/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>593888

It's expected when they permitted female priests. If you allow people to break the rules without consequence, then there is no reason for anyone to hold them anymore. Rather than people compromising with Christ's doctrine, you get plenty who demand the doctrine to compromise with them.

In the long run, those churches won't have a high attendance because they're no different from a bar.

>>593882

>JUST

Really? Your shit wasn't already fucked up with married homosexual clergy wymyn?

Church of ((((England)))

>>593882

Apostolics

>>593882

APOSTOLICS YES!

>>593965

Give it a decade or two. By that time, we'll split the Christian population between us, as Anglicans leave their """church""".

>>593965

They should have listened to the Puritans.

>>593966

>>593968

The church of England is a proddie church, no apostolic church can have female priests and gay marriage

>>593984

>The church of England is a proddie church, no apostolic church can have female priests and gay marriage

No sola scriptura church can have female priests or gay marriage. Apostolic churches can seemingly make up new doctrines as they go along.

>>593986

church of england follows sola fide and sola scriptura, read a book ok?

>>593987

Do you honestly think scripture is even a little ambiguous about those issues?

>>593882

APOSTOLICS YES!

>>593992

Are you fucking stupid or are you just baiting?

>>593988

about as ambiguous about taking the eucharist, or the actual apostolic succession, baptist

>>593988

Nope, as we can see on example of England, Scandinavia and other Prots. It's as if you need an organized tradition for proper interpretation of the Bible. Hm. But that would be stupid now wouldn't it?

>>593992

>Apostolic

Renewal of baptismal vows (which we all do) != rebaptism

Read the rite!

>>594081

Hey you, settle this for us once and for all. Are you protestant or apostolic? No fencesitting, you have to pick one!

>>594100

The answer, of course, is yes.

>>594005

>no graven image!

>somehow this translates to no cups, candles, or tables

I don't get it. this is very similar to how protestants still call their fathers, father too. these dudes love to just pick and choose what each verse means

>>594167

Which is furthest from the straightforward reading of 'call no man father'? Call no man except your actual biological father father, or call hundreds of men father beside your actual biological father, including the pope, priests, lots of saints from many centuries ago, etc.?

>>594167

>>594169

> Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live?

We have a father after our flesh (our biological fathers) and a Father of spirits.

It's weird and perverted for some dude to go around and demand to be called daddy.

>>594175

>>594169

yeah those weird and perverted Apostles!

>>594167

>it is null and void

>>594183

>>594189

So is Paul claiming to be the Father of Onesimus' spirit? Is he standing in the place Christ reserves in Ephesians 1:5?

Read the rest of Philemon and you'll see Paul also appeal for Onesimus' reception as Paul's dear brother, as Paul himself, and as Paul's bowels. It's obviously the same turn of phrase as 1 Corinthians 4, and in both passages Paul appeals to familial bonds to make an appeal to be heard and obeyed.

>>594199

pre-existence is what confuses me the most. I feel like it makes sense in terms of symmetry but doesn't in reality.

I.e, I'd have an easier time believing in an afterlife if there was talk of a before-life in some sort of quasi-Buddhist "You are never the same but also have always been and will always be without actually knowing it" deal as opposed to "There was total void then suddenly you sprung into existence but don't worry you won't cease existing where you logically expect it because from here on if you play your cards right you're an eternal"

>>594198

do you think Christ condemns you for calling your father "father"?

how much more st. paul? or any catholic priest?

because he does not, and you do not understand what Christ meant

>>594198

>Sola Scriptura

>It's obviously…

Every

Single

Time

>>594234

They may not be Christian now, but they arose out of Protestantism

>>594241

>sola tradition

Whelp

>widely divergent opinions on how to interpret Chruch doctrine

Oh the irony.

Isn't it amazing, by the way, how all uprising in sodomy apology is perfectly correlated with an uprising of protestantism?

>>594245

Cathars may not be Christian now, but they arose out of Catholicism

>>594241

>sacred tradition and sacred scripture*

>it's obviously dogmatically and infallibly interpreted only by the magisterium of the Church otherwise it is just speculation

Ftfy

>>594215

>do you think Christ condemns you for calling your father "father"?

No more than Christ would condemn Paul here;

>Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live?

Or than He would condemn His own words here;

>For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

We see then that our physical fathers, grandfathers, great great grandfathers can't apply to the rule Christ gave in Matthew 23:9. Unless you want to say that Jesus contradicted Himself when he spoke of those people as forefathers?

>>594350

I enjoy how you operate by "logic" only when it fits you.

>>Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live?

How can we honor our Father and Mother without knowing and honoring our Father as our Father? Christ never meant for "never call anyone Father" to apply outside of a religious/spiritual context, wherein the true honor is misapplied to the Rabbi or the leader rather than God. Catholics pray for the Pope, not to the Pope.

Christ never contradicted Himself, you use Christ to contradict Himself.

