Well; it took ME a long time to attain it; but I can assure you it is well worth it!
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?
You are switching an apple for an orange.
Well; it took ME a long time to attain it; but I can assure you it is well worth it!
I am sorry but you seem to be the hater.
So WELS and LCMS are ordaining gays. Right dude.
I can’t keep track of all the splinter groups,
Course not, you're too busy on the Net asking stupid questions and tarring the faithful with your broad brush.
but that’s what you guys are telling me.
Haven't seen that once in this thread, point it out. More hyperbole.
I know you all have your reasons for hating your brothers and sisters in Christ
Doctrinal disagreement isn't hate Deacon, figure it out. Provs 6:19.
LOL, thought you would like that. Anne Boleyn ‘caused’ it all, when Henry wanted her and couldn’t get rid of Catherine of Aragon. Henry was maybe the 16th Century version of Billy Jeff...
I have seen the site in the Tower of London where Anne finally lost her head. No visible splattering of blood at the site, I might add, but the Tower of London is worth a visit or two for anyone visiting London.
Perhaps an even more interesting reason to visit the Tower is to set eyes on the Crown Jewels. And forget pics, they consficate film (don’t know what they do about smartphones and their picture taking capabilities these days...do they consficate phones?).
Don’t bet on it.
Then despite being rather close to 80, you are still not my father in any sense of the word. And that you can bet on.
Ah, the “no true Scotsman” fallacy. John Calvin, you may have heard of him. A Protestant. John and Charles Wesley, you may have heard of them. They are generally thought of as Protestants, as is Henry and his reformed Catholic church.
No, as you should know by your age, that is not the "no true Scotsman" fallacy, as it was not an argument based on mere rhetoric or arbitrary definition, without reference to any objective standard, but appeals to original historical meaning, which would not sanction ordaining homosexuals (or even women). Or do you really believe your American ecclesiastical cousins are consistent with Calvin etc. in so doing???
Which disallows your logical fallacy that since some modern churches sanction sodomy, then "all of your Protestant churches are ordaining and marrying homosexuals." Thus in your judgment no true Prot church would deny this, while "my Protestant churches " as in "your" certainly do, while it is your ecclesiastical kin that affirm homosexuality!
I’ll let you figure out what those guys have to do with the churches I mentioned.
Which is more fallacious reasoning, as it charges the founders with what there historical descendants did contrary to their moral standards, or else it defines the former by the latter. Do you really believe Calvin and John and Charles Wesley sanctioned sodomite clergy" Meanwhile Henry is of your ecclesiastical heritage , though not much of a theological founder.
And I don’t defend the Anglican church, that’s the difference between you and me.
What nonsense! When did i ever defend a particular church, versus the most conservative Christian faith, in contrast to Rome which you defended? It is YOU who attempted to deal with my refutation of Rome by charging all my Protestant churches are ordaining and marrying homosexuals! And then telling me to clean up "my house," as i was defending or promoting your cousins and the like!
I am a Christian in the Anglican tradition. This is not my club against yours, we are all supposed to be Christians. But you can’t hate your brother and say you love God.
Forgive me for not feeling the love when without warrant you place me and all Prots with liberal apostates, and then construe reproof of elitists Rome and false accusers as hating her members.You want to simply be a Christian in the Anglican tradition, but do not others be one in their distinctive evangelical faith, but place them with liberal apostates based upon specious reasoning. Sounds too much like RCs and liberals themselves.
Thank God for what He provides for good!
What, specifically, are you referring to?
That's easy. For one, can you find even one prayer in Scripture (except by pagans) among the close to 200 the Holy Spirit records addressed to anyone in Heaven but the Lord, or or in the Lord's teaching on how to pray ("our mother who art in Heaven")?
Or of any created beings being able to hear virtually innumerable incessant prayers addressed to them and respond, which only God is shown able to do.
Trying to extrapolate PTDS by compelling a correspondence btwn earthly relations and that of created beings in Heaven and on earth is unsupported.
