Posted on 09/18/2010 7:13:15 PM PDT by lightman
Edited on 09/18/2010 7:26:53 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
In a ceremony that started with a public mea culpa and ended with a prolonged standing ovation, three lesbian ministers were officially embraced Saturday by the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA).
The three were the Rev. Anita Hill, pastor of St. Paul-Reformation Lutheran Church in St. Paul . . . .
“We do not have sinful doctrine.”
Titus 1:10 For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision: Whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not
Act 20:29 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.
1 John 2:18 Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.
Gal 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
You wrote:
“Funny how how that part was left out of Scripture.”
It wasn’t left out. Christ founded a Church. Certainly it was no Protestant sects since none of them existed for another 1500 years. Who does that leave? Your only choices are the Catholic Church or the Orthodox Churches.
“Why would Christ come and tear down the walls between humanity and God; and then insist that a bureaucratic, ritual driven church be founded?”
Because He BECAME a man. Christ took on flesh so He could walk among us and die on the cross. In other words, He used the things of this world - flesh, the cross, bread, wine - to accomplish His desire (to teach and redeem mankind). He gathered followers and even separated them into two groupes: Apostles and Disciples. He told them the secret understanding of the parables, but no one else (Mark 4:11). Why? Why didn’t Christ just tell everyone? Why did Christ give the Apostles power and authority he gave to no one else (John 20:19-23)?
Well Vlad, someday we may be able to have a conversation on the subject...someday. But not so long as you continue with your overt papist arrogance.
“Certainly it was no Protestant sects since none of them existed for another 1500 years”
Another lie taught to the ignorant by members of the fusion cult of the “queen of heaven”.
First of all there really is no such thing as protestantism in the same sense that there is the various branches of the Greek Orthodox Church who later then excommunicated the Roman Catholic church at the time of Leo for beginning the papacy and then who created their own various branches and separations within themselves in history.
Protestantism should really only be seen as a general term to define those people who in European history had become exposed to the Bible themselves and began to learn to the Biblical based gospel through reading it directly. Those “protesters” in Europe became a large group after being exposed to the bible and thus naturally protesting against the Papal fusion cult and all her heresies, abominations, abuses and indulgences. These protestors were by no means an organized centralized church though, they were just individuals who were for the first time starting to make up their own minds themselves rather then being held in deception for centuries as their forefathers were.
Neither the Greek Orthodox, Roman Catholics or Protestant individuals have any kind of lineage claim with God that makes them the way to salvation, the only way to salvation is through the Son, Jesus, and He is only revealed by faith individually by calling out to Him in repentance by knowing the doctrines of the Bible, not by taking part in any traditions of men, memberships in ancient pagan fusion cults who serve false christs, or needing some priest of a pagan fusion cult to intercede for you to the “queen of heaven”, etc.
A certain period of European history was called the “dark ages” for a reason, as the common man was kept in the dark by the Roman Catholic religion as well as various other smaller false gospel movements as to what the Bible actually taught.
***What changed everything was the invention of the printing press alone.***
Because of the printing press various men became known through their writings which they could then mass publish and distribute. Calvin, Luther, etc. just happened to be around at that time and became more known, but they by no means started the massive “protesting” movements themselves, it was the exposing of the general public to the Bible through the printing press that started everything.
Luther and Calvin never had to exist for masses of people to leave the Roman Catholic fusion cult. Luther and Calvin were heretics in their own way as well anyways and brought about their own set of unbiblical teachings, which of course was understandable as they were just babies coming out of a cult trying to find their way in a dark time.
The routes which many (originally) “protesting” churches have gone in the same way of Roman Catholicism and created their own unbiblical fusion cults (as this lesbian article shows) clearly shows and proves again that any group who moves away from the Bible alone has no hope of knowing the True Christ or His gospel, but will end up in corruption as all heretical movements have in the last 2000 years.
You wrote:
“Well Vlad, someday we may be able to have a conversation on the subject...someday. But not so long as you continue with your overt papist arrogance.”
It seems that you are the only one with a problem in regard to having a conversation. You also are now resorting to pejoratives (”papsit” - look it up in a good dictionary). So, the problems seem to be all yours. How sad.
