Episcopacy and the Church

Surely you jest. I have no trouble admitting that I see through a glass, darkly, but I don't detect that in Stalwart.

Nevertheless, if my humor was taken wrong, or if it was wrong, I'll edit my post.

 

You can disagree with Stalwart's beliefs, but it makes no sense to act as if he (or anyone who agrees with him) is merely justifying what he already believes, by selective quoting. The "old" Anglicans were brutal in their condemnations of heresy, wrong interpretations, and people who held views that were not "their views". Human beings tend to be convinced of their positions in these issues from the outside, not by their own arrogance & insistence.

 

The "old" Anglicans were also state church persecutors.

If scripture which is the foundational sourcebook of the faith is not the final authority, what would you put in its place, someone's view of Anglicanism?

 

What Cranmer did say should be treated with respect, he was a man who not only believed in the Councils, but was a martyr for his beliefs.
In fact he held the faith which is more than some do.

 

I thought this was a great article on Virtueonline.org:
http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=17296

 

Again, he 1550 Ordinal is clear:

Let theologians theologize; let history & formulary work their real magic.

 

Yes, the Ordinal is clear. The Ordinal acknowledges "these orders" not "three orders". There are two orders of ministry, presbyter and deacon, for this reason, men are "ordered" to these orders. The office of the bishop is an office, for this reason, men are "consecrated" to that office.

 

That's a very tenuous theory, sir. It plainly says "These orders of Ministers in Christ's Church: Bishop, Priest, and Deacon". If it was only referring to two, why did it not place Priest & Deacon first, then separate Bishops as a separate office?

I've always seen the fact that bishops are "consecrated" as a mark of the loftiness of their order, not a sign that they're a mere office of the Priesthood.

 

We know that that interpretation is not correct because of Cranmer's views. If you referred to the 1662 BCP, you would be right Consular, but Cranmer did not believe bishops were an order and he wrote the Ordinal.

 

The most important piece of evidence for two orders is the New Testament. It is incontrovertible that the terms bishop/presbyter/elder/overseer/pastor were synonymous for one and the same office. Scripture has thus settled the matter, and no amount of braying or pontificating by men can change that simple fact.

As I have repeatedly stated, I have no problem with what is the traditional Anglican position, that the monarchical episcopate was a historical development and for the benefit of the church; if I had a problem with it, I could not have allowed myself to be ordained/consecrated into same. But I have a passion for scriptural truth and historical accuracy, and I will stand for that.

 

If I am understanding your posts correctly it seems that you are saying that the NT only speaks of two orders Bishops and deacons. Is that correct?

 

Yes, because a NT bishop was simply a pastor. "Bishop", "elder", presbyter", "overseer", "pastor" were synonyms for one and the same office. The terms were used interchangeably. "Bishop" and "pastor" were not two separate offices or orders; a bishop was not a third order of ministry.

Hope that clarifies what I am saying -- and I am saying it because it is a fact, as established by scripture itself and historical scholarship. It is not merely my opinion.

 

I think I understand what you are saying and I do believe that it is apparent that the NT is using the words we use today for a bishop and a priest interchangeably and I would also agree that they are speaking about the same office. I was taught that a separate order of presbyters developed apart from the order of bishop very shortly thereafter due to the increase in believers. It is very different from having one house church then ten or going from a polis of 500 people, which i believe was the average size, to a metropolis that had tens of thousands of people. And I think there is some evidence that the presbyters were seen to share in the Church Governance along with the bishop though I think I would still argue that the bishop was both the presiding officer(for lack of a better term) and the font of the presbyters sacramental authority (again for lack of a better term).

This is a very interesting subject and I am no expert. I have enjoyed reading everyone's responses.