Skip to comments.Church Touts Homosexuality as a Gift, Not a Sin
Posted on 04/28/2011 5:55:29 AM PDT by ZGuy
Being gay is a gift from God, asserts one church in Ohio.
Thats the message that Central United Methodist Church is spreading throughout their community via a digital billboard, launched on Monday.
This simple statement, the church announced, is intended to be a gift to those who have experienced hurt and discrimination because of their real or perceived sexual orientation.
The Church seeks nothing less than the healing of the world, and Central UMC wants to offer words and acts of healing to those hurt and marginalized, the website states.
Jeff Buchanan, the director of Exodus Church Equipping & Student Ministries, agrees that the Church must display love and compassion for those in the LGBT community. But he opposes the message that CUMC is sending through their Being Gay is a Gift from God campaign.
Why would God bestow this gift only to condemn it throughout the Bible? This would seemingly contradict His character as a God who is loving and just.
The Toledo churchs controversial billboard ad is directly connected to a long month-long sermon series by its new pastor, Bill Barnard. The church is hoping that the ad will move the public towards tolerance, reported ABC 13, and not perpetuate anti-gay attitudes and behaviors, which were harming the LGBT community.
The purposes of their recently launched campaign are threefold: to offer welcome to all persons who are gay; to challenge the larger Church to fully accept persons who are gay into the life of the Church; and to call on all people to bring all the gifts of who they are to God.
By welcoming and living in community with faithful Christians who happen to be gay, we have come to understand that being gay is part of who God made them to be, CUMC proclaims on their site. And by gay Christians bringing all that they are to God, the body of Christ has been strengthened.
In fact, we would experience the body of Christ as incomplete without LGBT persons.
Barnard told ABC, We really believe that being gay is a gift from God, and its not anything that anyone has to apologize for or be ashamed about. So thats how [the campaign] came to be.
Believing sexuality to be a good gift from God or as they declared yet another way in Gods infinite diversity CUMC defines sin as denying who God created them to be.
The overwhelming scientific evidence is that people are born with their sexual orientation, that it is not a choice, the church contends. Fully accepting ones sexual orientation and identity is key to leading a normal and healthy life.
Forcing people to act against their God-given sexual orientation will lead to disordered lives. Allowing people to act in accordance with their God-given sexual orientation leads to reconciliation.
While deeming the marginalization of LGBT persons as unjustified mentioning that Jesus did not speak directly regarding homosexuality the Toledo church recognizes that the Church today continues to be divided over interpretation of Scripture related to homosexuality.
Just two months ago, 33 retired United Methodist bishops urged the denomination to remove its ban on homosexual clergy, prolonging the undying debate within the church body.
CUMC hopes to unify believers by focusing more on things that [they] agree on, such as kindness, justice, and humility, instead of contributing to hate and discrimination, which they believe leads not to reconciliation, but to self-destructive practices within the LGBT community.
Holding people responsible for matters in which they have no control is irrational and immoral, the church declares. We believe that both those within and without the Church are hungry for dialogue about homosexuality that reflects compassion and humility rather than intolerance and strife.
Buchanan contends that CUMCs message tells people that the only option they have is a gay identity.
But people need to understand that thousands of men and women have found there is another way and have found freedom from homosexuality through the power of Christ, he says.
Even if there was conclusive evidence supporting the theory that people were born this way, Buchanan stresses that Christians were called to be born again.
While we may not choose our desires, we do have the ability and responsibility to choose whether or not we act on those desires. Our goal should be living a life that is congruent with Scripture, he says.
Genesis describes the fall of man and the permanent effects that sin has on us spiritually, mentally, and physically. Just because something may be inherent does not mean it was intended.
Despite the outcry of many from the Christian community against CUMCs campaign, Barnard continues to proclaim that homosexuality is a gift and has people come and remain just as they are.
Working to accept persons who are gay into the full life of the Church, CUMC is a founding member of the Reconciling Ministries Network, which is the United Methodist movement for gay equality in the denomination.
Two of the volunteer staff members at their church, including the music director and lead team chair, live with their partners and have served the church for over seven years.
Grieved over the misinterpretation of Scripture and false teaching that is being promoted by CUMC and many other churches like them, Buchanan encourages churches to deliver the message of Christ with love and grace, but also with accuracy and uncompromised truth.
