Redemption: Being saved or born again

[Diogenes]

The "Methodist communion" had "women in the pulpit" from its origins in the 1700s.

Lawrence v Texas was decided in 2003 and the UMC is in the midst of a a schism over recognition of same-sex domestic partnerships and non-celebrate gay clergy where 5,800 churches have disaffiliated.

The AG and Foursquare churches have had "women in the pulpit" for a hundred years or more, and AFAIK have not slid down the supposed slippery slope.

It seems gay-affirming Pentecostals have been around since 1968.

The C&MA has bounced around a bit on the issue. Under Simpson, men and women had similar if not identical ministerial status. Later they went very much into male leadership. Recently, they have allowed more liberty, albeit inconsistently; women may hold the title of "pastor" but not "elder," if I understand correctly, and I think individual congregations can decide whether or not to allow women in leadership.

I think to at least some extent the alleged slippery slope depends on the basis of the denomination or communion allowing women in leadership (or "in the pulpit") in the first place. If it's "Wah! It's so unfair!" then they are more likely to slide further. But if it's an honest desire to reconcile apparently competing passages of Scripture, not so much.

The Presbyterian USA church had an openly gay "pastor" in 2011. Don't really have the time to look into dissent from the C&MA.

[tabibito]

Lawrence v Texas was decided in 2003 and the UMC is in the midst of a a schism over recognition of same-sex domestic partnerships and non-celebrate gay clergy where 5,800 churches have disaffiliated.

Even churches with women as pastors drew the line at ordaining LGBTQ+ pastors and bailed.

It seems gay-affirming Pentecostals have been around since 1968.

Pentecostals don't seem to be alone in slotting into the time frame. The first churches (in 1946) to embrace LGBTQ+ were in fact started by members of the Church of Rome; hardly a bastion of "progressive" (for want of a better word) theologies.

The Presbyterian USA church had an openly gay "pastor" in 2011. Don't really have the time to look into dissent from the C&MA.

The PCA, opposed to ordination of women, split from the PCUSA 48 years ago. PCUSA extended the opportunity for ordination to LGBTQ+ church members in 2012. That sparked another exodus, and the formation of ECO, which allows the ordination of women.

Evidence for the existence of a slippery slope doesn't seem to be particularly strong.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

And my opinion matters.

Only to you.

[Diogenes]

Even churches with women as pastors drew the line at ordaining LGBTQ+ pastors and bailed.

Individual congregations yes, but the issue has become extremely divisive.

Pentecostals don't seem to be alone in slotting into the time frame. The first churches (in 1946) to embrace LGBTQ+ were in fact started by members of the Church of Rome; hardly a bastion of "progressive" (for want of a better word) theologies.

Sedevacantists would disagree to the conservative nature of Rome. I'll wait for the citation.

Evidence for the existence of a slippery slope doesn't seem to be particularly strong.

If you're going to lie, fin.

[tabibito]

Individual congregations yes, but the issue has become extremely divisive.

Holding to the teachings of scripture is always divisive - the condition is even remarked upon by New Testament writers.

Sedevacantists would disagree to the conservative nature of Rome. I'll wait for the citation.

According to Sedevacantists, there has been no valid pope since Pius XII. That was quite a while after 1946. Your argument fails.

If you're going to lie, fin.

So - an ad hominem in an attempt to paper over the holes in your argument.

[Diogenes]

Holding to the teachings of scripture is always divisive - the condition is even remarked upon by New Testament writers.

With that I am in agreement.

According to Sedevacantists, there has been no valid pope since Pius XII. That was quite a while after 1946. Your argument fails.

The Sedes are seen as the conservative element within Roman Catholicism, nothing fails. You also did not give any citation for the 1946 regard the Church of Rome in general.

So - an ad hominem in an attempt to paper over the holes in your argument.

Staring that you're lying given that the second largest Protestant denomination is in the process of fracturing over the issue of gay "clergy" after already having accepting women "clergy" is not attacking your person, so no as hom.

The Anglicans are fracturing, the UCC accepts gay "clergy", Baptists who accept women "clergy" are accepting gay "clergy", multiple Jewish denominations have gay "rabbis", there are Pentecostal off shoots that accept gay "clergy". Algeria has had women "imams" since 1993 and Canada since 2003 and guess from where one of the first openly gay "imams" hails.

So no, calling out blatant deception is not an ad hom.

[Cow Poke]

Only to you.

Sure.

[tabibito]

With that I am in agreement.




The Sedes are seen as the conservative element within Roman Catholicism, nothing fails. You also did not give any citation.

I gave as many citations as you did, unless I missed something.

Staring that you're lying given that the second largest Protestant denomination is in the process of fracturing over the issue of gay "clergy" after already having accepting women "clergy" is not attacking your person, so no as hom.

And where are the citations backing up your claims in the particular post that I am now responding to - or do I have to hunt for verification of your assertions yet again? Admittedly though, it didn't take any time at all to find the article that shows gay friendly groups splitting off from the Catholic Church in 1946. Note - the groups didn't start with the desire for women clergy, they started with accepting gay relationships: your argument fails. Correlation does not evidence causation.

One Anglican archdiocese here accepts women clergy, another doesn't. They aren't at war with each other. Neither has (to date) ordained active homosexuals. Both accept active homosexuals as members: and that is where the problems begin. The activity is prohibited, people engaging in that activity are given a say in church affairs and use it as an opportunity to agitate for "reforms."