The problem is Christ did not intend to create a NEW “church”. Judaism was to be modified via the new revelations and it was expected there would simply be a continuation of Judaism, not a rift that would leave the “Hebrews” separate.
And as far as I know, there was no organized church for decades; maybe centuries.
That said, I have huge respect for Catholics. Sometimes I think I defend it so much people think I’m really a patsy for it. But I cannot let certain statements from Catholics fly by; hence my reply.
Took your recommendation and looked up "papsit"(sic) and couldn't find anything. I assume its maybe a bench seat in the Pope-mobile? However, I did find "papist" and in your case, the definition fits. May I remind you that you were the first with pejorative remarks about protestantism.
Now that I've gotten you straightened out on that one, perhaps we can discuss the fact that there is only one mediator between God and man. Or maybe we can discuss the fact that we have direct access to the throne of God, that Jesus shed his blood to give us that access and how its possibly an insult to God to ask some long dead believer to intervene. But then again, we'd probably never come to any agreement.
“Christ founded a Church. Certainly it was no Protestant sects since none of them existed for another 1500 years. “
Again, no. The church in Acts was not the Catholic church.
Also, Catholics base their authority on Matthew 16:18; which is a misunderstanding of scripture.
Humans created the precursor of the Catholic church, because humans crave power and importance.
Jesus did not not teach or create the Catholic church.
I have no doubt if Jesus descended from heaven today, he would sweep away the Catholic churches rituals, gaudy robes, the Mary worship, jewelry and all the rest. He would do it in the same way (and the same anger) he threw the money changers from the Temple.
You wrote:
“The problem is Christ did not intend to create a NEW “church”. Judaism was to be modified via the new revelations and it was expected there would simply be a continuation of Judaism, not a rift that would leave the “Hebrews” separate.”
That’s what the Church is. Jews rejected Christ. Those who didn’t reject Christ joined the Church.
“And as far as I know, there was no organized church for decades; maybe centuries.”
The Church was organized from the start. Jesus chose 12 Apostles. He instructed them and gave them authority. As time went on the Church became more organized as it answered questions and resolved issues.
“That said, I have huge respect for Catholics. Sometimes I think I defend it so much people think I’m really a patsy for it. But I cannot let certain statements from Catholics fly by; hence my reply.”
I understand.
You wrote:
“Took your recommendation and looked up “papsit”(sic) and couldn’t find anything.”
You obviously didn’t check a good dictionary. You probably wouldn’t know one if you came across it anyway. If you check Merriam-Webster you’ll see it is described as “usually disparaging”.
“I assume its maybe a bench seat in the Pope-mobile? However, I did find “papist” and in your case, the definition fits. May I remind you that you were the first with pejorative remarks about protestantism.”
I made no “pejorative” remarks at all. I used correct terms and was accurate in my use of them.
“Now that I’ve gotten you straightened out on that one, perhaps we can discuss the fact that there is only one mediator between God and man.”
You just figured that out? We have always known that and the Holy Spirit inspired an early Catholic - St. Paul - to write that in 1 Timothy 2:5.
“Or maybe we can discuss the fact that we have direct access to the throne of God, that Jesus shed his blood to give us that access and how its possibly an insult to God to ask some long dead believer to intervene.”
1) We always knew we had direct access to God.
2) We always knew what Jesus’ death did for us.
3) We know it is no insult to ask saints to pray for us.
“But then again, we’d probably never come to any agreement.”
I have no reason to believe your opinions are orthodox, so, no, we probably would not agree. When you actually learn scripture and Church history come back and talk to me. Until then start with a good dictionary and avoid attempts at humor that make you look more like a sciolist than anything else.
You wrote:
“Again, no. The church in Acts was not the Catholic church.”
Oh, actually it was the Catholic Church and still is. And in any case, it most certianly was no puny 16th century sect founded somewhere in Northern Europe nor was it a sect from somewhere in America in the 1900s.
“Also, Catholics base their authority on Matthew 16:18; which is a misunderstanding of scripture.”
Incorrect. We base the authority of the Church squarely on Christ giving it to the Church. And we do not misunderstand Matthew 16. Rather, as some Protestants admit, it is Protestants who misunderstand Matthew 16.
