Amplify’d from sda2rc.blogspot.com
Relics, II: Superstition?
I am not alone in suspecting that the biblical practices I cited in my last post on relics would be rejected as examples of "superstition" or "worshiping" humans by the principles of historic Protestantism.
Adventists believe in miracles, and when in need of healing, pray directly to God. But would they seek out a particular individual in hopes of a miracle? Would they feel confident merely touching a piece of cloth to his skin, and then touch it to their loved ones as an instrument of healing? Would they hope his very shadow would fall upon them? Would they believe that contact with his dead bones could produce miracles?
How quickly would these reflexes be criticized as placing one's trust in a human being? How many would be disparaged for believing in the miraculous power of a simple piece of cloth? What modern Adventist would feel comfortable crediting an object or corpse with a miracle? When would this not be called "superstitious?" And yet, these reflexes were widespread in the early Christianity depicted in the New Testament. No Christian is criticized for seeking out the unique power of God in a certain human being or object. No one is told to "go directly to God."
Adventist rhetoric against relics would easily exclude practices perfectly natural to the New Testament. This is a very damaging fact, and unmasks the deeper issues in this debate. Even if Catholics have seen excesses related to these practices (as they will be the first to admit), the false dichotomies Adventism perpetuates (turning to God v. turning to human beings; prayer v. miraculous objects) are unbiblical. The net effect is to underscore the fundamental unity between apostolic and later Catholic practice.
See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/k62u
No comments:
Post a Comment