How do you guys keep all those three-letter acronyms straight?
With a scorecard.
Capiche?
Posted on 10/01/2009 9:30:54 PM PDT by Tai_Chung
MIAMI – Hundreds of congregants have left a pioneering megachurch in Florida to form their own congregation because they were unhappy with leadership at the church that's seen as a bedrock of the religious right. The action by the unhappy members at Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church was the culmination of a feud between loyalists to an evangelical luminary, the Rev. D. James Kennedy, and his replacement as pastor, the Rev. Tullian Tchividjian, a grandson of the Rev. Billy Graham.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
I'll bet if you (were it possible to) did one for all the Protestants since Luther, it would look something like that flow chart of Citi's global risk-management scheme I saw a coupla years ago.
The one that had 250,000 variables and took a month to load.
Wow, that makes Obamacare look simple. ;-)
Wow, that makes Obamacare look simple. ;-)
Naaaah, not really. It's history. The real players to watch are those you see on the right hand edge. The mainline PCUSA, and the two more orthodox spinoffs from the mainline, the PCA and EPC.
The other current bodies are much smaller. See the first link, to NAPARC.
“ducktail his hair”???
Pretty close if you look at pictures of him in those days. Not a complete ducktail, but close nonetheless. But he was a little before that time. He wore pretty contemporary stuff, and like today, there were many in religious circles, especially after 1955, who denigrated him for his “inclusiveness”.
Spiked hair, tanned and a scruffy beard is pretty moderate compared to today’s youthful dress. I doubt Tullian looks anything like Jim Bakker’s boy.
Oh, and by the way, where did you get the idea he was against such fads, anyway?
You believe your church maintains a connection to the Church fathers though polity. Others believe their church maintains that connection through faith.
Prolly because you get sprayed with spit whenever somebody tries to say his name.
Ha! We have that map at our church, also :>)
Anybody know why they are so upset with Rev. Tullian Tchividjian?
“Tchividjian, 37, took over earlier this year. While he has shown no sign of theological differences with Kennedy, he has rejected politics as the most important force for change, and his sermons have not focused on divisive issues. Meantime, he cuts a far different image, forgoing the type of choir robe Kennedy wore during services, and sporting spiky hair, tan skin, and sometimes a scruffy beard.”
Rejected politics
not focused on divisive issuse
far different image (Kennedy wore choir robe during services)
“Nope. They didn’t exist.”
I think they would beg to differ! Many tried to reform the RC church from within at first, which I think is the right thing to do. Some succeeded. During the Reformation, a mass split occurred.
As I consider the Reformation split, remember, Luther was a monk in good standing, nailed his 95 theses to the Wittenburg door (a common practice for theological debate in those days), and was excommunicated. So he did not leave, I think, but got kicked out, along with many in good conscience who supported him.
Some were killed, of course. Luther got the death sentence.
I think if you read a summary of Luther’s 95 theses you might find yourself in agreement with many of them. They are very biblical. The Pope was wrong to excommunicate him and his supporters, and wrong to kill all those people.
You wrote:
“Catholic apologetics sure are funny! How is your reading for comprehension, vlad?”
Excellent - as I already showed.
You wrote:
“You believe your church maintains a connection to the Church fathers though polity.”
No. I believe THE Church maintains that connection through grace first.
“Others believe their church maintains that connection through faith.”
And they are wrong for they do not have the faith of the original Church nor can they realistically claim to.
You wrote:
“I think they would beg to differ!”
Not a single one of them would beg to differ if given the chance. Not one. No one in the entire period before the rise of Protestantism would have claimed to have been a Protestant since no such concept existed. People do not claim to be members of movements that have never yet existed. Sorry, what you are proposing is logically impossible. Anachronism of the sort you are suggesting is completely illogical.
“Many tried to reform the RC church from within at first, which I think is the right thing to do. Some succeeded. During the Reformation, a mass split occurred.”
No. If some Protestants succeeded at what you call “reform” in side the Catholic Church, then there would have been no need for further “reform” on the part of the Reformers, nor would there be a Catholic Church today. Again, what you are proposing is logically impossible.
You wrote:
“As I consider the Reformation split, remember, Luther was a monk in good standing, nailed his 95 theses to the Wittenburg door (a common practice for theological debate in those days), and was excommunicated.”
No. 1) Luther was a heretic. He had been a heretic for years BEFORE Oct. 31, 1517. He was nominally in good standing because he had not made his heresy public in a way that caught the notice of authorities.
2) Luther was not excommunicated until YEARS LATER. He was excommunicated in 1521.
“So he did not leave, I think, but got kicked out, along with many in good conscience who supported him.”
