Posted on 03/15/2013 3:07:42 PM PDT by Kaslin
If you’ll notice, I said the practice wasn’t “strictly” a moral one. There’s certainly a moral element to it, but I can quote you Bible verses right back that demonstrate there is nothing immoral about marrying or being a leader in the church if you are married. However, I’m not going to be presumptuous and assume you aren’t already familiar with those verses, so let’s not waste thread space quoting them, eh?
Because when she was eight or ten years ago, she went to a religion class that was taught by someone who who knew absolutely nothing about the Gospel. And this absolutely nothing is what she knows.
No, they don’t have a clue where they are going, but they want to make us go with them, because they are the adults and we are the children.
OIC, thanks for replying
I love your comparison to high school... sort of like the girl I knew who joined every club she could in the first month of school in our senior year so she could be in every club photo in the year book.
My generation had sit ins and protests to get our way. Adolescent temper tantrums, really.
We were idealistic college kids (1969).
Some grew up.
The rest became democrats
What makes liberals think they can tell God how to run His universe?
You really believe that? Others can at least admit that such arose as much for reason of reaction towards and against abuses of both the Latin church, and those nobles it endorsed. Later arising issues and interplay concerning the power-play tussles between Latin church claims of authority, vs. opposing claims of nobles to their own authorithy held by birthright, complicated the theological challenges to how the Latin church preached and practiced, but was not the primary reason for the Reformation. What was much opposed was the propostion that proper "faith", being taught as to put faith in church and church authority, rather than in more fundamental understandings of where and how such authority may properly be sourced, applied & exercised, may be held up as "the reason". To hold up or focus chiefly upon issues of the further reaching consequences for opposing some of the then RCC practices, (even if those complications helped serve as furthering momentum for the Reformation) as being the reasons behind the Reformation, is a falsehood, being not nearly completely true, substituting secondary issues for primary issues in gross misrepresentation of significant number of accumulated facts. The theology offered as opposition to commonly held at the time Romish precept AND practice still can stand upon it's own, regardless of left-over bitterness within many RC adherents that some number of prior "kings" told them to stuff it.
Sneering at bourgeoisie? Who else do we know in recent history who made the same sort of sneering comment in regards to those whom oppose their own claims of all-reaching authority...but the communists? Perhaps you should reconsider, and rephrase...?
If "protestantism" (whatever that is) is now the root cause of all that ills the Western world (instead of the continuing cause being the fallen condition of man) then what responsibility did the Latin church of past times have for inducing such a reaction to it's practices?
If the answer is "none", I suggest then history (and human nature) may be somewhat known, but not much at all understood.
Those preachers lived more like friars, whom the Protestants villified.
I'm not sure which friars were "vilified" but I seriously doubt it be solely for reason of living humbly as you here attempt to portray it...with it being more like some of those friars wern't humble about it at all, but were more like "in the being a friar business" which sort of thing was objected to.
Before Martin Luther, there were others, stretching back hundreds of years that we know of. Itinerant barefoot "ascetic" preachers...some of which were martyred for reason of lacking permission to preach or teach, for not only was what they taught somewhat different (and perhaps arguably in error in regards to a more full gospel approach) but it cut out the Latin clergy from the paridgm. That last part was the tipping point towards intolerance.
Yet it is difficult to precisely reconstruct what such as these Cathars and later Albigensian actually stood for in any entirety, for the only records we much have concerning their beliefs, are those of their accusers whom made war upon them. Any others standing up, saying such as "this first...go to Christ...He freely forgives" also cut out the priesthood, for the teaching then of the RCC (as applied in practice) was that one could only be forgiven their sins or be absolved of them, through their own offices (and NONE other).
If more care had been taken...I do think the Cathars could have been co-opted, with certain elements of what they were saying agreed to --- but shown to be incomplete. Going out and killing them in the name of God isn't justified under better NT understandings.
Protestantism was the product of a certain time and place and it still bears those marks. Even the Bible only dogma, even the piety based on Bible-reading had little relation to early Christianity, because Scripture was hardly more available in Roman times than it was a thousand years later. Even then, for most protestant Christians, their doctrine was obtained by sitting in a Church and listening to a preacher explains what the Bible meant.
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.