No discussion?

Beloved Daughter

Well-known member
J.I Packer was a giant in the field of theology. His book Knowing God is considered required reading at many seminaries. He was part of the Anglican Church Canada until they adopted a non scriptural view of sexuality. He literally turned in his papers.

J. I. Packer - Wikipedia

When I read Knowing God, I was stunned by the depth of knowledge he presented. It changed my life for the better.


God speed ✝️
 

HillsboroMom

Active member
I grew up Lutheran, and in fact went to a Lutheran seminary for 3 years. I joined an Episcopal Church in 2008 or 2009. My family is currently "between churches" ... long story ... but I have been a member at that church longer than any other church.
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
Good question. I feel pretty confident there are still a few members. I will tell you that I was greatly influenced by the book Knowing God, by J.I.Packer. I was saddened by his death.

God Speed

I used to frequent used bookstores, and loved to check out the religion section.
Anytime I saw a copy of "Mere Christianity" (Lewis) or "Knowing God" (Packer), especially for 50 cents, I would pick up a copy. Great to give to people.

"Knowing God" is a book about the attributes of God.
God is more than just "love".
He is Holy, Just, wrathful, merciful, jealous, etc. etc. etc.
And Packer devotes a chapter to each attribute.

I'm a Baptist, btw... But I still have my mom's BCP.
 

Bonnie

Super Member
I grew up Lutheran, and in fact went to a Lutheran seminary for 3 years. I joined an Episcopal Church in 2008 or 2009. My family is currently "between churches" ... long story ... but I have been a member at that church longer than any other church.
You must have gone to an ELCA seminary. That church is extremely liberal, as is the Episcopal Church, except one or two of the more conservative branches.
 

HillsboroMom

Active member
You must have gone to an ELCA seminary. That church is extremely liberal, as is the Episcopal Church, except one or two of the more conservative branches.
Yes, it was. I wouldn't call it "extremely" liberal. I'd say it's left of center, for sure, but it's significantly more conservative than, say, UCC, which we affectionately called "Unitarians Considering Christ."

I was heartbroken when the so-called continuing church split off from the ELCA and decided to make their own church, rather than join the LCMS. I would have rather they joined the LCMS, which is theologically solid and would have welcomed them (I think) with open arms. There's already enough division. I'd rather see new alliances made rather than further divisions. But I was already with the Episcopalians by then.
 

John t

Active member
Well, maybe this post will spark some discussion?

Are there really no other Anglicans?

There are

Reformed Episcopal Seminary - At a Glance​


Founded by the Reformed Episcopal Church in 1887, the Reformed Episcopal Seminary educates and trains Christians for lay and ordained ministries in the church of Jesus Christ. We are distinguished by our strong commitment to the inerrancy of God's Word, adherence to reformed theology and evangelical beliefs, worship and polity in the Anglican tradition, and an emphasis on pastoral ministry training.


Programs of Study (Day and Evening)​



Master of Divinity

  • Three years
  • Solid core of training in Bible, theology, church history, Anglicanism, and practical theology
  • Wide range of electives
  • Pastoral focus
  • Academically Rigorous
  • Highly Interactive; Low Student/Faculty Ratio
  • Summer Intensive courses

Diploma

  • Three Years
  • Same program as for Master of Divinity, but offered to the student without college
  • Limited by Association of Theological School Standards to 10% or less of enrollment
from http://www.reseminary.edu/modules/tinycontent/index.php?id=1
 

John t

Active member
I take it this is a more conservative branch of TEC?

Please read this, from what I posted above:

We are distinguished by our strong commitment to the inerrancy of God's Word, adherence to reformed theology and evangelical beliefs, worship and polity in the Anglican tradition, and an emphasis on pastoral ministry training.

Not all seminaries can say that. It was founded in 1873, and two of their bishops were once President of Moody.

I can only guess that TEC means "The Episcopal Church" RES is independent from and distinctly different from the Episcopal Church. They are Reformed in polity, and they broke away from the Episcopal Church before the seminary was founded in 1873. Thuss the word "reformed " has a double meaning:
  1. They created a different church from the Episcopal Church, hence they reformed another church having an Episcopal form of worship and polity.
  2. They follow Reformed theology, believing in the inerrancy of Scripture in both of the Testaments
 
Last edited:

Hark

Active member
Please read this, from what I posted above:

We are distinguished by our strong commitment to the inerrancy of God's Word, adherence to reformed theology and evangelical beliefs, worship and polity in the Anglican tradition, and an emphasis on pastoral ministry training.