We must always remember that authentic love is built upon a foundation of grace and truth.
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner.
‘Do you know what church that site represents?’
Here is the writer’s home page:
He formerly attended a Reformed Congregation but does not say where he goes now.
Before one of your kind gets on here to chastise you about following the rules, you really should ping those you are discussing.
Meshelle Lesner, Lead Team Chair
Central United Methodist Church
Meshelle lives in West Toledo with her partner Cathie and their dog, Jack. She has been a member of Central since 2003 and says that what she likes best about Central is the come-as-you-are atmosphere. She loves coffee, sci fi, old t-shirts, Rich Mullins, and Jesus, and her favorite book of the Bible is Philippians. She really dislikes humidity and the color raspberry. She works full-time as the Training Manager and Coordinator of Spiritual Life at Sunshine, an agency that provides care to people with developmental disabilities.
Central United Methodist Church
2108 Collingwood Blvd, Suite 200
Toledo, Ohio 43620
No problem, apology accepted.....no harm, no foul. (One apology was more than enough.)
(BTW, like I have told you several times, I am not OPC)
Now, since you seem to want to discuss the nature of God, let's take a look at how the Roman Catholic teaching on God:
Paul VI, Ecclesiam Suam 107, August 6, 1964 Then [we refer] to the adorers of God according to the conception of monotheism, the Muslim religion especially, deserving of our admiration for all that is true and good in their worship of God.So there you have it, according to Catholic teaching
Second Vatican Council, Lumen Gentium 16, November 21, 1964 But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place among whom are the Muslims: these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankinds judge on the last day.
The Church has also a high regard for the Muslims. They worship God, who is one, living and subsistent, merciful and almighty, the Creator of heaven and earth (Cf. St. Gregory VII, Letter III, 21 to Anazir [Al-Nasir], King of Mauretania PL, 148.451A.), who has spoken to men. They strive to submit themselves without reserve to the hidden decrees of God, just as Abraham submitted himself to Gods plan, to whose faith Muslims eagerly link their own. Although not acknowledging him as God, they venerate Jesus as a prophet, his Virgin Mother they also honor, and even at times devoutly invoke. Further, they await the day of judgment and the reward of God following the resurrection of the dead. For this reason they highly esteem an upright life and worship God, especially by way of prayer, alms-deeds and fasting.
I have to consider the post to which I am responding as a completely baseless personal attack. And I think the poster knows it, because she has violated forum etiquette, etiquette that is well known to her, in her method of posting it.
18 And Jesus came and said to them, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.
19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
Definitely not. Jesus announced that He was speaking as God, but the translation of the word "power" is problematic without an understanding of the original Greek meaning. What do you think its deeper exegestic meaning is?
While Catholics greatly disagree with each other, their claimed superior doctrinal unity is based upon a required implicit assent to an assuredly Infallible Magisterium (IM), which has infallibly declared itself to be infallible (in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and content-based) formula), which is the very means used by cults (which deviate from certain core truths evangelicals contend for), versus the Biblical means of manifestation of the truth. (2Cor. 4:2) Nor can Rome cannot boast of a greater unity than any individual group may have based upon sola ecclesia, while it may be argued that the transdemonational unity of the Spirit among the evangelicals is superior in quality than that of Roman Catholicism, as it does not depend upon implicit assent to an IM.
The fact that disagreement among Catholics may not be as manifest as it might be if Catholics were more committed to doctrine - rather than evidencing that modern Rome allows and effectually fosters laxity in this area (much to the chagrin of Traditional Catholics) - does not negate the fact that beneath their oft-repeated profession of certainty is much real or potential uncertainty and disagreement.*
Even though Catholics have an IM, yet they are confused over how many times Rome has spoken infallibly (and which also have to some degree of interpretation), from 3 to potentially hundreds or more. And which is necessary to ascertain in order to yield the required assent of faith.
Moreover, as these declarations do not necessarily extend to her argumentation or reasons behind them, Catholics can be confused as to where the infallibility begins or ends.
Catholics also may not know, with the certainty of faith, whether they have received a true sacrament.
In addition, some varying degrees of dissent are allowed for teachings of the non-infallible magisteriums, which rarely issues infallible pronouncements, and is where much (or most according to Sungenis) of what Catholics believe and practice comes from, and this degree of dissent and where, is variously interpreted.
Catholic are also commanded not to interpret Scripture contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers, but this unanimous consent of the Fathers is itself interpreted to mean something quite different than unanimous.
In addition, as very very little of the Bible has been infallibly defined, and clarity is lacking in many areas, thus the Catholic has great liberty in interpreting Scripture, resulting in varying interpretations, even as Rome's scholarship exhibits the same. Looking to the official Roman Catholic Bible for America for guidance, the Catholic will find a hermeneutic and interpretations that vary from others, and is quite liberal.
Looking to Vatican Two, Catholics find confusion as to its own orthodoxy and degree of authority and thus the assent one must give. Here on FR some Roman Catholics contend that Lumen Gentium does not affirm Protestants can be saved unless they convert before death, and the charge of sedevacantists that Vatican Two seriously deviated from orthodox Roman Catholicism, or is so ambiguous as to allow them to be invoked by both sides, is not without a good deal of substance. Nor is the rejection by the Orthodox of Papal infallibility and Roman purgatory, as being contrary to Tradition.
Where Catholics seem most unified in is confidence in Rome that it will see them through to glory, eventually, no matter how nominal, as long as they do not covert to become conservative evangelicals as multitudes do (far more then the opposite). Yet the basis for Rome's claim of unique supremacy and power is herself, as she has infallibly defined herself thusly, and submission to her is said to be necessary to know truth of a certainty, versus searching the Scripture with the heart of a noble Berean.
Furthermore, while infallibility does not extend to all a pope says or does, but is exercised when conforming Rome's infallibly defined formula, yet much of Rome's guidance and unity is based upon having a visible head. But looking to their leader, Catholics can have a pope who, according to a leading Roman Catholic apologist,
1. Invited pagans to pray to their false gods.
2. Looked the other way while his clerics raped his children, and ordained faggots to say his Masses
3. Shuffled pedophiles and homosexuals from parish to parish, even giving them safe haven at the Vatican.
4. Subjected those Catholic who dare protest to droning quotes from Vatican I and Lumen Gentium about submission
5. Watched scantily clad women dance while Mass was being said.
6. Suggested that hell might not exist.
7. Suggested that the Jews still have their Old Covenant
8. Kissed the Koran
9. Made it appear as if God has given man universal salvation by using ambiguous language in official writings
10. Accepted the tenets of evolution.
11. Wrote a catechism that contained theological errors and ambiguities.
12. Changed the canonization laws: marriage laws, capital punishment laws, laws about womens roles.
13. Went against the tradition by putting women in leadership positions and dispensing with head coverings.
14. Failed to excommunicate heretical bishops and priests who were spouting heresies.
15. Protected Bishop Marcinkus and his entourage of financial hoodlums in the Vatican.
16. Ignored the pleas of a bishop who was merely trying to preserve the tradition (Archbishop Levebre)
17. Exonerated Luther
18. Allowed the Luther‐Catholic Joint Declaration, signed by a high‐ranking Cardinal, to explicitly state that man is justified by faith alone.
19. Disobeyed the Fatima request to consecrate Russia. http://www.catholicintl.com/articles/Response%20to%20John%20Dejak%20of%20The%20Wanderer.pdf http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2011/04/sungenis-alone.html -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Just some of the things which Roman Catholics can disagree on to varying degrees,
The infallible or non-infallible nature of multitudes of teachings
Meanings of the above
Extra ecclesiam nulla salus and Lemun Gentum (status of Prots)
Whether the anathemas of Trent still stand and what they entail
The infallibility of Scripture, and scope of inerrancy claims, and hermeneutical methodology .
What Tradition is
What the Fathers taught
The distinction between contrition and attrition and contritio caritate perfecta.
Whether Tradition is the second of a two-part revelation (known as partim-partim), or if both forms of revelation contain the entirety of God's revealed truth.
Darwinian evolution vs not-Darwinian evolution
Geocentricity or Heliocentricity
Parts of predestination
Whether one can know they are part of the elect.
