Posted on 11/23/2011 11:11:08 AM PST by marshmallow
A notoriously 'gay-friendly' parish in San Francisco has invited an openly homosexual Episcopalian cleric to lead an Advent Vespers service.
Most Holy Redeemer parish asked Bishop Otis Charles, a retired Episcopalian prelate, to lead the November 30 service. After serving as the Bishop of Utah from 1971 to 1993, he publicly announced that he is homosexual. Divorced from the mother of his 5 children, he solemnized a same-sex union in 2004.
My understanding of Calvinism is that they don't even discount free will completely, but it would be better for people more familiar with it to expound on it.
I've never found the subject be resolved between the two theologies.
However, Both Calvinists and Arminians hold to salvation by grace through faith in Christ, not of works.
The only *wildly divergent* interpretations occur between Catholicism and Protestantism, not within Protestantism. Claiming that Protestantism is that divided is just an attempt to portray Non-Catholic churches to have more division within them than exists in order to portray the Catholic church in a better light, claiming that it's unified, therefore, better some how.
Joshua 24:14-15 14 "Now therefore fear the LORD and serve him in sincerity and in faithfulness. Put away the gods that your fathers served beyond the River and in Egypt, and serve the LORD. 15 And if it is evil in your eyes to serve the LORD, choose this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your fathers served in the region beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you dwell. But as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD."
There is another possibility: they were kidnapped, brainwashed and had false memories implanted by some cult. I can't think of too many explanations that suffice to describe what they claim are their experiences, as far away from reality as tribesmen in Borneo are from Iowa.
It's bound to happen somewhere. Just not in the areas I've lived in, especially considering the high percentage of former Catholics that I've known to attend the Protestant and evangelical churches in this highly Catholic area.
It's still a moot point. even IF baptism were required for salvation, which it's not, I've been baptized. I'm in. Now what?
Well, let us see what else the Bible says about baptism. You argue from the point that certain conditions are required for salvation. We agree that they are there. What else is there?
The only *condition* for salvation that I see is repentance and confession.
John 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
Context is everything Mark. Jesus was talking about physical birth. When Nicodemus mentioned physical rebirth, Jesus did not correct him nor did He say that He was talking about baptism.
And when Jesus says this, where's the mention of baptism?
John 3:14-18 14And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, 15that whoever believes in him may have eternal life.
16"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. 17For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. 18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.
Luke 7:44-50 44Then turning toward the woman he said to Simon, "Do you see this woman? I entered your house; you gave me no water for my feet, but she has wet my feet with her tears and wiped them with her hair. 45 You gave me no kiss, but from the time I came in she has not ceased to kiss my feet. 46 You did not anoint my head with oil, but she has anointed my feet with ointment. 47Therefore I tell you, her sins, which are many, are forgiven—for she loved much. But he who is forgiven little, loves little." 48And he said to her, "Your sins are forgiven." 49Then those who were at table with him began to say among themselves, "Who is this, who even forgives sins?" 50And he said to the woman, "Your faith has saved you; go in peace."
Jesus made no mention of baptism here.
So now if salvation is conditional on baptism, there's a contradiction in Scripture and even in Jesus's own teachings. If baptism doesn't cause salvation, is salvation is not conditional on baptism, then there is no contradiction.
Why don't you think that Jesus death on the cross wasn't good enough that you have to add a work for you to do to it for it to be effective? If salvation were conditional on baptism, why didn't God institute it when He gave the Law? Then everyone could do what the Catholics claim needs to be done. Be baptized, eat flesh and blood, and keep the Law by doing good works and you'll get to heaven?
Was Peter lying?
Or don’t Catholics think that 1 Peter was God breathed inspired Scripture?
We are talking the same Peter here that Catholics claim is their first pope. Did he make an error in what he wrote down?
Have I mentioned yet that I don’t submit to your, or any protestant’s, interrogation? Well, guess what? I don’t play those stupid games.
It's more than a claim, they are divided, they divide themselves over theology. Protestant churches have split over this very issue in the past, likely more will in the future.
And what IS your obsession with Catholics? Isn’t it time to grow up? When people who hate the Church leave it, it’s a blessing for all of us. We don’t want them back, and we don’t argue about it. Why not just stay gone, be happy, and live whatever lame and tattered faith you protestants congratulate yourself about?
BB, i pinged you because i thought you would be interested in the post.
to me, a “phony” catholic is someone who ever posted any of the following as catholic doctrine:
1. we believe we are saved by works
2. we worship mary
3. we teach mary is divine
4. we worship saints
5. we worship the pope
6. we worship statues
7. we worship bread
8. we kill Christ at every Mass
9. we believe Jesus Sacrifice was insufficient to forgive sins
10. we worship on the pagan “sun” day because Constantine changed the Sabbath to sunday
these are the top 10 “untruths” ( this is as far as the RM will let me go ) told about the Catholic Faith on FR.
now, you want to clear the air??