D. A. Carson comments:
... on the basis of the distinction between “petros” and “petra,” many have attempted to avoid identifying Peter as the rock on which Jesus builds his church. Peter is a mere “stone,” it is alleged, but Jesus himself is the “rock,” as Peter himself attests (1 Peter 2:5-8). Others adopt some other distinction: e.g. “upon this rock of revealed truth- this truth you have just confessed- I will build my church.” Yet if it were not for Protestant reactions against extremes of Roman Catholic interpretation, it is doubtful whether many would have taken “rock” to mean anything but Peter.
... Had Matthew wanted to say no more than Peter was a stone in contrast with Jesus the Rock, the more common word would have been “lithos” (”stone” of almost any size). Then there would have been no pun- and that is just the point!
Now, I would disagree with Carson on the “extremes of Roman Catholic interpretation” but it is clear that Carson and a growing number of Protestant scholars can no longer deny what Matthew 16 literally says.
“Humans created the precursor of the Catholic church, because humans crave power and importance.”
Nope. The Catholic Church was founded by Christ. It’s precursor was Judaism. That was founded by God too. And the Catholic Church was persecuted in the beginning - and still is today - by people who don’t know what it is (and who apparently don’t know what Matthew 16 says according to other Protestants).
“Jesus did not not teach or create the Catholic church.”
Actually Jesus did teach and did establish the Catholic Church.
“I have no doubt if Jesus descended from heaven today, he would sweep away the Catholic churches rituals, gaudy robes, the Mary worship, jewelry and all the rest.”
We don’t worship Mary. And if Jesus came today, although this world would pass away, He would not be against beautiful vestments and “jewelry and all the rest” because it would be like the worship in heaven. Jesus is coming in glory - not misery or poverty. Apparntly you are unfamilar with such scriptural concepts as to the nature of Christ’s return.
“He would do it in the same way (and the same anger) he threw the money changers from the Temple.”
Nope. The Temple problem was about selling items in the Temple. Jesus not only dutifully paid the Temple tax, but He never once denounced the riches of the Temple or splendour of its worship. He also never rebuked the woman who poured the perfumed oil from the alabaster jar over His head even though it could have been sold to feed the poor. See Luke 7:36 if you are unfamiliar with the Bible.
The problem was actually unscrupulous merchants who took advantage of poor pilgrims. People would travel for days to make their required offerings at the Temple and the animal sellers and money changers took advantage of that and made huge profits. That is what angered Christ.
And Mary is worshiped. I have seen people post things about how that doesn't happen. Then I read some writing from the Catholic church showing that clearly she is.
But you know what? I won't change your mind, and you won't change my mind, so debate is a waste of electrons.
You wrote:
“The problem was actually unscrupulous merchants who took advantage of poor pilgrims. People would travel for days to make their required offerings at the Temple and the animal sellers and money changers took advantage of that and made huge profits. That is what angered Christ.”
What you said in a paragraph I said in one sentence.
“And Mary is worshiped.”
Not by Catholics she isn’t.
“I have seen people post things about how that doesn’t happen.”
In other words, you’ve seen people post the truth and you chose to ignore it.
“Then I read some writing from the Catholic church showing that clearly she is.”
No, actually you never did. You can’t read what doesn’t exist.
“But you know what? I won’t change your mind, and you won’t change my mind, so debate is a waste of electrons.”
But you know what? Someone who chooses to ignore the truth and makes up falsehoods isn’t interested in debate. Like I said, Catholics posted the truth and you chose to ignore it. Sure sounds like wilfull ignorance to me.
I did and finally we found something we can agree on, that being the definition of "papist". The term you used however "papSit" is somewhat of a google mystery. You started this off with a disparaging remark about Protestants. So far I've learned that you consider us all to be unfettered, rebellious, heretics who twist the scriptures. I have yet to find any scripture supporting your practice of praying to saints. So who's twisting scriptures?
I have had a number of interesting and enjoyable conversations with Catholics on this forum. Never once had it come into my mind to considered any of those folks to be 'papist'. You, however operate directly from a position of arrogance and superiority and have earned the term.
That's odd, as I see many instances of Catholics asking Mary to intercede for things. That is worship in most people's books.
Mary was an ordinary woman asked to do extraordinary things.
The only truth is Christ. Not gaudy robed popes. Not layers of priest and bureaucrats created to put a division between man and Christ.
