Did the fall away in the Anglican Church come because they corrupted the word of God with the new versions?

So where do you stand on same sex blessings and if your Roman Catholic church blesses SSM will you stand with Peter and the rest of your RC church who reject SSM, or the hierarchy who buy into it?
As far as I have heard, the blessings are for the individuals and not the actual union being blessed.
 
The Anglican Theology is not sound when it diverts from the Church that was already established and protected by the Holy Spirit.
Not the issue of the thread. You are tap dancing.
If we accept the RC church is the one true church then it wont condone SSM, but if it does then it will cease to be the one true church.
 
Last edited:
////
Arch Stanton said:
1 Tim 3:15 But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is THE CHURCH of the living God, the PILLAR AND FOUNDATION OF [THE] TRUTH

Eph 3:10 so that the manifold WISDOM of God might now be made known THROUGH the CHURCH to the principalities and authorities in the heavens.
================================end Arch post
/
Peter says​
Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;

16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things;
in which are some things hard to be understood,
which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest,
as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

17 Ye therefore, beloved,
seeing ye know these things before,
beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked,
fall from your own stedfastness.

18 But grow in grace,
and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.
To him be glory both now and for ever. Amen
.​
.​
Arch;
you have adiffuclt time of understanding Paul;
may we better do a thread all of it own one this guy Paul
 
I can understand Arch defending the RC church as the one true church, but the NT support for that cant overrule the NT condemnation of homosexual acts, and Arch hasnt really been clear on that imo
 
Arch Stanton said:
1 Tim 3:15 But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is THE CHURCH of the living God, the PILLAR AND FOUNDATION OF [THE] TRUTH

Eph 3:10 so that the manifold WISDOM of God might now be made known THROUGH the CHURCH to the principalities and authorities in the heavens.

Arch;
you have a difficult time of understanding Paul;
not at all.... he knew his place.
may we better do a thread all of it own one this guy Paul
indeed
 
Arch Stanton said:
1 Tim 3:15 But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is THE CHURCH of the living God, the PILLAR AND FOUNDATION OF [THE] TRUTH

Eph 3:10 so that the manifold WISDOM of God might now be made known THROUGH the CHURCH to the principalities and authorities in the heavens.
Buzzard said;

Arch;
you have a difficult time of understanding Paul;
Arch Stanton said:
not at all.... he knew his place.
============================================
.
That he did; that he did
may we better do a thread all of it own one this guy Paul
//
 
not at all.... Peter endorsed says it right there. Peter also endorsed Matthias, Linus, Clement, etc.
Peter endorsing bishops (if he ever did) has nothing to do with whether the RCC is the "one true church" exclusive to all other churches.

All the RCC could ever boast of is being a part of that true church that is exclusive to God. At the present time the RCC has a heretical leadership/hierarchy.

As far as SS blessings: it matters not whether they are of the couple or the union: both are repulsive to God in the light of 1 Cor 5:11.
 
No. I believe its his statement of faith.

Do we agree that if the Roman Church blesses SSM it would become apostate?
The Roman Catholic Religious system has already BEEN APOSTATE for CENTURIES. God sent Luther and others 500 years ago to witness the TRUTH to it, but they wouldn't hear it (even the Catholic management consider Leo 10 to have been an unfortunate choice of Popes). That their present "ringer" accepts SSM is no surpeise.
 
Peter endorsing bishops (if he ever did) has nothing to do with whether the RCC is the "one true church" exclusive to all other churches.
Were there bishops in the cities [in the first few centuries] that were from a denomination?
 
You are correct.... all we had was the Catholic Church.
This isn't so, especially in the Latin sphere. The Latins also had the Donatist church in North Africa, which viewed the Roman Catholic church as Manichaean, where many of its bishops were ex-Manichaeans, including Augustine. There were three Roman religious denominations in Africa, at least until Manichaeanism was proscribed at the end of the 4th century: Donatism, Catholicism and Manichaeanism. There was also a montanist element in the 3rd century and various flavors of Latin gnosticism, e.g. Marcion and Valentinus. The Catholics won out in the end, because Catholicism was in political favor at Rome. There was also Priscillianism, which was an extreme Trinitarian version of Catholicism, which eventually influenced Catholicism, and also Encratism made inroads into the "Catholic" theology of various writers such as Cyprian and perhaps Augustine.

Then Rome was subdued by the Arians in the 5th century. To pretend that the Catholics were the only party in the Roman Church in the first few centuries of Christianity would be a mistake. I doubt if Catholicism, seen as a unique religious brand, even existed prior to the 4th century; and it wasn't always politically dominant.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top