Posted on 09/01/2013 7:10:30 PM PDT by SoFloFreeper
Yeah, and the jokers in Sodom who wanted to sodomize the angels, they were “self-described heterosexuals”.
Thanks SoFloFreeper.
Well I went to church this last weekend, and I’m going to have to tell you, it’s here. Man, the preacher was doing quadruple back-flips by the boatload, making sure he was ‘all inclusive.’
You know, I’m for pretty much leaving folks alone to live their own life, but there are some limits to being inclusive. Should they be allowed to attend? I think so. Should we buy into everything the homosexual agenda has become? No. I don’t believe that at all.
There’s a reason why thousands of years of civilizations have rejected homosexuality on an even footing with heterosexuality.
Now our kids have to be indoctrinated into the homosexual mind-meld in the interest of fairness and diversity.
This was never about simply wanting to come out of the closet and be treated with respect. It was all about full blown access to children, and confusing them, and turning as many of them into homosexuals as could be accomplished.
It’s all about NABMLA IMO. It’s open season on our kids, and that’s what it always was.
That’s the one it communicates to me, not the perverted one the deviant bullies intended.
One Lutheran (ELCA) church in Minneapolis got its steeple and belfry worked over due to this kind of nonsense. One poster here makes a reference to Laodicea as describe in Revelations. The incident in Minneapolis was a clear case of the Lord knocking on the door, yet the willfully deceived chose not to hear.
Why don’t they just cut to the chase and convert all the episcopal/anglican churches into bathhouses?
And as much as I'd like to defend St. Joseph, the earthly father of our Lord, "it's late, I'm tired, and there's so much more to do."
Anglicans really have become the “gay” church - it seems to be all they are on about.
“Anglican’s haven’t been Christian for quite a while.”
That’s a really ignorant, uninformed remark.
Anglicans make up largest Protestant denomination in the world as THE 3rd largest Christian denomination—after Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox.
There are tens of millions of very conservative, orthodox Christian Anglicans found in 165+ nations all around the world.
About 90% of Anglicans live outside of the UK and the USA in the developing world...and these Christians are overwelmingly thoroughly orthodox—and they strongly oppose the apostasy and liberalism found in the West.
In fact, several foreign Anglican provinces actually support (very conservative, orthodox, evangelical) missionaries TO the USA...
What other Christian denomination can say that?
There are many more conservative Anglicans in the world, than the apostate (and actually small and declining) US Episcopal Church, Canadian Anglican Church or UK church.
In fact, world-wide, there are MORE conservative, evangelical, orthodox Anglicans—than in any other Protestant denomination....(as a result of generations of sucessful foreign missions).
Please see my comments above, and get your facts straight.
Please see my comments above.
Your comment is accurate about: the US Episcopal Church, the Canadian Anglican Church and much of (but not all of) the UK’s Anglican Church. It is also true of US: Lutherans, Presbyterians, Methodists, (practically ALL the mainline denominations) and (even) many Baptists.
However, worldwide Anglicanism—a product of generations of dilligent missionary work—is VERY conservative and orthodox—and strongely fights the apostasy in the West.
God is not a sodomite.
Traditional Anglicans believe that water baptism and communion are required for salvation.
Baptism is a work.
Taking the bread and cup is a work.
What saith the scripture? Abraham believed God and it was counted to him for righteousness. Now to him who works, his wage is not credited as a favor, but as what is due. But to the one who works not, but believes on him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness. (Romans 4:3b-5)
It’s certainly a mixed message. The use of “dad” instead of Father is misleading, as everyone can tell from the resulting comments. Poor choice of the word. Those of you that denounce Anglicanism should really do your homework first.
I have. Do you believe that the works of baptism and communion are required for salvation? This is part of the Anglican statement of faith and answers the question--what must one do to be saved.
In Acts 16:30,31 the jailer asked Paul and Silas what must he do to be saved. They answered, "Believe on The Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved, and your house."
They gave all he needed to be saved, otherwise what they answered would not be true by omission (the standard for a truthful witness is "the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the the truth"). It is notable that they did NOT say "be baptized", "take communion", "do penance", etc. They answered simply "believe."
This is the gospel that saves. There is no other (se Galatians 1). "By grace are ye saved through faith, and that (salvation) is not of yourselves, it is a gift of God, not of works lest any man should boast" (Ephesians 2:8,9) When he saves us we become his workmanship, created for good works which we SHOULD walk in. This is AFTER salvation, not ADDED to the requirements for salvation.
If you are relying upon any work--baptism, communion, circumcision, giving up sins, keeping certain holidays, whatever, then you are NOT saved according to the Bible.
Apparently, so did the Apostle Peter: "And corresponding to that, baptism now saves you—not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience—through the resurrection of Jesus Christ..." (1 Peter 3:21)(NASB)
Baptism is God's work.
The Lord's Supper is God's work.
Someone who has studied is able to cite sources.
Please tell us the reference for the “Anglican statement of faith?”
The original Anglican reformers--like the continental reformers Luther and Calvin--were strong believers in sola fide, that is justification by faith alone, and solus Christus, sola gracia, sola scriptura, and sola Deo gloria. Those who walk in their teachings--classical, conservative Anglicans--do so as well.
Try reading the 39 Articles--written in the mid-1500s-- before you attempt to criticize what clearly you are misinformed about.
Also, show me a Christian denomination which does not baptize and take the Lord's supper, and I will show you a non-Christian, biblically disobedient group of people.
Is water baptism required for salvation or not?
So sorry you are offended. Within the context of this article my comment is entirely accurate. American anglicans, who this story is about, have fallen away. Heck they even have an openly gay bishop now.
In England they are forming a pagan form of their religion to attract new spiritual members. But be of good cheer the archbishop is confident he’ll soon be able to consecrate a female bishop. That should fix things.
So untwist your panties and take an honest look at your faith and position before God.
That's not the issue. The question is "What must one do to be saved?"
Must I be baptized in water to be saved or not?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.