Posted on 07/26/2014 4:41:46 AM PDT by michaelwlf3
I am coming up on my first year as an ordained minister in a continuing Anglican church, and I have noticed that participating on political forums (even when the topic is religious) I find that my opinions and postings more often than not generate more hatred than anything else. Among the things I often hear are that the laity are the real priests and that I am a Pharisee, that my vocation disqualifies me from offering an opinion on anything Christian because I am too narrow minded, and (my personal favorite) because I look too Catholic I must be a child molester.
Are these people really Christians?
Michael,
I think you misinterpreted Catherine’s comment of “folks trying to incite flame....” as being toward you. To my, you have asked an honest question and are not ‘trying to incite’ and I interpreted Catherine’s reply as similar.
There are folks here who seemingly want to create a war between Catholics and Protestants for whatever reasons they have.
You are early in your ministry and asking an appropriate question. A minister is to be a pastor/shepherd to his congregation, teaches the gospel, provides counsel and friendship. listens to his congregations as individual persons and actually hears what they say to you. Discernment in what you hear is very important. from comments of those who lambaste clergy here, a common thread is that those clergy are more politicians than disciples of Christ; that they preach secular humanism or Marxism than the actual words of Jesus.
Blessings to you; you are at the beginning of your journey serving our Lord.
John 3. A person must be born again, to be saved once they’ve really been given a new heart by The Lord, then we’re all priests.
If anyone actually hates you and they’re actually a Christian, then they’re probably not “saved”, but a churchgoer alone.
We go through Christ for a relationship with God, we don’t need priests, that’s one of the big differences between Protestants and Catholics (as far as I can tell, but I’m not Catholic).
Glad you pointed that out, that’s a great point, even our High Priest (Jesus) humbled Himself before the creation, in Him we are all (the servants), and yet kings and queens as well.
-JS
What’s your point?
Hmm, then I have to ask the question: Suppose someone only has their Bible, and God (through the Holy Spirit) and they live on an island without a Catholic priest, I guess that makes them their own “Pope” guided just by the Holy Spirit.
“Christian unity” — There are some here who believe that all of us who accept Jesus as our Saviour should be united and focus on what we have in common: the SOURCE of our salvation.
there are a few here are into is my church/denomination the “right/correct/proper/historical” one that all should believe and if others don’t then they aren’t “Christians”
And yet there are still others, both Protestant and Catholic, are still waging the war that followed the on shortly after Martin Luther called for the reformation of the Catholic Church.
First, your example doesn’t exist.
Second, “For those who are given much, much is expected. For those who are given little, little is expected.”
Your example of limited resources, can not be exploited to excuse those with access to the truth.
Okay, I didn’t get into the minutiae of Rome’s position, but I assure you the Arminian idea of free will isn’t too far afield from that of the papist. It’s certainly closer to that of Rome than Reformational Protestantism.
I refer you to Canon Four of the Council of Trent:
“If anyone says that man’s free will moved and aroused by God, by assenting to God’s call and action, in no way cooperates toward disposing and preparing itself to obtain the grace of justification, that it cannot refuse its assent if it wishes, but that, as something inanimate, it does nothing whatever and is merely passive, let him be anathema.”
“Christians are not “just people””
You have an awful lot to learn, my friend, both about Christianity and about people.
Your disappointment stems from your not knowing about how one relates to the other, not from any failure of “Protestants” to appreciate you.
It is a comparison to something of a lesser status. No one is of lesser status than clergy in the eyes of God.
Honestly, I have never run into that in my entire life, until 5 minutes ago.
I'm wondering if you got soured on the term because somebody said it to you in a sneering tone of voice.
Honest question: so you call yourself a "lay minister"? Am I a "lay minister"?
“so you call yourself a “lay minister”?”
That is a dumb question intended as invective as it isn’t anything I have ever said. Do you still beat your dog and spit on the Bible?
Another hit piece on Protestantism.
This is akin to asking if you stopped beating your wife yet.....
It’s presuming guilt and instead of just manning up and making the accusation, it engages in major league passive/aggressive impugning of another’s character and attitude by presuming guilt and *innocently* asking a question and then putting the person so accused in a position of defending themselves against a false accusation.
And of course, when the Protestant denies hating clergy, then it’s automatically presumed that they’re lying.
It’s a disingenuous debate technique used by someone who cannot build a case on facts.
You’ll end up with a politically-edged answer.
For some of us doctrine does matter and we recognize that unity with those who seek to destroy us is not a good way to advance The Gospel. Look at what's being done to Evangelical Christians in Russia by the Russian govt with the backing of the Russian orthodox and the supercilious cry for "unity" falls apart.
I’m a Methodist ordained elder, a former Army chaplain, and I now minister in a rural area. My experience is much different than yours. I can remember only a few times in the past decade when a lay person was even rude to me.
You hate what you do not even begin to understand. It's sad.
How classic.
Presume what you think the poster meant and then label him and condemn his as some sort of heretic or another and accuse him of *hate*.
And presume that disagreement by default means *hate*.
Can't Catholics do better than that? What about addressing what he said instead of attacking him based on assumptions?
*you hate*
Mind reading much?
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.