Whether the church was right in sanctioning torture
Whether the Virgin Mary died and then was assumed or whether she was assumed before death
Whether the Pope is subject to Ecumenical Councils
What mode of predestination is right - ie Molinism vs Augustinian
Mass in Latin or in vernacular
Whether Trent closed the canon or not
Infallibility of canonizations
What happens to unbaptized babies
The authority of Vatican Two
The meaning of Lumen Gentium as regards the salvation of those apart from Rome, etc.
Couldn’t have “said” it better myself.
You are right and I apologize the post I was referencing was by Notwithstanding I owe you an apology ....
And I bet most RCs here would agree with that ...
Is he right on this?
“Protestants generally misapprehend Catholicism as conservative and never evolving. Instead, it was always capable of radical revisions. For example, on the issue of purgatory, Augustine in the 400s said there is a heaven and a hell but of a third place we are entirely ignorant. Then speculation began in the 600s on purgatory. It was then only in 1140 A.D. that purgatory became an official doctrine. Then in 1563, it was decreed at Trent that anyone who denied purgatory was cursed and could not be saved. See Isaac Mann, Cursory Remarks, on a Treatise Entitled, Thoughts on Nature and Religion; or, an apology for the Right of Private Judgment, maintained by Michael Servetus, M.D. in his answer to John Calvin by a Clergyman of the Church of England (Cork: William Flyn, 1775) at 24.
Your gracious apology is gratefully accepted.
Whatever happened to *Innocent until proved guilty*?
Or is that only for pedophile Catholic priests?
Catholics, to avoid being hypocrites, need to hold themselves to the level of proof required by them to condemn a priest.
If they're going to smear Calvin like that, they need PROOF and it's up to them to present it to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, because I'm sure some Catholic is going to come along and claim that Calvin is guilty by default and it's up to someone else to prove he wasn't.
Proof from the Catholics, not hearsay, or innuendo, but facts, like the kind they demand before condemning their own priests (who Catholics will not admit as being guilty even when the priest ADMITS to the crime)
Double standards = hypocrisy.
Anything to try to establish denominational affiliation, eh?
The process of elimination isn’t working so well for them is it?
As said, I think the objections to V2 have some real warrant, such as expressed by the sedevacantist referred to above.
As for purgatory, thus the EOs generally reject the RC version of it, some more strongly than others, such as Orthodox apologist and author Clark Carlton:
“The Orthodox Church opposes the Roman doctrines of universal papal jurisdiction, papal infallibility, purgatory, and the Immaculate Conception precisely because they are untraditional.” Clark Carlton, THE WAY: What Every Protestant Should Know About the Orthodox Church, 1997, p 135.
The Orthodox Church does not believe in purgatory (a place of purging), that is, the inter-mediate state after death in which the souls of the saved (those who have not received temporal punishment for their sins) are purified of all taint preparatory to entering into Heaven, where every soul is perfect and fit to see God. Also, the Orthodox Church does not believe in indulgences as remissions from purgatoral punishment. Both purgatory and indulgences are inter-corrolated theories, unwitnessed in the Bible or in the Ancient Church, and when they were enforced and applied they brought about evil practices at the expense of the prevailing Truths of the Church. If Almighty God in His merciful loving-kindness changes the dreadful situation of the sinner, it is unknown to the Church of Christ. The Church lived for fifteen hundred years without such a theory. http://www.goarch.org/ourfaith/ourfaith7076
However, Orthodox churches do believe that,
there is a state beyond death where believers continue to be perfected and led to full “divinization.” Though some Orthodox teachers have described this intermediate state as “purgatory,” others prefer to distinguish it from the Roman Catholic understanding of purgatory, insistingly that it is not necessarily a place of punishment but rather a place of growth....Although Orthodox teachers maintain that such a belief is necessary, there is little speculation as to what it might be like.: Christian confessions: a historical introduction, by Ted Campbell
The Orthodox Church has neither explicitly recognized the term “purgatory” nor officially accepted such a state, which is distinct from the more general being “asleep in the Lord.” In his book entitled Why Do We Reject Purgatory?, Coptic Pope Shenouda III presents many theological and biblical arguments against Purgatory.
