary forms -- foretelling (e.g. telling what will happen in the future), and forthtelling (e.g. making proclamations about God, holiness, sin, etc.). Technically, when a pastor gives a homily under the anointing of the Holy Spirit, he is 'forthtelling.' St. Peter, when he made his proclamation to the crowd in Jerusalem (Acts 2) was 'forthtelling.' St. John, in his Revelation, was 'foretelling.'
Hope that helps. Thanks for asking.
rich
Friday, March 25, 2011
Evil Spirit from the Lord
Jeff asked: What is the "evil spirit from the Lord" that tormented Saul so many times? 1 Sam 16:14ff "Now the Spirit of the Lord had departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the Lord tormented him...when the evil spirit from God comes upon you". How can there be anything evil from God? It specifically says multiple times, "an evil spirit from the Lord", "an evil spirit from God came forcefully upon Saul" 18:10.
Let's look at a couple of other passages, and then I will answer your question:
1 Kings 22:1-23 (especially verses 19-23)
I invite you to now refer to the words about Pharaoh in Exodus 3:19 in which God tells Moses He knows the King of Egypt will not let the people go "except under compulsion." And so we then find that God "hardens"Pharaoh's heart in subsequent chapters (e.g. 4:21; 7:3 and elsewhere).
So, what these passages teach me is that while God is a God of love, mercy and patience, His patience has its limits. No wonder the writer to Hebrews reminds us (quoting from Psalm 95:7-11) in Hebrews 3:7-11 -- 'Don't mess with God.' (my words, of course).
Or Elijah challenges the people to "Choose God or another god" (1 Kings 18:21). Or Joshua commanded: "Choose whom you will serve" (Joshua 24:15).
The same message is repeated often in both old and new testaments -- God is not mocked. And therein lies the warning for us. Though He loves us, died for us, pleads for us to return to Him, there comes a point when we harden ourselves to the point that our conscience is 'seared over" like with a branding iron (1 Timothy 4:1-2), and then God permits an evil spirit (I believe a demon spirit. Demons are simply fallen angels. Scripture calls them also 'spirits') -- God permits an evil spirit to torment us.
I also believe the hoped-for result is that the person recognizes he is headed the wrong way and repents. For example, see St. Paul's comment in 1 Corinthians 5:1-5, especially verse 5.
Now turn to 2 Corinthians 2:3-11, where Paul refers to the incident in 1 Corinthians 5.
And so, Saul had rejected God repeatedly. And so God sent an evil spirit to torment him. For what point? To repent, I believe. Likewise, God sent the evil spirit into the mouths of the false prophets who sat in Ahab's court. Ahab was a terribly wicked king who oft refused to repent and was responsible for the deaths of many of God's servants. For what purpose? To repent (why else would Micaiah have told Ahab what God had done, but to get the king to fall on his knees and repent?)
The situation in Job is a little different because God uses Satan to prove for all humanity to read that it is possible for a man or woman to dig in their heels and, regardless of how much hell the devil throws at us, we can still stand for God. His famous words -- "Though He slay me, yet will I trust in Him" (Job 13:15) has been the rallying cry of untold thousands of martyrs through the centuries.
God will use evil to accomplish good.
The passages in Proverbs is like the other ones I cited, for they remind us, there comes a time for each person that God says, "Enough!" And then disaster starts to fall.
Is that person still able to repent and return to the Father? Of course. The only time that becomes impossible is when the person is dead. Then there is no further recourse or hope.
But, the point is, God doesn't want anyone to get that far. Note His words in Ezekiel 18:31-32 and 33:11, and Wisdom 1:13.
Whew. Lots of scripture. I hope I was clear enough in answering your question. If not, what may I clarify?
rich
Let's look at a couple of other passages, and then I will answer your question:
1 Kings 22:1-23 (especially verses 19-23)
And in addition:
Proverbs 1:24-32I invite you to now refer to the words about Pharaoh in Exodus 3:19 in which God tells Moses He knows the King of Egypt will not let the people go "except under compulsion." And so we then find that God "hardens"Pharaoh's heart in subsequent chapters (e.g. 4:21; 7:3 and elsewhere).
