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.
“but on major tenents, there is unity”
There is unity in the historical, orthodox faith as taught by the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church that has been here since Jesus established it in 33ad.
now, everyone must believe “baptism” is a major tenent of Christianity. Jesus commanded the Church to teach and baptize in Matthew 28. Peter commanded baptism for the remission of sins and receiving the Holy Spirit in Acts 2:38. Paul was commanded to be baptized and wash away his sins in Acts 22:16. major tenent.
The Church has taught baptismal regeneration since Peter preached on Pentecost. The Church Fathers all teach in baptism we are born again.
is there unity on this doctrine?
there are those today that consider themselves “christian” that reject the Nicene Creed “ we acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins”
they teach doctrines not found in the NT like saying a “sinners prayer” or “asking Jesus into your heart”
what do these “christians” do with baptism then??
well, since Jesus commanded it, they say it is for a “first act of obedience” or they will say it’s “an outward display of something that has happened already”
none of which is taught anywhere in the NT, it’s all a 16th century tradition of men.
they actually believe no one understood baptism for 16 centuries!
so yes, when someone departs from the unity of the Faith, it is THEY WHO ARE AT FAULT.
You got that right. The whole crowd admit that they define the Holy Trinity as, The Father, The Son, and My Own Intellect. It's amazing that they can repeat it over and over and pretend to not know what they're saying. I guess if someone can deny a direct quote of what Christ said and pretend they're not denying it they've so deified themselves that they're blinded by the glaring glory of their own intellect.
Recently, we did the same exercise with salvation by election vs. grace through faith.
These were to prove the point that sola scriptura resulting doctrines are not from the same infallible source, via a performance contradiction. These are large disagreements and variances, that is key to the point that large important variances can not logically be attributed to the same infallible authority.
This is a separate point from how much latitude is allowed in interpretation. The Church's doctrine does not contradict itself in terms of salvation, Christology, the nature of God, etc. So the previous argument is not applicable here.
In the second post you refer to I was addressing the demand by some that the Church have an official interpretation for each line of scripture. It does not, one is free within certain boundaries: so long as one does not teach his/her personal interpretation as official Church interpretation and so long as this personal interpretation does not contradict the teaching of the Church.
The Church is consistent in its belief that God and Holy Scripture can speak to each individual where they are at the moment, this can be subjective and personal, it is not objective and dogmatic. This difference is clearly recognized and treated as such, consistently. This is part of God's grace through Holy Scripture.
What God does not do, the Church teaches, is change who He is, His plan of Salvation, His relationship to man, His grace, etc.
The creeds, confessions, dogma and doctrine do not contradict as they do for those whose doctrine is founded on sola scriptura.
Two different arguments, neither contradicting the other.
thanks for your reply.
Well duh! There was no precursor Christian church from which to inherit our New Testament. Our original doctrine came directly from Jesus and from the Paraclete and was only gradually written down and canonized over the next three and a half centuries. Scriptural books were declared canonical or apocryphal based upon whether they made the cut of adherence to established Catholic doctrine.
Every part of the NT was reviewed with a fine-tooth comb by zealous Catholics. The last bishop to eliminate books was that hammer of heretics and bane of emperors, St. Athanasius of Alexandria. His final changes were canonized a few decades later by the council of Rome in the latter half of the Forth Century. Any biblical interpretation that finds fault with Catholic doctrine certainly conflicts with the interpretations of St. Athanasius and his fellow canonists. Otherwise, those books would have been eliminated like the rest.
Protestants just cannot grasp the fact that our bible was not sprung full grown out the head of Zeus.
wow.......
John 14:6 Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
John 17:17 Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth.
Oh, please. Don't flatter yourself. I refuse to argue a point when you misrepresent the meaning of Sola Scriptura and then continue an argument based on the false assumption. Just sayin'.
I in no way concede the point. I do refuse to argue your false premise however.
Hoss.
I'm still waiting for any response to my basic questions on scriptural proof for sola scriptura back here.
Oh well.
Right? Let’s do the right thing and ignore the Church’s interpretations when it condemns Arius, Donatus, etc.
Anytime you interpret the scriptures excluding Arian, Nestorian, Tritheist, etc. interpretations, you are adhering to Tradition.