Just as you initially started out wrongfully accusing "Protestants" of hating clergy - of which you claimed to be - you also are wrong about my motivation here and why I say what I do. It has NOTHING to do with a lack of forgiveness, though you ought to look in that mirror of yours once you clean it off to see why you demonstrate such a lack of it. What I defend is the gospel - something you have failed to define so far what you believe specifically on that subject. I answered your question about what I believe, when will you do the same?
Then "all of your Protestant churches" - in distinguishing btwn the church i reproved (Rome) - either includes all of Protestantism, with Episcopalians, Presbyterians, and Lutherans being examples, and to which you added Methodists, or it somehow identifies me ("your Protestant churches") with churches you can hardly imagine i would be part of (and never were, versus conservative Baptist, and a couple conservative Pentecostal churches), at least the liberal denoms of them. Where did you get the idea "all" meant 3 or 4, or that these were my Protestant churches?
In any case, it is you who is throwing rocks as a deacon in a glass house.
15. In Issues in Human Sexuality the House affirmed that, while the same standards of conduct applied to all, the Church of England should not exclude from its fellowship those lay peope of gay or lesbian orientation who, in conscience, were unable to accept that a life of sexual abstinence was required of them and who, instead, chose to enter into a faithful, committed sexually active relationship.
16. Consistent with that, we said in our 2005 pastoral statement that lay people who had registered civil partnerships ought not to be asked to give assurances about the nature of their relationship before being admitted to baptism, confirmation and holy communion, or being welcomed into the life of the local worshipping community more generally.
18[b]“Those same sex couples who choose to marry should be welcomed into the life of the worshipping community and not be subjected to questioning about their lifestyle. Neither they nor any children they care for should be denied access to the sacraments.” - https://www.churchofengland.org/media-centre/news/2014/02/house-of-bishops-pastoral-guidance-on-same-sex-marriage.aspx
Michael, you may be new here but that is clearly "making it personal" and "mind reading," as the RM will tell it if he sees it.
While I agree that the church is invisible to the extent that no one knows who it’s members are by looking at them, the church has to be visible so you can know where to get your questions answered, from someone with AUTHORITY, not some backwoods self ordained “preacher” who is so poorly trained in hermeneutics he can’t preach his way out of a paper bag. That’s what I grew up with.
As one raised RC, i can honestly say that if any preachers can’t preach their way out of a paper bag its your typical priests. That’s what I grew up with and mostly heard during my years as a weekly mass goer after i came back for 6 years. But by far the best and convicting and moving preachers i have heard were evangelical.
For couple good examples, watch/listen to Paul Washer (Reformed) here , "How Much Do You Know God?"
And for a Pentecostal watch B. H. Clendennen, "soldiers" here
Its not Joel Osteen.
And while training in hermeneutics has its place, its anointing, not academia that is most critical. After all, the church began with souls mainly following unlettered itinerant preachers.
“You want to simply be a Christian in the Anglican tradition, but do not others be one in their distinctive evangelical faith, but place them with liberal apostates based upon specious reasoning. Sounds too much like RCs and liberals themselves.”
You are wrong.
In the first place, all I meant by bringing up the gay marriage thing was to show you there is plenty of blame to go around, regardless of whatever you think your grievance is, because I guarantee you, when you start in on someone else over what you consider to be some “important” doctrinal distinction, (like something as trivial as what they call their ministers) you can bet they will find something wrong with you, too.
I, for example, do not believe Mary was a perpetual virgin, either. Is that enough for me to kick 1.2 billion Christians out of my world? Harldy. If false doctrines such as dispensationalism and the way some people claim to use “tongues” is not, then the RCC is safe in my universe.
My only criteria for fellowship is that you believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and be baptized, we will sort out the rest as we go along.
You accuse me of “mind reading” - if you knew how many times I have heard all of these arguments you’d know I have the scripts for all of them memorized. It’s always the same thing.
