Posted on 10/12/2015 12:33:54 PM PDT by Mandingo Conservative
In Ohio, Reverend Laura Young says she believes pro-life protesters in front of Planned Parenthood and other abortion facilities have “misguided faith.”...In Ohio, Reverend Laura Young says she believes pro-life protesters in front of Planned Parenthood and other abortion facilities have “misguided faith.”...Young also says religious groups are fueling the so-called war on women. She explained, “Women are being attacked at a moral level by the radical Religious Right. They’ve hijacked the political discussion. This event is an opportunity for progressive religious leaders to stop the silence. We need to be in the conversation.”...The abortion reverend heads up a group called the Ohio Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice,...
(Excerpt) Read more at lifenews.com ...
It's more like the fruit of not following what the Scripture says.
Your contention left out that crucial detail, for it is the written Word which is ultimately the source by which it is known that abortion is error, which should be avoided by all means possible (including adoption, despite the horror stories of past era's orphanages) whenever people can't stop themselves from having sex outside of marriage ---- and historically, people (if but limited numbers within any given culture) have pretty much often failed to refrain themselves from engaging in.
The sex drive is quite powerful, and it is Natural, also.
Would it matter what *they* say?
It's just been established that they are not following the Holy Writ in this instance.
Ant authority they may have had to rest upon previously, or in regards to some other issue --- has now been abandoned, leaving whatever they may have to say be of less worth than the rustling of leaves, and the wind blowing through the trees...
A Sola Scriptura “church” advocates for and supports the murder of infants in their womb. That is all we need to know.
Sorry, that does not fully compute for reasons already explained to you, but which you are now apparently studiously avoiding.
Is it that important to have something to 'bash' the principle of sola scriptura with? How shallow can you get? (nevermind myself having just asked that, I can readily enough see just how shallow the argumentative of Romanists most often truly is!)
Once they step that much away from following the Word of God, they can no longer be properly identified as a 'sola scriptura church', if they ever truly were...for Methodists, along with most other Christian denominations of any size, are not without tradition to help guide them, yet these individuals have turned aside from that also.
Besides, there are others within the Methodist Church who are in disagreement with these handful of liberal losers, featured in the article at the heading of this thread.
The Church of Rome has it's dissidents, including priests also --- which condition is said to not invalidate the claims of "all believing the same" and being a 'sola ecclesia' church, even though it is clear evidence of not all sharing the same identical beliefs, etc...
The non-Catholics on this forum continuously tell the Catholics that we "worship Mary, idols , cookies etc..." .
The sword cuts both ways. Sola Scriptura has resulted in the murder of Babies.
further proof if required:
Denomination of Justices that voted for Roe v. Wade
Majority
Harry Blackmun Methodist.
Warren Burger Presbyterian
William O. Douglas Presbyterian
William J. Brennan Roman Catholic
Potter Stewart Episcopalian
Thurgood Marshall Episcopalian
Lewis F. Powell, Jr. Presbyterian
Minority
Byron White Episcopalian
William Rehnquist Lutheran
The sword cuts both ways.
As far as Sola Scripture being the cause of abortion. Let get to the heart of the matter. It is the heart of man that is the problem, but you know that having read your Bible.
You want to correct protestants, I am all for it and will engage you in discussion IF you read your Bible. Then we are on common ground.
The issue is what is the “touch stone” for testing the truth.
1Ki 18:21...And Elijah came unto all the people, and said, How long halt ye between two opinions? if the LORD be God, follow him: but if Baal, then follow him. And the people answered him not a word.
Does this mean also that in your heart of hearts you admit that *some* Catholics (perhaps not yourself) do much the very things in regards to the "Mary" which has been built up within Roman Catholicism --- that are pointed towards as being wrong?
Otherwise, the "sword cuts both ways statement" would still be swinging only one way --- away from the RCC, and aimed at every other neck (which refuses to bow and pay homage to *it*) with that sword seeming to swing the most towards Christians of most any stripe who are outside of the narrow confines of the RCC. All those 'other' Christians are blamed for the present sins of the Western world, quite often.
It's the same 'ol same 'ol.
When I see some true insight, and less blindness, I might let you know, provided if it's kept up long enough to take note of.
Until then, I'm not buying your arguments. Much of it is for reason of that 'studious avoidance' thingy which I just mentioned.
Go back, and try again.
Speaking of swords -- that cut through the fog, and other 'stuff'.
That is the anti-Catholics saying that. And you are changing the subject. Sola Scriptura has resulted in so many "novelties", and now even though they follow the Bible, claims are made they are not christian. They are Sola Scriptura, and you (all) are stuck with them and the albatross of Sola Scriptura.
You were the one that brought it up.
I need not bother to respond, much further, other than to state that 'sola ecclesia' was not the way of the early Church.
When push came to shove, it was what the Holy Writ best supported, which then was then most widely accepted, then agreed upon to be adopted as doctrinal statement within the Church itself, as toward questions of which there were logical enough grounds of disagreement due to Scripture , saying various things in differing ways & contexts, etc.
There is no 'albatross' of sola scriptura.