Not all seminaries can say that. It was founded in 1873, and two of their bishops were once President of Moody.

I can only guess that TEC means "The Episcopal Church" RES is independent from and distinctly different from the Episcopal Church. They are Reformed in polity, and they broke away from the Episcopal Church before the seminary was founded in 1873. Thuss the word "reformed " has a double meaning:
  1. They created a different church from the Episcopal Church, hence they reformed another church having an Episcopal form of worship and polity.
  2. They follow Reformed theology, believing in the inerrancy of Scripture in both of the Testaments
Did Jesus or Paul had asked anyone to make a commitment or promise to do something like that when they are to follow Him by faith as their Good Shepherd? I'd say no, because they are supposed to put their confidence in Him to help them follow Him rather than confidence in their flesh by keeping that commitment.
 

John t

Active member
Did Jesus or Paul had asked anyone to make a commitment or promise to do something like that when they are to follow Him by faith as their Good Shepherd? I'd say no, because they are supposed to put their confidence in Him to help them follow Him rather than confidence in their flesh by keeping that commitment.
Looks to me that you are wanting to "pick a fight" with Reformed Episcopal Seminary. Go and ask them that question, not me.
The information that I provided came directly from their web site.

Perhaps you are not aware of this fact:

It is the Methodist and Episcopal churches (plus other "formal churches" ) that closest model the pattern for worship used in the Synagogues and Temple during the time of Jesus.
 
Last edited:

Hark

Active member
Looks to me that you are wanting to "pick a fight" with Reformed Episcopal Seminary. Go and ask them that question, not me.
The information that I provided came directly from their web site.
I understand that, but I am giving pause for what they represent by making that commitment for which you had shared. Thank you for sharing, by the way.
Perhaps you are not aware of this fact:

It is the Methodist and Episcopal churches (plus other "formal churches" ) that closest model the pattern for worship used in the Synagogues and Temple during the time of Jesus.
That is not a fact, but an opinion that you should not consider as Biblical after all.

Consider this, in no way would a Jewish Synagogue would allow Christians to hold worship service of their own in their Temples. All references in the Book of Acts when the events are taking place in the synagogue or on the sabbath day is the Christian outreach ministry.

If that is the grounds for why they think they are the closest model of what the early churches were like in Jesus's days... then they are sadly mistaken. 1 Corinthians 14th chapter is the practice of the early church days and I do not see that in the Methodist & Episcopal churches. Granted, we have the scriptures now, but even then, how is it that only one member from the pulpit is edifying the church when we are all suppose to minister to one another as a member of that body of Christ? Even Jesus stated the example below.

Matthew 18:11 For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost. 12 How think ye? if a man have an hundred sheep, and one of them be gone astray, doth he not leave the ninety and nine, and goeth into the mountains, and seeketh that which is gone astray? 13 And if so be that he find it, verily I say unto you, he rejoiceth more of that sheep, than of the ninety and nine which went not astray. 14 Even so it is not the will of your Father which is in heaven, that one of these little ones should perish. 15 Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. 16 But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. 17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.

Every member should have a care & concern for other members in the body of Christ so that if an offender does not listen, then bring an elder or tow as a witness to confirm the issue at hand and if still unrepentant, they are to be brought before the congregation; and if still un repented, excommunicated until that brother does repent.

What I see in churches today is no excommunication, but just preach from the pulpit and hope they will repent. They leave it to one member to make like Superman in doing the whole function of the body in caring for one another and that is not the early church of the N.T.

But thank you for sharing, but that fact cannot be the fact. I know you meant closest model but I'd say it is not even close at all, sad to say.
 

John t

Active member
John t said:

Perhaps you are not aware of this fact:
It is the Methodist and Episcopal churches (plus other "formal churches" ) that closest model the pattern for worship used in the Synagogues and Temple during the time of Jesus.


That is not a fact, but an opinion that you should not consider as Biblical after all.

My informed guess from having studied both Jewish and early church worship is that being devout Jews who accepted Jesus as their Savior is that they were following the worship liturgies with which they were familiar, namely the Synagogue. If you have evidence to the contrary, please present it.