So, what these passages teach me is that while God is a God of love, mercy and patience, His patience has its limits. No wonder the writer to Hebrews reminds us (quoting from Psalm 95:7-11) in Hebrews 3:7-11 -- 'Don't mess with God.' (my words, of course).
Or Elijah challenges the people to "Choose God or another god" (1 Kings 18:21). Or Joshua commanded: "Choose whom you will serve" (Joshua 24:15).
The same message is repeated often in both old and new testaments -- God is not mocked. And therein lies the warning for us. Though He loves us, died for us, pleads for us to return to Him, there comes a point when we harden ourselves to the point that our conscience is 'seared over" like with a branding iron (1 Timothy 4:1-2), and then God permits an evil spirit (I believe a demon spirit. Demons are simply fallen angels. Scripture calls them also 'spirits') -- God permits an evil spirit to torment us.
I also believe the hoped-for result is that the person recognizes he is headed the wrong way and repents. For example, see St. Paul's comment in 1 Corinthians 5:1-5, especially verse 5.
Now turn to 2 Corinthians 2:3-11, where Paul refers to the incident in 1 Corinthians 5.
And so, Saul had rejected God repeatedly. And so God sent an evil spirit to torment him. For what point? To repent, I believe. Likewise, God sent the evil spirit into the mouths of the false prophets who sat in Ahab's court. Ahab was a terribly wicked king who oft refused to repent and was responsible for the deaths of many of God's servants. For what purpose? To repent (why else would Micaiah have told Ahab what God had done, but to get the king to fall on his knees and repent?)
The situation in Job is a little different because God uses Satan to prove for all humanity to read that it is possible for a man or woman to dig in their heels and, regardless of how much hell the devil throws at us, we can still stand for God. His famous words -- "Though He slay me, yet will I trust in Him" (Job 13:15) has been the rallying cry of untold thousands of martyrs through the centuries.
God will use evil to accomplish good.
The passages in Proverbs is like the other ones I cited, for they remind us, there comes a time for each person that God says, "Enough!" And then disaster starts to fall.
Is that person still able to repent and return to the Father? Of course. The only time that becomes impossible is when the person is dead. Then there is no further recourse or hope.
But, the point is, God doesn't want anyone to get that far. Note His words in Ezekiel 18:31-32 and 33:11, and Wisdom 1:13.
Whew. Lots of scripture. I hope I was clear enough in answering your question. If not, what may I clarify?
rich
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
Did Mary have other children besides Jesus?
Linda from Washington asked: Did Mary have other children besides Jesus?
-----------
Thanks for the question, Linda. The Catholic Church (and the Orthodox Church) teaches that Mary remained a virgin after the birth of Jesus, but the Bible speaks of Jesus' brothers and sisters. What's up?
I could answer in a paragraph or two, but you probably want a more in depth answer. I did some internet research and found this article (click HERE) which goes into quite a bit of detail about the answer.
Many of the Biblical passages I would have cited in my abbreviated response are included in the linked article.There are other examples in Scripture, too. But the article covers the subject quite nicely.
I hope this helps.
rich
-----------
Thanks for the question, Linda. The Catholic Church (and the Orthodox Church) teaches that Mary remained a virgin after the birth of Jesus, but the Bible speaks of Jesus' brothers and sisters. What's up?
I could answer in a paragraph or two, but you probably want a more in depth answer. I did some internet research and found this article (click HERE) which goes into quite a bit of detail about the answer.
Many of the Biblical passages I would have cited in my abbreviated response are included in the linked article.There are other examples in Scripture, too. But the article covers the subject quite nicely.
I hope this helps.
rich
Monday, March 21, 2011
The Assumption of Mary
Jim from Washington asked: On what does the Catholic Church base its belief in the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary, since there is nothing in the Scriptures (that I could find) to support this miracle?
