The Episcopal Church in the USA has chosen Nevada Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori as its leader.
The new Presiding Bishop-elect, Ms Shiori, in her homily at the Convention's concluding Eucharist, referred to Jesus as mother. Her exact words were: "Our mother Jesus gives birth to a new creation".
Needless to say, such language defies traditional Christian formulations. But that is what liberals do. And, if you call them on it, they respond by saying, "of course, I was speaking metaphorically and not concretely".
Trouble is, they view all the language of the Bible as symbolic or metaphorical; none of it has actual substance. So they feel free to embellish and improvise.
When God is referred to as Father, their response is, "he is not of course really our Father, that's just language used to convey something about God". But God really was Jesus' Father, and we really have been regenerated by his Spirit, and we really have been incorporated into Christ. So, if God is Christ's Father, he is our Father also -- which is precisely what Jesus said the morning of his resurrection (which they also would deny, or, at least, not take literally).
Words matter. And that is why conservatives fight for the inspiration of the Bible, declaring that its inspiration extends to the actual words used, and not merely to the thoughts expressed.
Jesus is declared to be the Word of God, not the Thought of God or the Mind of God.
He is declared the Son of God, and our Saviour, but not our Mother.
Even so, her theology is bad. It is not Jesus who gives birth to a new creation. It is the Holy Spirit. He is the One who washes and regenerates us.
Still, the holy Spirit is not our mother, either!
If anyone or anything is to be viewed as our mother, it would be the church, the instrument created by God as the vehicle and vessel for salvation, via the preaching of the saving message of Christ and the prescribed sacraments of baptism and holy communion.
I realize that Anglicans value unity above all else. But, for me, I think the sooner that faithful Anglicans break all ties with the unfaithful and apostate leadership, the better for all.
Jesus said, "let the blind lead the blind; follow Me!"
And that's the way the Ball bounces
Monday, June 26, 2006
Sunday, June 25, 2006
Apostolic Succession
Apostolic Succession is the doctrine that God has passed early apostolic authority from the original Apostles through the office of bishop in an unbroken chain of continued authority.
Under this view, there are twin authorities in the Church; the Bible, and the office of bishop.
So, when a bishop speaks, the Church should listen.
But what about when a bishop speaks in contradiction to the Bible, which the faithful continue to believe as the revealed word and will of God, while modernists view as an entirely "negotiable" collection of human writings which may or may not be inspired?
Insofar as the overseers of the early Church were men "filled with the Holy Ghost", and insofar as most present day bishops in the Episcopal Church are not, the present leadership of the Episcopal Church are imposters, and, I suspect, many know it in their hearts.
In one sense they are to be pitied. They are, like many of us, weak, relying on their own strength and resources, rather than on Him who is the Source of all life and spiritual authority, and without whom we can do nothing. What an awful thing to be elevated to an office where one is supposed to be filled with the Holy Spirit, and, instead, you are filled with all kinds of liberal nonsenses, with doubt and unbelief.
The fact is, most of these people are bishops -- divinely appointed and equipped overseers -- in name only.
The true office of bishop is functional, and not merely symbolic. In other words, one functions as an overseer of the Church of God -- but in a humble, not an "enthroned" way. This office is occupied today by many in various denominations, many if not most of whom do not actually bear the title "bishop". And who cannot claim the pedigree of apostolic succession.
As for the legitimacy of the doctrine of apostolic succession, the present crop of leaders in the Episcopal Church are all you need to know that this doctrine, which is not found in the Bible, is seriously flawed. The evidence clearly indicates that our God overlooks and overrules this conventional doctine in favour of men who know his heart, know his mind, submit to his righteousness, and obey Him.
Most of whom are found outside of the decrepit and decaying walls of the corrupt Episcopal Church.
Under this view, there are twin authorities in the Church; the Bible, and the office of bishop.
So, when a bishop speaks, the Church should listen.
But what about when a bishop speaks in contradiction to the Bible, which the faithful continue to believe as the revealed word and will of God, while modernists view as an entirely "negotiable" collection of human writings which may or may not be inspired?
Insofar as the overseers of the early Church were men "filled with the Holy Ghost", and insofar as most present day bishops in the Episcopal Church are not, the present leadership of the Episcopal Church are imposters, and, I suspect, many know it in their hearts.
In one sense they are to be pitied. They are, like many of us, weak, relying on their own strength and resources, rather than on Him who is the Source of all life and spiritual authority, and without whom we can do nothing. What an awful thing to be elevated to an office where one is supposed to be filled with the Holy Spirit, and, instead, you are filled with all kinds of liberal nonsenses, with doubt and unbelief.
