If I Revert to Protestantism ...
If ever I was to leave the Catholic faith and return to Protestantism, this is probably where I would end up in my beliefs and practices. Disagree with it, if you must, but you cannot deny that the positions expressed below are entirely within the boundaries of legitimate Protestant practice. As shocking as it may be, no Protestant could argue against my views below without violating the very principles on which he stands.
*****************************
I am once again a Protestant. Like Martin Luther, I state firmly and with conviction that I am bound in my conscience to the Word of God in Sacred Scripture, and to that written Word alone. I reject man-made doctrines, and will not be held captive to the traditions of men that cannot be demonstrated from the Bible.
This is why I believe that a woman ought to have the right to choose abortion. I know that this was not the common view of Christians in the past, but that does not bother me in the least - those Christians were fallible, and very much living in the Dark Ages. These are the same Christians who believed in a Church-controlled State, and saw nothing wrong with torturing and executing those who did not believe as they believed. Why would I take my moral cues from these men?
What does the Scripture say about abortion?
In Numbers 5, if a woman was suspected of infidelity to her husband, she was to be subjected to a test. The test involved her drinking "curse water" and taking an oath; if she was guilty of adultery, God said that her womb would discharge. If God were against killing a fetus, He would not have prescribed a test which would result in a miscarriage.
Or how about the story of Judah impregnating Tamar while she was disguised as a prostitute? When it is later discovered that Tamar is pregnant (and no one knows yet who the father is), Judah's immediate response is "let her be burned to death!" Such was the penalty for fornication - but there is no mention of concern here for the unborn baby in her womb. It must be "aborted" in the fires with Tamar.
Even King Solomon, the wisest king in Old Testament history, and a man of God, wrote that the dead are better off than the living, because they no longer have to put up with the wicked things that happen in this life "under the sun" - but, he says, even more fortunate are those who have never been born (Eccl. 4:3)! A woman today who aborts her baby rather than allow it to be born into a hard life of poverty, without a father, etc., is only following the good counsel of the wisest biblical king.
I know the standard argument. God told the prophet Jeremiah that "I knew you before I formed you in the womb." This verse has been twisted and distorted for far too long - read it more closely. He says He knew Jeremiah before he was formed in the womb - are we now going to claim that a fetus is a person even before conception? In that case, we'd better all stop using birth control (which, ironically enough, is another out-moded view of early Christians which we have since moved beyond).
I am also a vehement supporter of same-sex relationships, and polygamy. Only someone who is blinded by the traditions of men would argue otherwise. Forget for a moment the set-in-stone "Christian tradition," which is nothing more than the common opinions of fallible men anyway - let's look at what the inspired Word of God says.
David was a "man after God's own heart." But what about his relationship with Jonathan? The Bible says that these two men "loved" each other - really loved each other.
1 Sam. 20 says that these men swore a covenant together - vs. 17 says "Jonathan made David swear again by his love for him." Sounds a little like a marriage ceremony doesn't it? Isn't that what happens in a marriage? Two individuals swear a covenant with each other, and they swear it out of love for each other? I'm not saying that David and Jonathan were married, but certainly this was more than just a friendship they were enjoying.
Later, the same chapter says (vs. 41) that they actually kissed one another, causing David to gadal - a Hebrew word that means "to grow," or "to become great." I hardly need to elaborate on what that might mean in this context. Remember that, when David hears of Jonathan's death in 2 Sam. 1, he says (vs. 26) that Jonathan's love for him was better than "that of a woman!" If David could enjoy such a relationship and still be a man after God's own heart, certainly we have no basis for condemning similar relationships today.
I hardly need to spend a moment defending my views on polygamy. Suffice it to say that the patriarchs, the great Old Testament saints, enjoyed the company of multiple wives and concubines: Jacob, Abraham, David, Solomon, etc.
You may argue that I am simply picking and choosing which Old Testament practices are valid today and which are not. But then again, so do you, and you are certainly entitled to your opinion - but recognize that it is only your opinion, and a fallible one at that. My conscience is bound by Scripture alone.
You will read New Testament epistles and pick and choose: you will condemn homosexuality because Romans or Corinthians condemns it; yet you will say that women no longer need to wear veils in church, even though the New Testament commands it - and you will defend your belief by saying that this command was cultural and time-conditioned. I agree, even though the text itself says nothing of the kind - we have to make these kinds of decisions as to how our culture has changed since those writings, and how those changes affect ancient commands or prohibitions.
You say veils are a cultural issue; I say homosexuality is a cultural issue; you are entitled to your opinion, but you must not think that you can then bind my conscience to your fallible opinion.
Again, you may appeal to a common belief and tradition in Christendom - I say such traditions are just that: man-made traditions, useful for that time period, but certainly not eternally binding. You say all the early Christians condemned abortion and homosexuality - I say they also condemned birth control, yet we've certainly moved beyond those views! It's time to move beyond other views as well.
This is why I love the freedom that comes with my Protestant faith. I am free in Christ to exercise my mind and my conscience, and I am not bound to follow any of man's teachings.
