The Neverending Story (The New Christian Chronicles)

Southern Baptists ending talks with Catholic Church ^ | 3/24/01 | AP

[malakhi]

The Neverending Story
An ongoing debate on Scripture, Tradition, History and Interpretation.

Statesmen may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue. - John Adams

Thread 162
TNS Archives

[Invincibly Ignorant]

Don't confuse NATE4"ONE NATION" with the facts, his mind is already made up! Now you know how us Catholics feel sometimes. :>)

Why? Are you under the assumption (no pun intended) that you possess facts?

[nobdysfool]

I do not discredit everything. OOps, just did. Anyway, you are continually spewing opinion. You believe that the majority votes also. Well it is not true. You are the example of the minority! Poles and studies are done and the Catholics, followed by Mormons and then those close minded fundamentalists are the top three sects of Christianity (or drewid-anity(sorry SD)) that do vote. By the way, less than 30 pct of Christian Americans vote at all anyway because "God can take care of His own without any help from you(me)" right?

And your point is...???

Anyway, you are continually spewing opinion

And you're not???

You believe that the majority votes also. Well it is not true. You are the example of the minority!

And just exactly where did I say that? As if that had anything to do with the topic we're discussing. Oh, and since you consider me to be a minority, then I guess I should be afforded special status, then, right? I want my reparations! (/sarcasm off)

I don't even know what you're trying to say here. Are you saying that it's my fault that some people don't vote? Please give me scripture where it's a sin not to vote. If there's a sin here, it's one of complacency, and that is their problem. I'm not complacent. I'm not even sure how we got off on this topic...Oh, I remember, it's because those "EEEEEVIL" Charismatics teach people that they don't need to vote, or engage in politics. Since you can't prove that statement any other way, you run to statistics, and found one that seems to support your preconceived ideas. Statistics are meaningless unless you know precisely what is being measured, and take into account the biases of the poll-takers. The way the questions are asked (and what questions are asked) has an effect on the outcome, and must be taken into account. There is an old saying "Figures don't lie, but liars always figure...". Statistics of this kind are the last bastion of small minds, who can't engage in logical discussion, so they try to find "gravitas" in the group mind. Statistics are a great tool for measuring economic trends, hard facts, scientific data, and the like, but completely unsuited to measuring opinions and other cognitive functions. I would think that the last 8 years of the worst President this country ever elected would have shown that to be true to even the most limited mind. He and his party ran the country by taking polls, with obvious results.

Why don't you admit that you have a personal prejudice here, for whatever reason, and give place to the possibility you may be wrong? Your constant harping on how the gifts breed "disorder" shows me that you have maybe had some bad experiences, and have gotten your eyes off of God in this area. Hate to say it, but Fundamentalists are great at pointing out what they consider to be the faults of others, and notoriously myopic when it comes to their own. They tend to be extremists. It's either all this, or all that. It's either all good, or all bad. If one person practices a certain thing, and screws up (sins), then all who practice that same thing are equally guilty (sinners). How do I know? I've been among them for the last thirty years. Not all are like that, but enough are to make the point a valid one.

I have differences with my Catholic brethren over certain areas of doctrine, but that doesn't stop me from liking them as people, and being able to talk with them, fellowship in our areas of common belief, and enjoy the richness of their company. I expect to get flamed by you for that last statement. I don't care, take your best shot.

[nobdysfool]

How can a woman be the husband of one wife?

Depends on how "butch" she is...and being from Vermont would definitely help her in that regard. (I can't believe I just said that...)

[RobbyS]

BTW I don't believe this question is a "salvation" issue. Furthermore, there is no Biblical prohibition concerning women in the clergy. Since there is no such thing as a sacerdotal order in protestatism, it doesn't matter.

[OLD REGGIE]

Since there is no such thing as a sacerdotal order in protestatism, it doesn't matter.

Really???? Do you wish to rethink this "fact"?

[RobbyS]

It follows from the Lutheran notion of the priesthood of all believers that the organization of a congregation will follow the existing social order. If the social order is hierarchic, the church will be hierarchic. Hence in Puritan Massachusetts, "gentlemen" ran the Church, and Anne Hutchison--who claimed special powers--was run out of town. In modern America , she could have set up her own "Temple" in Boston.

[nobdysfool]

On the other hand after this one might need an enema with a garden hose. :)

BigMack, that was a mental image I didn't need to see....:o)

[Conservative til I die]

#7372 "Make friends with your accuser...."Matt 25 &26.."Truly, I say to you you will never get out until you have paid the last penny ." Looks to me like a reference to Purgatory .

Unfortunately, the way these debates work is this: The Bible is literally true, word to word (including Genesis), unless it validates Purgatory, then it becomes symbolic only.

