Shared Pulpit, shared Table

HillsboroMom said:
I'm not sure how that applies to anything I said.
Click to expand...
Somehow, I knew you would respond in this manner.

Honestly, I don't know how some Episcopalians can, in good conscience call themselves Christians.

This supposedly very learned Bishop, dodges all the facts of the Bible for political correctness. The Bible says "I am the way, the truth and the life, no one comes to the father except through me"


Here, the same Bishop scolds the Apostle Paul

Episcopal Presiding Bishop Denounces Apostle Paul in Sermon in Curacao | VirtueOnline – The Voice for Global Orthodox Anglicanism

virtueonline.org virtueonline.org

christiannews.net

Episcopalian ‘Bishop’: Paul Bigoted for Not Embracing Diversity in Demon-Possessed Girl

VENEZUELA -- The presiding female bishop over U.S. Episcopalians is being sharply criticized for delivering a heretical message about diversity, in which she claimed that the Apostle Paul was wrong and bigoted for setting a demon-possessed girl free from spiritual bondage. In speaking this month...
christiannews.net christiannews.net

Disgraceful behavior by people who claim to love God.
 
Beloved Daughter said:
Honestly, I don't know how some Episcopalians can, in good conscience call themselves Christians.
Click to expand...

Honestly, I don't know how some PEOPLE can, in good conscience, call themselves Christians.

Some people, in this very forum, are barely human, let alone Christian, in their behavior.

But Jesus seems to love them all the same. So I guess I should, too.
 
HillsboroMom said:
Honestly, I don't know how some PEOPLE can, in good conscience, call themselves Christians.

Some people, in this very forum, are barely human, let alone Christian, in their behavior.

But Jesus seems to love them all the same. So I guess I should, too.
Click to expand...
Things that cause people to stumble will come, but woe to anyone through whom they come. Jesus would never have said that would He.
One cant love God by celebrating what God hates. I wonder HillsboroMom how your love for people is manifested.
 
BMS said:
I wonder HillsboroMom how your love for people is manifested.
Click to expand...

No need to wonder.

My love for people is manifested in many ways.
  • I donate time and money to many worthwhile causes.
  • If I see someone struggling with something, and I can help, I do.
  • I pray without ceasing. When necessary, I use words.
How is your love for people manifested?
 
HillsboroMom said:
No need to wonder.

My love for people is manifested in many ways.
  • I donate time and money to many worthwhile causes.
  • If I see someone struggling with something, and I can help, I do.
  • I pray without ceasing. When necessary, I use words.
How is your love for people manifested?
Click to expand...
The same half the gospel as you and the other half as well. Like the summary in James 1 what God wants is to look after widows and orphans and to keep from being poluted by the world.
And of course sin is mentioned much more in the New Testament than love. The love of God is primarily salvation from sin. If we have leaders in the churches celebrating sin then thats not the gospel.

There is actually no record of Francis of Assisi saying preach the gospel and if necessary use words. Though he made himself poor and relied on God, he used to go into villages, stand on a straw bail or something and preach the gospel of salvation. Today he would likely get moved on by the police in the UK.
 
POINT 1
The latest Anglican Communion has highlighted the farce that it has become.
There were already groups of Anglicans that had formed which are no longer in the Communion, because Lambeth 1.10 had not not been adhered to by certain churches in the Communion. Now however the pronouncement is these churches which are part of the Communion who dont adhere to Lambeth 1.10 are free to do so.
In addition some Communion churches havent attended Lambeth 1.10 and many who have have not shared eucharist.
On a secular theme, how can one have communion and shared views if one doesnt have shared views?
 
POINT 2
What should happen.
Well the fact is, unity in the NT is about shared belief in the gospel once delivered. Its not described as unity by consent to disagree. The NT is primarily written to believers and not the world. There are instances where many left because they found Jesus teaching too hard, or in the epistoes where they were rejected because they did not hold to the faith once delivered, but there are NO verses in the Bible that countenance same sex acts.
So we have a communion that affirms the faith on the subject of sexual intimacy in Lambeth 1.10, and a number of separate churches that dont adhere to it but still insist on being part of the communion. So we have had secular democracy at work in the church at the expense of the King, Jesus.
What should have happened is that those who insist on lgbt recognition should have left to form their own lgbt type church.
The idea that it is Christian to tolerate false teaching is false in itself.
 
rakovsky said:
Today the ELCA has open communion toward Episcopalians, and I expect that the Episcopalian Church USA and the rest of the ECUSA's Anglican Communion have the same policy. But the LCMS has what is often called "Closed Communion." Part of the theological background to this is that Luther rejected Communion with those like most of the founding Anglicans who rejected that the Eucharistic elements objectively have or are Christ's body. Luther made lots of arguments for the objective Presence, but one that sticks out in my mind as the most "Lutheran" was based on the plain reading of the institution of the Lord's Supper. Luther's foundational claim about Biblical interpretation was that you should just go by the meaning of the Bible alone. So he emphasized that Jesus' plain words about the Lord's Supper were that "This is my body," period, without any Ifs, Ands, or Buts.

