Why do Protestant lay people hate clergy?

[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?

[Karl Spooner]

Those who believe in the holy catholic apostolic church do not have this problem.

I'd rather have the problem.

[MamaB]

Do y’all even know what Sola Scripture is? It is believing the Bible has everything in it to teach salvation and how to live our life afterwards. If you do not beleve that, you do not believe God’s word. That is why it is so easy to understand, that a child can be saved.

[caww]

.....”We see the RC institution in conflict with Scripture in so many ways and can’t understand why when we point out the errors it’s considered “hate” For the RC pointing out that error is attacking their faith and they are obliged to defend it to prove they are faithful and worthy.”......

That’s because they have the cart before the horse......

If one understands the centrality of Jesus Christ, that HE is front and center to a Christian....and that the Church is a “reflection” of believers relationship to Him and thus a “Body of believers” then what they defend is their faith IN HIM....

It’s not necessary to defend an institute nor a church denomination, nor a church building.....You are a Christian who defends “Faith In Jesus Christ” and HE is accessible to all men no matter where they worship.

[CynicalBear]

>>Those who believe in the holy catholic apostolic church do not have this problem.<<

LOL As much good as it will do them. Catholics, Muslims, Mormons and many others who adhere to cultic beliefs for fear of recrimination from those cults can’t veer from what their leaders tell them to believe. That however isn’t what leads to eternal life.

[MamaB]

Beleve =believe. Am having trouble with this iPad.

[metmom]

That’s the problem when your faith is your church.

For those of us whose faith is in Christ alone for salvation, the denominational affiliation is secondary. Therefore, pointing out error or inconsistencies in the denomination are not viewed either as an attack on our faith or us personally.

A person’s reaction to pointing out error in their church tells a lot about what they’re really trusting in.

[metmom]

I hate trying to type and post on my iPad.

It’s just too slow and clumsy.

[HarleyD]

I don't see a lot of difference between then and now in how they see themselves.....nor their behavior or arguments regarding their dogma and how they view those outside their “country”.

I absolutely agree. I think they tend to present themselves much more moderate-let everyone get along. But I always feel they have underlying tones.

It is interesting that for Protestants we simply want people to come to know Christ as Savior and let Him work in their life to bring about sanctification. For the Catholics they would like them to join the Church so the Church can tell them how to be sanctified.

As far as the church of Philadelphia, I'm not sure if it's still there. But it was difficult for Christians in a Muslim country. For them to exist over 2,000 years is saying a lot.

[St_Thomas_Aquinas]

-— For those of us whose faith is in Christ alone for salvation, the denominational affiliation is secondary -—

“If he will not listen to the church, treat him as a pagan or tax collector.” —Jesus

[Nervous Tick]

May GOD bless you with healing and restoration in body and soul! In JESUS’ mighty name.

[af_vet_1981]

It is dishonest to say the SBC’s official position was weak on abortion until 2003.

I wrote that the SBC supported abortion, which is true. that they started to change, which is true, and that it took them until 2003 to fully rescind their 1971 and 1976 resolutions supporting abortion, which is also true. Anyone can read the SBC resolutions here and judge.

1. 1971 "That we call upon Southern Baptists to work for legislation that will allow the possibility of abortion under such conditions as rape, incest, clear evidence of severe fetal deformity, and carefully ascertained evidence of the likelihood of damage to the emotional, mental, and physical health of the mother"
2. 1974 "Therefore, be it RESOLVED, that we reaffirm the resolution on the subject adopted by the messengers to the St. Louis Southern Baptist Convention meeting in 1971"
3. 1976 "Be it further RESOLVED, that we also affirm our conviction about the limited role of government in dealing with matters relating to abortion, and support the right of expectant mothers to the full range of medical services and personal counseling for the preservation of life and health."
4. 1977 "Be it further RESOLVED, that we also affirm our conviction about the limited role of government in dealing with matters relating to abortion, and support the right of expectant mothers to the full range of medical services and personal counseling for the preservation of life and health."
5. 1978 "Be it therefore RESOLVED, that we the messengers to the Southern Baptist Convention meeting in Atlanta in June 1978, reaffirm the resolution passed by the 1977 Kansas City Southern Baptist Convention."
6. 1979 "Be it further RESOLVED, that we also affirm our conviction about the limited role of government in dealing with matters relating to abortion, and support the right of expectant mothers to the full range of medical services and personal counseling for the preservation of life and health. "
7. 1980 finally starts to show some changes restricting a woman's right to choose "Be it further RESOLVED, That we abhor the use of tax money or public, tax-supported medical facilities for selfish, non-therapeutic abortion, and Be it finally RESOLVED, That we favor appropriate legislation and/or a constitutional amendment prohibiting abortion except to save the life of the mother."
8. 1982 sees further progress that is basically affirming the Catholic position "Therefore, be it RESOLVED, That the messengers to the 1982 Southern Baptist Convention affirm that all human life, both born and pre-born, is sacred, bearing the image of God, and is not subject to personal judgments as to "quality of life" based on such subjective criteria as stage of development, abnormality, intelligence level, degree of dependency, cost of medical treatment, or inconvenience to parents. Be it further RESOLVED, That we abhor the use of federal, state or local tax money; public, tax-supported medical facilities; or Southern Baptist supported medical facilities for the practice of selfish, medically unnecessary abortions and/or the practice of withholding treatment from unwanted or defective newly born infants. Be it finally RESOLVED, That we support and will work for appropriate legislation and/or constitutional amendment which will prohibit abortions except to save the physical life of the mother, and that we also support and will work for legislation which will prohibit the practice of infanticide."
9. It just gets better and better in the rest of the 1980s and 1990s
10. 1996 "WHEREAS, The mother’s health exception has been completely discredited as a catch-all loophole which has been demonstrated to include any reason the mother so desires"
11. until 2003 where the SBC confesses the 1971 and 1974 resolutions were unbiblical, repents, and all is forgiven. "WHEREAS, Resolutions passed by the Southern Baptist Convention in 1971 and 1974 accepted unbiblical premises of the abortion rights movement, forfeiting the opportunity to advocate the protection of defenseless women and children; ... RESOLVED, That we lament and renounce statements and actions by previous Conventions and previous denominational leadership that offered support to the abortion culture; and be it further RESOLVED, That we humbly confess that the initial blindness of many in our Convention to the enormity of Roe v. Wade should serve as a warning to contemporary Southern Baptists of the subtlety of the spirit of the age in obscuring a biblical worldview;"

