Episcopal Church Throws Race Card and Plays the Martyr After Suspension

[Perd Hapley]

You're sort of shooting at a moving target, aren't you?

No.

The Roman Catholic Church is arguably the modern continuation of "the" original Christian church (unless, of course, you happen to be Greek or Russian or Ukrainian or one of the several strains of Eastern Orthodox Christianity).

And unless you happen to be any other sort of Christian, all of whom consider themselves spiritual descendants of all those who came before them in the faith. While much might be said about the Protestant/Catholic divide, both adhere to the Apostolic Creed.

Martin Luther was a Roman Catholic priest. His rebellion against what he perceived to be abuses by Rome was considered to be heresy. Yet out of that heresy grew any number of Protestant denominations, more or less at the same time that others grew out of other "heresies" in places like Switzerland. So if you're not a Roman Catholic, or at least an Orthodox Catholic, you're basically a heretic. It's kind of an iffy situation to be a heretic and be cautioning other Christians to be on the lookout for heretics. Who is the heretic and who is the true believer seems to depend a lot on which view you happen to agree with. Regardless of whether you (or I, or anyone else here) agree with Episcopal or Anglican theology, their bishops trace their line directly back to Peter. So do the bishops in the eastern Orthodox churches.

It would be an iffy situation, were I, or Martin Luther, a heretic.

As for tracing their bishopric to Peter, see I Cor. 1:10-13, 3.21-23

The Biblical caution about watching out for those quoting Scripture for their purposes was not (IMHO) a warning against sincere Christians who happen to disagree with a particular interpretation of Scripture. It was (and is) a warning against those who intentionally twist and misuse Scripture in order to deceive the faithful. I don't think that applies to Episcopalians in general.

That's how I'm using it. People who deny that the Bible condemns homosexuality as sin, or who deny that the Bible speaks of marriage as a union of opposite sexes, can't be sincere. That would be like Michael Bloomberg sincerely believing that the second amendment only applies to muskets that are used to hunt squirrels. They're in the category of those who twist and misuse Scripture to deceive the faithful. If that were possible. And of course, that's just one issue among many. And of course, I'm not talking about Episcopalians in general, but about those who adhere to "social justice" instead of Christianity.

[Perd Hapley]

^^^^It occurred to me that if you substitute "The Constitution' for 'scripture' in the above post, it fits pretty well.

As I've said many times, but with the caveat that any document requires interpretation. Interpretation doesn't mean that nothing means anything, or that anything means whatever you'd like it to mean. Interpretation is an honest attempt to convey the true meaning of another's words.

[Perd Hapley]

Fair enough.  We don't always know exactly how our comments come across, and how they may differ, and we each bring our own baggage to a conversation.  

Thank you. I agree.

Arrogant I can sometimes be, but I'm not arrogant enough to think that my opinions on how you conduct your faith carry any weight at all in your observance of that faith.  

I can always do with some constructive feedback.

In the article referenced in the OP it talks about the African parts of the Anglican church pushing for the sanction, and being happy about it.

I don't recall seeing the part where they are happy. Again, compare this to the GOP. We want the RINOs brought into line, so the party will be headed in the right direction. The military would be a more apt comparison, as the church has often been likened to an army. You would want bad officers to be dealt with, and you would wish to root out any soldier not loyal to the King.

I gather from our conversations that the Episcopalians in the US are the side of this debate you (the observant orthodox Christians. Is that a decent term for you?) are least happy with. Mostly because of the inclusion open approval of gays.  Is that a decent summation of this particular issue?

Not really. This conflict began with more fundamental issues, but people don't understand what those lead to until you have something as off-putting as an openly homosexual bishop, and two girls marrying each other in your church. The ghey issue is an obvious symptom of a more subtle problem. I.e., those issues you find unimportant or obscure. It turns out they matter.

[Perd Hapley]

Even that is the topic of disagreement among Christian theologians. There's a fundamental disagreement over whether we are saved by Grace or saved by acts. If we are saved by Grace, then nothing we do from the moment of birth can either save our souls, or condemn our souls. If Jesus died to absolve us of our sins, we shouldn't need to do anything other than to accept Him as our Saviour.

I'm unaware of a Christian denomination or school of doctrine that doesn't affirm salvation is by God's grace. They may differ over how that grace works.

