Giddings no confidence motion overturned...

Of course there was a real difference. Any objective person knows that. Look at the great difference in doctrine prior to Cranmer and after Cranmer.

 

I hear what both you and Highchurchman are saying, the difference I can see here is that Highchurchman posts his references so others can read them, research them and come to their own conclusion. Brother Celtic you say these things and say they are backed up by scripture etc but you don't post the references. I would appreciate it if you did so I research them myself.

Blessings, Gordon

 

I've been reading some posts that have made me think about my own posting here. I think if I am contributing to hard feelings and strife, it would be best if I cut back on the frequency of my posts.

If anyone holds to some belief with conviction, and it gives that person comfort, that's good -- as long as it's not used to hurt someone else.

I still object to being called an atheist for holding to women's ordination, but I do not wish to contribute to the rancor.

Maybe I'll post some references but without much comment. I'll think about it. Perhaps the forum was more peaceful before I came here?

 

Please don't stop I believe a lot of your posts have great merit and I appreciate your point of view... We have lost quite a few really good people from here because of the views of some of the more obstinate brothers amongst us, and in my opinion the forum is less for it. I stopped posting here for quite some time because I don't believe there is a place for bigotry on any forum and some here believed I should not stand up for the beliefs of other faiths and their right to believe what they do.

Blessings, Gordon

 

You know, I can accept those whose beliefs are almost all diametrically opposite to mine, such as Anglo-Catholics, and accord them a place within the Anglican Communion, but some or many of them seem unwilling to do the same for me, instead labeling me a "sectary" or worse.

I really appreciate your post.

 

1. 
   1. A sectarian. 2. A dissenter from an established church, especially a Protestant nonconformist.
   What 's wrong with the definitions above ? You are a dissenter from the Church and as far as I can tell, (look at your early comments on this blog,) I suspect you are a protestant in its modern form?
   You'r in the same boat as the Romans, who are members of the Holy Roman Church, but don't like the term Roman.

 

Why not surprise me and tell us what this ,'great difference,' was in.' doctrine prior to Cranmer and after Cranmer.'

 

I am neither Roman Catholic nor Protestant. I do not identify with either of these.

 

For heaven 's sake stop playing games, your coyness is ludicrous for an adult. You are not a member of the One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church as I understand it , as far as I can see you are a member of a sect! You might indeed claim membership through baptism, but you do not follow recognisably Anglican or Catholic beliefs, on the whole that is.

 

I think that's not entirely correct. I get the concept of printed books being easier and cheaper to produce, but it's just a relative change, and shouldn't be overstated to say that prior to printing humanity was inevitably illiterate. I mean look at the Church Fathers, why did they demand that their parishioners read and studied the Scriptures,? Why did they write commentaries on the books of the Bible, which would be inaccessible if no one but them had them?

Also your theory would consign the whole Classical Civilization to illiteracy, when we know that isn't the case and books were vastly prevalent in the ancient world.

 

Lowly Layman,

Replying to, and fortifying what Stalwart just said, I ask you to read what John Chrysostom attested, about A.D. 405:

Sermon III on Lazarus & the Rich Man

This, also, I am ever urging, and shall not cease to urge, that you give attention, not only to the words spoken, but that also, when at home in your house, you exercise yourselves constantly in reading the Divine Scriptures.

Homily IX on Colossians:

Tarry not, I entreat, for another to teach thee; thou hast the oracles of God. No man teacheth thee as they; for he indeed oft grudgeth much for vainglory’s sake and envy. Hearken, I entreat you, all ye that are careful for this life, and procure books that will be medicines for the soul. If ye will not any other, yet get you at least the New Testament, the Apostolic Epistles, the Acts, the Gospels, for your constant teachers. If grief befall thee, dive into them as into a chest of medicines; take thence comfort of thy trouble, be it loss, or death, or bereavement of relations; or rather dive not into them merely, but take them wholly to thee; keep them in thy mind. This is the cause of all evils, the not knowing the Scriptures.

 

Of course it makes a difference, how-and-ever,it was still the Anglican Church, all that had changed were the additions from medieval times, we still retained the essentials. That's all I ever claim. You should read my mails.

 

I am not playing games. I cannot be pigeonholed by you or anyone else, and that drives you crazy.

I have tried to be civil in my exchanges with you; I have been patient and even apologized once. But you have called me arrogant, a "sectary, and you persist. I am forced to now be blunt: You, sir, are a false accuser.

 

I think it is still fair to say that books were not readily available to the average family, so reading at home would be more the exception then the rule.

 

I honestly do not understand why people don't get this point that you have been making for as long I have been around this forum.

 

Posted in error