I neglected to answer one part of Jeff's question: Why am I here, why did I choose to participate here? Simple: I love theological discussion, and I like Christian fellowship, plus I like Anglicanism.
Who asked him to leave? I simply asked why he joined a forum which he had major disagreements with. No less, no more.
Celtic, I appreciate your spiritual struggles as you try and find your place in the body. With regard to your highlighted comment, where Anglicanism differs from most modern expressions of Christianity, is the role of the church. Historically God breathed into the church, and it was her that determined scripture for us, not the individual. Billy Graham and his bible is a good thing, but God has, will, and continue to work and move through His church, so your finding on this site shouldn't surprise you at all, understanding Anglican theology. In my observation, this is where the ACNA, AMiA and others have let modern philosophy and dogma creep into the historic church, such as the new union of the ACNA and the Vineyard movement. Jeff
I would have to disagree with you. Anglicanism has not made the church equal to scripture in authority or elevated it above scripture. The Articles affirm what I am saying, as I showed elsewhere.
My view is, not that you have or enjoy even, discussions, but that you enjoy challenging traditional Anglicanism. You do not discuss anything, you make statements, which is quite another thing!
[quote="highchurchman] I still think you have a streak of malevolence within you in your attitude to the Church in England. (Anglicanism.) How-and-ever? We do not put Tradition on an equal footing with scripture, it is a claim you've made previously and never attempted to proveor even support! Let me make it clear, Revelation, scripture and then the Bishops in Council, these latter Interpret,Explain and Complete in Councils that is!. The Bishops, our modern day descendants of the apostles, not Celtic, not Neo Anglicans , Or Neo Catholics,but the bishop. [/quote] Oh, yes, I have supported and proved my claim. And your posts are an excellent support of my claim, so thank you very much for helping me prove my point! And since you put councils, "Catholic" tradition, the Fathers, and opinions of bishops on a par with or above scripture, you are not as much Anglican as you loudly proclaim.
And your view is, as usual, wrong. Amazing how you can be so consistently thus. Further, I have provided in-depth discussion here on a wide variety of subjects. The thing that gripes you is that I know facts because I have thorough knowledge of church history and theology and can thus challenge vain traditions of men invented to exalt themselves and their "parties" above other Christians and exclude them. Challenge traditional Anglicanism? No, challenge bogus Anglicanism. There is a difference, and I know the difference. And that's what sets you on edge and prompts your false statements about me. You are the type of "churchman" who would have condemned and attacked F.D. Maurice, or anyone who disagrees with your "un-Anglican" brand of Anglicanism, so I know full well what to expect from you regarding me.