I think it was you who claimed to “defend the Gospel”. You don’t need to defend the Gospel, you need to live it.
And with that, I have to prepare for services.
The first of which wore funny clothes and ate BUGS!!!
Yow!
Look at the time!!
Me; too!!!
...and let the animals out.
See you later -. - . - .
;-)
Indeed. And we can easily imagine the correspondence of Rome to the chief priests, etc. in Mk. 11:27-33.
Rather, what Newman "knew" or should have was that history could not be reconciled with Rome's reality expect thru the specious Development of Doctrine ,” which makes a Weeping willow (Salix babylonica) tree out of an acorn.
And that's what we have here...God plants an acorn and a willow tree claims it is the final result of that acorn...And for those who don't know, an acorn produces (is the seed of) an oak tree, not the Catholic willow tree...
The epithet babylonica in this Chinese species' scientific name (S. babylonica), as well as the related common names "Babylon willow" or "Babylon weeping willow", derive from a misunderstanding by Linnaeus that this willow was the tree described in the Bible in the opening of Psalm 137 (here in Latin and English translations):
Super flumina Babylonis illic sedimus et flevimus, cum recordaremur Sion.
- In salicibus in medio ejus suspendimus organa nostra....
By the rivers of Babylon, there we sat down, yea, we wept, when we remembered Zion.
- We hanged our harps upon the willows in the midst thereof. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salix_babylonica
Then if so, you should have attacked evangelical faith (which i can), which should have been obvious to you i was part of ("Not that the evangelical church is altogether the NT church but Rome is the one who claims to be "it," but is fundamentally perverse"), rather than placing me in the company of liberal Prots like your Episcopalians, and even using "your Protestant churches" as if you were not part of such!
However, post was not simply church against church, but your assertion of Rome as being the one true infallible church, as if it was the NT church despite it being fundamentally perverse, and the reasoning that formal historical descent (of a non-existent infallible supreme pope) establshed the claim to be that NT church.
because I guarantee you, when you start in on someone else over what you consider to be some “important” doctrinal distinction, (like something as trivial as what they call their ministers) you can bet they will find something wrong with you, too.
I see. So by reproving the doctrine of a church claiming to be the One True Church® by showing its critical contrast to that of the NT church is that of saying Episcopalians, (liberal) Presbyterians, and (liberal) Lutherans are better?
Or is this the old liberal "thou shalt not judge" misappropriation of Scripture, which disallows earnestly contending for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints, (Jude 1:3) and reproving the unfruitful works of darkness? (Eph. 5:11)
It is you who engaged in wrongful judging, placing my faith in the company of those churches i set in contrast with, while it is your Anglican church that is part of them!
Your tactic is to simply look for one statement of an argument that you can try to use to negate the whole. And in so doing you strategically picked on mandated clerical celibacy to compare with liberal prosodomite churches, which are actually closer to Rome, and which i also would reprove, and ignored the fundamental differences btwn Rome and the NT church, such as Rome's gospel and the basis for assurance of Truth being the premise of the assured magisterial veracity of Rome, versus Scriptural substantiation by which common souls followed itinerant preachers.
As well as what is behind making NT pastors into a class of men distinctively titled "priests," that of making the "Eucharist as the means by which one received spiritual life in themselves," "turning bread into human flesh and dispensing it to the people," around which all revolved, but which they are never shown doing, or is physically eating anything the means to gain spiritual and eternal life, as per the skewed literal understanding of Jn. 6:53,54.
I, for example, do not believe Mary was a perpetual virgin, either. Is that enough for me to kick 1.2 billion Christians out of my world? Harldy. If false doctrines such as dispensationalism and the way some people claim to use “tongues” is not, then the RCC is safe in my universe.
Here you are simply continuing in your error of taking one aspect out of a totality of many things i listed, , both fundamental, salvific or significant, to compare it with non-fundamental, non-salvific but significant things.