It is one of the oldest principles in the book, and was much the way of the early Church.
It took long centuries to eventually depart from it.
We all know of complications and theological errors that has produced.
Leaving things to be, that as usual, you've got nothing much, in all your blustering assertions.
1 Tim 3:15 which is the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth.
Sure there is Homosexual "marriage", abortion on demand, Slavery as practiced in the antebellum south..... The list goes on and on.
It is one of the oldest principles in the book, and was much the way of the early Church.
In the mind of the woefully ignorant.
It's more like they pronounced themselves to be along lines of sola ecclesia, wherein percieving themselves to be in authority, they could freely make decisions unmoored from the guidance of the Holy Writ.
That was much the original point which I made towards you (though now re-worded) which you have been 'studiously avoiding'.
Sorry, but that point (and now several points) craters your overall contentions.
But what a wsay to argue for sola ecclesia.
Do you not realize I see through it, as for the implications?
But go ahead, say what ever. I'm done with this, and with you, for the time being.
Because it is a man made precept. Who is to say if it is properly applied or not. They feel that they are applying it properly. You need a final arbiter and that is the Catholic Church.
That's merely the opinion of those who set their own sola ecclesia over and above even the received Word of God, which is part of what gets the more liberal among the Methodists (and others too) in trouble.
How do we know they are wrong?
Those here who are not Roman Catholics, know that the individuals and activities which are being discussed are wrong, not by consulting with the Roman Catholic Church, but by consulting with (and understanding well enough) the Holy Writ.
Otherwise, if this were not true, you wouldn't be able to be operating under the assumption that many here agreed that praying over an abortion clinic to "bless" it, was ill-advised, at best.
It helps to have that opened to one's own understanding by the Holy Ghost --- to have he Lord be present, and then to also search Him out.
As it is written;
Acknowledge Him in all your ways, and He shall direct your paths.
Notice the above passage predates the inception of the Church of Rome.
So?
The Holy Scriptures still refute them, and their 'feelings'.
No, the final arbiter is the Lord Himself --- not the RCC, by any stretch. When they (the RCC) too chooses to have departed from the Word, then they too are found in error, eventually, if not sooner.
I can point to paces where the RCC has made such departures, overturning even their own earlier traditions, and have done so more than once, previously, on this forum. Singular 'papacy' as that came to be known of among the RCC, is one of those departures from prior tradition and NT Scriptures both.
It's that very stretching and conflating which brings about yet other errors, albeit arguably, apparently enough not presently inclusive of attempt to openly pray blessing over an abortion facility, save perhaps on lowest levels somewhere, and lacking the backing of the rest of the church --- sort-of like this activity under discussion lacks the support of significantly wide swaths of Methodists themselves.
You were beater off when you discontinued the conversation.
No sir, it is yourself who would have been better off to not have leaped towards singling out the principle of sola scriptura as the reason for errant Methodist individuals doing as they were noted to have done -- which is recognized among many here on this forum, to be form of error.
Each time you have come back to me, each reply, the hole which you began in, has become deeper still.
It would have been best if you had not made the ill-founded comment which you did in the first place...to which I originally on this thread, gave reply.
The conversation went pretty much went eventually to where (midway through) I indicated that it would.
The RCC presented as being over and above even the Holy Writ.
Sola Ecclesia, unbound by Scripture itself, for that ecclesia is among those which often grants to the Word meanings, only that which they decide among themselves to allow, having developed over long centuries time specialized ways of neutralizing that which is in the Holy Writ which presents challenges to their own claims to be singular authority over all of that, and everyone in the world also, generally. Need I quote past popes in this, in order to prove that? It matters only little that present day Latin Church Pontiffs have backed away from the stridency of those claims, for those are still theologically binding --- or so we are often told on this forum, by Roman Catholics.
Although the Roman Catholic Church in past times engaged in obscene overreach in that manner (just mentioned in the above paragraph) it doesn't mean they must be entirely wrong in all things --- and are not.
And when they are correct enough --- which can be recognized when there is clear biblical support, does not mean that they are correct and well supported in all which they may otherwise claim.
One can find that sort of condition is universal among the truer and wider 'Universal' Church.
Why would anyone expect it to be entirely different, in the instance of the Latin Church, alone?
To maintain the illusion of doctrinal and dogmatic perfection for Rome, alone as it were, where do we always end up, but eventually, no matter what the particulars of a dispute may be, a form of circular reasoning then begins to be relied upon ---to whit--- that whatever official pronouncements the RCC makes, it does so perfectly, for that one single ecclesiastical organization alone, and none other, is [alleged to be, by that same ecclesiastical organization, referring to it's own 'self'] said to be inerrant, in both it's Ordinary and Extraordinary, self reverentially named 'Magesterium'.
One can chose to believe all that sort of balderdash, if they like, yet it is not needful to do so in order to have an ongoing and fruitful relationship with Christ, neither is believing (what I just identified as being balderdash) any guarantee that there will be an ongoing, blessed relationship between individuals, and their Creator, although I will concede that for some, it does appear to be of some use and benefit.
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.