[Hawkmoon]

That's how I'm using it. People who deny that the Bible condemns homosexuality as sin, or who deny that the Bible speaks of marriage as a union of opposite sexes, can't be sincere.

I don't think any Episcopal clergyman (or woman) would accept your contention that they are not sincere. Quite the contrary -- they are sincere in their belief that their interpretation of Scripture is correct.

[Hawkmoon]

I'm unaware of a Christian denomination or school of doctrine that doesn't affirm salvation is by God's grace. They may differ over how that grace works.

Point taken.

[lupinus]

I don't think any Episcopal clergyman (or woman) would accept your contention that they are not sincere. Quite the contrary -- they are sincere in their belief that their interpretation of Scripture is correct.

OK, they are sincere.

But since when does sincerity equal correct?

[Hawkmoon]

OK, they are sincere.

But since when does sincerity equal correct?

I didn't say they were correct. I happen to think (or "believe," if you prefer) that they are not correct. I was responding to Fistful, whose post pretty much said flat out that they can't be sincere.

They are.

[Ron]

One of the thieves hanging on the cross next to Jesus said Lord, remember me when you come into your Kingdom. Jesus replied "you will be with me in Paradise". There was no baptism or walk of faith after that, they both died.

Regardless of anything else, turning to God and asking for mercy is paramount. God has revealed himself and his way for us to receive his mercy and that is through faith in Jesus.

It really is not complicated.

Abraham believed God and it was counted toward him as righteousness.

Jesus said believe on me.

[dogmush]

So......where does that leave you folks?

Is the Presbyterian Church (USA) a Christian church? They say:

Presbyterians affirm that God comes to us with grace and love in the person of Jesus Christ, who lived, died, and rose for us so that we might have eternal and abundant life in him. As Christ’s disciples, called to ministry in his name, we seek to continue his mission of teaching the truth, feeding the hungry, healing the broken, and welcoming strangers. God sends the Holy Spirit to dwell within us, giving us the energy, intelligence, imagination, and love to be Christ’s faithful disciples in the world.

But they voted last year to change their definition of marriage.


Or are the Christians on APS split? 

[makattak]

So......where does that leave you folks?

Is the Presbyterian Church (USA) a Christian church? They say:
But they voted last year to change their definition of marriage.


Or are the Christians on APS split? 

From a Presbyterian pastor in a discussion about the Presbyterian Church:

In spite of Mr. Gillette's condescending jab I stand by what I said. The FACT remains, easily substantiated through the many and varied writings that spill from the church, that we are denomination that favours theological breadth and diversity over unity and specificity. My aim here was only to say that having a statement "on the books" does not mean it is actually believed or being lived. Research done by the denomination's research services has revealed that the majority of Presbyterians do not believe Jesus is the only way to salvation. While we may boldly declare the opposite the FACT remains that our official statements and declarations are inconsistent with the actual living tenets of the church.

[Hawkmoon]

Or are the Christians on APS split? 

I'm going to guess that we're split.

My vote is that they are a Christian church, but that they are mistaken in their current understanding (and teaching) of Scripture regarding marriage.

[Ron]

If an individual affirms that statement of faith I have no reason to doubt them.

As I mentioned earlier in the discussion though there has been a lot of admixture of post modern thought within mainline theology. Many of the doctrinal differences between traditional churches and more "progressive" churches are due to that difference in hermeneutics.

Personally I believe integrating post modern philosophy into Christian theology destroys the very foundations of the faith and is doomed to failure. The state of decline in the mainline denominations seems to bear out my thoughts on that.

[Hawkmoon]

I just noticed this:

And unless you happen to be any other sort of Christian, all of whom consider themselves spiritual descendants of all those who came before them in the faith. While much might be said about the Protestant/Catholic divide, both adhere to the Apostolic Creed.

The Worldwide Anglican Communion includes the Apostles' Creed and the Nicene Creed in their liturgy, and so do Lutherans. Not sure about Baptists, Methodists or Presbyterians, but the United Church of Christ does not.

There's also a difference between considering your church to be a "spiritual descendant" of the original church of Peter, and being a church that has clergy whose ordination has come down in an unbroken line directly from Peter. Anglican (and, therefore, Episcopal) bishops are in direct apostolic succession. Many (dare I say "most") other Protestant denominations do not have clergy who are in direct apostolic succession from Peter.

[Perd Hapley]

I don't think any Episcopal clergyman (or woman) would accept your contention that they are not sincere.