The fact is, most of these people are bishops -- divinely appointed and equipped overseers -- in name only.
The true office of bishop is functional, and not merely symbolic. In other words, one functions as an overseer of the Church of God -- but in a humble, not an "enthroned" way. This office is occupied today by many in various denominations, many if not most of whom do not actually bear the title "bishop". And who cannot claim the pedigree of apostolic succession.
As for the legitimacy of the doctrine of apostolic succession, the present crop of leaders in the Episcopal Church are all you need to know that this doctrine, which is not found in the Bible, is seriously flawed. The evidence clearly indicates that our God overlooks and overrules this conventional doctine in favour of men who know his heart, know his mind, submit to his righteousness, and obey Him.
Most of whom are found outside of the decrepit and decaying walls of the corrupt Episcopal Church.
Tuesday, June 20, 2006
Father or Mother?
The Presbyterian Church in the USA has developed a proposal for coming up with substitute language for the traditional "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit". So, here we have a Church that is ashamed of its Father and its Saviour. As for the Holy Spirit, I can only assume they are offended by his name because He is holy.
"Father, Son and Holy Spirit" will now be known as "Mother, Child and Womb" or "Rock, Redeemer, Friend" at some Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) services.
What idiocy. If God cannot even manage to reveal Himself in terms that He chooses, then what kind of God is He and why would we want to serve let alone worship Him?
The fact is, He has revealed Himself to us as Father, not least because He is the Father of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ; Son, because the Son is an exact replica of the Father, not a compementary image, and because Jesus Christ in his incarnation was in fact a male person; and Holy Spirit because holiness describes the essence of perfections.
The apostle John says that if we walk in the light, our fellowship is with the Father and the Son.
God is not ashamed to call me his son; I am not ashamed to call Him Father.
"Father, Son and Holy Spirit" will now be known as "Mother, Child and Womb" or "Rock, Redeemer, Friend" at some Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) services.
What idiocy. If God cannot even manage to reveal Himself in terms that He chooses, then what kind of God is He and why would we want to serve let alone worship Him?
The fact is, He has revealed Himself to us as Father, not least because He is the Father of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ; Son, because the Son is an exact replica of the Father, not a compementary image, and because Jesus Christ in his incarnation was in fact a male person; and Holy Spirit because holiness describes the essence of perfections.
The apostle John says that if we walk in the light, our fellowship is with the Father and the Son.
God is not ashamed to call me his son; I am not ashamed to call Him Father.
Jesus: A way, or THE way?
The Episcopals are having at it down in the USA. A motion was presented to affirm the Church's belief that Jesus is exclusively the way, the truth and the life.
It got shot down. Too controversial.
This is a Church that finds the exclusive claims of Christ offensive. It finds the Old Testament moral law offensive. It finds God's demand for holiness -- "without which no man shall see the Lord" -- offensive. It finds the idea that Scripture is authoratative, the Word of God written, offensive.
Themselves -- they do not find offensive. They like the positions of power they hold. They like the authority of their office.
God's a bowling ball
Unrighteous leaders are the pins
I hear him rolling down the lane -- I wonder who's gonna win?
Still they stand their ground, they don't hear the sound
But his Word is rolling, rolling, rolling, it's gonna knock 'em down
It's time to repent; get out of the way; get down on your knees and pray; let Jesus have his way
©rkb excerpted from "Prayin' Man"
I predict, at the end of the day, Jesus will be the last man standing.
King of kings and Lord of Lords!
It got shot down. Too controversial.
This is a Church that finds the exclusive claims of Christ offensive. It finds the Old Testament moral law offensive. It finds God's demand for holiness -- "without which no man shall see the Lord" -- offensive. It finds the idea that Scripture is authoratative, the Word of God written, offensive.
Themselves -- they do not find offensive. They like the positions of power they hold. They like the authority of their office.
God's a bowling ball
Unrighteous leaders are the pins
I hear him rolling down the lane -- I wonder who's gonna win?
Still they stand their ground, they don't hear the sound
But his Word is rolling, rolling, rolling, it's gonna knock 'em down
It's time to repent; get out of the way; get down on your knees and pray; let Jesus have his way
©rkb excerpted from "Prayin' Man"
I predict, at the end of the day, Jesus will be the last man standing.
King of kings and Lord of Lords!
Saturday, June 10, 2006
Caledonia update
Finally, the Ontario Provincial Police have arrested three persons and plan to arrest seven more -- after an OPP officer was hurt and a U.S. Border Patrol car swarmed in the latest acts of lawless intimidation and violence by native Indian protestors.