OK, any “catholic” who has spent one hour learning the Faith realizes all 10 of these are bald faced “untruths”, yet we see these same old tired accusations made thread after thread by those claiming to have been “catholic” at some point.
DO I EVER SEE THESE FORMER “CATHOLICS” EVER CORRECT OR CHATISE THOSE WHO CONTINUALLY TELLS THESE “UNTRUTHS”?
no, quite the contrary, they jump in and agree with the “untruths”
so, what is a REAL CATHOLIC TO MAKE OF ALL THIS??
one of two things:
1. either they are “phony” catholics who have no clue what the Faith is and know what they “think” they know by reading other anti-catholic articles or posts. or,
2. they actually were Catholic at one point and have such a hatred for the Faith that they willingly cooperate in evil by spreading these “untruths”
you tell me which one is true.
Context truly is everything. Nicodemus in John 3 was talking about physical birth. Jesus was talking about baptism (born of water AND the Spirit), which is why Nicodemus was so confused. You wish to have baptism explicitly mentioned? Okay. Let us move on to St. Paul.
Romans 6:4 We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.
Ephesians 4:4 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as you are called in one hope of your calling; One Lord, one faith, one baptism, One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.
1 Peter 3: 18 Because Christ also died once for our sins, the just for the unjust: that he might offer us to God, being put to death indeed in the flesh, but enlivened in the spirit, 19 In which also coming he preached to those spirits that were in prison: 20 Which had been some time incredulous, when they waited for the patience of God in the days of Noe, when the ark was a building: wherein a few, that is, eight souls, were saved by water. 21 Whereunto baptism being of the like form, now saveth you also: not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the examination of a good conscience towards God by the resurrection of Jesus Christ. 22 Who is on the right hand of God, swallowing down death, that we might be made heirs of life everlasting: being gone into heaven, the angels and powers and virtues being made subject to him.
So baptism is merely a whimsical thing and not required? Interesting.
Jesus says baptism (also He says born of water and the Spirit, meaning baptism). Paul says it. Peter says it. All in the affirmative. You point to other verses which do not negate it, but merely leave it out and say see? It doesn't say it there, so it cannot be.
This would be similar to me pointing to the little episode in the temple where Jesus drove out the moneychangers and using it as a proof that religious violence of any kind is justified.
And round we go again. As in your being saved, and forgiven, for all future sins which you have neither confessed nor repented for .
baptized with the Spirit...And then get baptized with water, if you’d like...
hmm, still teaching two baptisms??
someone needs to read Ephesians.
Or 3: They hate everything the Church stands for
a)life begins at conception
b)abortion is a mortal sin
c)Same sex marriage is an abomination
d)Women cannot be priests
e)fetal stem cell research is as bad as abortion
and want to tear it down.
define “repent”, you may have a “change of mind” or “think differently” once you know the true definition.
“Philip didn’t tell him any such thing... “
so Philip preached a different Gospel than Peter and Paul?
“The Eunuch believed on the Lord Jesus Christ...The Eunuch accepted Jesus as his Saviour...Only then, was the Eunuch allowed to be baptized... “
where does the Bible say he accepted Jesus as his personal Saviour?? chapter and verse please.
You have just disqualified yourself from being a Biblical exegete who is worthy to engage in further disputation, nor do your additional verses and argumentation from silence prove that the act of baptism is what causes regeneration or appropriates forgiveness, and is absolutely necessary for it, versus the faith behind baptism being what appropriates the gift.
If you will not concede that you were wrong in contending that forgiveness and regeneration did not precede baptism, and thus it can, then no further exchange is warranted on this issue. Titus 3:2
your choice. if you can’t answer the Scriptures i gave you, end the discussion. i understand.
Yada yada, change the subject.
The subject was the validity of the claim of sola scriptura guided by the Holy Spirit. Specifically your disagreement with the statement: "individual Protestants can have wildly divergent interpretations of scripture and still be infallibly guided by the Holy Spirit."
Examples were produced of one example concerning salvation by election vs. free will which you pronounced as not wildly divergent.
It would seem the history of Calvinism vs. Arminianism alone (ignoring other subjects and interpretations with different theology among sola scriptura churches) would suffice to convince otherwise.
