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.
The Church has taught baptismal regeneration since Peter preached on Pentecost. The Church Fathers all teach in baptism we are born again.
Tell me then. Is the hit man for the mafia who kills for a living saved because he was baptized?
You mean they're posting on FR? What are their screen names?
Thanks for your reply, Hoss, but I still think your flinched.
Here’s my premise:
“if sola scriptura is based on the same authority, it cannot result in such radically different religions, or interpretations” [This refers to the practice of Sola scriptura/Holy Spirit that was named as the “infallible source”.]
put more in proper form the premise is:
“Dramatically different religions or interpretations cannot result from the same infallible source.”
How or why do you believe this premise is false? Or, is this a true statement in your view:?
“Dramatically different religions or interpretations *can* result from the same infallible source.”
Pedophile priests and their enabling superiors are yours.
Deal with it, which would be a a refreshing change for Catholicism.
how many times must i remind you of your story line:
former catholic, reads the bible, becomes saved, ........
to keep in “character”, you should pretend to know the Church has not believed for 2,000 years in “once saved, always saved”
your other buddies will get mad at you as well, you forget the story line is Catholics believe we are saved by works.
keep practicing, you will get better.
here’s a suggestion, send me a private email first and i will let you know what off the wall statements it contains, that someone who supposedly was catholic would not say.
i am always here to stop you from continuing to make a fool of yourself.
thank me!
I believe “infallible authority” was the term used, though “source” is similar enough, authority would be more in keeping with what is used in the discussion.
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.....
Paul commanded keeping the Apostolic Tradition in 1 Corinthians 11:2 and 2 Thessalonians 2:15.
The apostles are all dead.. there are no more apostles to "follow.." By the time the last of the apostles died there were inspired scriptures to follow..the possibility of human error was removed by God inscribing His word on the parchment later to be called the NT.
Or you could actually attempt a response to the question for a discussion. I invite you too. I actually get tired of just zipping each other.
When will you know if you are good enough or have done enough to be saved??
remember, former catholic...........
keep asking dumb questions like this and some people may start to suspect that maybe that “former catholic” line was maybe.....what is the RM approved terminology, oh yeah, maybe it was an “UNTRUTH”.
LOL!!
No comment on that observation huh?
I asked here for all and everyone's meaning of sola scriptura. I'd welcome your view as well.
So with all that why didn’t they make sure to get what the Apostles wrote about the bodily assumption of Mary in there? You would think with that being such an important part of Catholic belief the would have made sure to include what the Apostles wrote about that. I mean, surely the Apostles wrote about such and important event right? Especially John who took her in. Maybe you could find which one of the Apostles wrote about that?
My view has been posted... do a search.
It’s pretty straight-forward.
Hoss
When Jesus taught ,when the writers of the NT taught, they supported their teachings by the OT.....
WRONG AGAIN.
Jesus and the Apostles taught new doctrines not contained in the OT.
Well this seems good
"For how can we adopt those things which we do not find in the holy Scriptures?"
- Ambrose (On the Duties of the Clergy, 1:23:102)
And this one
“Let the inspired Scriptures then be our umpire, and the vote of truth will be given to those whose dogmas are found to agree with the Divine words.”
- Gregory of Nyssa (d.ca, 395) “On the Holy Trinity”, NPNF, p. 327
This is also good
“Neither dare one agree with catholic bishops if by chance they err in anything, but the result that their opinion is against the canonical Scriptures of God.”
- Augustine (354–430) De unitate ecclesiae, 10
Like??
That observation is pretty well answered and shop worn. Might as well wear it as a tagline.
The post you replied to referred to an attempt to discuss what those on here mean by sola scriptura and offers a logical argument for or against whether sola scriptura is derived from scripture using a common verse.
That would be different I think and that’s a large part of why I offered it. A coherent debate rather than continuing trading assertions.
find me Romans 2:29 taught in the OT.
let me know if you want more.
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.