...That said, Greek Orthodox Metropolitan Kallistos Ware acknowledges several schools of thought among the Orthodox on the topic of purification after death. This divergence indicates that the Catholic interpretation of purgatory, more than the concept itself, is what is universally rejected. http://orthodoxwiki.org/Purgatory
EO descriptions of the afterlife vary, both with the past and among each other, with some being closer to Rome than others, while various claims are made by Catholics, such as “Free 1,000 Souls From Purgatory & they will pray for you unceasingly all your life!”
In the 13th century, Aquinas believed that the pain of Purgatory, both of loss and of sense, surpasses all the pains of this life (Aquinas T. The Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas, Appendix I, Article 1.).
And also sated, Nothing is clearly stated in Scripture about the situation of Purgatory, nor is it possible to offer convincing arguments on this question. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Appendix II (Purgatory), Article 2
Evangelicals see the Scriptures only testifying of believers going to forever with the Lord after death, with purgatory being a later “development of doctrine” (p.109). http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2009/02/defending-purgatory-with-all-your-cards.html
From the Catholic Encyclopedia under the heading ‘Jerome Bolsec’:
“Shortly after this (Bolsec’s return to France), he recanted his errors, was reconciled with the Catholic Church, and published biographies of the two Genevan reformers, Calvin and Beza (1519-1605). These works are violent in tone, and find little favour with protestant writers. Their historical statements cannot always be relied on.” (ellipsis mine.)
To put it mildly! “ Their historical statements cannot always be relied on.”
Never will understand why they insist on constantly bringing Calvin into the fray....always something that diverts away from what they will never be able to justify...and they know it....so I suppose Calvin..or any other they might name will do the “trick”.
Wonder if their Priests have ever sought forgiveness for their acts? or were they simply repentant because they got caught?..and so many of them and more yet to be revealed no doubt.
Oh, look! Sophistry.
There's a world of difference between being sorry for your sin and sorry you got caught sinning.
1 John 2 1My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. 2 He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world. 3And by this we know that we have come to know him, if we keep his commandments. 4Whoever says "I know him" but does not keep his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him, 5but whoever keeps his word, in him truly the love of God is perfected. By this we may know that we are in him: 6whoever says he abides in him ought to walk in the same way in which he walked.
(Which doesn't include molesting children or homosexual conduct, or robbing the church as Judas used to do with the money bag)
1 John 2 15 Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. 16For all that is in the world the desires of the flesh and the desires of the eyes and pride in possessionsis not from the Father but is from the world. 17And the world is passing away along with its desires, but whoever does the will of God abides forever.
1 John 3:4-10 4Everyone who makes a practice of sinning also practices lawlessness; sin is lawlessness. 5You know that he appeared to take away sins, and in him there is no sin. 6No one who abides in him keeps on sinning; no one who keeps on sinning has either seen him or known him. 7Little children, let no one deceive you. Whoever practices righteousness is righteous, as he is righteous. 8 Whoever makes a practice of sinning is of the devil, for the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the works of the devil. 9 No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for Gods seed abides in him, and he cannot keep on sinning because he has been born of God. 10By this it is evident who are the children of God, and who are the children of the devil: whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is the one who does not love his brother.
It's only sophistry if it is untrue which makes your statement demagogy.
Ah, but it is untrue. The Torah is to be read to the assembly (gathered together) every seven years. One of the reasons enumerated by YHWH is so that the children born in the interim can hear the words of YHWH. So the Word is meant to be understood by a child. No doubt there is milk and meat. There is a deeper understanding. But to say that the "simple" cannot interpret what YHWH has said is against the very words of YHWH.
Yes, Bingo is another practice that finds disagreement among Catholics.
Actually, the Torah is is to be read on a seven tear Talmudic Cycle (Schmita), not read every seven years. Anyone who would tell you that Judaism does not have or need teachers (Rabbis) because the Torah simple enough for a child to understand is a fool.
lol. That “web page” is a complete lie.
“Stanford Rives,” with his ludicrous “Standford Rives Home Page,” (http://sites.google.com/site/standfordrives/Home) is probably some pimply-faced seminarian charged with lying about a true man of God.
No surprise since Roman Catholics only have charlatans, conjurers and child rapists to lead them. Blind men can’t discern light from darkness.
I am talking of the Torah, not the talmud:
Deu 31:9 And Moses wrote this law, and delivered it unto the priests the sons of Levi, which bare the ark of the covenant of the LORD, and unto all the elders of Israel.
