Women ministers, an exploration

Anyone who holds to the Revelation of Christ once made to the saints, has been baptised and is a Member of Christ and Child of God! I used to believe that Rome had defected from Catholic Faith and Practice at Trent, but, our Anglican fathers of the Reformation all say that this isn't correct and that they are a Catholic Sect having added to the faith by accepting Papal Juris diction and Infallibility. I don't have your arrogance, unfortunately and accept their word on it!

 

So, you unjustly accuse me of arrogance? Show me how I have been arrogant. Since you can't, you should apologize.

 

Let me share my feelings about the last few personal interactions.

 

It is a personal opinion and I could be wrong, if so I do apologise most sincerely. How-and-ever, I think a sectary, modern day variety, who takes time out to make perfectly false statements about the Church in England, continually, without even attempting to validate them and in doing so goes against the teachings of the Body of Christ, for at least 500 yrs is arrogant at the very least! Bring forth your proofs, as Cranmer and others have previously asked you!

 

I am going to stop my participation on this thread. I have witnessed how things usually develop when we reach the stage of the personal issues and it's all a waste of time for everybody, like gathering water in a wicker basket basically.

 

The problem that Anglo-Catholics and "highchurchmen" have is that they have no scriptural or factual historical basis for their beliefs, so they have to rely on fabricated history, fables, myths, legends, and vain traditions of men to try to substantiate their false beliefs. And when they and those false beliefs are exposed, all they can do is to make it personal -- resorting to insults, pejoratives, and attempts to diminish and marginalize their opponents, thus using worsd like "sectary".

All anyone need do to see that I have stated the facts is to do some studying. Everything I say can be proven by scripture and factual history. I thus have no need or desire to stoop to insults and pejoratives to back up my position.

 

I'm glad for you, but some of us are not so lucky.
All you say might very well be true, never-the-less, you havn't even tried to prove your point. I read scripture daily and have so for years, I also read history, Church and political as well as biography and from none of it do I get what you do from my studies.
Now if you feel so strongly for what you believe, put a case and stop feeling sorry for yourself. I'm an Anglican, but only because I believe in it, if I am missing something, show me!!

 

What a pity we got de-railed. I was hoping that we would have an informed opinion on WO.

 

On various threads here, I have proven my point. I have done so from scripture, scholarship, articles, etc.

Your problem is that you think it is only possible to believe one way or adhere to one "party" to be Anglican. That is incorrect and has not been true since the Elizabethan Settlement. I am connected to Anglicanism, and I have certain beliefs, but I do not "unchurch" anyone who claims to be Anglican even if he/she holds views that are opposite mine.

Anglicanism is comprehensive and contains Anglo-Catholic, High Church, Low Church, Broad Church, Evangelical, Reformed, Arminian, Eastern-leaning, Charismatics, Lutheran-leaning, Zwinglians, and, as Maurice described them, the "no party" party!

Some have great difficulty with that; I do not because my views are quite diverse and do not fit exclusively into any one position. Further, I know how it feels to be in a group so narrow as to exclude anyone who disagrees in even one small area. I do not like that kind of Christianity.

I would also hope that if you and I continue to discuss and debate, we could do so in a civil manner.

 

If you think I am responsible for the derailing, I will be glad to voluntarily cease posting.

 

No, no... not pointed at anyone in particular... just wish we hadn't gotten into church polity and stayed on topic.

 

It seems related to me, at least in some denominations, but I get your point.

 

I didn't say that. I said you were following an atheistic, that is a post-modern and feminist philosophy. People can hold ideas inconsistently. I did not deny that you have faith, merely that ALL of your ideas were compatible with the gospel and the practices of our Lord Christ.

 

The first statement in bold how is that not calling him and atheist?

The second statement - what do you actually mean by that? I would hope that any Christians ideas were compatible with the gospel and the practices of our Lord Jesus Christ.

 

Like I said -- inconsistently. It is possible for people to be inconsistent.

Why must all ideas held by Christians be compatible with the gospel? What is the connection?

 

Sorry your post this one and the previous one just don't make sense, unless you are aware of another meaning of the noun atheist and the adjective atheistic.... obviously you are thinking one thing and writing another.

 

Could you explain what doesn't make sense? One can hold to elements of atheistic and Christian worldviews, without being consistent.

 

this...

in response to this...

doesn't make sense...

I read that to mean you are saying he is an atheist because he believes there is no issue with women being ordained as members of the Church clergy. I guess Celtic thought so as well...

So please explain how you see the ordination of women as an atheistic world view?

 

Well Celtic also thinks of himself as 'anglican' while violating almost all beliefs of Anglican theology, so we shouldn't hold ourselves to his impressions.

But what I said was that he held to an atheistic philosophy regarding female ordination. This could validly and legitimately clash with his other religious views, and yet remain without reconciliation.

We need to only look at history -- this new push to ordain women, this redefinition of gender boundaries, and even human nature, all occurred in the 60s, as a result of post-modernist and feminist philosophy.

This is why the same people pushing for female ordination are also pushing for same-sex marriage. The origin of their ideas is not ecclesiastical, it is not Christian, but from out of the Moloch of the world.

 

First answer in red, in quoted post.

Your broad-brush painting does not apply to me. I am adamantly opposed to same-sex marriage and homosexual ordinations.