Jim is essentially correct. There is nothing in Scripture that says Mary was taken up into heaven -- although that in and of itself is not evidence that the whole thing was made up. As you can read in this link, there is plenty of historical data about, for example, the apostles, that appears in secular records, but not in Scripture. Which really should not surprise anyone. The New Testament was not intended to be an exhaustive account of the early Church -- which is why St. John said what he did in John 21:25, and why St. Luke spent only 28 relatively short chapters to detail the events that transpired during the several decades of the early Church's growth and missionary journeys.
Certainly there are examples in Scripture that can be likened to the assumption of Mary. Enoch "walked with God, and he was not, for God took him" (Genesis 5:24). Elijah was "taken up" to heaven in the fiery chariot (2 Kings 2:11). And there are numerous NT (and OT) passages that many Christians (Evangelicals, especially) believe prove the "Rapture" of the Church -- the glorious hope that takes place during the Second Advent when both the dead in Christ and those who "remain alive" will be "caught up" to heaven to be forever with the Lord (See for example 1 Thessalonians 4:13-17; 1 Corinthians 15:50-58).
So, if Enoch, Elijah, and all Christians alive at the Second Advent (assuming the Rapture is a viable doctrine) -- then why not the holy mother of our Lord? Considering that God chose -- of all people in Israel -- that young virgin to mother His only begotten Son, I can't imagine why God would not take her bodily to heaven.
And thus, because of the Scriptural precedence, and because the Church was authorized to promulgate Biblical and theological truth (e.g. Matthew 16:18-19, 1 Tim 3:15), I have no problem accepting Mary's assumption as true.
Jim is essentially correct. There is nothing in Scripture that says Mary was taken up into heaven -- although that in and of itself is not evidence that the whole thing was made up. As you can read in this link, there is plenty of historical data about, for example, the apostles, that appears in secular records, but not in Scripture. Which really should not surprise anyone. The New Testament was not intended to be an exhaustive account of the early Church -- which is why St. John said what he did in John 21:25, and why St. Luke spent only 28 relatively short chapters to detail the events that transpired during the several decades of the early Church's growth and missionary journeys.
Certainly there are examples in Scripture that can be likened to the assumption of Mary. Enoch "walked with God, and he was not, for God took him" (Genesis 5:24). Elijah was "taken up" to heaven in the fiery chariot (2 Kings 2:11). And there are numerous NT (and OT) passages that many Christians (Evangelicals, especially) believe prove the "Rapture" of the Church -- the glorious hope that takes place during the Second Advent when both the dead in Christ and those who "remain alive" will be "caught up" to heaven to be forever with the Lord (See for example 1 Thessalonians 4:13-17; 1 Corinthians 15:50-58).
So, if Enoch, Elijah, and all Christians alive at the Second Advent (assuming the Rapture is a viable doctrine) -- then why not the holy mother of our Lord? Considering that God chose -- of all people in Israel -- that young virgin to mother His only begotten Son, I can't imagine why God would not take her bodily to heaven.
And thus, because of the Scriptural precedence, and because the Church was authorized to promulgate Biblical and theological truth (e.g. Matthew 16:18-19, 1 Tim 3:15), I have no problem accepting Mary's assumption as true.
Sunday, March 20, 2011
Catholic Priests and Celibacy
Anonymous asked: Why is it that Catholic priests are required to be celibate, when priests in the OT were not?
Unfortunately, I am not as knowledgeable in Catholic tradition as I am in understanding Scripture, so I can give you an answer, but would be either wrong, or incomplete. I have, however, run a quick internet search (key phrase: why are Catholic priests not allowed to marry?), and found a few sites that might answer your question. I include them below.
A more fundamental point, I think, should be made regarding your question. You cite correctly that Old Testament (Old Covenant) priests were married, and then you ask why New Testament era (New Convenant) priests are not. I think there is some danger in trying to make one-to-one theological correlations between the two covenants.
