Posted on 07/26/2014 4:41:46 AM PDT by michaelwlf3
I am coming up on my first year as an ordained minister in a continuing Anglican church, and I have noticed that participating on political forums (even when the topic is religious) I find that my opinions and postings more often than not generate more hatred than anything else. Among the things I often hear are that the laity are the real priests and that I am a Pharisee, that my vocation disqualifies me from offering an opinion on anything Christian because I am too narrow minded, and (my personal favorite) because I look too Catholic I must be a child molester.
Are these people really Christians?
Yes.
Praise the Lord...consistently for consistency.
I’m not defending that horrible book. But I point out that he hated people who did not convert to his way of thinking. He did not hate the Semitic race
? Post 990 is about m and editor surveyor. You aren’t mentioned or cced
The Nazis were pagan, not Christian. Their unified “church” wanted an Aryan Christ
William l shirers book is the best for describing the relationships
they were Gentiles like you are a Gentile. They were baptized Catholics and Protestants. I thought that was your definition of Christian. A genuine Christian will love the Jews and persevere in the faith until the end.
Your memory is faulty. Perhaps you can demonstrate when I have ever done that? The ONLY thing that comes close would be the demands to identify one's denominational association or church and the reasons given for not doing so are relevant.
I fully agree that people on an anonymous Internet forum should state what they believe if they want to indulge in a religious argument, but when those in orthodoxy ask, there have been people saying "it is a personal question"
Glad you at least agree that complaining about others' beliefs and then resisting requests to clarify what one believes is not a wise thing to do. Once again, when the question IS a personal one (i.e., what church do you go to?), anyone should be able to decline answering it if it isn't relative to the dialog and might compromise their identity. What I have seen happen when one DOES reveal that information, is the whole history of the denomination - past and present - becomes the discussion and the original topic is forgotten. What one believes is the gospel shouldn't be something so "personal" that he declines to say what he believes. I'd have to wonder why he even came on a thread in the first place.
Is this your attempt at interpreting what someone else says? Shouldn’t that be their OWN responsibility?
If I do, will you?
The Gospel (good news) is that Jesus Christ is Almighty God in the flesh who came to earth, lived a sinless life and then died on the cross and rose from the dead as payment for the sins of the world. Jesus said, "Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the wilderness, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, that everyone who believes may have eternal life in him. For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son." (John 3:14-18)
Then Paul, under inspiration of the Holy Spirit said, "As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient. All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our flesh and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature deserving of wrath. But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions — it is by grace you have been saved. And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus, in order that in the coming ages he might show the incomparable riches of his grace, expressed in his kindness to us in Christ Jesus. For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith - and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God - not by works, so that no one can boast. For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do." (Ephesians 2:1-10)
Then, the passage that opened my eyes and heart to receive God's gift of eternal life was:
"My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand. I and the Father are one.” (John 10:27-30)
The Gospel is that God loves us, we are all sinners who deserve eternal punishment, BUT, He GIFTS to us eternal life by His grace through faith and NOT because we deserve it, earn it, merit it or work for it. That is grace. That is the GOOD NEWS.
At least consider that a lot of that comes from the Roman Catholic church's own elitist claims to be THE, ONE, TRUE church Jesus established and all others aren't even entitled to call themselves a "church" since they aren't in communion with, and subordinate to, the RCC. Even the secularists recognize hypocrisy when they see it.
"God wrote the Koran"..Do not falsely attribute quotes to another poster that make it appear that they agreed with something they did not.metmom: It's good to know you got something right.
Using two unrelated quotes to create a deception falls under mindreading which is not allowed on the Religion Forum.
“At least consider that a lot of that comes from the Roman Catholic church’s own elitist claims to be THE, ONE, TRUE church Jesus established and all others aren’t even entitled to call themselves a “church” since they aren’t in communion with, and subordinate to, the RCC.”
I don’t know how to break this to you, but historically, they are! Knowing this caused John Henry Newman to convert to Catholicism, and it nearly caused me to convert. To think that there will be no sin at all in a Church of 1.2 billion is incredibly naive. Men are sinful, people need to come to grips with that, and not look to men, but to Christ.