Assaults by Indians have been ongoing for some time now, under the watchful eye of the non-intervening OPP. Presumably the Ontario authorities thought it was OK for Indian protestors to assault ordinary Canadian citizens, but not an OPP officer and an American border patrol car.
(U.S. Border Patrol members were visiting the area to observe how provincial police were handling the standoff. Presumably they were there to find out "what not to do".)
What an amazing display of the suspension of the rule of law in Canada -- we are just a few fragile steps away from anarchy and open defiance of the law by more than just the privileged few.
There ought to be one law for all Canadians applied to all equally.
Assaults by Indians have been ongoing for some time now, under the watchful eye of the non-intervening OPP. Presumably the Ontario authorities thought it was OK for Indian protestors to assault ordinary Canadian citizens, but not an OPP officer and an American border patrol car.
(U.S. Border Patrol members were visiting the area to observe how provincial police were handling the standoff. Presumably they were there to find out "what not to do".)
What an amazing display of the suspension of the rule of law in Canada -- we are just a few fragile steps away from anarchy and open defiance of the law by more than just the privileged few.
There ought to be one law for all Canadians applied to all equally.
Thursday, June 08, 2006
Stop the jihad!
I was reading today about the 72 virgins that Islamic blowhards (and I mean this term literally) are counting on.
Turns out that the number 72 is not in the Koran -- that's a later embellishment. So, the number you get may be less.
Even more disturbing, a Muslim scholar suggests that the Arabic passage in question could just as well be translated white grapes or raisins!
Now, that would be a problem!
It's gotta be hard to keep the motivation level up when the reward is a six-pack of Sunkists.
Turns out that the number 72 is not in the Koran -- that's a later embellishment. So, the number you get may be less.
Even more disturbing, a Muslim scholar suggests that the Arabic passage in question could just as well be translated white grapes or raisins!
Now, that would be a problem!
It's gotta be hard to keep the motivation level up when the reward is a six-pack of Sunkists.
It was only a matter of time...
A Canadian judge has recently ordered the province of Ontario to show two mothers on a baby's Statement of Live Birth. Not to do so would cause bad feelings on the part of the lesbian partners, and the judge says it violates Charter equality rights.
The case stemmed from the fact that Ontario's Vital Statistics Act sensibly specifies the terms "father" and "mother" when it comes to filling out a Statement of Live Birth.
It's too bad that when Charter judges feel in the mood to identify new rights, they don't think of the natural rights around children, rather than around out-of-control adult sexual self-determination. Farthest thing from their minds.
Children have a natural, God-given right to know the love and nurture of both a mother and a father. This right is rooted in biological fact, the deepest longings of a child's heart, and Scripture: "thou shalt honor thy FATHER and thy MOTHER".
By declaring that having two mothers is "equal" to a child having a natural mother and father, the state is arbitrarily declaring that a child has no intrinsic right whatsoever to a mother and a father. This flies in the face of nature, revelation, and the entire history of mankind. But, hey, when you're on a roll, you might as well keep going.
Canada's on a roll, and its all downhill.
But why stop at two? How long do you think it will be before a case is brought before the courts seeking to declare two moms and a dad the parents of a child?
I'd give it less than two years.
And if two women can be declared the parents of a child, why not a mother and the child's grandmother? Why can't they be declared the parents of a child? Then, the mother could also be the child's sister. What could be more chummy than that?
Who would have ever thought we would be contending for the fact that a child ought to have both a mother and a dad? How far we have fallen, and how quickly.
What we are seeing at work is what the Bible refers to as the reprobate mind. Having rejected the knowledge of God, our minds are given over to darkness. With the light of God gone, the chaos of darkness enters like a flood.
How astonishing (and tragic) all this is.
We are reaping what we have sown, and we shall reap what we are sowing.
Still, the Lord is good, and good to all who call upon Him.
I will call upon the Lord, who is worthy to be praised.
So shall I be saved from mine enemies.
The Lord liveth; blessed be my Rock!
And may the God of my salvation be exalted!
Amen.
Boopchild, if you are reading this, please pray for Canada.
The case stemmed from the fact that Ontario's Vital Statistics Act sensibly specifies the terms "father" and "mother" when it comes to filling out a Statement of Live Birth.
It's too bad that when Charter judges feel in the mood to identify new rights, they don't think of the natural rights around children, rather than around out-of-control adult sexual self-determination. Farthest thing from their minds.
Children have a natural, God-given right to know the love and nurture of both a mother and a father. This right is rooted in biological fact, the deepest longings of a child's heart, and Scripture: "thou shalt honor thy FATHER and thy MOTHER".
