Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: NYer
The inspired scriptures (not church traditions) taught that an apostacy - a falling away from the faith - would occur. ( 1 Timothy 4:1 and following ) As part of that apostacy, some influenced by seducing spirits and demons would speak lies, including the lie that forbids some to marry. In another place the inspired word of God teaches "because of fornications (unlawful sexual conduct) let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband. Let the husband render unto the wife her due, and likewise also the wife unto the husband." (1 Corinthians 7:1-3) Catholics believe that vows of celibacy make one more holy. Again the word of God says that such severity to the body is of no value against he indulgence of the flesh. Have not legions of frustrated priests made that very apparent? If the apostate Catholic church would go back to the scriptures they would first recognize that all Christians are priests. ( 1 Peter 2:1-5; Hebrews 13:15; Romans 12;1,2) Then they would encourage men to do the normal thing and marry a woman. (Romans 1:26,27) Perhaps being then sexually satisfied as God intended, they could stop preying on men and boys. Back to the scriptures! They are and always have been very practical.
3 posted on 04/23/2002 5:52:10 PM PDT by Designed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Designed
As part of that apostacy, some influenced by seducing spirits and demons would speak lies

Glass houses...stones...

What does all of non-Catholic Christianity now teach regarding that other, now forgotten sodomitic sin??? (At least our Church STILL teaches that ALL forms of non-procreative sex is sinful. Non-Catholic Christianity has fallen into apostacy on contraception, the result of which has been the legalization of abortion. See my profile page for further documentation.)

Martin Luther (1483 to 1546) - "Onan must have been a malicious and incorrigible scoundrel. This is a most disgraceful sin. It is far more atrocious than incest or adultery. We call it unchastity, yes, a Sodomitic sin. For Onan goes into her; that is, he lies with her and copulates, and when it comes to the point of insemination, spills the semen, lest the woman conceive. Surely at such a time the order of nature established by God in procreation should be followed."

John Calvin (1509 to 1564) - Deliberately avoiding the intercourse, so that the seed drops on the ground, is double horrible. For this means that one quenches the hope of his family, and kills the son, which could be expected, before he is born. This wickedness is now as severely as is possible condemned by the Spirit, through Moses, that Onan, as it were, through a violent and untimely birth, tore away the seed of his brother out the womb, and as cruel as shamefully has thrown on the earth. Moreover he thus has, as much as was in his power, tried to destroy a part of the human race.

John Wesley (1703 to 1791) - "Onan, though he consented to marry the widow, yet to the great abuse of his own body, of the wife he had married and the memory of his brother that was gone, refused to raise up seed unto the brother. Those sins that dishonour the body are very displeasing to God, and the evidence of vile affections. Observe, the thing which he did displeased the Lord - And it is to be feared, thousands, especially single persons, by this very thing, still displease the Lord, and destroy their own souls.

Examining sermons and commentaries, Charles Provan identified over a hundred Protestant leaders (Lutheran, Calvinist, Reformed, Methodist, Presbyterian, Anglican, Evangelical, Nonconformist, Baptist, Puritan, Pilgrim) living before the twentieth century condemning non- procreative sex. Did he find the opposing argument was also represented? Mr. Provan stated, "We will go one better, and state that we have found not one orthodox theologian to defend Birth Control before the 1900's. NOT ONE! On the other hand, we have found that many highly regarded Protestant theologians were enthusiastically opposed to it."

So what happened?

It's the old story of Christians attempting to conform the world to Christ and the world trying to conform Christians to its ways. Protestants fought bravely, but in 1930 the first hole appeared in the dike (in the Anglican Church) and lead to a flood. In the next thirty years all Protestant churches were swept away from their historic views on this subject. One interesting point is that just a few years earlier the Anglican Church condemned contraception.

In 1908 the Bishops of the Anglican Communion meeting at the Lambeth Conference declared, "The Conference records with alarm the growing practice of the artificial restriction of the family and earnestly calls upon all Christian people to discountenance the use of all artificial means of restriction as demoralising to character and hostile to national welfare."

The Lambeth Conference of 1930 produced a new resolution, "Where there is a clearly felt moral obligation to limit or avoid parenthood, complete abstinence is the primary and obvious method., "but if there was morally sound reasoning for avoiding abstinence, "the Conference agrees that other methods may be used, provided that this is done in the light of Christian principles."

By the 1958 Lambeth Conference, contraception was an accepted part of life among most Anglicans, and a resolution was passed to the effect that the responsibility for deciding upon the number and frequency of children was laid by God upon the consciences of parents "in such ways as are acceptable to husband and wife."

The Anglicans present an excellent microcosm of what happened among Protestant churches in the 1900s.

A constant Christian teaching was completely undone among Protestants in a mere thirty years. This brings up an unsettling choice...either the Holy Spirit was not guiding Christians before 1930 or Protestant Churches have been ignoring His guidance after 1960.

9 posted on 04/23/2002 7:39:44 PM PDT by Brian Kopp DPM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

To: Designed
Then they would encourage men to do the normal thing and marry a woman. (Romans 1:26,27) Perhaps being then sexually satisfied as God intended, they could stop preying on men and boys. Back to the scriptures! They are and always have been very practical.

I don't think that homosexuals and pedophiles would ever be satisfied by a woman, nor that a heterosexual priest would prey on members of his own sex.

If there was any truth to that statement, there would be no married homosexuals/pedophiles and we all know that they do exist.

Celibacy is NOT the problem. The problem (IMHO) is that they lowered the standards when recruitments started to dry up, allowing these perverts to enter the priesthood - what better cover for their disgusting behavior than the priesthood?

13 posted on 04/23/2002 9:02:02 PM PDT by fellowpatriot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson