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?
Once again man trying to take credit. Will they never learn? You may want to study up on how God used even those in horrible error. Judas comes to mind.
I love to read. I came across a site which describes sola scripture. It said that belief is that the Bible has everything in it to teach a person how to accept Jesus and how to be a better Christian. That is what I believe. Sure we need pastors to help teach that to people who are Christians just like a coach teaches players how to be better players. But is we were on an island by ourselves and had a Bible, it would tell us how to accept Christ. Why is that so hard to understand?
The Bible was only put together by people who claimed they were Catholics. God wrote it. Catholics did not. Why is that so hard to understand by some people?
In that hour came the disciples unto Jesus,... And if he refuse to hear them, tell it unto the church: and if he refuse to hear the church also, let him be unto thee as the Gentile and the publican. Verily I say unto you, what things soever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and what things soever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.Peter has the additional gift of holding the key of the office of the vice-regent of the eternal House of David (which is Christ's Kingdom).
Isaiah 22And I will thrust thee from thine office; and from thy station shalt thou be pulled down. And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will call my servant Eliakim the son of Hilkiah: and I will cloth him with thy robe, and strengthen him with thy girdle, and I will commit thy government into his hand; and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah. And the key of the house of David will I lay upon his shoulder; and he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.
Matthew 16
And I also say unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
Rev 3
And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write: These things saith he that is holy, he that is true, he that hath the key of David, he that openeth and none shall shut, and that shutteth and none openeth:
The Holy Spirit gives you the mind of Christ...associating ones self with fellow worshippers assures that one doesn’t go off track. We remain flesh as well as Spirit and subject to sin or at least temptations.
As for what you are describing...seeing how far off track Roman Catholicism has gotten...can it really call itself a Church of Peter the Rock? Just reading the Epistle of Peter and comparing it to the Roman Church tells you how far off track it has gotten!
A true Christian will never deny that Christ is God in the Flesh, nor deny the virgin birth, nor the cross nor the resurrection. The blood of Christ washed away our sins and its spillage made atonement for our sins; a Christian will never deny that. A true Christian will love God with all that he has and will love his neighbor as himself. That is the core of Christianity and a individual’s “self-awareness- of self” being regenerated by the Spirit is that core place in each of us that “guards the heart”. We all have weaknesses which is why we must associate with like believers. Yet at times when we are left alone or are out of our fellows’ observance, those are the times we understand our own crosses we bear. It is in that sense we each of us our own popes guarding our own souls.
God will judge each of us separately...not collectively. There is no such thing as a collective salvation, we are each individuals and our spiritual needs are specific to each of us. Christ is the cure for all of us, an analogy of which was Moses lifting up the serpent on a rod so that those who were bitten of serpents would look upon it and not die of their wounds!
If you had looked then you should have seen that my reply was not to your post but to that of Romulus to yours, which denied that most protestant congregations do not have holy orders, when in fact it is Rome that does not have Scriptural holy orders
“Because the entire concept of “Protestant” invites each individual to be their own “Pope”. One interpretation is as good as another, as long as I convince myself that I am being guided by the Holy Spirit.
That is also a straw man, as under SS no one is a pope, or otherwise claiming assured veracity under the premise of being individually assuredly guided by the Holy Spirit, but which is a distinctive papal claim.
The pope claims to be assuredly correct when speakng according to his infallibly defined formula, even independent of the bishops. Thus it is in Rome that we see the epitome of "sola individuum," while under SS the veracity of a Truth claim is dependent upon the weight of Scriptural substantiation, and which is Scriptural.
In contrast, the RC argument is that an assuredly (if conditionally) infallible magisterium is essential for determination and assurance of Truth (including writings and men being of God) and to fulfill promises of Divine presence, providence of Truth, and preservation of faith, and authority. (Jn. 14:16,26; 15:26; 16:13; Mt. 16:18; Lk. 10:16)
And that being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) means that Rome is that assuredly infallible magisterium. Thus those who dissent from the latter are in rebellion to God.
But which renders Rome fundamentally contrary to the establishment of the NT church.
For indeed, the church actually began in dissent from those who sat in the seat of Moses over Israel, who were the historical instruments and stewards of Scripture, and inheritors of promises of Divine guidance, presence and perpetuation. (Lv. 10:11; Dt. 4:31; 17:8-13; Is. 41:10, Ps. 89:33,34)
And instead they followed an itinerant Preacher whom the magisterium rejected, and whom the Messiah reproved them Scripture as being supreme, (Mk. 7:2-16) and established His Truth claims upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power, as did the early church as it began upon this basis. (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.)
But what of the divisions that result from competing interpretations? See post 139 here for more.
There, fixed it for you. That would be the assembly of local believers that regularly met together not some conglomerate falsely claiming to be some overseer. Then may I once again remind you that no distinction was made between the apostles and other believers as to binding and loosing.
