Posted on 08/02/2005 10:54:57 AM PDT by wallcrawlr
C'mon, guys.
True, but it is rather interesting how it seems that there are similar attacks across the board.
Therefore, you honestly concluded that I might regard women and homos as "equals." Wow. It still seems like a wildly crass conclusion.
Also, that is not sarcasm and that is not condescending.
Therefore, when you said, "I'm fully aware that I may burn in hell for believing what I do," you really meant it. Double wow. I have zero doubt and 100% surety that I'm going to heaven. Of course, that also comes right out of the Bible, which I believe to be the inerrant Word of God. If it's not, I'm in deep doo-doo.
Sola Fide - Sola Gratia - Sola Scriptura
And second back to the mainpoint:
The Spirit prob doesnt convict me on many things that it does with you. Come on...you must know Romans 14.
Again, you need to stop with this gay linking...you continue to insert that crap into my "views". It is extremely inaccurate to assume so much and make that leap. It is actually offensive to me that you would even try.
I cant believe I need to state this.
gays can be in the church, I'd suggest they remain celibate
gay pastors are a no no
pastors should not be divorced, elders should not be divorced either. if they are then I'll have to review the situation
the abortion one...you got to be kidding me that you'd even ask it.
Christians should know why they are saved, I hope they can learn to have a respectful/honoring fear of the Lord. The Lord knows we need it. Until Christians understand why they are saved and recognize God judgement over their lives and appreciate the sacrifice shed for them....well, I fear that the road is even more narrow than we realize.
Amen.
I posed a question because I wasn't sure it was ELCA. May be PCUSA instead. But one of the liberal mainline denominations has been criticized for including abortion coverage in employees' insurance policies, and I was wondering if this was the one.
Like polymuser said.
I got to end this with you newg.
You came at me out of nowhere with this stuff and its not edifying. I can handle criticism but I will not accept being beaten over the head with your interpretation of scripture on this point.
I have the feeling we are in complete agreement with 98% of stuff. 1% this girl issue and maybe 1% a baptism issue. We should leave with that.
People are different, Christians are different.
ok, Ill look into that because I certainly want clarity on that issue.
I responded to you before I had read the rest of the thread. Now I see that polymuser cited the information about the insurance policies in post #50, and (amazingly) my memory was correct.
Well hmmmm. Our family is Eastern Orthodox and there are other Orthodox families in our troop. We have a great relationship with the Lutherans, who are awesome Christians. I don't know much about Episcopalians - do you? - but we surely have come to love the Lutherans in our troop.
It's going to be great to have them home again.
I think this is where our ethnic flavor has been a plus.
What denomination is it? ELCA, LCMS, WELS, ELS, other? BIG differences between them. A little background at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lutheran
oh yeah...I see that now.
And you know what...after reading about that now I remember hearing about it back then.
To even "examine the implications" as that report stated is disgusting to me.
"You may see homos and women as equal but I don't."
True. Being a woman is obviously not a sin, but living in a sexually active gay relationship is a sin.
However, there is a nexus between the two issues. Like gay sex, the ordination of women is Bibilically forbidden, both explicitly and implicitly. And like gay sex, women's ordination works to undermine the presupposition that God created two equal, but differing, sexes with different roles.
I know that there are women pastors in the mainline denominations who have opposed gay lib theology. However, if you look at the recent history of the mainline Protestant denominations, it is those which have ordained women which now have organized movements promoting gay ordination, pantheism, etc. This is not just a coincidence. The denominations which have been orthodox enough to reject women's ordination (the Southern Baptists, Wisconsin and Missouri Synod Lutherans, the PCA, etc) do not have internal gay or pantheistic movements.
How come the Orthodox get a free pass all the time? Almost everything that the liberal press like the Boston Globe here complains about in the Catholic Church nearly every day is also present in the Orthodox Church, but they don't get the constant bad press and hate-filled invective the Catholics do. If the press were consistent, they would criticize the Orthodox as much as the Catholics on the same social issues.
Yep, thats what I see too. Most churchs that accept woman pastors are liberal. Cant disagree with you at all.
But then I think...is that the fault of the woman or the church.
You see, I am not going to discredit the good women that Ive had experience with. To me its not an easy blanket judgement. Yes, I know what scripture says but I can not condemn the work Ive seen done. Its not just a girl thing to me. Maybe God will condem my friends and the work they do...but I wont.
So like my earlier post to my buddie newg, to continue "beating me over the head" with it will not work. The Spirit has not convicted me on what Ive seen. Not all women pastors are "Bad".
My interpretation? The Scriptures clearly say what they say; there is no "interpretation" necessary. You previously so much as implied that the Bible says women should not be in the position of church leadership. So, you must admit that I'm not "interpreting" anything. Doesn't it really come down to whether we believe what it says? If so, please don't presume to be taking the high road when you go off and hide behind that "your interpretation" stuff when it's clearly not a matter of interpretation. Don't point that finger at me.
People are different, Christians are different.
The Bible is the same. Does it or should it say something different to our culture and our time than it did when it was first written? Have we evolved sufficiently as a culture to render certain portions of God's Word invalid?
I guess the real, basic issue here is what you think of the Bible, how it came to be here. If you do not believe that God Himself exercises sovereign responsibility for every detail, you must instead believe that it is subject to the errors of fallible men. If so, you're right in saying there is no point to taking this discussion any further.
Because, if the Bible is anything but the complete and inerrant Word of God, we have nothing but our own "interpretations" on which to base our beliefs, and we might as well be arguing about how many angels fit on the head of a pin or how many miles to go between oil changes.
FYI, the reason I left the ELCA church less than a year after becoming a believer (no thanks to that group, btw) is that it became crystal clear that the ELCA church regards the Bible as an outdated relic more suited to another culture and another time; some parts -- e.g. women being different from (but nonetheless equal to) men -- just don't apply to us today. Don't like it? No problem; simply call it "cultural" and leave it behind. When an ordained, female minister presumed to change the liturgy by editing out every reference to God's gender, I took it as a sign that I was in the wrong place.
Admittedly, I have made the mistake in the past of assuming every professing, born-again Christian believes the Bible is complete and inerrant and entirely under God's sovereignty. It is rare that I find one who doesn't. If I was wrong to make the assumption with you today, I admit the mistake and I apologize. Rest assured, I will endeavor in the future to lay that groundwork before presuming to argue Biblical points with a believer.
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.