The Holy Spirit stated in Jeremiah 31:31-34 that a day would come when God would make a new covenant (testament) between Himself and Israel. The New Testament writers made the point over and over that with Jesus, God was instituting that promised new covenant.
For example, when you have time, read the first 10 chapters of Hebrews in one sitting (to get a good handle on the context of the book). In it, the writer refers often to Jesus as "better" than Moses, the new covenant better than the old. He even makes the case that the Old Covenant religious and ritualistic rules are no longer operable under the new covenant (see Hebrews 7:11-28, with verse 12 specifically).
The Lord Jesus makes a specific comment, about the New Covenant (for example, Luke 22:20) and St. Paul in 2 Corinthians 3:6. And then, of course, is the scene in Acts 10 in which God orders St. Peter to break the Old Covenant dietary laws from Deuteronomy and Leviticus and eat 'unclean' animals (Acts 10:9-17).
There are many other examples in the New Testament writings illustrating the New Covenant has replaced the Old, which is why I thought to caution you about comparing the two and trying to equalize them.
Thanks for asking the question.
rich
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0121.html
http://www.davidmacd.com/catholic/why_priests_cant_marry.htm
http://theblackcordelias.wordpress.com/2008/05/20/why-cant-catholic-priests-get-married/
Unfortunately, I am not as knowledgeable in Catholic tradition as I am in understanding Scripture, so I can give you an answer, but would be either wrong, or incomplete. I have, however, run a quick internet search (key phrase: why are Catholic priests not allowed to marry?), and found a few sites that might answer your question. I include them below.
A more fundamental point, I think, should be made regarding your question. You cite correctly that Old Testament (Old Covenant) priests were married, and then you ask why New Testament era (New Convenant) priests are not. I think there is some danger in trying to make one-to-one theological correlations between the two covenants.
The Holy Spirit stated in Jeremiah 31:31-34 that a day would come when God would make a new covenant (testament) between Himself and Israel. The New Testament writers made the point over and over that with Jesus, God was instituting that promised new covenant.
For example, when you have time, read the first 10 chapters of Hebrews in one sitting (to get a good handle on the context of the book). In it, the writer refers often to Jesus as "better" than Moses, the new covenant better than the old. He even makes the case that the Old Covenant religious and ritualistic rules are no longer operable under the new covenant (see Hebrews 7:11-28, with verse 12 specifically).
The Lord Jesus makes a specific comment, about the New Covenant (for example, Luke 22:20) and St. Paul in 2 Corinthians 3:6. And then, of course, is the scene in Acts 10 in which God orders St. Peter to break the Old Covenant dietary laws from Deuteronomy and Leviticus and eat 'unclean' animals (Acts 10:9-17).
There are many other examples in the New Testament writings illustrating the New Covenant has replaced the Old, which is why I thought to caution you about comparing the two and trying to equalize them.
Thanks for asking the question.
rich
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0121.html
http://www.davidmacd.com/catholic/why_priests_cant_marry.htm
http://theblackcordelias.wordpress.com/2008/05/20/why-cant-catholic-priests-get-married/
Genesis 1 and Creation Days
Paul from Canada asked: How do we know the account of creation in Genesis is not to be taken literally? Didn't the early church take it literally?
First, let me say I am not very knowledgeable about Church history. Whatever I do know is based on limited research -- limited in the sense of how much there actually is to know about our 2,000 years history, and what I felt I needed to know before I made the decision that Jesus was leading me into the Catholic Church.
My expertise is in knowledge of Scripture.
Second, let me also preface my comment about creation and Genesis by saying I accept all of Scripture as literal -- unless the facts of the immediate context, studies in light of related passages, and fundamental truths taught in the entire Bible and interpreted by the Church indicate the passage in question should not be taken literally.
So, back to the question about how do we know the account of creation in Genesis is – or is not – to be taken literally. Didn’t the early church take it literally?