This all so simple when one reads and seeks to understand Scripture. No one who reads Scripture can think God had any intention of creating a Pharisee type replacement for what He came to abolish.
“...its possibly an insult to God to ask some long dead believer to intervene.”
‘3) We know it is no insult to ask saints to pray for us.’
The correct challenge here is to ask how many people DO NOT ask family, neighbors, friends, church, etc, to “pray for them”.
I guess that is an insult and abomination, too.
Asking saints/Mary to beg for you is not IMO much different from this.
“That’s odd, as I see many instances of Catholics asking Mary to intercede for things. That is worship in most people’s books.
“Mary was an ordinary woman asked to do extraordinary things.”
Asking someone to pray for you and beg God on your behalf is not “worship”. You ask people to pray for you or your loved ones many a time, I’d wager.
As for praising Mary, etc., I’d say it’s nothing more than veneration. We (certainly I do) venerate George Washington. That does not mean we worship him and make him god.
1 Tim 2:5 For [there is] one God, and ONE MEDIATOR between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; Who gave himself a ransom for all
Mat 3:9 And think not to say within yourselves, WE HAVE Abraham to [our] father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.
Jhn 4:21 Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall NEITHER in this mountain, NOR yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father... But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him. God [is] a Spirit: and they that worship him MUST worship [him] in SPIRIT and in TRUTH.
Act 17:24 God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth NOT in temples made with hands; Neither is worshipped with men’s hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things
Act 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and SEARCHED THE SCRIPTURES daily, WHETHER those things WERE SO.
Rom 16:17 mark them which cause divisions and offences CONTRARY TO THE DOCTRINE which ye HAVE learned; and avoid them. For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches DECEIVE the hearts of the simple.
Col 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the TRADITION OF MEN
Rev 2:2 I know thy works, and thy labour, and thy patience, and how thou canst not bear them which are evil: and thou hast tried them WHICH SAY they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them LIARS
2 Tim 3:13 evil men and SEDUCERS shall wax WORSE and worse, DECEIVING, and BEING DECEIVED.
You wrote:
“I did and finally we found something we can agree on, that being the definition of “papist”. The term you used however “papSit” is somewhat of a google mystery. You started this off with a disparaging remark about Protestants.”
That’s not true. I started off with an accurate comment about ProtestantISM. Learn to read.
“So far I’ve learned that you consider us all to be unfettered, rebellious, heretics who twist the scriptures.”
You need to learn to read. I only mentioned Protestants about three times or so. And those references were generally to the leaders, not the common deluded faithful of today.
“I have yet to find any scripture supporting your practice of praying to saints. So who’s twisting scriptures?”
Protestant leaders. Take sola scriptura itself which you are using right now. It exists no where in scripture. The Communion of Saints need not be in scripture to be true. Where is the canon of scripture listed in scripture? Oh, that’s right. It’s not there. Where in Matthew does it say that Matthew wrote that gospel? It doesn’t.
“I have had a number of interesting and enjoyable conversations with Catholics on this forum. Never once had it come into my mind to considered any of those folks to be ‘papist’. You, however operate directly from a position of arrogance and superiority and have earned the term.”
No, you simply used a pejorative when you were challenged and came up short. Get used to coming up short.
In the future, when you actually respond to my words please actually address the post to me. Otherwise you look like a coward trying to hide a post in a thread because you don’t have the ability to defend it.
You wrote:
“First of all there really is no such thing as protestantism in the same sense that there is the various branches of the Greek Orthodox Church who later then excommunicated the Roman Catholic church at the time of Leo for beginning the papacy and then who created their own various branches and separations within themselves in history.”
Excommunicated the “Roman Catholic church” in the time of Leo? You seem to have no idea of what you’re talking about.
“Protestantism should really only be seen as a general term to define those people who in European history had become exposed to the Bible themselves and began to learn to the Biblical based gospel through reading it directly.”
No. The name Protestantism MUST - by definition - be given to those sects which accepted the 16th century Protestant doctrines.
“***What changed everything was the invention of the printing press alone.***”
You mean moveable type printing. And the first book Gutenberg printed was the Catholic bible.
Clearly you’ve got a lot of reading to do.
In the future - when you respond to my words - actually post it to me. Otherwise don’t use my words. Just post to the air.
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.