Calvin's idea in contrast was that Jesus' actual body was only up in heaven, that the Natural Order prevented a body from being in two places at once, and that as a result, it was impossible for Jesus' body to be objectively on the Eucharist table. Luther complained that Calvin was using the Natural Order to deny Christ's miracle of His body being the Eucharistic food.

Most of the founding Anglican leaders agreed with Calvin's idea instead of Luther's. They concluded that people could only "eat" Jesus' body in some metaphorical sense, through their spirituality, and so non-believers like Judas could not be said to "eat" Jesus' body even though they put the "sacrament" or ritual bread in their mouths. As a result, they wrote in their foundational Articles of Religion, Article 29:


Luther rejected "fellowship" with those who took this view, saying,


The "Sacramentarians" whom Luther mentioned took the view that Jesus was only present in the sacrament or ritual in some metaphorical, indirect sense of spirituality, and that the sacramental physical food was not Jesus' body in an objective sense.

There have always been at least a minority of Anglicans who take the view that Christ's body is in the Eucharistic bread directly, even though their Article 29 entails the opposite.

The result of this is rather unexpected. On one hand, one of Lutheranism's foundational axioms was that only the Bible alone is the only authority, as opposed to treating Christian bishops and other Church writings passed down through centuries as additional authorities. And Luther taught that based on the Bible alone, Christ's body was objectively present on the Eucharist table, a teaching that matched the Church's Traditional writings.

The Anglicans in contrast taught that bishops and Church writings passed down are also authorities in addition to the Bible. Yet when it came to the Real Presence, most foundational Anglican leaders agreed with Calvin and most other Protestants that the Eucharistic food was not Jesus' body in the direct, objective sense. In keeping with their Anglican idea of respecting Tradition however, more than a few Anglican theologians have tried to interpret Church Tradition in accordance their denial of the direct Eucharistic presence.
Click to expand...
Most high church Episcopalians believe in the Real Presence, and some in Transubstantiation. In the Church I attend the sacrament is reserved in a tabernacle.
 
rakovsky said:
Let me help illustrate this more clearly.

In Roman Catholicism, Lutheranism, and Eastern Orthodoxy, we have what is called "reserving" the host. Clergy can consecrate their Eucharist food and then hold it some place special until it is used. The idea, including in Lutheranism, is that the physical bread is objectively Christ's body. The space reserving the food is sacred even when there is no liturgy going on. One Lutheran told me that this is why Lutherans have a candle lamp lit in the room with the host even when there is no liturgy going on.

In this photo from Grace Evangelical Lutheran church, you can see the candle lit in the upper left.
Easter-Photo-2018-2-e1524511697949.jpg




In contrast, the Anglican Articles of Religion complain about Christians reserving their Eucharist. Article 28 claims:


The Low Church Anglicans don't do host reservation, and I found Anglican rules saying that it was not allowed in the Anglican church for a long time. I found some very recent Anglican rules saying that it is allowed and some pro-Catholic Anglicans do this. The background for the Articles of Religion's complaint against reserving the host is that most foundational Anglicans rejected an objective presence in the food, so they rejected the practice of Host reservation. For them, since the food could not objectively be Christ's body, there was no point in reserving it outside of the ritual, and so to reserve it would be purely "superstition" in their POV, which is what their faction called Transubstantiation and pilgrimages to monasteries.
Click to expand...
We are no longer bound by the Articles of Religion. High Churches reserve the sacrament, and I believe have a higher view of the Sacrament than Lutherans - and I used to go to an LCMS. And many Episcopal and Anglican churches reserve the Sacrament - our Episcopal Church has a beautiful gold tabernacle. We also have an altar to the Blessed Mother. In the LCMS Church I attended for a while (after fleeing Spong and the Diocese of Newark - enough said), the sacrament was not reserved. And I wouldn't say that reserving the sacrament makes the Episcopalians "pro-Catholic," after all the Church is Catholic. Don't give the word away to the Romanists. There is also the problem of the validity of Lutheran sacraments since they have no Apostolic link in their orders.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top