I have included several websites (see below) I found in my quick perusal of the internet to research your question. I searched key phrases: “Genesis 1 Old Earth” “Genesis 1 Young Earth” Genesis 1 Early Church Fathers” Genesis 1 Ancient Rabbis.” The sites explore both sides of the issue. You might find them of interest, but I will not address their arguments here because that was not your question.
By the way, I also included a site for a Catholic Papal encyclical of Pope Pius XII who wrote, in 1950, that Catholics are not required to believe one side of the Old Earth/Young Earth debate. In other words, Catholics are free to believe what they feel is truth based on a variety of factors. (See http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius12/P12HUMAN.HTM -- especially paragraphs 35 and following).
Okay, so some of the reasons I believe in the literalness of Genesis one are these:
St. Paul, in his defense before Felix (Acts 26) said to the Jews in the courtroom, “Why is it considered incredible among you if God does raise the dead?” (verse 8).
And so I asked myself many years ago, “Why is it so incredible to me if God created the heavens and the earth in six days?” After all, God is – well, God. He can do anything He wants, in however long a time He wants to take. He could have done it all in six nanoseconds, had He chosen to do so.
His work of creation is called a ‘miracle’ because He took nothing and made something from it. Miracles, by their very definition, suspend the natural order of physics, gravity, biology, etc., created by God. Thus, it was possible for Jesus to walk on water. It was possible for Him to appear out of what seemed ‘thin air’ to His disciples in the upper room. God’s miracles made it possible for Mary to conceive without human agency, for Elijah to be swept away into heaven by fiery chariots, for iron axe head to float (2 Kings 6:6), for 5,000 to be fed with only a few fish and some bread. And on and on.
Most important, of course, God’s prerogative to suspend His laws, natural and otherwise, resulted in the miracle of Christ’s resurrection, after Jesus had been dead three days.
And so, with regard to some of the scientific arguments that dismiss Genesis 1 as either myth or allegory, I thought (for example), why is it not possible for the light of distant stars to suddenly appear in the Creation sky, when we know light travels at 186,000 miles/second and it would (normally) take millions of years for the light of some of those stars to reach earth? The sudden appearance of starlight would easily fall under the category of a miracle – a temporary suspension of the laws of physics.
I had other thoughts – more theological, actually – about Genesis 1. St. Paul makes the case several times about our sin nature derived from ‘one man.’ And he often compares Adam to Jesus. See Romans 5:12-19 and 1 Corinthians 15:45-49, for example. If Adam were not a real, historical person, Paul’s argument falls apart. Further, Jesus’ genealogy in Luke traces back to Adam (to prove all of humanity – Jew and non-Jew – are saved by the blood of Christ). If Adam was not a real person, then we would only have Matthew’s genealogy, from which argument might be made only Jews are saved by Christ.
If Adam were not a real, historical person, then what did St. Paul mean when he made his comments to the Athenians (Acts 17:26):[A]nd he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth . . . ? Or what did he mean when he wrote to Timothy, “For it was Adam who first was created, and then Eve” if Adam (and Eve) were not individual, historical people? (1 Timothy 2:12-15).
And then I thought, if Genesis 1 is allegorical (as some have said to me), then what criteria do we use to decide when anything in Scripture is allegorical or historical?
Again, I thought, science cannot answer everything because miracles do not play by scientific rules. That’s why, again, we call them miracles when God suspends what science can see, hear, feel, touch, taste and extrapolate.
I don’t want to beat the proverbial dead horse, but I have heard pastors and I have read commentaries that scoff at the idea of miracles, saying they are simply allegories of greater truths. So the Red Sea didn’t really part, manna didn’t fall each day from heaven to feed the Israelites, and Christ actually got the food to feed the 5,000 from the people sitting on the grass, who were keeping their food for themselves and didn’t want to share until Jesus encouraged them to do so.
Some have even questioned the resurrection of Jesus.