By declaring that having two mothers is "equal" to a child having a natural mother and father, the state is arbitrarily declaring that a child has no intrinsic right whatsoever to a mother and a father. This flies in the face of nature, revelation, and the entire history of mankind. But, hey, when you're on a roll, you might as well keep going.
Canada's on a roll, and its all downhill.
But why stop at two? How long do you think it will be before a case is brought before the courts seeking to declare two moms and a dad the parents of a child?
I'd give it less than two years.
And if two women can be declared the parents of a child, why not a mother and the child's grandmother? Why can't they be declared the parents of a child? Then, the mother could also be the child's sister. What could be more chummy than that?
Who would have ever thought we would be contending for the fact that a child ought to have both a mother and a dad? How far we have fallen, and how quickly.
What we are seeing at work is what the Bible refers to as the reprobate mind. Having rejected the knowledge of God, our minds are given over to darkness. With the light of God gone, the chaos of darkness enters like a flood.
How astonishing (and tragic) all this is.
We are reaping what we have sown, and we shall reap what we are sowing.
Still, the Lord is good, and good to all who call upon Him.
I will call upon the Lord, who is worthy to be praised.
So shall I be saved from mine enemies.
The Lord liveth; blessed be my Rock!
And may the God of my salvation be exalted!
Amen.
Boopchild, if you are reading this, please pray for Canada.
Sunday, June 04, 2006
Alleged terrorists arrested in Toronto
The shocking part is -- they're Muslims! (just kidding).
Reaction:
Shouldn't cultures that embrace terrorism be applauded and welcomed in a country as multiculturally diverse, welcoming, and tolerant as Canada?
After all, who are we to impose our values on others?
And, isn't "thou shalt not kill" a distinctly religious notion?
We all know that religious values have no place in the secular laws of secular Canada.
No less than leftist/liberals have told us so.
Reaction:
Shouldn't cultures that embrace terrorism be applauded and welcomed in a country as multiculturally diverse, welcoming, and tolerant as Canada?
After all, who are we to impose our values on others?
And, isn't "thou shalt not kill" a distinctly religious notion?
We all know that religious values have no place in the secular laws of secular Canada.
No less than leftist/liberals have told us so.
Thursday, June 01, 2006
How do I phrase this diplomatically?
Everybody says something intemperate or ill-advised or stupid at some point in their lives. So we should go easy on someone who does, realizes their mistake, and apologizes.
The latest example of foot-in-mouth disease is a US Democrat. Here's the story:
NEW YORK -- State Comptroller Alan Hevesi publicly apologized Thursday for a "beyond dumb" remark about a fellow Democrat putting "a bullet between the president's eyes."
According to a videotape of his speech, New York State Comptroller Alan Hevesi said: "The man who, how do I phrase this diplomatically, who will put a bullet between the president's eyes if he could get away with it. The toughest senator, the best representative. A great, great member of the Congress of the United States."
If "put a bullet between the President's eyes" represents diplomatic speech, I would hate to be around when Mr. Hevesi was speaking candidly!
Mr Hevesi apologized and referred to his comments as "remarkably stupid" and "incredibly moronic." 'Nuff said. You're forgiven.
The apostle James says the tongue is a world of iniquity, set on fire from hell. And, he added, "who can tame it?" The apostle Paul says our speech needs to be seasoned with grace, which would give us gracious speech. That's my aim. I'm not there yet. But at least I know the way. Jesus said, "I am the way". By the grace of God, I'll get there.
The latest example of foot-in-mouth disease is a US Democrat. Here's the story:
NEW YORK -- State Comptroller Alan Hevesi publicly apologized Thursday for a "beyond dumb" remark about a fellow Democrat putting "a bullet between the president's eyes."
According to a videotape of his speech, New York State Comptroller Alan Hevesi said: "The man who, how do I phrase this diplomatically, who will put a bullet between the president's eyes if he could get away with it. The toughest senator, the best representative. A great, great member of the Congress of the United States."
If "put a bullet between the President's eyes" represents diplomatic speech, I would hate to be around when Mr. Hevesi was speaking candidly!
Mr Hevesi apologized and referred to his comments as "remarkably stupid" and "incredibly moronic." 'Nuff said. You're forgiven.
The apostle James says the tongue is a world of iniquity, set on fire from hell. And, he added, "who can tame it?" The apostle Paul says our speech needs to be seasoned with grace, which would give us gracious speech. That's my aim. I'm not there yet. But at least I know the way. Jesus said, "I am the way". By the grace of God, I'll get there.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)