Posted on 01/03/2014 8:59:21 PM PST by matthewrobertolson
Protestants opposed contraception until the 1930 Lambeth Conference. After this, positions changed. So, did the Bible change, or did they?
Well, there's wishful thinking.
Ever the optimist, aren't you?
The remarks are directed to the author of the article, not the poster of it. Authors are fair game for personal attacks, mind reading, etc.
Onan brings up another kettle of fish. That is documented as a spite act. Even so, trying to import Old Testament too woodenly into New Testament creates conundrums. Old Testament was illustrative and wisdom is needed to get the illustration correct. Is it like Onan if a man has sex with a wife who had a hysterectomy to deal with a cancer? Don’t toss the baby out with the bath water. A married couple choosing when to have sex by mutual consent is not out of the scriptural spirit. And when they do, they should have all the fun the law allows.
Oh no problem, that’s a useful detail. The Anglican Church of Scotland. Great Scot! Which is not the same as the Church of Scotland, I take it.
Whatever happened to trusting God to provide for the children HE blesses us with?
It’s not possible to generalize worship congregations. The business of hanging together as a denomination is a cause of a lot of mischief, as I observe it. There are bad Baptists and good Baptists. There are bad Catholics and good Catholics. The best examples of any Christian community will ignore, implicitly if not explicitly, things that are unhelpful or untrue. I.e. Christ reigns in them in spite of the earthly “church management” not by virtue of it.
That is an excellent point. God will provide... WHEN THE INTENT IS TO HONOR HIM. Not when the intent is to honor a bunch of theological busybodies!
That as it may be, the bible bids the husband and wife to be one flesh, period. Children are encouraged but not commanded. It’s for everyone to seek before God just how big their “quiver” might be. Don’t idolize it, and don’t despise it either.
Point One: The little church at Scrooby were separatists, but they were not Puritans. In fact, after these Pilgrims established their colony at Plymouth, the Puritans that came later tried every way they could to wipe the Pilgrims out.
Point Two:
Your diagram is not right. The early Christians (of which the Baptists lay claim) should have a line extending through the indicated "Great Schism" continuously to the present. That line is conspicuously absent. Draw one in, please.
Point Three:
Just because some newly-formed Baptists drew up a document of confession (statement pf faith) in the late 1600s doesn't mean that--though few in number--there weren't plenty of immersionist assemblies still around in Europe, Asia Minor, etc. History affirms this.
Point Four:
Though immersionist believer-disciples have never been absent in this world, The Holy Scripture is its own testimony, and the True Faith can always be rediscovered and implemented through revelation from the Word, and by thoroughly adhering to the doctrine of the disciples therein contained. Feeding on The Bible is fully sufficient to produce newborn Spiritual humans.
Be careful not to hang your hat on anything that isn’t God. Even immersionism, which is a valid concern but shouldn’t be the tail that wags the dog either.
Not entirely true, historically speaking. Virginia established the Church of England because their dominant, majority Anglicans were English. They disdained the Scotch-Irish and disenfranchised them, forcing them into the Shendandoah Valley and beyond. Neighboring NC, having a high percentage of Scotch-Irish Presbyterians as well as other dissenters, was a different story, the CoE was established but largely ignored. As far as the modern Episcopal Church in the United States, I wouldn't know. It's a liberal, co-opted, dead church for the most part, regardless of structure. There remain a few individual conservative, traditional Anglicans, a few of whom are on FR but the church on the whole is not.
I think you mean well here, but I would like to be more specific. Feeding on God's Spirit is the key. The bible is the medium; as we read the words written with the ink on the paper, the Spirit will speak in them if we understand them correctly. (It's possible to miss their point, especially early in a Christian life when confusion is still great.)
I'll be sure to remember that approach to acceptable mind reading.
Point One: The little church at Scrooby were separatists, but they were not Puritans. In fact, after these Pilgrims established their colony at Plymouth, the Puritans that came later tried every way they could to wipe the Pilgrims out.
Ouch. So did the Plymouth Pilgrims become Baptists? I am aware that during colonial times there was a strong Baptist following in New England, especially CT/RI/MA.
Point Two: Your diagram is not right. The early Christians (of which the Baptists lay claim) should have a line extending through the indicated "Great Schism" continuously to the present. That line is conspicuously absent. Draw one in, please.
I cannot take credit for the diagram. That came from Wikipedia. I've generally been impressed with a lot of the Chrisitan entries in Wikipedia, but you have pointed out something that I imagine most Christians don't know.
Point Three: Just because some newly-formed Baptists drew up a document of confession (statement pf faith) in the late 1600s doesn't mean that--though few in number--there weren't plenty of immersionist assemblies still around in Europe, Asia Minor, etc. History affirms this.
Had to think on that 1 for a moment, then I realized you were refering to the full immersion style of baptism.
Point Four: Though immersionist believer-disciples have never been absent in this world, The Holy Scripture is its own testimony, and the True Faith can always be rediscovered and implemented through revelation from the Word, and by thoroughly adhering to the doctrine of the disciples therein contained. Feeding on The Bible is fully sufficient to produce newborn Spiritual humans.
That would be sola scriptura. I follow this path of thinking.
Not a typo. Entirely gratuitously introduced to the English language by me, AFIK. Good perception. Hoping someone would ask --
Explanation:
===========
Scriptural Derivation:
Acts 2:40 (my emphasis)
"And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation" (AV)
ετεροις τε λογοις πλειοσιν διεμαρτυρετο και παρεκαλει λεγων σωθητε απο της γενεας της σκολιας ταυτης (TR)
From Strong's lexicon:
G4646
σκολιός
skolios
skol-ee-os'
From the base of G4628; warped, that is, winding; figuratively perverse: - crooked, froward, untoward.
(Also used in Lk. 3:5, Phil. 2:15, 1 Pet. 2:18; perhaps hinted at in 2 Pet. 3:16)
============
Medical definition:
Definition
Scoliosis is a side-to-side curvature of the spine.
Description
When viewed from the rear, the spine usually appears perfectly straight. Scoliosis is a lateral (side-to-side) curve in the spine, usually combined with a rotation of the vertebrae. (The lateral curvature of scoliosis should not be confused with the normal set of front-to-back spinal curves visible from the side.) While a small degree of lateral curvature does not cause any medical problems, larger curves can cause postural imbalance and lead to muscle fatigue and pain. More severe scoliosis can interfere with breathing and lead to arthritis of the spine (spondylosis).
Wiki:
Scoliosis (/ˌskɒlɪˈoʊsɪs/;[1] from Ancient Greek: σκολίωσις skoliosis “obliquity, bending”[2]) is a medical condition in which a person's spine is curved from side to side. Although it is a complex three-dimensional deformity, on an X-ray, viewed from the rear, the spine of an individual with scoliosis can resemble an "S" or a "?", rather than a straight line.
=========
In developing it, the "e-" prefix seems to be indicated, as has been done with "escalloped" potatoes, or "ebullient." Thus, the word "escoliated" -- a crooked, twisted, escoliated, untoward generation.
Spoken by Simon Peter, in his first invitation to salvation, to those whose very religious foundings was so bent out of shape that they weren't aware that they simply did not know The God in a saving way.
If by immersionism you mean one's submission to water baptism subsequent to professing a new birth, that is of God. But water baptism doesn't save, God does, freely, by his grace. Nor is water baptism likely coincident with the moment of regeneration.
Is this your gist? If not, what is?
Just another case of rule bending.
The married Anglican priests who want to become Catholic priests ARE grandfathered in.....true.
However, should their wife die, they may not marry, but instead remain single and celibate as any other Catholic priest would.
False.
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.