“please do read the 1000 posts...”
I have ready many of the posts in this thread. I stand by my post. And this guy is ‘Anglican’...Catholic-Lite. Only reason there are ‘Anglican’s’ is because Henry VIII could not get an annulment when he wanted one.
In my experience, that is not the case in the Presbyterian church. The Synod ordains a direction, and the churches must comply - They cannot bolt without losing their real property... So it is an extremely painful act to sever a church. Hence the laity are captured at the whim of their hierarchy, until the differences are so grievous that there is no choice but to sever.
Oddly, the RCC (which many roundly criticize as a “hierarchy”) has retained it’s intergrity to a much greater extent than the Episcopal Church, the Methodist Church, and the Presbyterian Church.
I certainly don't see that. Rather, the Protestant branches are free to leave and construct a more orthodox branch parallel to the mainline, which you see at least beginning in each instance - Or it's laity will wander off to an already existing, more orthodox branch of another, but similar, denomination... To wit: If you are looking for Calvinist orthodoxy, you will not find it in Presbyterian USA (the largest and most liberal branch), but you will find it in Presbyterian OPC and Presbyterian PCA. These are flourishing, while the old mainline USA withers on the vine.
The Roman church, when it does eat bad fruit, has little means of expelling it, which is why she is so full of pagan syncretisms.
Thanks. If you care for what is no doubt a confirmation, but from the viewpoint of the profane, try 'The Occult and the Third Reich' - by Jean & Micheal Angebert (sp? sorry coming from my mem)... Their brazen view of the origins of the modern New Age movement will curl your teeth... Well, maybe not YOU... However, I would certainly not recommend it as reading for anyone not well grounded in the Word. It will walk you along a well traveled pagan/gnostic road, and declare blatantly what is only whispered elsewhere, to include a defense of your opinion of the Cathari, btw (which you and I have argued about in the past).
Absolutely... and tried mightily to dig up Woden...
What is it you imagine you are "breaking" to me??? It should be patently obvious that the Roman Catholic church - and ANY Christian church/assembly - is not the one, true church Jesus established since the Bride of Christ is the redeemed from all peoples, tongues and nations. THE church is all the saved, born again believers in Christ and affiliation with their chosen place of worship does not automatically confer salvation. Roman Catholicism took the adjective "catholic", meaning universal or of the whole, which was NEVER used by the Apostles and didn't come into use until the second century, and presumed to be the ONLY true one, denying even the Eastern Orthodox (at one time) as being a legitimate Christian church. Now, I admit that some denominations are better at teaching, holding to and preserving the truth than others, but Jesus' body is a "spiritual house", as Peter said, and we all are stones being built up into it.
When the secular world looks at the hypocrisy of the RCC, they aren't looking at the laity, they see rot coming from the very top of the hierarchy going back nearly from the start of the church of Rome claiming primacy over all churches. For an organization to make such claims of exclusivity, infallibility and chosen status from God, a much higher expectation of goodness and piety isn't unreasonable. Jesus even said unto whom much is given much is required. Imagine Chik-fil-a - with all the latest hoopla over one of the founder's rejection of homosexual marriage - if it was discovered that that same founder was homosexual and had left his wife and kids and was living with his lover of the past thirty years? Would the secularists have cause to criticize and accuse him of being a hypocrite? I'd say even Christians would agree he was and it would be a scandal. That really IS the point and not that it is expected for all Catholics to be impeccable.
John Henry Newman came up with the doctrine of development to explain the reason why so many RCC doctrines were not as the early church held and had changed. A good article discussing this is HERE, if you're interested. For someone who claims to not be a Catholic, you sure are defensive of them a lot. I get the impression that you have already "converted" and wonder why you lack the courage to admit it.
Very interesting link. Reads like something D1212 wrote.
No... no, they are not. What you are saying simply cannot be proven.
Knowing this caused John Henry Newman to convert to Catholicism, and it nearly caused me to convert.
Funny thing how that could work - It is the history that causes me to avoid the Roman church like the plague. There is no_way_ever, because I know history.
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.