Liars lie.

[MechAg94]

I just noticed this:

The Worldwide Anglican Communion includes the Apostles' Creed and the Nicene Creed in their liturgy, and so do Lutherans. Not sure about Baptists, Methodists or Presbyterians, but the United Church of Christ does not.

There's also a difference between considering your church to be a "spiritual descendant" of the original church of Peter, and being a church that has clergy whose ordination has come down in an unbroken line directly from Peter. Anglican (and, therefore, Episcopal) bishops are in direct apostolic succession. Many (dare I say "most") other Protestant denominations do not have clergy who are in direct apostolic succession from Peter.

First, looking at the Creed I found on the internet, it is basicly just stating core Christian belief.  The link I found mentions the Catholic Church also.  My experience with a non-denominational Church and Baptists, they also believe all that though they would refer to the "Church" as the congregation of all Christians (as I remember it at least).  The Church I grew up with stated those beliefs all the time in one way or the other, but rarely referred to it as a "creed".  
http://www.creeds.net/ancient/apostles.htm

I don't see why there would be any significance to apostalic succession myself.  I don't have a background in those denominations.

[MechAg94]

I'm going to guess that we're split.

My vote is that they are a Christian church, but that they are mistaken in their current understanding (and teaching) of Scripture regarding marriage.

I tend to agree.  However, it may reveal how they look on Christ and the Word of God which may in fact affect their basic Christian belief.  When someone states there is more than one path to God, I tend to wonder what it is that they actually believe.  But that is for God to judge, not me.  I would just find another Church.  

[roo_ster]

First, looking at the Creed I found on the internet, it is basicly just stating core Christian belief.  The link I found mentions the Catholic Church also.  My experience with a non-denominational Church and Baptists, they also believe all that though they would refer to the "Church" as the congregation of all Christians (as I remember it at least).  The Church I grew up with stated those beliefs all the time in one way or the other, but rarely referred to it as a "creed". 
http://www.creeds.net/ancient/apostles.htm

I don't see why there would be any significance to apostalic succession myself.  

1. Baptists & non-/inter-denominational sects are usually "non-credal."  Ditto for lots of the "evangelical(1)" churches.  IIRC, it was a Big Deal for the S Baptist convention to even put out a statement of faith. 

2. The other side of the house are credal or "confessional" denominations that stick to a written digest(2) of their beliefs.  "Believe these things?  Great, you are a ________."  Yes, there are many non-credal/confessional churches/denominations that have a "statement of faith" or "what we believe" tab on their websites.  What can I say?  Many "non-liturgical" churches with guitar & sandal services have developed or fallen into a liturgy(3).

FTR, there are Lutheran sects that are non-confessional (ELCA being the largest in the USA) and some that are (LCMS, WELS).  ELCA is like the Episcopal church in that it is a progressive political organization that has religious trappings.

3. According to current R Catholic doctrine/catechesis, protestants are not part of the "Church," but mere part of the "Christian faith community" or some such term of art you can take to mean something nicer than "heretic."





(1) Not scare quotes, just using the vernacular for many popular non-confessional protestant sects.

(3) "a form or formulary according to which public religious worship, especially Christian worship, is conducted."

[roo_ster]

Interesting bit on apostolic succession:
http://cyclopedia.lcms.org/display.asp?t1=a&word=APOSTOLICSUCCESSION

Apostolic Succession.
Strictly speaking, the term describes the teaching of the E Orthodox, Monophysite, Nestorian, RC, Old Cath., Ch. of S India, and Swed. and certain other Luth. Christians that the ministry of their churches has come down from the apostles in an unbroken succession of bps. Of those named above, the Luths., the Ch. of S India, and some Anglicans regard the apostolic succession merely as a valuable symbol of continuity with the past, in a class with the creeds and the liturgy, and do not make it a test of the validity of a clergyman's ministry. E Orthodox, Monophysite, Nestorian, RC and some Angl. Christians gen. regard it as necessary to the existence of the church and to the valid ministration of most sacraments; RCs make a special point of the succession of the bps. of Rome from Peter. The hist. fact of the apostolic succession can be assumed with reasonable safety after the emergence of the monarchial episcopate as the normal form of govt. in the ch.; the demonstration of the hist. fact in the crucial period immediately after the apostles is beset with insurmountable difficulties.