And so, I reject attempts to take what is so often the plain sense of Scripture, and spiritualize it to mean something else. Which leads me to make this comment now:
I am grateful to God that He led me into the safety of the Catholic Church. It is safe here because God Himself gave the mandate to the Church to be the final arbiter of truth regarding Biblical morals and doctrine. When I face a question about what any particular scripture means, I might have what I consider a great idea. But I have been known -- many times I have been known -- to be wrong. The Church is not. And so I can safely defer to its authority.
As I said earlier, in cases such as this (Genesis 1) since the Church does not take an official position, Catholics are free to decide what they will believe -- so long as that belief does not contradict Church teaching elsewhere.
I don’t know if this answers your question, Paul. If not, I hope it at least gives you some food for thought.
Thanks for taking the time to ask.
rich
Young earth http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v6/n1/yec-view-summary
Old earth: http://www.paulcopan.com/articles/pdf/revised-genesis-science.pdf
Other sites: http://creation.com/review-doctrines-of-genesis-1-11-warkulwiz
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v26/i2/tradition.asp
First, let me say I am not very knowledgeable about Church history. Whatever I do know is based on limited research -- limited in the sense of how much there actually is to know about our 2,000 years history, and what I felt I needed to know before I made the decision that Jesus was leading me into the Catholic Church.
My expertise is in knowledge of Scripture.
Second, let me also preface my comment about creation and Genesis by saying I accept all of Scripture as literal -- unless the facts of the immediate context, studies in light of related passages, and fundamental truths taught in the entire Bible and interpreted by the Church indicate the passage in question should not be taken literally.
So, back to the question about how do we know the account of creation in Genesis is – or is not – to be taken literally. Didn’t the early church take it literally?
I have included several websites (see below) I found in my quick perusal of the internet to research your question. I searched key phrases: “Genesis 1 Old Earth” “Genesis 1 Young Earth” Genesis 1 Early Church Fathers” Genesis 1 Ancient Rabbis.” The sites explore both sides of the issue. You might find them of interest, but I will not address their arguments here because that was not your question.
By the way, I also included a site for a Catholic Papal encyclical of Pope Pius XII who wrote, in 1950, that Catholics are not required to believe one side of the Old Earth/Young Earth debate. In other words, Catholics are free to believe what they feel is truth based on a variety of factors. (See http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius12/P12HUMAN.HTM -- especially paragraphs 35 and following).
Okay, so some of the reasons I believe in the literalness of Genesis one are these:
St. Paul, in his defense before Felix (Acts 26) said to the Jews in the courtroom, “Why is it considered incredible among you if God does raise the dead?” (verse 8).
And so I asked myself many years ago, “Why is it so incredible to me if God created the heavens and the earth in six days?” After all, God is – well, God. He can do anything He wants, in however long a time He wants to take. He could have done it all in six nanoseconds, had He chosen to do so.
His work of creation is called a ‘miracle’ because He took nothing and made something from it. Miracles, by their very definition, suspend the natural order of physics, gravity, biology, etc., created by God. Thus, it was possible for Jesus to walk on water. It was possible for Him to appear out of what seemed ‘thin air’ to His disciples in the upper room. God’s miracles made it possible for Mary to conceive without human agency, for Elijah to be swept away into heaven by fiery chariots, for iron axe head to float (2 Kings 6:6), for 5,000 to be fed with only a few fish and some bread. And on and on.
Most important, of course, God’s prerogative to suspend His laws, natural and otherwise, resulted in the miracle of Christ’s resurrection, after Jesus had been dead three days.
And so, with regard to some of the scientific arguments that dismiss Genesis 1 as either myth or allegory, I thought (for example), why is it not possible for the light of distant stars to suddenly appear in the Creation sky, when we know light travels at 186,000 miles/second and it would (normally) take millions of years for the light of some of those stars to reach earth? The sudden appearance of starlight would easily fall under the category of a miracle – a temporary suspension of the laws of physics.