Acts 15:8 And God, who knows the heart, bore witness by granting them the holy Spirit just as he did us. 9 He made no distinction between us and them, for by faith he purified their hearts.
>>And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write: These things saith he that is holy, he that is true, he that hath the key of David, he that openeth and none shall shut, and that shutteth and none openeth:<<
That sir is referring to Jesus NOT Peter.
1 Samuel 2:2 There is none holy as the LORD: for there is none beside thee: neither is there any rock like our God.
The blasphemy of the Catholic Church and it’s followers is astounding.
“15 “If your brother sins against you, go to him and show him his fault. But do it privately, just between yourselves. If he listens to you, you have won your brother back. 16 But if he will not listen to you, take one or two other persons with you, so that ‘every accusation may be upheld by the testimony of two or more witnesses,’ as the scripture says. 17 And if he will not listen to them, then tell the whole thing to the church. Finally, if he will not listen to the church, treat him as though he were a pagan or a tax collector.
18 “And so I tell all of you: what you prohibit on earth will be prohibited in heaven, and what you permit on earth will be permitted in heaven.
19 “And I tell you more: whenever two of you on earth agree about anything you pray for, it will be done for you by my Father in heaven. 20 For where two or three come together in my name, I am there with them.” - Matt 18
To repeat: “18 “And so I tell all of you: what you prohibit on earth will be prohibited in heaven, and what you permit on earth will be permitted in heaven.”
Please note this was directed at the disciples, not just the Apostles.
It’s interesting how the Catholic Church has corrupted the very words of scripture.
There certainly wasn’t a message addressed to the “church of Rome” in Revelation....(in support of your posting).
(and we do know there were Christians and functioning groups under persecution in Rome at the time of John....as denoted by John’s own banishment to Patmos)
There were 12 apostles, as long as they lived, until the end of the apostolic age, when John died.
They will rise at the last trump, at the first resurrection, at the same time as we, and all the rest of the saints do.
There are many with great spiritual gifts, but there are no apostles alive on Earth presently. We know this from what Yeshua revealed to us through John in the Revelation.
>> John 3: 3 Jesus replied, “Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again...” <<
.
This was Yeshua explaining to Nicodemus the process of changing our bodies to live in the Kingdom. It is not the same as the “born again” Peter used in reference to the Mikva (baptism in the Greek) whereby we begin our spiritual journey. They were two separate, and very different words. The words Yeshua used were referring to an actual birth of a new body.
.
You have no scriptural proof of that. There is in fact scriptural proof that your statement is in error. The “kingdom of God” is already in our midst per Jesus own words.
Luke 17:20 Now having been questioned by the Pharisees as to when the kingdom of God was coming, He answered them and said, "The kingdom of God is not coming with signs to be observed; 21nor will they say, 'Look, here it is!' or, 'There it is!' For behold, the kingdom of God is in your midst."
>>They were two separate, and very different words.<<
Nonsense. Both words say virtually the same thing. The word in John 3:3 means to be born (a) from above, from heaven, (b) from the beginning, from their origin (source), from of old, (c) again, anew. The word in 1 Peter 1:23 means I beget again, beget into a new life. No where can your comment be supported by scripture.
“Once again man trying to take credit. Will they never learn? You may want to study up on how God used even those in horrible error. Judas comes to mind.”
Yes, I know, the Bible fell out of the sky fully formed, I have heard it all before.
“You can only wish it was not part of “properly termed theology...” Blah, blah, blah.
And still nothing more than time-wasting, nonsensical irrelevancy. Nothing you said was worth the electricity generated in the neural impulses required to type it.
Double down if you wish but you will still lose. You may want to study as to what happened to Moses and Aaron when they took credit for the water instead of giving credit to God. Hint: they didn't get to go into the promised land.
>> “The “kingdom of God” is already in our midst per Jesus own words.” <<
.
Only to those that are spiritually a part of his kingdom.
Our physical bodies cannot live in the Kingdom. As Paul explained, we must be changed, in a twinkling of an eye, at the last trump, our corrupt bodies must become incorruptible bodies. That is the “born again” to which Yeshua referred in his conversation with Nicodemus, a high priest, who was well aware of what the scriptures said on the matter. It was a technical message, as opposed to the spirititual message that Peter was delivering.
To one that reads his Bible for understanding, there is massive scriptural proof, but to those that do not understand what they are reading, no proof is possible.
.
I trust what he says a whole lot more than some on this site.
I have to commend you on having the wherewithal to make the effort to get the degree, it is no small feat. And you have been lambasted enough by the “Stupid for Jesus” crowd. As far as the “Protestant” label I consider those in the first wave of the reformation to be Protestant, Lutherans, Calvinists, Anglicans. Their leaders had theological training, on the other hand the “Prots” are the Bob’s house O god types. The Johnny come lately types with no training. They have a need to deride anyone one with any type of degree when they themselves have none.
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.