The reality is that not only does 1.2 billion Catholics include the majority in the West which are so liberal as to deny Christian faith, but relative few are born again (which i manifestly became with its profound changes at age 25, and remained in Rome for 6 years as a faithful weekly RC), due to the idea than a perpetual assuredly infallible magisterium, this being the stewards of Scripture, is essential for providing and preserving Truth and assurance of it contrary to Scripture and how the church began,
And due to #10, "preaching a gospel of salvation which begins with becoming good enough inside (formally justified due to infused interior charity), via sprinkling or baptism in recognition of proxy faith, and which usually ends with becoming good enough to enter glory via suffering in purgatory, commencing at death."
My only criteria for fellowship is that you believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and be baptized, we will sort out the rest as we go along.
Well then give Simon the right hand of fellowship.
Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done. (Acts 8:13)
The Bible mandates separation as well as unity, and the latter without the former is perverse. But RCs are stuck with treating even impenitent proabortion prosodomite pols as members, as Rome counts and treats them as such in life and in death (Teddy K, etc.)
But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person. (1 Corinthians 5:13)
You accuse me of “mind reading” - if you knew how many times I have heard all of these arguments you’d know I have the scripts for all of them memorized. It’s always the same thing.
When you charge a believer with having no forgiveness in her heart then you can indeed be cited as engaging in “mind reading,” as i am sure the mod would tell you if you ping him, but i did not but told you instead, and which would save you a censor in the future. If you want to disagree, ask the RM.
I think it was you who claimed to “defend the Gospel”. You don’t need to defend the Gospel, you need to live it.
Really? And disobey Jude 1:3 cited above? Or is that only for the ordained class as yourself? Now you have confirmed you subscribe to the liberal misappropriation of "thou shalt not judge" while engaging in the same toward me.
contrite damned+destitute sinner
But out of love for God and the Truth and holiness a believer is to contend for the faith.
He that saith unto the wicked, Thou art righteous; him shall the people curse, nations shall abhor him: But to them that rebuke him shall be delight, and a good blessing shall come upon them. (Proverbs 24:24-25)
And a false gospel, such as teaches formal justification by one's own holiness thru sprinkling, and gaining Heaven thru postmortem purgatorial purification, and or which fosters confidence in one's own goodness as earning eternal life, doing more good than evil, rather than faith in Christ to save the contrite damned+destitute sinner on His expense and righteousness, with a faith that effects obedience, is a false gospel, and which is what the soteriology of Rome does.
As Peter Kreeft (RC apologist, author and professor of philosophy at Boston College and The King's College), testifies,
Over the past twenty-five years I have asked hundreds of Catholic college students the question: If you should die tonight and God asks you why he should let you into heaven, what would you answer? The vast majority of them simply do not know the right answer to this, the most important of all questions, the very essence of Christianity. They usually do not even mention Jesus! http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0027.html
And here is a classic example:
I feel when my numbers up I will appoach a large table and St.Peter will be there with an enormous scale of justice by his side. We will see our life in a movie...the things that we did for the benefit of others will be for the plus side of the scale..the other stuff,,not so good will..well, be on the negative side..and so its a very interesting job Pete has. I wonder if he pushes a button for the elevator down for the losers...and what .sideways for those heading for purgatory..the half way house....lets wait and see.... — http://forums.catholic.com/showpost.php?p=4098202&postcount=2
You mileage may vary, but i find grievous the institutionalized gospel of both Catholicism and much of Protestantism, as well as salvation by coaxing intellectual assent to a sinners prayer, or the pablum preaching of Joel Osteen and "prosperity gospel" of many so-called "faith" teachers (though God blesses true holy faith, which does not need to plead for money), and esteem men as Matthew Henry, Spurgeon, etc, while seeking a heart that delights in all such words of holiness, and in which Christ reigns unopposed.
Here is a good short message by an old time Anglican, J. C. RYLE - 1816-1900: ARE YOU BORN AGAIN ?
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.