Deu 31:10 And Moses commanded them, saying, At the end of every seven years, in the solemnity of the year of release, in the feast of tabernacles,
Deu 31:11 When all Israel is come to appear before the LORD thy God in the place which he shall choose, thou shalt read this law before all Israel in their hearing.
Deu 31:12 Gather the people together, men, and women, and children, and thy stranger that is within thy gates, that they may hear, and that they may learn, and fear the LORD your God, and observe to do all the words of this law:
Deu 31:13 And that their children, which have not known any thing, may hear, and learn to fear the LORD your God, as long as ye live in the land whither ye go over Jordan to possess it.
Anyone who would tell you that Judaism does not have or need teachers (Rabbis) because the Torah simple enough for a child to understand is a fool.
Judaism has forgotten the Torah in favor of their oral traditions (Talmud). Sound familiar?
Stanford Rives does not appear to be Catholic, so your ire is misdirected.
Regarding your calumny against Catholic leaders, I personally know quite a few priests and bishops who do not fall into the categories you present.
It does not sound like the writer fully understands. No Catholic is allowed to dissent on any defined doctrine and remain in the Church. The organization must remain unified to retain the four essential marks of the Church: 1. one, 2. holy, 3. catholic, and 4. apostolic.
Here is the proof text for purgatory:
"Every man's work shall be manifest; for the day of the Lord shall declare it, because it shall be revealed in fire; and the fire shall try every man's work, of what sort it is. If any man's work abide, which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man's work burn, he shall suffer loss; but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire." (1 Cor. 3:13-15)
Actually I suspect this is a unitarian /universalist defending old Servetus
So serial adulterers and child molesters should be allowed to act in accordance with their "God-given" sexual orientation"?
What about kleptomaniacs and homicidal maniacs. Should we let them steal our property and kill our families so that they can be reconciled to their god-given orientations?
Your counter argument consists of nothing more than an appeal to your credibility, which based upon your posting history and agenda, is nonexistent. The Rives article is well written and thoroughly footnoted. If you can't refute or impeach the specifics then the reasonable person would have to conclude it is true and your response nothing more than an expected sectarian knee-jerk reaction.
The key is “defined.” Do you know how many verses of the Bible have been infallibly defined, and do you know for sure how many infallible declarations there are?
Rome actually makes very few binding statements about what purgatory is, and due to the lack of Scriptural support, what it does state took centuries to formulate, and any Scriptural support is extrapolated from a few vague and misunderstood texts.
As for your proof text, has that been infallibly defined to say that? Or is this you interpretation, which is one of 6 interpretations?
This actually is a poor choice if one seeks to defend purgatory by it, as contextually the issue is “how” one builds the church, with the fire being in relation to rewards, with loss of rewards being suffered according to how much one built Christ church by carnality, NOT one being purified from personal faults.
Leading up to this Paul speaks about how he “planted, and Apollos watered; but God gave the increase,” (v. 6) and “According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon. “ (1 Corinthians 3:10)
The larger context is that the Corinthians were building the church with carnal membership, even tolerating a man living in an incestuous relationship with his mother, a capital crime under Moses. (1Cor. 5; Lv. 20) Which certainly relates to the subject of this thread. Thus the temple referred to in v. 17 is that of the church, and is what the Corinthians were warned of.
Scripture does foretell of every person receiving for the things done in his body, but as regards the elect, 1Cor. 3:10-17 most clearly deals with such, and nothing is shown as to making more satisfaction for sins to God than what Christ made, or purifying torments, but there will be tears when one sees at the judgment of 1Cor. 3:10-17 how much more he could have gloried Christ but did not.