I NEVER used the word "biblical" in the post to which you object. Therefore, you are putting words in my post that are not there. As a result of that, I am more inclined than ever to believe that you are attempting to make a large issue over something that is rather insignificant.

Tell me, where is the form and content of acceptable worship proscribed in the Bible? Why is that so important to you?
Consider this, in no way would a Jewish Synagogue would allow Christians to hold worship service of their own in their Temples.

The name "Christian" was created in Antioch, where there is no Temple. As a matter of fact there is only one Temple (unless you are LDS) and that was in Jerusalem. So there is no basis nor merit to your objection. Again, you are making a big issue over a very small issue. More over, there are no facts in your accusation. Frequently, Paul and Peter would go to the local synagogues or the Temple in Jerusalem because there they would meet many different devout Jews worshiping.

I am sure that you will not reject this FACT:

Acts 11:26 And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch
 
Last edited:

Hark

Active member
My informed guess from having studied both Jewish and early church worship is that being devout Jews who accepted Jesus as their Savior is that they were following the worship liturgies with which they were familiar, namely the Synagogue. If you have evidence to the contrary, please present it.
Would that not suggest they follow the law of Moses & traditions in relations to the synagogues?

Acts 15:5 But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses. 6 And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter. 7 And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. 8 And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; 9 And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. 10 Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? 11 But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.

Did you find any similarities to the Synagogues in how the church at Corinth were run per 1 Corinthians 14th chapter? So I do not see any close models to that effect. Do 2 or 3 people edify while another judge what was said by the members of the body of Christ?
I NEVER used the word "biblical" in the post to which you object. Therefore, you are putting words in my post that are not there. As a result of that, I am more inclined than ever to believe that you are attempting to make a large issue over something that is rather insignificant.
Then I am not sure why you claim that model as being close to how the early church performed. Your study & conclusion was outside scripture, yes?
Tell me, where is the form and content of acceptable worship proscribed in the Bible? Why is that so important to you?
To avoid all appearances of evil as described by Jesus.

Matthew 23:1Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples, 2 Saying The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat: 3 All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not. 4 For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers. 5 But all their works they do for to be seen of men: they make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of their garments, 6 And love the uppermost rooms at feasts, and the chief seats in the synagogues,

Pretty much describes most of our churches today, right?


Paul gave ordinances for all the churches to follow, including how to give in supporting missionaries as not having a separate collection, but reserve a portion from the bounty collected each Sunday as agreed by the church so that there will.be no special collection for them

1 Corinthians 16:1Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, even so do ye. 2 Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come.

I see no ordinances that mirrors the Synagogues in any shape or form. If I am missing anything, fell free to edify & correct me.
The name "Christian" was created in Antioch, where there is no Temple. As a matter of fact there is only one Temple (unless you are LDS) and that was in Jerusalem. So there is no basis nor merit to your objection. Again, you are making a big issue over a very small issue. More over, there are no facts in your accusation. Frequently, Paul and Peter would go to the local synagogues or the Temple in Jerusalem because there they would meet many different devout Jews worshiping.
Only in outreach ministry. If Jews would not allow Christians today to hold their services in their synagogues, then I do not know why you would believe otherwise in Jerusalem when Christians are being outright persecuted.

Consider the new reality in Christ Jesus.

1 Corinthians 6:19 What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? 20 For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's.

Jesus was telling the woman at the well that believers can worship God the Father anywhere... by honoring the Son in worship.

John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

John 5:22 For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son: 23 That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him.

That is why worship is important by doing the will of the Father in how to come to Him in worship & the only way to honor Him in worship.

The modified Nicene creed of 381 A.D. has broadened the way in coming to God in worship by including the worship of the Holy Spirit with the father & the Son which has been warned about in Matthew 7:13-27 whereby the solution to avoid that iniquity is to narrow it back to the Son to avoid being left behind per Luke 13:24-30. Sinners in the world that worships spirits and the spirits behind idols have to abandon their practice of focus on the spirit by coming to God the Father through His Son in worship, prayer, & fellowship. That is what the Holy Spirit in us is leading us to do in testifying of the Son to glorify the Son through us so that includes worship & not just outreach ministry ( John 15:26-27 & John 16:14 ) Only the spirit of the antichrist coming in the worship place with signs & wonders to take their eyes off of the Son will do this : 1 John 4:1-4
I am sure that you will not reject this FACT:

Acts 11:26 And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch
Best to stick with scripture regarding the early churches rather than the early histories as written by the churches. Only Christ can help you see that somewhere along the way, churches today did not perform as the churches as described in the N.T. and certainly not abstaining from all appearances of evil when proving all things taught by the churches by the scriptures with His help.
 

