Posted on 11/23/2011 11:11:08 AM PST by marshmallow
A notoriously 'gay-friendly' parish in San Francisco has invited an openly homosexual Episcopalian cleric to lead an Advent Vespers service.
Most Holy Redeemer parish asked Bishop Otis Charles, a retired Episcopalian prelate, to lead the November 30 service. After serving as the Bishop of Utah from 1971 to 1993, he publicly announced that he is homosexual. Divorced from the mother of his 5 children, he solemnized a same-sex union in 2004.
We would do just as the early Christians did, take it to their local church which was led by their very own elder(s) as well as deacons. ALL the early churches were local churches and there was only a gradual move to an ecclesiastical or organized hierarchy OVER multiple local churches many decades, and even centuries, later. Which, in my opinion, was a poorly thought out way to go. And which, as we see today, has resulted in a pretty impotent church leadership incapable of even getting rid of perverts IN a church.
Regarding the Assumption of Mary, the Catholic Encyclopedia reports:
If we consult genuine writings in the East, it is mentioned in the sermons of St. Andrew of Crete, St. John Damascene, St. Modestus of Jerusalem and others. In the West, St. Gregory of Tours (De gloria mart., I, iv) mentions it first. [...] St. John of Damascus (P.G., I, 96) thus formulates the tradition of the Church of Jerusalem:
St. Juvenal, Bishop of Jerusalem, at the Council of Chalcedon (451), made known to the Emperor Marcian and Pulcheria, who wished to possess the body of the Mother of God, that Mary died in the presence of all the Apostles, but that her tomb, when opened, upon the request of St. Thomas, was found empty; wherefrom the Apostles concluded that the body was taken up to heaven.
Today, the belief in the corporeal assumption of Mary is universal in the East and in the West
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02006b.htm
The Church has always considered the truth of its doctrine to be infallibly guarded by Paraclete, as promised in scripture. Naturally, Church doctrine officially defined from the Chair of Peter enjoys the same protection.
placemarker
The Eastern Church rejects scholasticism, but our dogmatic beliefs on the Eucharist, sacraments, etc. depart from the Roman in minor points.
The Book of Revelation shows Mary in heaven, but we say she died. How she got there is a mystery.
So you can cheat, rob,and steal, and get your get out of jail free card if you talk about Jesus because you can’t lose your salvation.
You aren’t a Christian.
That’s just your opinion. If you get a feeling that you are saved, boom, poof, you are saved.
The example is two branches using the same sola scriptura authority resulting in one believing the other is satanic. It’s an example of why sola scriptura is *not* the real authority claimed.
I used Dispensationalism as the example for a Dispensationalist.
I can use salvation by election for the other branches who believe sola scriptura is the ultimate authority, yet whose authority ends up with two radically different theologies.
Hoss conceded the point. How about you? Are you saved by election?
BTW:
>>You may not realize this, but Ironside ALSO teaches dispensations,
I identified him as such, that was the point.
>>>>This article gives some of his reasoned arguments
I linked to the same article, except it was the entire article. My excerpts were from it.
>>>>>the concept of that is simply that the Scriptures are the infallible authority that is God-given to us so that we may know his plan of salvation and so that we may be sure of the central tenets of the Christian faith - truths even H. A. Ironside agrees with.
As do those he calls satanic. BOTH claim this, BOTH claim they rightly divide the word. That was the point. The concept fails miserably and demonstrably which it would not do if both were following the same infallible authority.
You don’t seem to have fully read or comprehended my post or point.
Earlier, a while back, your point was the differences between sola scriptura theologies were not that great. Your evidence and argument here concerning two branches of Dispensationalism is the opposite.
And if they disagree?
Catholics are soooo clueless.......
There is nothing in Catholicism that is in harmony with the Bible.
Obviously, smvoice hasn't been around FR very long. Perhaps we should suggest starting with The Neverending Story thread from years back? That conversation must've gone on for years and covered every topic at least a dozen times each. Oh .... and that links to the more recent posts. Voice will have to dig back through the other 160+ threads to find the beginning.
See, that's a perfect example of where not knowing Scripture will lead you, into that kind of erroneous thinking. Anyone who thinks like that is NOT saved.
This is probably going to fall on deaf ears AGAIN as it has on every Catholic to whom we're tried to explain it, but........
Romans 6
Dead to Sin, Alive to God
1What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? 2By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it? 3Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.
5For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his. 6We know that our old self was crucified with him in order that the body of sin might be brought to nothing, so that we would no longer be enslaved to sin. 7For one who has died has been set free from sin. 8Now if we have died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him. 9We know that Christ, being raised from the dead, will never die again; death no longer has dominion over him. 10For the death he died he died to sin, once for all, but the life he lives he lives to God. 11So you also must consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus.
12Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, to make you obey its passions. 13 Do not present your members to sin as instruments for unrighteousness, but present yourselves to God as those who have been brought from death to life, and your members to God as instruments for righteousness. 14For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace.
Slaves to Righteousness
15What then? Are we to sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means! 16Do you not know that if you present yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness? 17But thanks be to God, that you who were once slaves of sin have become obedient from the heart to the standard of teaching to which you were committed, 18and, having been set free from sin, have become slaves of righteousness. 19 I am speaking in human terms, because of your natural limitations. For just as you once presented your members as slaves to impurity and to lawlessness leading to more lawlessness, so now present your members as slaves to righteousness leading to sanctification.
20 For when you were slaves of sin, you were free in regard to righteousness. 21 But what fruit were you getting at that time from the things of which you are now ashamed? For the end of those things is death. 22But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the fruit you get leads to sanctification and its end, eternal life. 23 For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Happily, that's not for you to judge. Why do Catholics get their knickers in a know when they think Proddies judge them for not being saved, and then turn around and do the very thing they condemn? Whatever happened to living by Jesus' teachings, like *Do unto others....* for example? Aren't His words the ones you guys claim to live by?
The judgement is God's.
Salvation is dependent on one's relationship to Christ and acceptance of the free gift of forgiveness NOT one's opinion about the eucharist.
Are you writing a script for the Twilight Zone... IF you knew and believed scripture, you would know that Malachi didn't have the slightest clue about the church...
The church did not offer Jesus as a sacrifice...HE OFFERED HIMSELF...And there is no way you or any human being can offer Jesus as a sacrifice, pure or not...
So who taught you this heresy, God or Satan???
This is not the right forum to put up advertisements like that...
Obviously you haven't been following these threads very long, noob.
Is that a trick question?
You don't worship the Holy Father???
Scholarship suggests 1 Timothy was written about 62 A.D., while St. Ignatius's epistle was written about 40 years later.
Which one??? The supposed real one or the forgery that contains all the Catholic references???
1Clem 44:1 And our Apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife over the name of the bishop's office.
That is not scripture...You guys are amazing...You study what you consider the truth of your church fathers but don't know a thing about the scriptures of God...
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.