Any transgressions, not just sexual, disqualify unrepentant people engaging in such activity from membership in the body of Christ. That includes wilful and unrepentant slanderers. Given your demand for citations: Romans 1:28-32.

The Anglicans are fracturing,

American society itself seems to be fracturing, and not just about sexuality issues. If congregations are reflecting the general state of society, maybe it is time for them to take stock of what they are about by comparison with what they are supposed to be about.

the UCC accepts gay "clergy", Baptists who accept women "clergy" are accepting gay "clergy", multiple Jewish denominations have gay "rabbis", there are Pentecostal off shoots that accept gay "clergy". Algeria has had women "imams" since 1993 and Canada since 2003 and guess from where one of the first openly gay "imams" hails.

Which indicates the possibility that general society is having an undue influence on the churches, and not only on the churches, but on other faith systems as well. It's not a particularly strong argument against women clergy in Christian churches when the same problems exist in other faith systems.

So no, calling out blatant deception is not an ad hom.

No deception involved on my part - none of that information was in your earlier submission. And the submission to which I am responding still does not meet with the standard that you demand re citations.

[Diogenes]

I gave as many citations as you did, unless I missed something.

One church in Atlanta is hardy news enough to find as opposed to the MCC or to know others as common knowledge, but my apologies or my haste, language, and failure to cite the MCC.

Note - the groups didn't start with the desire for women clergy, they started with accepting gay relationships: your argument fails. Correlation does not evidence causation.

Both stem from the accommodation of the world.

Any transgressions, not just sexual, disqualify unrepentant people engaging in such activity from membership in the body of Christ.

It seems that lost on the UMC and Anglicans in the least.

That includes wilful and unrepentant slanderers. Given your demand for citations: Romans 1:28-32.

I'll admit to my failure on the issue of the demand for citations and would repent.

American society itself seems to be fracturing, and not just about sexuality issues. If congregations are reflecting the general state of society, maybe it is time for them to take stock of what they are about by comparison with what they are supposed to be about.

It's a lamentable situation regarding both, but such is the effect of provocateurs.

Which indicates the possibility that general society is having an undue influence on the churches, and not only on the churches, but on other faith systems as well.

Agreed.

No deception involved on my part - none of that information was in your earlier submission. And the submission to which I am responding still does not meet with the standard that you demand re citations.

Trying to gaslight that the division over the acceptance of gay "clergy" or blessing same sex domestic partnerships has followed the majority of denominations that accepted women "clergy" is something I would certainly call deception.

[tabibito]

Trying to gaslight that the division over the acceptance of gay "clergy" or blessing same sex domestic partnerships has followed the majority of denominations that accepted women "clergy" is something I would certainly call deception.

Someone else pointed out, quite a few posts back, that there are two reasons for a congregation to accept women clergy.

The overwhelming majority will simply be looking for a way to look good to the general community, along with being influenced by lobbying from within, and will naturally accept any number of weird ideas in pursuit of that goal.

The remainder will base the decision on a close examination of scripture, and determine that women can be ordained (while allowing that enough ambiguity might exist to permit the opposite conclusion*). They will also conduct a close examination of scripture to determine whether LGBTQ+ people can be ordained, and find that no justification is possible.

It is not accepting women as pastors that is the problem, but the reason for that acceptance.

A necessary corollary to accepting women as clergy would be taking care to avoid accepting a rabid feminist for the position, which would also preclude some men.


(* I personally believe that a modern day apostle or prophet with the requisite bona fides would knock dis-allowance out of the running.)

[JimL]

Put very simply, yes. Some Christians believe that if you sin after becoming "saved", you lose your salvation until and unless you repent. I grew up in a denomination that taught that. I had no assurance of my salvation and lived in fear of losing it until well into my 20’s, when I started delving into scripture. God's word is clear that His children can have assurance that "nothing can pluck them out of His hand".

Christianity is the only "religion" that is not works-based. I can do nothing to gain salvation, and I can do nothing to lose it. All that is required of anyone is to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and repent of their sin. The Holy Spirit does the rest.

Do you get to repent after you die, or do you have to repent before you die?

[Cow Poke]

Do you get to repent after you die, or do you have to repent before you die?

If you actually read the Bible, Jim, you'd know that, after death, there is no repenting.

Scripture Verse: Hebrews 9

²⁷ And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:

© Copyright Original Source

And there is no purgatory out of which somebody can rescue you.

[JimL]

If you actually read the Bible, Jim, you'd know that, after death, there is no repenting.

Scripture Verse: Hebrews 9

²⁷ And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:

© Copyright Original Source

And there is no purgatory out of which somebody can rescue you.

So, what if your last act is a sin and in the act you are suddenly killed or die without a chance to repent. Oops, sorry buddy, times up!! That how it works?

[Cow Poke]

So, what if your last act is a sin and in the act you are suddenly killed or die without a chance to repent.

You really REALLY need to read the Bible, Jim, because that's not how it works at all.

John handled that quite succinctly when he told us not to sin, but if we DID sin, then we have "an advocate with the Father".

Oops, sorry buddy, times up!! That how it works?

not how it works.jpeg

[JimL]

You really REALLY need to read the Bible, Jim, because that's not how it works at all.

John handled that quite succinctly when he told us not to sin, but if we DID sin, then we have "an advocate with the Father".



not how it works.jpeg

So, then, you're contradicting yourself. Which of your answers is the right one, the first answer you gave me, or this one?