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?
MM, were any ‘excommunicated’? If not, then I have been lead to believe that certain sins only matter if you are. If you are the Pope, apparently you CAN be anti-semitic, exercise power to act on that AS, but still be not as bad as Luther was. After all, the Nazis used his anti-Jewish rant and wouldn’t have hated Jews except for Luther. So basically, AS was unknown in history before Luther and if it hadn’t been for him the poor Nazis would’ve loved the Jews and all those others they murdered, they were sinless until Luther pushed them over the edge.
So he claims it so he is. He doesn’t hold to the Lutheran Confessions, Book of Concord. He does agree with you however in other matters, so he must be telling the truth. He is as much a Confessional Lutheran as you appear to be.
Sir, is this a designation for a group of churches? Would you define, please? Just curious.
I don't know.
My understanding is that most popes have been canonized as saints. I don't know if any in those two lists have been. I've never looked it up, but it just might be worth doing so....
Then let’s hear it; what is your “Gospel”?
Check the a hrefs and then comment. Just like I point out that you ought to read the Bible before commenting
That’s not proof.
I don’t know who posted those pictures and labeled them.
It means nothing.
Check through the websites and see. Otherwise your post doubting the "I don't know who..." sounds similar to the paraphrase above
Let's read through what m and e-s said
m >> “You can “trust” him all you want to, but until you repent and turn from your wicked ways, there will be no reconciliation.” << --> that says trust, but also stop sinning. Go and sin no more. Nothing about works-based salvation. M did not say "stop sinning, but don't trust God and you'll be saved"
e-d That is the message that they reject! They want nothing to do with Yehova’s commandments, and wish to receive instantaneous, guaranteed salvation, without the obedience part. They even have the guile to redefine obedience as “Dead Works.” They even redefine Grace to be that bizarre offer. . --> What I read in this is that e-s is saying one should trust, utterly believe in God's grace, but there is also obedience to God's commandments. He says both are necessary
The key I see here is AND --> both M and e-s say "yes, God's grace is the paramount thing AND He asks us to obey and repent" -- why not ask them directly if they believe that just doing good works will save you -- they will categorically deny that, I'm sure
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"
But ok, wide variety...why the changes? What beliefs did they espouse that attracted and then repelled?
please do read the 1000 posts —> Michael, the poster of the article is a Protestant, Anglican member of the clergy. The complaint is about posters who call themselves Protestants who attack him, a Protestant priest for being a priest
Luther hated those who did not agree to his theological ways. He railed against those who followed Judaism who were not convinced by his teachings to become Christian. He railed against Catholics and against followers of Zwingli etc for the same reason
But Luther did not hate the Jew who converted. he did not have any racial hatred
hitler on the other hand had (false) race theories that meant that even one drop of Jewish blood made you hate-worthy.
QUITE different.
The Nazi's "racial purity" laws were insane -- he promoted "Aryans" but slaughtered gypsies and Poles. He took Luther's diatribe against a religious group that would not convert to Luther's ways and made it about a race.
Luther would be appalled at Hitler and write diatribes against him and the Nutzis I bet.
sorry, no. Hitler's hatred of Jews was racial, not religious. Luther's was of followers of a religion, not a race
Quite different
Also, i do not associate Luther with anti-semitism as his earlier tracts about them are quite kind, when he thought he could convert them by the power of his words.
Luther was a mercurial person and his words vary over time
Oddly enough, Cronos, we are in agreement (will wonders never cease?). Especially since Hitler truly espoused a sort of occult neo-paganism at the heart - He paid homage to the Lutherans (and the Roman church) because he had to politically - there is no doubt that such was a marriage of convenience.
No. All protestants (as a generalization) recognize a submission to a church. How far that submission goes is the question, both in hierarchy and in truth.
Many forms of Protestantism are congregationally aligned, wherein the local church has independence or priority over/from hierarchy, which becomes nothing more than convenience in tying various independents together. Even the more hierarchical branches are becoming very wary of their hierarchy, because most of the apostasy that they are expected to swallow has been shoved down their throats from on high... So 'higher authority' is getting a very bad name (as Anglican/Episcopalians can no doubt testify).
And without a doubt, ALL protestants feel keenly that if their particular church or denomination is not following the Word, it is a personal call to put on the walking shoes. So you won't get far leaning upon robes of office for any automatic authority. What you DO matters way more than what you ARE.
And finally, the vast majority of denoms and independents roundly reject the idea of a priest - there is no need or call for one to stand between the penitent and the divine, as He who stands as such is Master of us all. That particular beef should be of no surprise, as that uncomfortable difference has been present all the way along between the majority of Protestants and their more liturgical brethren. Most will recognize the role of an Elder or Pastor... Who stands alongside the penitent to help and guide.
“So ‘higher authority’ is getting a very bad name (as Anglican/Episcopalians can no doubt testify).”
The laity votes in many of these decisions, and are as much to blame as Clergy are. It is not the “hierarchy”, per se, it is the sinful times we live in.
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.
Even secularists like to talk about the “pedophile Priests” in the RCC, for some reason they are silent when it comes to the unrepentant sinners in the Bishopric of the Episcopal church.
Well, since you display what seems to be an inherent tendency to not get anything right in what you read and respond to, perhaps it’s better for you that someone else interpret Scripture for you.
You can repent any time. God will still forgive you.
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.