HillsboroMom
Active member
Well, maybe this post will spark some discussion?
Are there really no other Anglicans?
Are there really no other Anglicans?
Well, maybe this post will spark some discussion?
Are there really no other Anglicans?
Well, maybe this post will spark some discussion?
Are there really no other Anglicans?
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
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.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.
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."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.
Well, maybe this post will spark some discussion?
Are there really no other Anglicans?
I take it this is a more conservative branch of TEC?There are
Reformed Episcopal Seminary - At a Glance
I take it this is a more conservative branch of TEC?
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.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:
- They created a different church from the Episcopal Church, hence they reformed another church having an Episcopal form of worship and polity.
- They follow Reformed theology, believing in the inerrancy of Scripture in both of the Testaments
Looks to me that you are wanting to "pick a fight" with Reformed Episcopal Seminary. Go and ask them that question, not me.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.
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.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.
That is not a fact, but an opinion that you should not consider as Biblical after all.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.
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.
Consider this, in no way would a Jewish Synagogue would allow Christians to hold worship service of their own in their Temples.
Would that not suggest they follow the law of Moses & traditions in relations to the synagogues?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.
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?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.
To avoid all appearances of evil as described by Jesus.Tell me, where is the form and content of acceptable worship proscribed in the Bible? Why is that so important to you?
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.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.
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.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
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.
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.Would that not suggest they follow the law of Moses & traditions in relations to the synagogues?
HUH???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.
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.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.
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.HUH???
I do not believe that you understand what I wrote.
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.