How To Interpret The Bible For Yourself

Hmmm…..is this what “sola Scriptura” [Scripture alone] means? Is this possibly where a lopsided regard for this one “sola,” taken out of context with the rest lead? If it is is in fact possible to truly “interpret the Bible for yourself” do you really need a book to help? Perhaps what I’m concerned about is that with just one word you get to the real problem: How to Interpret the Bible BY Yourself.  How does this book support, or weaken, the teaching of Holy Scripture: “No prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.” [2 Peter 1:20; KJV]

Link: How To Interpret The Bible For Yourself.

Essential spiritual and devotional writings for theologians

Oh, boy….now they’ve gone and really done it! The “Essential Paintings” list was interesting. The “Essential Philosophers” was equally so….but….now they dare venture into the treacherous waters of trying to nail down an essential reading list of spiritual and devotional writings for theologians, the brave souls! What do you think of their list?

Link: Faith and Theology: Essential spiritual and devotional writings for theologians.

Gerhardmeditations_2


Here’s my take on it. I like their goal of linking theology with spirituality. We classical Lutherans would think instantly of the necessary understanding that theology is a “habitus” … an inward inclination of the heart, a “habit” formed in us by the Holy Spirit who instills and preserves true faith. I like this emphasis in their list.

They probably don’t know about Johann Gerhard, but he really must be on their list as the finest example of writers of “Protestant” spirituality from the Lutheran confessional tradition. And since, well, how to say these, we were the first out of the chute when it came to the Reformation, John Gerhard’s Meditations on Divine Mercy really needs to be here, along with his Sacred Meditations.

What would you put on their list? Or remove from their list?

Good Summary of Deus Caritas Est

Why should we even bother to pay attention to what the Pope says? I can hear that question being asked by some of my earnest Lutheran friends. Well…let’s see….other than the fact that Pope is the spiritual head and chief teacher of the world’s largest group of people who claim to be Christians, I can’t think of a good reason to pay attention to what he has to say. Here is a good summary of Pope Benedict’s first encyclical.

Link: BREITBART.COM – Pope Warns About Loveless Sex.

Pope Warns About Loveless Sex
Jan 25 10:35 AM US/Eastern
Email this story

By NICOLE WINFIELD
Associated Press Writer

VATICAN CITY

Pope Benedict XVI warned in his first encyclical Wednesday that sex without unconditional love risked turning men and women into merchandise.

In the 71-page document “God is Love,” Benedict explored the relationship between the erotic love between man and woman, referred to by the term “eros,” and the Greek word for the unconditional, self- giving love, “agape” (pronounced AH-gah-pay).

He said the two concepts are most unified in marriage between man and woman, in which a covetous love grows into the self-giving love of the other, as well as God’s unconditional love for mankind.

He acknowledged that Christianity in the past has been criticized “as having been opposed to the body,” _ the erotic form of love _ “and it is quite true that tendencies of this sort have always existed.”

But he says the current way of exalting bodily love is deceptive.

“Eros, reduced to pure ’sex’ has become a commodity, a mere ‘thing’ to be bought and sold, or rather, man himself has become a commodity.”

“Here we are actually dealing with a debasement of the human body: no longer is it integrated into our overall existential freedom; no longer is it a vital expression of our whole being, but it is more or less relegated to the purely biological sphere,” he said.

Benedict explored the two aspects of love to then explain how the Roman Catholic Church’s charitable activities are based on love and are a fundamental part of its mission. He said the church had no desire to govern states, but at the same time couldn’t remain silent in political life because its charity is needed to ease suffering.

The encyclical, eagerly watched for clues about Benedict’s major concerns, characterizes his early pontificate as one in which he seeks to return to the basics of Christianity with a relatively uncontroversial meditation on love and the need for greater works of charity in an unjust world.

Even Vatican officials have expressed surprise at the topic, considering Benedict was the church’s chief doctrinal watchdog and could easily have delved into a more problematic issue such as bioethics in his first authoritative text.

In the encyclical, Benedict said the church’s work caring for widows, the sick and orphans was as much a part of its mission as celebrating the sacraments and spreading the Gospels. However, he stressed that the church’s charity workers must never use their work to proselytize or push a particular political ideology.

“Love is free; it is not practiced as a way of achieving other ends,” he wrote.

“Those who practice charity in the church’s name will never seek to impose the church’s faith upon others. They realize that a pure and generous love is the best witness to the God in whom we believe and by whom we are driven to love.”

He rejected the criticism of charity found in Marxist thought, which holds that charity is merely an excuse by the rich to keep the poor in their place when the wealthy should be working for a more just society.

While the Marxist model, in which the state tries to provide for every social need, responded to the plight of the poor faster than even the church did during the Industrial Revolution, it was a failed experiment because it couldn’t meet every human need, he wrote.

Even in the most just societies, charity will always be necessary, he said.