I might add Evangelicalism is steeped in as much TRADITION as Roman Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy except you resort to denials and appeals to ignorance whenever anyone raises it.
Everything you believe in is TRADITION. Had you been raised a Lutheran, you’d be spouting similar rhetoric, but be using different arguments. Sola Traditio.
All that and mention of Christ is not to be found.
“scriptural proof of sola scriptura?”
Paul commanded keeping the Apostolic Tradition in 1 Corinthians 11:2 and 2 Thessalonians 2:15.
you will be waiting a long time.
i am still waiting for one of the sola scriptura types to tell me if anyone can say infallibly what the canon of Scripture is, that we are to follow “sola”
cue the crickets.........
A Catholic parish INVITED him to speak. Maybe they thought he'd feel right at home.
Instead they should have followed the Scriptural directives about dealing with immorality as found in the Scripture that the Catholic church claims it *wrote*.
1 Corinthians 5
1It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that is not tolerated even among pagans, for a man has his father’s wife. 2And you are arrogant! Ought you not rather to mourn? Let him who has done this be removed from among you.
3For though absent in body, I am present in spirit; and as if present, I have already pronounced judgment on the one who did such a thing. 4When you are assembled in the name of the Lord Jesus and my spirit is present, with the power of our Lord Jesus, 5you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord.
6 Your boasting is not good. Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump? 7Cleanse out the old leaven that you may be a new lump, as you really are unleavened. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed. 8Let us therefore celebrate the festival, not with the old leaven, the leaven of malice and evil, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.
9I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— 10 not at all meaning the sexually immoral of this world, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world.
11But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler—not even to eat with such a one. 12For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? 13God judges those outside. "Purge the evil person from among you."
Want to try a different track for trying to smear Protestants?
“All that and mention of Christ is not to be found”
spoken by someone who has never read the decrees of the ecumentical council, they speak of Christ from beginning to end.
Nice hot air. How about some proof?
Hoss
The practice of holding to the “queen of heaven” pagan custom.
Duh indeed. Otherwise there would be no Holy Scripture, no Church, no universal Christian faith. And without Catholic doctrine after the scriptures, the Church struggling against every possible manner of heresy which "proved" itself via scriptura, there would only be Arians and Nestorians and Sabellians, Monarchians, Gnostics, Modalists, etc., Not the One Christian Faith that those who left the Church took for granted.
And now, if they and we but look around, we can see what happens as centuries go by and the One Faith, One Baptism, for outside the authority of Church Doctrine inevitably leads again toward a vast cornucopia of fragmented teaching, with each individual sola, sola, sola, sola…
How many will there be from the offshoots of offshoots a century from now, five centuries from now?
Nice rant. The fact remains that this flaming faggot is a protestant. It is not smearing.the protestants to acknowledge that he is one. What do you think of his association with the protestant community? What does it say of protestantism that it accepts a flaming faggot as a minister? This faggot is one of yours. Deal with it.
LOL.. this coming from people that believe in an immaculate conception, assumption, purgatory ,and a NT Christian priesthood.. hypocrisy knows no end ....
When Jesus taught ,when the writers of the NT taught, they supported their teachings by the OT.....
The Church has taught baptismal regeneration since Peter preached on Pentecost. The Church Fathers all teach in baptism we are born again.
So, for the Catholic, baptism is the get out of jail free card. Once one is *born again* through baptism, then he can live as he pleases, lying, killing, stealing, raping, murdering, whatever, because he's been baptized and it's baptism which saves and gives people the Holy Spirit.
ROFL The carnal mind sees it as squid-ink? Well!
>>This has (again) been a fascinating experiment.<<
It most certainly has! And very telling also.
I am often weary of hashing the same arguments with the same posters and there are some times when it makes no sense to keep up the fight. That's why I think it's so important - especially on issues of faith - that we try to remain respectful and remember to "speak the truth in love". Like II Timothy 2:24 says, "And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful.
I think if we all kept that in mind, much animosity could be avoided but there will always, unfortunately, be people that enjoy quarreling and those that are unable to be kind and not resentful to others who don't see everything the same as they do. To those people, there should always be counterpoints, those willing to step up and defend what is true and who know why it is true. Not everyone will agree but everyone should go away with their dignity still intact. JMHO.
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.