In addition, while the N.T. speaks about chastisement for sin(s), which can be very grievous i know, yet the location of postmortem believers is always shown to be with the Lord, (Luke 23:43; 2 Cor 5:8; Rv. 6:9) wherever it is addressed, including all who will be raptured. (1Thes. 4:17)
In contrast, Gregory even said that the fire of Purgatory is the same as the fire of hell: and hence they are in the same place
Moreover,, chastisement and refinement for holiness is only shown as connected to this life, (1Cor. 11:29-32; 1Pt. 5:9,10) and the only further punishment for sins after death is seen in the warning against continued will-full sinning after conversion, and is unto perdition, and which is punitive, not purifying. (Heb. 10:19-39)
In the world to come, as regards the 1,000 year reign of Christ, though one need not hold to that, there will be punishment for sin, but this doe not refer purification of believers.(Zech. 14:17,18)
Other text may be invoked, but to do not established purgatory, as it is really based upon Tradition, and Rome’s self-proclaimed authority, not Scripture, and even then Orthodox reject Rome’s version as being unTraditional. See post 270 above.
All of which is in contrast to expiation for sins being made in the next life through fire and torments or purifying punishments.” And which leads to a bureaucratic system of salvation in which sssisting with devotion at the procession of the holy Rosary obtains 7 years and 7 quarantines of indulgence; Or “with faith, piety and love” saying “My lord and my God” at the elevation of the host during Mass (7 years); Kissing the Pope’s (300-day indulgence, but a bishop’s gets only 50); Ascending the holy stairs in Rome on one’s knees, “whilst meditating on the passion of our Lord Jesus Christ” (9 years per step). Among others
Not unlike "limbo" the concept of Purgatory is a logical construct arising from the dilemma of those who die in God's grace and friendship, but are still imperfectly purified. Even though they are assured of their eternal salvation they need to undergo purification after death to achieve the holiness necessary to enter heaven. (See 1 Corinthians 3:15 and 1 Peter 1:7) It is not a place but akin to a process.
In the absence of Purgatory, how does Protestantism reconcile the dilemma?
Canon 915 - Those upon whom the penalty of excommunication or interdict has been imposed or declared, and others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin, are not to be admitted to holy communion.
Sadly, Archbishop Chaput has indicated that it is the responsibility of the communicant to stay away from the Communion Rail. This is not correct. Rather, it is the responsibility of the Minister of the Eucharist to deny Holy Communion. This is a huge difference that goes against the Church's teachings regarding canon 915 as well as recent statements from the Vatican stating that the manifest pro-abortion politicians must be denied, and the burden IS upon the Minister to deny, NOT upon the communicant to stay away
. -- from the thread Will Denver Catholic Archbishop finally enforce Canon 915?
"...there's a question about whether this canon'' the relevant church law "was ever intended to be used'' to bring politicians to heel. He thinks not. "I stand with the great majority of American bishops and bishops around the world in saying this canon was never intended to be used this way.'' -- from the thread [Archbishop] Wuerl: Why I Won't Deny Pelosi Communion
Albany Bishop Howard Hubbard says it is "unfair and imprudent" to conclude that Gov. Andrew Cuomo and his girlfriend, Sandra Lee, shouldn't receive Communion simply because they're living together. -- from the thread Bishop: None of your business (Hubbard rejects Catholic expert's criticism of Gov. Cuomo)
[Archbishop Timothy Dolan] also does not outright deny the sacrament to dissenting Catholic lawmakers, but he is seen as an outspoken defender of church orthodoxy in a style favored by many theological conservatives.Related threads:
-- from the thread US bishops elect NYC archbishop as head in upset (Catholic bloggers blamed)
There are little green men on the moon.
Prove me wrong.
Yo, dude, only dingbats don’t know the answer: if it is not explcitly in their chosen interpretation of the bible, it don’t matter.
That is Quix's thing.
Now, for an even more difficult challenge, prove yourself credible.
BTW you are no more certain of the original Greek than I am.
I am going to assume that that is a rhetorical comment and not an attempt at mind reading.
I admit that my Latin is far better than my understanding of Greek, which is why I asked for your opinion on what the deeper exegestic meaning was. BTW, I am still interested in your opinion.
But you agreed with the writer on Calvin being a sodomite ... so he MUST be correct right?
Based upon the evidence presented by the writer it is a valid conclusion; at least it is certainly plausible.
If you are certain is it false simply present exculpatory evidence.
He also footnoted his stand on purgatory.. so that also MUST be correct
Are you able to differentiate between the burden of proof applied to historical events and characters and the process of arriving at theological conclusions?
How about this ? Is he correct here?
I'm not even curious enough to open the link. I'm waiting for your exculpatory evidence as to Calvin's "appetites".