John t

Active member
John t said:

My informed guess from having studied both Jewish and early church worship is that being devout Jews who accepted Jesus as their Savior is that they were following the worship liturgies with which they were familiar, namely the Synagogue. If you have evidence to the contrary, please present it.

Would that not suggest they follow the law of Moses & traditions in relations to the synagogues?
That was the core issue of the Jerusalem Council when Paul and Peter had a strong disagreement as recorded in Acts 15. The Judiazers were also a faction in the early church, who in the early church taught that "Since Christianity (anachronistically speaking) came from the Jews, to be a Christian, one must first become a Jew. That belief required adult circumcision of males. Anesthesia did not exist at that time, so that was a barbaric requirement.

Only in outreach ministry. If Jews would not allow Christians today to hold their services in their synagogues, then I do not know why you would believe otherwise in Jerusalem when Christians are being outright persecuted.
HUH???
I do not believe that you understand what I wrote.

But I do know that you are being argumentative, and perhaps seemingly insincere when you lump early church practices and the Nicene Creed into one post. If you are interested in learning the facts behind the evolution of church doctrine, I suggest that you get the book Early Church Doctrine by JDN Kelly. First try to get it through good reads dot com.

I hope that you learn something from that book because it looks at the works of the antenicene church fathers so you can get a good understanding of how church doctrine was formed.
 

Hark

Active member
That was the core issue of the Jerusalem Council when Paul and Peter had a strong disagreement as recorded in Acts 15. The Judiazers were also a faction in the early church, who in the early church taught that "Since Christianity (anachronistically speaking) came from the Jews, to be a Christian, one must first become a Jew. That belief required adult circumcision of males. Anesthesia did not exist at that time, so that was a barbaric requirement.
If you are using the term "The Jerusalem Council" to an actual corporate entity in early church history that continues to this day, that would be a mistake. Do discern with Him that anyone in Jerusalem can claim that for their identity to rule over churches by, but hopefully, you are not meaning that, but just a council that was in Jerusalem at that time.

I agree with you about circumcision not being necessary for salvation.
HUH???
I do not believe that you understand what I wrote.
More than likely, because I do not see any church modelling after the N.T. churches today.. not even close. So perhaps I am not seeing what you mean albeit I am at a loss to ask how you can clarify your position for representing them.
But I do know that you are being argumentative, and perhaps seemingly insincere when you lump early church practices and the Nicene Creed into one post.
No. Just sharing a contention for what I have found as not based in scripture to do. If you consider what a creed does.. to get all churches to agree to a creed, even the Catholic Church, then it being ecumenical in nature as gathering grapes of thorns and figs of thistles, is why churches should not agree to a creed that every church, including Catholics are using as agreed upon.

2 Corinthians 6:14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? 15 And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? 16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you. 18 And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.

As it is, Jesus needs to help saved believers that hear to leave the churches that do not hear and unwilling to repent. Change is hard for some people, but we are called to be followers of Jesus Christ; not followers of a Church.
If you are interested in learning the facts behind the evolution of church doctrine, I suggest that you get the book Early Church Doctrine by JDN Kelly. First try to get it through good reads dot com.
Thank you for sharing information, but scripture is how we create doctrines, reprove, correct, and train in righteousness so that means every thing the church teaches has to be proven or proven by the scripture with His help for each and every saved believer that wants to abide in Him.

2 Timothy 3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

1 Thessalonians 5:21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. 22 Abstain from all appearance of evil. 23 And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. 24 Faithful is he that calleth you, who also will do it.
I hope that you learn something from that book because it looks at the works of the antenicene church fathers so you can get a good understanding of how church doctrine was formed.
But still, you are required by the scripture to prove all things by Him by the scripture. It may be interesting but church history does not over ride any scripture that reproves what they teach.
 
Top