Although the Luth. symbols affirm the desire to retain the apostolic succession and hist. episcopate (Ap XIV 1, 5) only a few canonically consecrated bps. accepted the Reformation and, except in Swed., political and other considerations prevented them from transmitting the apostolic succession to the Luth. community. Lacking bps. to ordain their candidates for the sacred ministry, the Luths. appealed to the patristically attested facts that originally bps. and priests constituted only one order; that the right to ordain was inherent in the priesthood (a principle on which a number of popes of the 15th c., among them Boniface IX, Martin V, and Innocent VIII, acted in authorizing Cistercian abbots who were only priests to ordain); that thence “an ordination administered by a pastor in his own church is valid by divine law” (Tractatus 65); and that when the canonical bps. refuse to impart ordination “the churches are compelled by divine law to ordain pastors and ministers, using their own pastors for this purpose (adhibitis suis pastoribus)” (ibid., 72). The succession of the ministry in the Luth. Ch. may therefore be presumed to be a valid presbyterial one...

The term “apostolic succession” is at times applied in a broad, nontechnical sense to a succession of doctrine or of believers from the apostles; but this is misleading.

[MechAg94]

What do you mean when you say "confessional"?  Is it the obvious meaning?

[MechAg94]

Interesting bit on apostolic succession:
http://cyclopedia.lcms.org/display.asp?t1=a&word=APOSTOLICSUCCESSION

I am sure there are long debates I could read about all that, but:
1.  It seems less important than it may have been before the Bible was put together.  Perhaps just my background. 
2.  It almost sounds like something the Catholic Church put together when they decided the Church in Rome was the decider of what was "correct" Christian belief.  I think that was after the Gnostic gospels started circulating if memory serves.  

[lupinus]

One of the thieves hanging on the cross next to Jesus said Lord, remember me when you come into your Kingdom. Jesus replied "you will be with me in Paradise". There was no baptism or walk of faith after that, they both died.

Regardless of anything else, turning to God and asking for mercy is paramount. God has revealed himself and his way for us to receive his mercy and that is through faith in Jesus.

It really is not complicated.

Abraham believed God and it was counted toward him as righteousness.

Jesus said believe on me.

Jesus said believe AND be baptized. The thief on the cross still came into heaven despite not being baptized because he died immediately after. He is more akin to a death bed conversion than a person who goes to church once or twice, says they believe, and then continues for decades without bothering to do as Jesus says we should do. Belief IS paramount, but belief without bearing fruit is not what the bible teaches us.

So......where does that leave you folks?

Is the Presbyterian Church (USA) a Christian church? They say:
But they voted last year to change their definition of marriage.


Or are the Christians on APS split?  

Are they a Christian church? Yes, at their core, they are a Christian church. That does not mean that on that issue they do not have a serious error in their theology. A church can have serious theological errors on certain things, like marriage, the meaning communion and baptism, etc. and still be a Christian church.

I just noticed this:

The Worldwide Anglican Communion includes the Apostles' Creed and the Nicene Creed in their liturgy, and so do Lutherans. Not sure about Baptists, Methodists or Presbyterians, but the United Church of Christ does not.

There's also a difference between considering your church to be a "spiritual descendant" of the original church of Peter, and being a church that has clergy whose ordination has come down in an unbroken line directly from Peter. Anglican (and, therefore, Episcopal) bishops are in direct apostolic succession. Many (dare I say "most") other Protestant denominations do not have clergy who are in direct apostolic succession from Peter.

Many churches do not adhere specifically to the three of the traditional creeds (the Apostles, Nicene, and Athanasian) but their own statements still hit the major points of Christian belief.

What do you mean when you say "confessional"?  Is it the obvious meaning?

Not sure exactly what context roo_ster was going for so I'll go with both that come to mind. In the larger sense, churches that are more traditional and hold all three traditional creeds (that I mentioned above). Churches like the Catholics, Orthodox, Lutherans, Etc.

However, the term "confessional" I normally see more specifically in regards to Lutherans. During the reformation several works were written by Luther and others in the early movement that would become the Lutheran Church. Several of these were compiled into the Book of Concord(BoC, also known as the Lutheran confessions) which serves as a basis for Lutheran teachings on the Bible and Christian faith. These teachings are NOT scripture, as they are not the word of God, but they are considered scripturally accurate teachings on scripture.