No. Luther left the obedience he owed the pope as a Christian already in 1520 as shown by the fact that he published a tract called “Why the Pope and his Recent Book are Burned and Assertions Concerning All Articles.” Luther burned the papal letter threatening him with excommunication. Already in 1520 he was bringing the nobles to his side by urging them that they should be the masters of Church property rather than the various monasteries, dioceses, and so forth which actually owned the property. LUTHER LEFT.
“Some were killed, of course. Luther got the death sentence.”
From whom? You mean the Diet of Wittenberg - the civil assembly of German princes headed by the secular emperor? and how many people died in the war of the peasants encouraged and then abandoned by Luther’s own actions?
“I think if you read a summary of Luther’s 95 theses you might find yourself in agreement with many of them.”
Been there, done that. The problem is that Luther himself was simply wrong and violated his own word:
“AMONG those monstrous evils of this age with which I have now for three years been waging war, I am sometimes compelled to look to you and to call you to mind, most blessed father [Pope] Leo...Wherefore, most excellent Leo, I beseech you to accept my vindication, made in this letter, and to persuade yourself that I have never thought any evil concerning your person; further, that I am one who desires that eternal blessing may fall to your lot, and that I have no dispute with any man concerning morals, but only concerning the word of truth. In all other things I will yield to any one, but I neither can nor will forsake and deny the word. He who thinks otherwise of me, or has taken in my words in another sense, does not think rightly, and has not taken in the truth.” http://bartleby.com/36/6/1.html
As soon as Luther realized that Pope Leo wouldn’t fall for his flattery and heresy, he started attacking him.
“They are very biblical. The Pope was wrong to excommunicate him and his supporters, and wrong to kill all those people.”
Pope Leo X didn’t kill anyone among Luther’s cohorts. Luther’s heresy is not biblical.
“No one in the entire period before the rise of Protestantism would have claimed to have been a Protestant since no such concept existed.”
Quite so, I don’t think the word “Protestantism” would have been used. Yet there were many reformers over the years, who protested heresies in the RC church, some successfully, some not so.
“Pope Leo X didn’t kill anyone among Luther’s cohorts. Luther’s heresy is not biblical.”
The Pope killed no one with his own strength, so far as I know. Yet death sentences were common and many were killed for the crime of heresy. I understand it was up to him who got a death sentence and who did not.
Heresy included such things as denying the infamous indulgences where people were pressed to give money to spring their loved ones from purgatory. I am not sure how you can defend that horrible practice.
The first six of the theses:
1. When our Lord and Master, Jesus Christ, said “Repent”, He called for the entire life of believers to be one of repentance.
2. The word cannot be properly understood as referring to the sacrament of penance, i.e. confession and satisfaction, as administered by the clergy.
3. Yet its meaning is not restricted to repentance in one’s heart; for such repentance is null unless it produces outward signs in various mortifications of the flesh.
4. As long as hatred of self abides (i.e. true inward repentance) the penalty of sin abides, viz., until we enter the kingdom of heaven.
5. The pope has neither the will nor the power to remit any penalties beyond those imposed either at his own discretion or by canon law.
6. The pope himself cannot remit guilt, but only declare and confirm that it has been remitted by God; or, at most, he can remit it in cases reserved to his discretion. Except for these cases, the guilt remains untouched.
Nothing to kill a man over. But I have gone and done it, I stand before you all a thread hijacker.
You wrote:
“Quite so, I don’t think the word “Protestantism” would have been used.”
Nor could it. And that proves my point.
“Yet there were many reformers over the years, who protested heresies in the RC church, some successfully, some not so.”
Untrue. There have never been any heresies taught by the Church for anyone to “reform”.
You wrote:
“The Pope killed no one with his own strength, so far as I know. Yet death sentences were common and many were killed for the crime of heresy.”
That still means the pope killed no one. You were wrong...again.
“I understand it was up to him who got a death sentence and who did not.”
Then your understanding is even more incorrect than I thought.
“Heresy included such things as denying the infamous indulgences where people were pressed to give money to spring their loved ones from purgatory.”
No one was pressed. Again, we see you are unfamiliar with the history involved. How could anyone be pressed for money when money was not absoultely necessary for indulgences and all giving was voluntary?
“I am not sure how you can defend that horrible practice.”
Where did I ever defend the selling of indulgences? Again, we see you are simply making up things I never said. That’s the second time you’ve done that now. I defy you to show where I EVER defended the sale of indulgences. When you fail - and you will - what will that tell us about your tactics here?
“Nothing to kill a man over.”
Was Luther ever killed over it? Again, you’re making things up.
“But I have gone and done it, I stand before you all a thread hijacker.”
I don’t mind the highjacking so much as I mind the falsehoods you are posting.
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.