“There will always be suffering which cries out for consolation and help. There will always be loneliness. There will always be situations of material need where help in the form of concrete love of neighbor is indispensable,” he said.

Benedict stressed that the state alone is responsible for creating that just society, not the church. “As a political task, this cannot be the church’s immediate responsibility,” he said.

However, he said the church wants to help “form consciences in political life and stimulate greater insight into the authentic requirements of justice as well as greater readiness to act accordingly, even when this might involve conflict with situations of personal interest.”

He said the church was “duty-bound” to offer such a contribution, and that the lay faithful, who as citizens of the state, are duty-bound to carry it out through works of charity.

“We do not need a state which regulates and controls everything, but a state which … generously acknowledges and supports initiatives arising from the different social forces and combines spontaneity with closeness to those in need,” he wrote.

Listening to a Homily [Sermon]

Father Philip offers interesting advice on how to say focused while listening to a homily, or as we call them, sermons. One thing I sadly noted, and have continued to note, is that in many cases preaching in the Roman Catholic Church is … how to say this politely… ah…. lacking? Less than good? Not exactly consistently good? Well, they know it too. The Dominicans here in the USA continue to work hard to improve RC preaching. Fr. Philip is a young Dominican priest and theologian and I thought his comments on how to listen to a homily were interesting. How do you listen to a sermon? Link: Domine, da mihi hanc aquam!: Put down the missalette! Hearing a Homily.

The Defining Test: The Vatican and Homosexuality

Yes, in case you can’t tell, I’ve now found several excellent Roman Catholic blog sites. No, they are not “excellent” to the extent they represent false teachings of the Roman church [necessary disclaimer for the knee-jerk types reading this blog site], but excellent to the extent that they offer helpful news and information and insight. My blog roll is, thankfully, growing daily as I enjoy the wide world of Christian blogdom. So far I have a collection of Baptist, Calvinist, Roman Catholic and Lutheran Blogs. If somebody wants to point me to a good Eastern Orthodox blog site, I would like to subscribe to several of those as well. The more the merrier.

Here is an interesting piece, referencing an article in one of my favorite journals, First Things, in which the recent Vatican ruling on homosexuality is discussed as a defining test.

Link: Catholic World News (CWN).

A Diet of Worms

Earthworms

New weight-loss program? Another weird Guinness Book of World Records attempt? Nope. Today is the day that Emperor Charles V opened a meeting of the Holy Roman Empire, in 1521, some time later a certain monk showed up and was told to recant his writings, or else! Some of our Wisconsin Synod fellow Lutheran blogging pastors, have a nice blog site with good information on Luther’s appearance before the Diet of Worms.

So, while Luther may have, in effect, told them to go eat worms, to my knowledge there was no intentional worm eating taking place there. Truth be told, Worms, pronounced in German as “Woorms” is actually a city, and the word “Diet” means “A formal general assembly of the princes or estates of the Holy Roman Empire.”

Link: Preach. Teach. Confess.: On this date in history.

Calvinism’s Unassuring Assurance

I’m monitoring several Calvinist blog sites and continue, sadly, to note how Calvinism simply and clearly does NOT put Jesus at the center. Note the discussion by Even May about assurance of salvation. Note how he talks about salvation and assurance of salvation, but…no Jesus! How tragic.

Link: Triablogue.

It is sufficient that I believe I’m saved, and that I have adequate grounds for so believing. Or, to recast this in negative terms, it’s sufficient that I have no good grounds for doubting my salvation.

What’s Wrong With Listening to Lewd Lyrics?

Martin Luther hits the nail squarely on the head, in his commentary on the Sixth Commandment in the Large Catechism. Oh, by the way, that new edition of the Book of Concord so many of you like…we didn’t produce it for people to use it as a trophy on the shelf, or a club to beat others over the head with in a game of, “I’m more confessional than you.” We produced it so that we all more easily would be able to use it and personally take it to heart. So…take this to heart.

Link: The Large Catechism — The Ten Commandments.

But because among us there is such a shameful mess and the very dregs of all vice and lewdness, this commandment is directed also against all manner of unchastity, whatever it may be called; and not only is the external act forbidden, but also every kind of cause, incitement, and means, so that the heart, the lips, and the whole body may be chaste and afford no opportunity, help, or persuasion to inchastity. And not only this, but that we also make resistance, afford protection and rescue wherever there is danger and need; and again, that we give help and counsel, so as to maintain our neighbor’s honor. For whenever you omit this when you could make resistance, or connive at it as if it did not concern you, you are as truly guilty as the one perpetrating the deed. Thus, to state it in the briefest manner, there is required this much, that every one both live chastely himself and help his neighbor do the same, so that God by this commandment wishes to hedge round about and protect [as with a rampart] every spouse that no one trespass against them.

Hear the Word of God, 1 Corinthians 6:

Flee from sexual immorality. Every other sina person commits is outside the body, but the sexually immoral person sins against his own body. Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own, for you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body.