[CynicalBear]

>>A person’s reaction to pointing out error in their church tells a lot about what they’re really trusting in.<<

That’s the truth. I often wonder how some expect to stand before God and blame the “church” when they find out they were wrong. It’s as if they think they have some sort of shield by being part of some organization.

[wmfights]

You are a Christian who defends “Faith In Jesus Christ” and HE is accessible to all men no matter where they worship.

Amen!

But until someone hears The Gospel they really won't understand this.

[CynicalBear]

Now if you only understand what the Greek word ecclesia and how it was used meant.

[dsc]

“Why do Catholic lay people hate Protestants?”

Never have a seen such a pure example of projection.

Catholic lay people aren’t concerned enough with the whole thing to hate protestants.

[dsc]

“As usual, this empty RC attempt at dismissal only testifies to the absence of any refutation.”

1. It’s not an “RC” dismissal; it is mine.

2. It got the job done. Not noticing when one has been dismissed is just bad manners.

[Mr Rogers]

“I conclude from these comments that modern Baptists do not believe the same doctrine of Inerrancy of the Scriptures as their Independent Fundamental Baptist brethren.”

Well, if they believe the KJV is the Inerrant Scripture...then no, the vast majority of Baptists think they are nuts.

If they believe the Catholic scholar Erasmus was the pinnacle of textual reconstruction, even ‘tho he uses the Vulgate to substitute when he did not have Greek texts, then most Baptists think they are nuts.

If they think “Thou shalt not kill” is one of the 10 Commandments, then they are nuts.

If someone exalts the traditions of man as ruling scripture, instead of scripture ruling traditions...then they are nuts. Sola Scriptura does not mean we believe in using bad Greek texts, or in deliberately mistranslating the Bible to support a political belief. It does mean that if we have to decide if infant baptism is valid, we look in the scriptures...and don’t find it. Instead, we find passages that make the idea of infant baptism ridiculous. And we reject priests offering a continuous sacrifice of Jesus in ‘the Eucharist’ because Jesus said do this in remembrance of me, not do this as part of a perpetual sacrifice of me.

[HarleyD]

Paul was different, as he attests here....

I'm not into "different" with God. God shows no partiality and if He does something for one, He can do it for another. What's to say that God didn't appoint Martin Luther in much the same way? Or Erving down the street?

Peter was the overall chief servant apostle of the holy catholic apostolic church, ie., all its churches.

There is nothing in scripture that supports this. In fact, Acts 15 which talks about the Jerusalem Council puts the elders and apostles on the same par:
Act 15:6 The apostles and the elders were gathered together to consider this matter.

They all came together to make a decision. And less you say it was up to Peter, Peter never made the decision. The matter was decided by James:

Act 15:19 Therefore my judgment [sic: James]is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God,

I would suggest a closer look at the text.

John did not succeed Peter as bishop of Rome, where the head of the holy apostolic church moved

There is absolutely no evidence that Peter ever went to Rome, contrary to Catholic beliefs. Peter's mission was "to the Jews" while Paul's mission was "to the Gentiles". So this naturally begs the question that if the Jews were in Israel, why would Peter even consider leaving to go where Gentiles live? Especially if Peter's mission was to the Jews. This seems to me to be a big, DUH!!! But then that's just me.

As far as John not being "a bishop of Rome", he was an apostle. So that makes me wonder what is considered more important, being a bishop of some church or being appointed by Christ Himself? But we do have our priorities.

I think we have a very different view as to what "submitting to the Church" means. There was a Jewish cardinal of France who stood up to blessed John Paul II as well

There is a vast difference between standing up and blessing the Pope and standing up to tell the Pope he's condemned for teaching false doctrine. That, if memory serves me correctly, is what Martin Luther did and it didn't fair none too well for him.

[xone]

tell the Pope he's condemned for teaching false doctrine. That, if memory serves me correctly, is what Martin Luther did and it didn't fair none too well for him.

But it worked out for the Body of Christ.

[daniel1212]

1. It’s not an “RC” dismissal; it is mine. 2. It got the job done. Not noticing when one has been dismissed is just bad mann Rather, you could not refute my refutation of NT pastors being titled "priests," and instead you absurdly dismissed it as not part of proper theology and as irrelevant.

And which attempt was then itself refuted, and once again in lieu of an argument. you resorted to blithely dismissing it as time-wasting, nonsensical irrelevancy.

Thus you have rendered your own responses as , nonsensical irrelevancy, and unfit for meaningful exchange, and provided more evidence why one should not be a RC.