[OLD REGGIE]

Since there is no such thing as a sacerdotal order in protestatism, it doesn't matter.

Really???? Do you wish to rethink this "fact"?

(The above is my reply to your post.) In what way does your reply address my question?

To: OLD REGGIE

It follows from the Lutheran notion of the priesthood of all believers that the organization of a congregation will follow the existing social order. If the social order is hierarchic, the church will be hierarchic. Hence in Puritan Massachusetts, "gentlemen" ran the Church, and Anne Hutchison--who claimed special powers--was run out of town. In modern America , she could have set up her own "Temple" in Boston.

Are you attempting to confuse the issue? Let me simplify the question(s).

1. Is the Episcopal Church Protestant?

2. Is the Lutheran Church Protestant?

3. Is there such a thing as a sacerdotal order in either, or both, of these Churches?

4. Do you still wish to stick with your original "fact"?

[OLD REGGIE]

Unfortunately, the way these debates work is this: The Bible is literally true, word to word (including Genesis), unless it validates Purgatory, then it becomes symbolic only.

I hope you are kidding!

Matthew 5:

25 Make friends quickly with your accuser, while you are going with him to court, lest your accuser hand you over to the judge, and the judge to the guard, and you be put in prison;
26 truly, I say to you, you will never get out till you have paid the last penny.

Matthew is speaking about jail, prison, pokey; NOT PURGATORY!

[Conservative til I die]

I'm speaking in general. And my theory applies to other things as well.

[RobbyS]

1. Is the Episcopal Church Protestant?

Yes.They showed this to be true when they started ordaining women as bishops.

2. Is the Lutheran Church Protestant?

Yes. Heck it was the "Lutterans" who invented the term

3. Is there such a thing as a sacerdotal order in either, or both, of these Churches?

Nope. That's why Newman bailed out of the Anglican church. : he realized that his "bishops" were no more bishops --in the Catholic sense-- than Methodist bishops were.

[dadwags]

#7408
"...the Bible is literally true, word to word, unless it validates Purgatory then it is only symbolic"
That's the way "they" view John chapter 6,re the Eucharist, apparently :)

[Invincibly Ignorant]

That's the way "they" view John chapter 6,re the Eucharist, apparently :)

Well, the way you view the "eucharist" (mysterious, spooky word) your viewer must be stuck.

[PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain]

My personal opinion of Paul is unchanged. When he is speaking for the Lord it is inspired Scripture. When he is voicing his own opinion it is just that , and binding on no one.

We are all the same. We are all equal in the eyes of the Lord. "We are all one in Christ Jesus.

How do you know when Paul is voicing opinion or when it is inspired. When you read it this way it calls into question the whole bible. The whole bibe is inspired or it isn't, if it isn't then we can all just say, "well, that was the writer's opinion, so I don't have to take that seriously." It is what I have asked others who say things like the story of creation is symbolic. Well then how do you know that the whole bible is not symbolic. I believe looking at the bible with your prespective is very dangerous. You're using your own feelings to intreprate rathering then trusting the HS.

Your second statement is partially correct, yes we are all equeal in God's eyes, but we are not the same. Each of us has a place. That was God's plan. In these modern times we have all gotten out of place and the result has been chaos. Children going bad, marriages ending in divorce, women thinking they are men, men thinking they are women. I think these problems are a direct result of men and women not staying in the places God gave them.

Becky

[OLD REGGIE]

Since there is no such thing as a sacerdotal order in protestatism, it doesn't matter.

Since you agree the Episcopal Church and the Lutheran Church are Protestant and you continue to claim there is no sacerdotal order in Protestantism, all that is left is for you to define "sacerdotal".

I am certain you can provide another unique definition which will prove, to your own satisfaction, that your "factual" statement is correct.

[RobbyS]

By "sacerdotal" I refer to a class of Christians who have sacred authority given them by Christ that distinguishes them as a class from other Christians. Obviously most Episcopalians think of ordination as something that is within the gift of the laity alone, or through their representatives, rather than by special order of our Lord. As for the Lutherans, they followed Luther when he took off his nonks robes and married, thereby demoting himself by an ancient rule to the lay state.

[OLD REGGIE]

How do you know when Paul is voicing opinion or when it is inspired. When you read it this way it calls into question the whole bible. The whole bibe is inspired or it isn't, if it isn't then we can all just say, "well, that was the writer's opinion, so I don't have to take that seriously."

I ask you to read the following (with my editorial comments) and you tell me if it is an opinion or an inspired command of the Lord.

1Cor.7 [1] Now concerning the matters about which you wrote. It is well for a man not to touch a woman.
(Is this Scripture?)