First, you take scripture out of context and teach a bad teaching, then, you deign to take it to attack the correct reading of it. How are you not like a pharisee? You do not care about the charity of the teaching, you've made the Gospel to be like the Talmud, a contradictory work.

>>594450

>Christ never meant for "never call anyone Father" to apply outside of a religious/spiritual context

That's exactly what I just said. I said Jesus made reference to people's physical fathers, and I'm rebuking anyone who would say it's unbiblical to call the person who gave his seed to your mom "father". This is the strawman that Catholics assert every time we bring up this passage of scripture. "Well, you call your dad 'dad' don't you?"

My father "after the flesh" is Moe. I reverence him and am in subjection to him. But I'm much rather in subjection to the Father of spirit; God.

>>594450

>Christ never meant for "never call anyone Father" to apply outside of a religious/spiritual context

Right.. So don't call any man father in a religious context and you're good. Glad you agree!

>>594241

>>594477

Man, I resent nu-Jesuits.

so can we all as catholics, orthodox and protestants agree that no matter what England was always and will be a mistake?

>>594245

>>594234

Not only that but majority of Protestants have absolutely no conviction or care of doctrine and will think you're hateful if you bring up that they are not Christian brethren. I've run into this sentiment a lot in the Western US where people don't want to address it because they have JW/Mormon friends.

>>594257

At least Catholics cleaned that mess up instead of smiling and endorsing its right to exist. In comparison the Protestant visible church is an abject failure.

>>594669

>Not only that but majority of Protestants have absolutely no conviction or care of doctrine and will think you're hateful if you bring up that they are not Christian brethren

BS. I bet you're judging by Liberal "churches"

>At least Catholics cleaned that mess up

Murder isn't ok

>smiling and endorsing its right to exist

Again, BS

>In comparison the Protestant visible church is an abject failure.

Not much of a Protestant, are you

>>593882

>people believe they need to make a public reaffirmation of faith if they 'change gender'

A fundamental misunderstanding of Church doctrine on faith, why should this reaffirmation be needed in the first place?

Further proof the lefties, sjw's and lgbt community are simply larping at being Christian, as well as proof of their subversion of the Church by acquisition of positions of authority.

>>594199

Mormons are so far outside the normal bounds of even the heresies that the only reason they're not a neo-gnostic cult is because they like sex.

>>594674

>BS. I bet you're judging by Liberal "churches"

Yes I said majority, the majority of churches are doctrinally liberal and the ones that aren't are still effected by liberalism because it's the culture. And in America, doctrine is often through a lens of Americanisms and platitudes which amounts to civil dogmas.

>Murder isn't ok

<all killing is murder

um no sweetie it was a feudal revolt and a just war. Propagating dire heresy should be a capital offence because it destroys society and damns people to hell which, by the way is why John Calvin burned Servetus. Many "Protestants" today would qualify to be kept warm too; so many in fact that I quit keeping track of how many Gnostic and Modalist "Protestants" I come across, it's a lot.

>Again, BS

Oh well I guess if you say so then there isn't widespread Gnosticism, Modalism and Judaizing in Protestant communions. there is

>Hey he pointed out an obvious problem

>how dare he! good thing I know how to deal with him

<"Not much of a Protestant, are you"

>heh snarked him

Yeah that's usually the reaction when I point out obvious errors.

>>594816

In fact a lot of neo-Gnostics these days push that tantric sex stuff calling it a spiritual practice.

>>594844

>Yes

Then you're not talking about Protestants. I've said it before and I'll say it again, there is no such thing as a Liberal Catholic, or a Liberal Protestant, Liberalism is a religion antithetical to the whole of Christianity.

>um no sweetie it was a feudal revolt

Maybe at first, but it was a massacre of civilians

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_at_Béziers

>a just war.

Since when is murdering women and children just in any sense of the term?

>Propagating dire heresy should be a capital offence

Has it not occurred to you, that in process of slaughtering unbelievers, you will incentivize false conversion?

>why John Calvin burned Servetus.

How familiar are you with the Servetus affair? Are you aware that Calvin knew for years where Servetus was, and who he was pretending to be, and did not rat him out to the Inquisition? Or that Calvin said (no doubt following Augustine) that he preferred to move heretics by preaching rather than sword? Or that he was not the instigator in Servetus' arrest, but entered the case when called to supply the evidence of Servetus' letters? Or that when Servetus was arrested again in Geneva, Calvin regularly went down to his cell to attempt to convert him? Or that Calvin attempted to communicate his sentence from burning to beheading? Or that the cause of the scorn toward Servetus was not so much his heresy as his wanton blasphemy of the Triune Majesty? It wasn't like Calvin once decided 'hey, we should burn that Servetus guy to death because he's a heretic', it is much, much more complex.

>Oh well I guess if you say so then there isn't widespread Gnosticism, Modalism and Judaizing in Protestant communions. there is

I contest the term Protestant and challenge you to show me this in a single church that affirms any of the historic confessional statements of the Protestant Church at large.

At least we don’t let the Communist Party of China choose our bishops :^)

test