I had other thoughts – more theological, actually – about Genesis 1. St. Paul makes the case several times about our sin nature derived from ‘one man.’ And he often compares Adam to Jesus. See Romans 5:12-19 and 1 Corinthians 15:45-49, for example. If Adam were not a real, historical person, Paul’s argument falls apart. Further, Jesus’ genealogy in Luke traces back to Adam (to prove all of humanity – Jew and non-Jew – are saved by the blood of Christ). If Adam was not a real person, then we would only have Matthew’s genealogy, from which argument might be made only Jews are saved by Christ.
If Adam were not a real, historical person, then what did St. Paul mean when he made his comments to the Athenians (Acts 17:26):[A]nd he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth . . . ? Or what did he mean when he wrote to Timothy, “For it was Adam who first was created, and then Eve” if Adam (and Eve) were not individual, historical people? (1 Timothy 2:12-15).
And then I thought, if Genesis 1 is allegorical (as some have said to me), then what criteria do we use to decide when anything in Scripture is allegorical or historical?
Again, I thought, science cannot answer everything because miracles do not play by scientific rules. That’s why, again, we call them miracles when God suspends what science can see, hear, feel, touch, taste and extrapolate.
I don’t want to beat the proverbial dead horse, but I have heard pastors and I have read commentaries that scoff at the idea of miracles, saying they are simply allegories of greater truths. So the Red Sea didn’t really part, manna didn’t fall each day from heaven to feed the Israelites, and Christ actually got the food to feed the 5,000 from the people sitting on the grass, who were keeping their food for themselves and didn’t want to share until Jesus encouraged them to do so.
Some have even questioned the resurrection of Jesus.
And so, I reject attempts to take what is so often the plain sense of Scripture, and spiritualize it to mean something else. Which leads me to make this comment now:
I am grateful to God that He led me into the safety of the Catholic Church. It is safe here because God Himself gave the mandate to the Church to be the final arbiter of truth regarding Biblical morals and doctrine. When I face a question about what any particular scripture means, I might have what I consider a great idea. But I have been known -- many times I have been known -- to be wrong. The Church is not. And so I can safely defer to its authority.
As I said earlier, in cases such as this (Genesis 1) since the Church does not take an official position, Catholics are free to decide what they will believe -- so long as that belief does not contradict Church teaching elsewhere.
I don’t know if this answers your question, Paul. If not, I hope it at least gives you some food for thought.
Thanks for taking the time to ask.
rich
Young earth http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v6/n1/yec-view-summary
Old earth: http://www.paulcopan.com/articles/pdf/revised-genesis-science.pdf
Other sites: http://creation.com/review-doctrines-of-genesis-1-11-warkulwiz
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v26/i2/tradition.asp
Friday, March 18, 2011
Why this blog
Over the years I have spoken to many people who have questions about the Bible. I certainly don't know all the answers, but I've studied the Scriptures for nearly 40 years, and so I have probably asked questions similar to the ones you might have . . . and for the most part, I have found answers that satisfy me.
They might also satisfy you.
So, here is your opportunity to ask away. As busy as I am, I might not be able to respond very quickly to your questions, so please be patient. I will answer everyone.
Here's how to work this:
In the COMMENTS section below type the question you would like me to answer. Depending on how many questions come across in the comments section, I will answer them as quickly as I can in their own separate blog post. You can comment anonymously, or with your name. Your choice.
Or, email me at richmaffeo@yahoo.com and I will post your question on this site. Let me know in the email if you want to be anonymous on this site.
Again, please be patient with me. I am quite busy with a multiple set of proverbial irons in the fire.
So, ask away.
They might also satisfy you.
So, here is your opportunity to ask away. As busy as I am, I might not be able to respond very quickly to your questions, so please be patient. I will answer everyone.
Here's how to work this:
In the COMMENTS section below type the question you would like me to answer. Depending on how many questions come across in the comments section, I will answer them as quickly as I can in their own separate blog post. You can comment anonymously, or with your name. Your choice.
Or, email me at richmaffeo@yahoo.com and I will post your question on this site. Let me know in the email if you want to be anonymous on this site.
Again, please be patient with me. I am quite busy with a multiple set of proverbial irons in the fire.
So, ask away.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)