Not so apparently. Your claim expands to "Protestanism is not that divided" in order to minimize the differences in interpretation. I think clear facts are otherwise. A couple of examples from just one denomination over this issue only:
Calvinism creates Baptist dissension
"It went against everything I'd been taught growing up in Southern Baptist churches," Batson said. "It didn't teach that I'd made a choice. It taught the opposite, that God had made a choice. That's frightening when you first see it."An Interview with Dr. Frank S. Page, President and CEO of the Executive Committee of the Southern Baptist Convention (Oct. 18, 2011)Batson's fright soon gave way to a more fervent belief in God's sovereignty in choosing an elect group to save. But the majority at Lee Road didn't agree. After much dissension, Batson, pastor Dean, associate pastor Johnny Touchet and approximately 130 others left eight months ago to form a new Taylors church, Covenant Baptist."…
…"The Bible teaches both viewpoints, and they're diametrically opposed,"agreed the Rev. Tony Beam, pastor of Pleasant Grove Baptist Church in Fountain Inn. "
In July, 115 people left Mount Pisgah Baptist Church in Easley to form Mount Moriah Baptist, which calls itself theologically Reformed instead of Calvinist…
The state's regional Baptist associations invited a Columbia pastor, Dr. Dick Lincoln, to speak about Calvinism at a statewide conference a few weeks ago. He handed out a sheet that included a list of "Scriptural Reasons I Am Not a Calvinist."
In more recent history, the controversy has rolled through the Southern Baptist Convention as pastors wrestled with the implications of inerrancy. For every Acts 13:48 that Calvinists point to, Arminians answer with a Romans 10:13: "For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved."…
"I think one of the issues which is a tremendous challenge for us is the theological divide of Calvinism and non-Calvinism. Everyone is aware of this, but few want to talk about this in public. The reason is obvious. It is deeply divisive in many situations and is disconcerting in others. At some point we are going to see the challenges which are ensuing from this divide become even more problematic for us. I regularly receive communications from churches who are struggling over this issue."And again, these cites are to exemplify the degree of divergence: big enough to split churches over.
The argument is that: individual Protestants/denominations can not have these "divisive," "opposite," and "diametrically opposed," interpretations of scripture and still be infallibly guided by the (same) Holy Spirit. By definition.
Another great joke!! These outright detours around the Trugh and attempts at diversion just aren't working for ya'll. People realize that for all the talking about Scripture the "Sola Yourselfa" crowd does, 90% or more of their arguments start with something taken out of context or a statement equivllent to, "that's what it says, but that's not what it means".
The falsehood of "essential and nonessential doctrine" which is found nowhere in Scripture was whipped up in hopes of papering over the thousands of differences between the various Protestant and Protestant derived groups. If there are no wildly divergent interpretations no such false doctrine would have ever been dreamed up.
None of the current crop of Fundamentalists is going to feel very comfortable in a Southern Baptist Church for long due to the differences in their doctrines and the Southern Baptists and Fundamentalists are much closer together than many other groups are. No sincere Southern Baptist is going to sit through many Presbyterian sermons nor would they offend Christ by entering an Episcopalian church where a queer is the ordained pastor. So sure, pretend these things aren't differences in doctrine if you like but no one is buying it. Everyone knows better and everyone knows that there aren't tens of thousands of different denominations and nondenominations just because they each like different sorts of tablecloths and silverware at their Church picnics.
It's just like Bologna about there being no priesthood and denying that even though God the Father Himself punished Core for the heresy of, "the priesthood of all believers" it's no longer an issue. Pretend all you like, but it's just not so and anyone who doesn't throw out portions of their Bible and ignore other portions knows better. That's why there's the need to have a separate instruction on how to deal with accusations against a priest, they're a separate and identifiable group. It's also why you're told to obey the prelates over us, something not possible if each and every individual interpreter of Scripture is supposed to be their own priest and the ultimate authority for themselves in all matters of faith and morals.
Or, to avoid obeying Scripture, do some folks just throw Scripture they don't like rather than twisting and distorting the clear meaning of The Word the way they twist direct quotes of what Christ Himself said? Claiming to believe in Scripture only after throwing out portions of the Bible that were accepted as Scripture by Christ, the Apostles, and the Berans so many claim to admire isn't even a clever ploy, it's another example of how those who pursue heresy always trip themselves up with their own doctrine. It's always clear that the doctrine they claim to uphold is something to disguise the heresy they're indulging in. Mo did it when he started Iz Lame by admitting that Satan guided him, the Mormons do it by claiming to believe the Bible but accept a prophet after John the Baptist, and the "Sola Yourselfa" crowd give themselves away by first throwing out portions of the Bible and only then claim to believe in Scripture alone.
For those whose religion is based on being ex-Catholic? As long as there's a rebellious bone in their body.
And we all know of the model rebel against God...
a)life begins at conception b)abortion is a mortal sin c)Same sex marriage is an abomination d)Women cannot be priests e)fetal stem cell research is as bad as abortion
and want to tear it down.
When you want what you want when you want it, and they perceive that the Church stands in the way of instant gratification, what do you suppose is the direction that they take?
Excellent summary. I must thank you for the information on Core, by the way. I had forgotten all that.
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.