"And as far as how salvation relates, to priest, church, and diocese, if these have departed from the faith, then their message of salvation is going to be affected." Your comment above linked the acceptance of gay clergy by the ECUSA to a different message of salvation. Also, I would honestly like to see this lengthy list of splinter Anglican churches you keep referring to, and what their differing message of salvation is. Here in Indiana the only presence we have other than the ECUSA, is a small conclave of ACNA churches, and one failing REC parish.
You are confusing a few things. Anglicans can privately hold divergences from orthodox doctrine (no one is perfect or omniscient), there is one official Anglican doctrine, and one Anglican church, the Anglican Communion. All you have to do is read our prayerbook and the formularies to find out what baptism is.
Just as one example, the Anglo-Catholic message of salvation through necessary sacraments is diametrically opposite to the Evangelical doctrine of salvation only by grace through faith. As I have pointed out, there are at least eight views of baptism, its meaning, and its relation to salvation in the Anglican Communion. Here is a short list of "Continuing Anglican" churches with the approximate number of their parishes in North America shown in parentheses. Some also have affiliated churches in other countries. I can also provide a much more extensive list of Anglican jurisdictions not in communion with Canterbury, if you'd like. American Anglican Church (12) Anglican Catholic Church (135) Anglican Catholic Church of Canada (12) Anglican Churches of America (2) Anglican Church in America (75) Anglican Church of Virginia (8) Anglican Episcopal Church (6) Anglican Orthodox Church (10) Anglican Province of America (60) Anglican Province of Christ the King (42) Christian Episcopal Church of Canada (3) Diocese of the Great Lakes (5) Diocese of the Holy Cross (20) Episcopal Missionary Church (30) Holy Catholic Church--Western Rite (30) Orthodox Anglican Church (5) Southern Episcopal Church (3) United Anglican Church (6) United Episcopal Church of North America (16)
I have no problem with unity, if it is Biblically based. But there can be no unity with apostasy. Against such there is no schism or sin of schism, as you put it, only scripturally based and mandated separation -- coming out of the beast. I will not even respond further to your misrepresentation of Wesley and Methodism.
Ok then, let's apply your theory back to the Methodists: Among the 100+ Methodist denominations that exist, they all had a right to secede from each other, because to them all of the other Methodist churches were apostates? Is that your logic? I am waiting for a single note of condemnation of Methodism from you, just a single one, and not seeing it so far.
You will not get any condemnation of Methodism from me; the Methodists do not deserve condemnation. I have stated that I do not agree with the Methodist/Wesleyan view of sin, entire sanctification, and perfection.
Ok so to sum it up: some separation is not because of apostasy; some separation is wrong. Those Methodists that separated from one another without due reason were in the wrong. Let's put aside the atrocity that, even with those Methodist factions being in the wrong (in your very own words), you still will not condemn them. But let's at least take your logic to its uttermost limits, and bring everything back full circle: If separation without apostasy is wrong, what right did the Methodists have to separate from the Anglican church? Unless you will be willing to state that the Anglican Church was apostate in the 19th and 18th centuries, which you earlier said you denied.
"Here is a short list of "Continuing Anglican" churches with the approximate number of their parishes in North America shown in parentheses. Some also have affiliated churches in other countries. I can also provide a much more extensive list of Anglican jurisdictions not in communion with Canterbury, if you'd like." Again, the answer is not difficult when answered honestly. Of that list, those who adhere to the 39 articles hold the traditional faith, not just those who include the reading in the back of the hymnal in small print. Jeff
My my, it's funny the way people create indispensible "true marks" of Anglicanism so that they themselves are never placed under a microscope. From what I've seen on this forum, it appears that Anglicanism is just a mirror, where those who want to see what a true Anglican is look into it and see only themselves.
And the answer to that is simple: All the "parties" in the TEC profess to adhere to the 39 articles, but do they? Further, what difference does that make anyway when TEC has voted to ordain practicing homosexuals and bless same-sex unions? TEC is apostate. You have seen what happens to conservatives in TEC. You'd better lie low.