If I do not find it in Scripture, I will not believe it; if my conscience is not convinced by God's Word, no human authority can compel me to believe otherwise.
On this principle, like Martin Luther, I take my stand and can do no other.
*****************************
I am once again a Protestant. Like Martin Luther, I state firmly and with conviction that I am bound in my conscience to the Word of God in Sacred Scripture, and to that written Word alone. I reject man-made doctrines, and will not be held captive to the traditions of men that cannot be demonstrated from the Bible.
This is why I believe that a woman ought to have the right to choose abortion. I know that this was not the common view of Christians in the past, but that does not bother me in the least - those Christians were fallible, and very much living in the Dark Ages. These are the same Christians who believed in a Church-controlled State, and saw nothing wrong with torturing and executing those who did not believe as they believed. Why would I take my moral cues from these men?
What does the Scripture say about abortion?
In Numbers 5, if a woman was suspected of infidelity to her husband, she was to be subjected to a test. The test involved her drinking "curse water" and taking an oath; if she was guilty of adultery, God said that her womb would discharge. If God were against killing a fetus, He would not have prescribed a test which would result in a miscarriage.
Or how about the story of Judah impregnating Tamar while she was disguised as a prostitute? When it is later discovered that Tamar is pregnant (and no one knows yet who the father is), Judah's immediate response is "let her be burned to death!" Such was the penalty for fornication - but there is no mention of concern here for the unborn baby in her womb. It must be "aborted" in the fires with Tamar.
Even King Solomon, the wisest king in Old Testament history, and a man of God, wrote that the dead are better off than the living, because they no longer have to put up with the wicked things that happen in this life "under the sun" - but, he says, even more fortunate are those who have never been born (Eccl. 4:3)! A woman today who aborts her baby rather than allow it to be born into a hard life of poverty, without a father, etc., is only following the good counsel of the wisest biblical king.
I know the standard argument. God told the prophet Jeremiah that "I knew you before I formed you in the womb." This verse has been twisted and distorted for far too long - read it more closely. He says He knew Jeremiah before he was formed in the womb - are we now going to claim that a fetus is a person even before conception? In that case, we'd better all stop using birth control (which, ironically enough, is another out-moded view of early Christians which we have since moved beyond).
I am also a vehement supporter of same-sex relationships, and polygamy. Only someone who is blinded by the traditions of men would argue otherwise. Forget for a moment the set-in-stone "Christian tradition," which is nothing more than the common opinions of fallible men anyway - let's look at what the inspired Word of God says.
David was a "man after God's own heart." But what about his relationship with Jonathan? The Bible says that these two men "loved" each other - really loved each other.
1 Sam. 20 says that these men swore a covenant together - vs. 17 says "Jonathan made David swear again by his love for him." Sounds a little like a marriage ceremony doesn't it? Isn't that what happens in a marriage? Two individuals swear a covenant with each other, and they swear it out of love for each other? I'm not saying that David and Jonathan were married, but certainly this was more than just a friendship they were enjoying.
Later, the same chapter says (vs. 41) that they actually kissed one another, causing David to gadal - a Hebrew word that means "to grow," or "to become great." I hardly need to elaborate on what that might mean in this context. Remember that, when David hears of Jonathan's death in 2 Sam. 1, he says (vs. 26) that Jonathan's love for him was better than "that of a woman!" If David could enjoy such a relationship and still be a man after God's own heart, certainly we have no basis for condemning similar relationships today.
I hardly need to spend a moment defending my views on polygamy. Suffice it to say that the patriarchs, the great Old Testament saints, enjoyed the company of multiple wives and concubines: Jacob, Abraham, David, Solomon, etc.
You may argue that I am simply picking and choosing which Old Testament practices are valid today and which are not. But then again, so do you, and you are certainly entitled to your opinion - but recognize that it is only your opinion, and a fallible one at that. My conscience is bound by Scripture alone.
You will read New Testament epistles and pick and choose: you will condemn homosexuality because Romans or Corinthians condemns it; yet you will say that women no longer need to wear veils in church, even though the New Testament commands it - and you will defend your belief by saying that this command was cultural and time-conditioned. I agree, even though the text itself says nothing of the kind - we have to make these kinds of decisions as to how our culture has changed since those writings, and how those changes affect ancient commands or prohibitions.
You say veils are a cultural issue; I say homosexuality is a cultural issue; you are entitled to your opinion, but you must not think that you can then bind my conscience to your fallible opinion.
Again, you may appeal to a common belief and tradition in Christendom - I say such traditions are just that: man-made traditions, useful for that time period, but certainly not eternally binding. You say all the early Christians condemned abortion and homosexuality - I say they also condemned birth control, yet we've certainly moved beyond those views! It's time to move beyond other views as well.
This is why I love the freedom that comes with my Protestant faith. I am free in Christ to exercise my mind and my conscience, and I am not bound to follow any of man's teachings.
If I do not find it in Scripture, I will not believe it; if my conscience is not convinced by God's Word, no human authority can compel me to believe otherwise.
On this principle, like Martin Luther, I take my stand and can do no other.
<< Home