[2] But because of the temptation to immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband.
[3] The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband.
[4] For the wife does not rule over her own body, but the husband does; likewise the husband does not rule over his own body, but the wife does.
[5] Do not refuse one another except perhaps by agreement for a season, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, lest Satan tempt you through lack of self-control.
[6] I say this by way of concession, not of command.
(Oh! It isn't Scripture)

[7] I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has his own special gift from God, one of one kind and one of another.
(I wish)

[8]To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain single as I do.
[9] But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion.
[10]To the married I give charge, not I but the Lord, that the wife should not separate from her husband
(Now he is speaking for the Lord.)

[11] (but if she does, let her remain single or else be reconciled to her husband) -- and that the husband should not divorce his wife.
[12]To the rest I say, not the Lord, that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her.
(Paul says; not the Lord says )

[13] If any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he consents to live with her, she should not divorce him.
[14] For the unbelieving husband is consecrated through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is consecrated through her husband. Otherwise, your children would be unclean, but as it is they are holy.
[15] But if the unbelieving partner desires to separate, let it be so; in such a case the brother or sister is not bound. For God has called us to peace.
[16] Wife, how do you know whether you will save your husband? Husband, how do you know whether you will save your wife?
[17]Only, let every one lead the life which the Lord has assigned to him, and in which God has called him. This is my rule in all the churches.
[18] Was any one at the time of his call already circumcised? Let him not seek to remove the marks of circumcision. Was any one at the time of his call uncircumcised? Let him not seek circumcision.
[19] For neither circumcision counts for anything nor uncircumcision, but keeping the commandments of God.
[20] Every one should remain in the state in which he was called.
[21] Were you a slave when called? Never mind. But if you can gain your freedom, avail yourself of the opportunity.
[22] For he who was called in the Lord as a slave is a freedman of the Lord. Likewise he who was free when called is a slave of Christ.
[23] You were bought with a price; do not become slaves of men.
[24] So, brethren, in whatever state each was called, there let him remain with God.
[25]Now concerning the unmarried, I have no command of the Lord, but I give my opinion as one who by the Lord's mercy is trustworthy.
(Paul is careful to state his opinion.)

[26] I think that in view of the present distress it is well for a person to remain as he is.
(I think)

[27] Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be free. Are you free from a wife? Do not seek marriage.
[28] But if you marry, you do not sin, and if a girl marries she does not sin. Yet those who marry will have worldly troubles, and I would spare you that.
[29] I mean, brethren, the appointed time has grown very short; from now on, let those who have wives live as though they had none,
(Really?? What does he (not the Lord) mean by that?)

[30] and those who mourn as though they were not mourning, and those who rejoice as though they were not rejoicing, and those who buy as though they had no goods,
[31] and those who deal with the world as though they had no dealings with it. For the form of this world is passing away.
[32]I want you to be free from anxieties. The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord;
[33] but the married man is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please his wife,
[34] and his interests are divided. And the unmarried woman or girl is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit; but the married woman is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please her husband.
[35] I say this for your own benefit, not to lay any restraint upon you, but to promote good order and to secure your undivided devotion to the Lord.
[36]If any one thinks that he is not behaving properly toward his betrothed, if his passions are strong, and it has to be, let him do as he wishes: let them marry -- it is no sin.
[37] But whoever is firmly established in his heart, being under no necessity but having his desire under control, and has determined this in his heart, to keep her as his betrothed, he will do well.
[38] So that he who marries his betrothed does well; and he who refrains from marriage will do better.
(If Paul had his wish there would no longer be people on this earth.)

[39]A wife is bound to her husband as long as he lives. If the husband dies, she is free to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord.
[40] But in my judgment she is happier if she remains as she is. And I think that I have the Spirit of God.
--------------------------------------------

Do you have any question when Paul was speaking for himself and when he was speaking for the Lord? Paul must be read very carefully to discern his opinion vs command of the Lord.

[OLD REGGIE]

By "sacerdotal" I refer to a class of Christians who have sacred authority given them by Christ that distinguishes them as a class from other Christians. Obviously most Episcopalians think of ordination as something that is within the gift of the laity alone, or through their representatives, rather than by special order of our Lord. As for the Lutherans, they followed Luther when he took off his nonks robes and married, thereby demoting himself by an ancient rule to the lay state.

Now I understand. Once again you have created your own dogmatic definition of an existing word. When you do things such as this I wish you would invent a new word rather than inventing a new definition of an existing word. It is not possible for the publishing world to stay current with you.

Further, I wish you would preface your "dogmatic" statements with your own peculiar definition of exactly what that statement means to you and you alone.

[RobbyS]

From Webster's collegiate Dictionary, 1959:

1) Of priests; relating to the priestly office or function, 2) Characterized by a belief in a divinely authorized priesthood.