You bring this single sin up time and time again, and while I have some of the same feelings as you, there is no rating system on sin. You err by placing this over any of the personal sins practiced daily by clergy in all denominations, and I'm convinced that we're not the first ones to debate this, hence the 26th article. We appear to have different opinions on the sacraments, with you feeling it's validity is predicated upon the holiness of the human instrument, I don't see it that way. I would rather have the truth of scripture delivered to me by a gay clergy member, rather than an invented holiness doctrine invented by rogue separatists. Jeff
A couple of points: I had thought better of you, that you would not resort to terminology that one such as Stalwart would use -- "rogue separatists". And I have said this before, but it obviously has either escaped your attention or you do not see the difference and the significance of it: Which of all those other manifold sins are being clamored for acceptance and blessed as good and a "vehicle of grace", as Bishop Duncan Gray of Mississippi called sodomy? Is the church calling alcoholism, slander, adultery, spousal abuse, gossip, etc., good and vehicles of grace?!?! TEC has approved, accepted, blessed, and called homosexual sex good and a "vehicle of grace"!! By doing so, it has become apostate, departed from the faith. If you can be in communion and fellowship with such, go ahead, but watch yourself and don't make waves; the fascist PB might come for you. Oh, and tell me, since Satan himself could deliver the truth of scripture, would you accept his deliverance of same? Would you have fellowship and communion with him?
Celtic, do you really think I didn't wrestle and pray about those issues before re-entering the ECUSA? I have been open and honest about my conservative, traditional beliefs with everyone including our Bishop, and so far of the hundreds of lay people and clergy I've encountered, you've been the loudest opponent. Homosexuality is obviously a hot button for you, to the point it skews your view of scripture and tradition, and while I don't struggle with sex or gender issues, I've seen good people who really do. People that love God and humanity, and who'd never interact with fellow believers as you choose to do. Not that I expect you to reply to my question for the third time, but to what extent do we embrace the 26th article? What is the line we draw in the sand, and please be scriptural if possible. jeff
For the record, I do not shun homosexuals. I have a good friend who engages in homosexual behavior. I have told him I do not condemn him, but neither do I condone his behavior. The line in the sand is, how do we and churches treat sin? Do we treat is as God does, call it what it is, and call people to repentance and God's forgiveness, or do we celebrate it, bless it, call it good and a vehicle of grace as TEC does? Any person or church that does the latter has departed from the faith because he/she/they have departed from Biblical teaching. Please remember that negative discussions of other members are forbidden. -admin
Good people, I probably need to take a break from the forum for a while, if not permanently. Take care, and God bless!
Celtic? You do not read the posts supplied by your correspondents. You give a list of Anglican Churches, but as I have written on this site several times and as the common practice of the Anglican Communion has shown until recent years, Anglicans are not the Church or even a church within the accepted catholic system. The ones with any knowledge claim to be nothing other than a Communion of Believers within the catholic Church! Your wilfull refusal to accept our statement of Anglican custom and practice, borders on malevolence and is not the act of a friend or even a seeker! My own opinion, for what it is worth is that you are simply out to gain a platform for you heretical views. Further, for any ,'Anglican,' communion to claim any substance at all, they must hold to the recognised canon of faith and propagate it. Otherwise what we have is an Anglican Sect! In schism at that , this includes the AMIA. If they do not hold the canon and indeed in many cases actually reject it, they are of very little use.
You live in a dark world, who is condemning methodism? What is being said is that as far as we can ascertain, methodism, is not of the ,'Church,'. Further it places itself , outside, by the wilful refusal to conform to catholic thought and practice. They and you conform to those ideas and practice that are the result of whim and wonder and not of Christ's revelation.
That's not entirely fair, Lowly Layman. Anglicanism adheres to the Scriptures, the BCP, and the 39 Articles. It's pretty simple. The Methodists are not considered Anglican because they do not subscribe to Creeds like the Articles. They will take the Scripture of our Father, but not the authority of our Mother the Church.
Treating sin, and the validity of the sacraments are two totally different questions........or they should be. Your focus is not sin in the general sense, but just homosexuality. I find it interesting that something mentioned far more in scripture, but never quoted by the neo-conservatives is the sin of a proud/haughty look, or the person who sows discord among the brethren. How many Priests/Pastors have a love of money or possessions, how many ignore and/or mistreat their spouse or children? Alcohol, pornography, or perhaps a "luke warm faith"? Jesus said this trait nauseated Him. Celtic, for you and others here on the board, here's the reality that I see in the ECUSA currently. Gay folks and disenfranchised believers that have had the church door slammed in their face, are now sitting in my pew. They are receiving God's sacraments and hearing large portions of His word every time they attend a service, and are in fellowship with a colorful variety of people, even an old school conservative like myself. I trust the Holy Spirit to do His job in this setting! Enjoy your sabatical, but please do come back and contribute. Jeff