So in regards to Lutherans, again where I typically see the term the most, a confessional church would be one that upholds the BoC in it's entirety as scripturally accurate and as in line with it's teachings on the Bible. A non-confessional church would not do so. Typically in the US you'll see the LCMS (Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod) and WELS (Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod) refereed to as confessional Lutherans, as they hold the BoC to be a true and accurate teaching on the Scriptures. You will also see the ELCA (Evangelical Lutheran Church of America) referred to as non-confessional, as while they claim to be a Lutheran church they do not hold the entirety of the BoC to be correct or valid.

[Hawkmoon]

2.  It almost sounds like something the Catholic Church put together when they decided the Church in Rome was the decider of what was "correct" Christian belief.  I think that was after the Gnostic gospels started circulating if memory serves.  

Oh, heck. Christians can't even agree on what "the Bible" is:

Catholic and Orthodox Bibles
The Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches did not follow the Protestant revisions, and they continue to base their Old Testament on the Septuagint. The result is that these versions of the Bible have more Old Testament books than most Protestant versions. Catholic Old Testaments include 1st and 2nd Maccabees, Baruch, Tobit, Judith, The Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach (Ecclesiasticus), additions to Esther, and the stories of Susanna and Bel and the Dragon which are included in Daniel. Orthodox Old Testaments include these plus 1st and 2nd Esdras, Prayer of Manasseh, Psalm 151 and 3rd Maccabees.

Source: http://www.christianbiblereference.org/faq_bibles.htm

Then there's the entire question of which translation of the Bible is most correct. When I first started Sunday School as a kid, my church used the King James Version. Somewhere in there we switched to the Revised Standard Version. Some time later, along came the NEW Revised Standard Version. And there are numerous other Bibles out there, based on different translations.

The argument for the newer translations rather than the King James Version is two-fold. First, the KJV was translated in 1611. The English language has changed since then, so most modern readers of English may not read the words with the meanings they had in 1611. Second, the KJV was translated from manuscripts that were themselves translations of translations. More recent translations are more accurate because they are based on older manuscripts that are closer to the original texts, and because modern scholarship allows better translations of the ancient languages.

An example is the commandment, "Thou shalt not kill." That's what I learned in Sunday school, and it presented a real paradox when considering the concept of self-defense. More modern translations now say "Do not commit murder," which allows for the taking of a human life in self-defense.

Even so, I know Evangelicals who insist that the only true Bible is the King James Version.

Small wonder we're not supposed to discuss religion in polite society, eh?

[Perd Hapley]

First, looking at the Creed I found on the internet, it is basicly just stating core Christian belief.  The link I found mentions the Catholic Church also.  My experience with a non-denominational Church and Baptists, they also believe all that though they would refer to the "Church" as the congregation of all Christians (as I remember it at least).  The Church I grew up with stated those beliefs all the time in one way or the other, but rarely referred to it as a "creed".  
http://www.creeds.net/ancient/apostles.htm

I don't see why there would be any significance to apostalic succession myself.  I don't have a background in those denominations.

I agree on both points. I cited the Apostles Creed because it states basic Christian beliefs that I was taught in loosey-goosey charismatical churches, even though I never saw the creed itself, or even heard the concept discussed. As for the "unbroken line of succession to St. Peter," the Catholics are quite welcome to it. Even they know it's laughably corrupt. I'm not sure if they figure that in to whether or not one is a heretic.

[roo_ster]

Another interesting bit on apostolic succession
http://wittenbergtrail.org/forum/topics/apostolic-succession

This was the challenge that CFW Walther faced in the 1840's in dealing with the aftermath of the fall and deposition of Martin Stephan the Lutheran's former Bishop. Were they a church now without the Bishop? This lead to the great Altenburg Debate. It was through a study in preparation for the debate using the Scriptures, the writings of Luther, and the Lutheran Confessions, that Walther developed the Lutheran (biblical) understanding of church and ministry. He won the debate and the Lutheran Church in America has not been the same since. In summary, you don't need the bishop--you need the Apostolic teaching. (Even Arius was a bishop in the apostolic succession for example...) Walther's understanding was latter further fleshed out in the book "Kirche und Ampt" (Church and Ministry, 1851) in response to challenges from the Buffalo Synod and Grabau.

The confessional Tennessee Synod was a couple decades ahead of Walther having included lay representation and voting in the 1820's. Today the Tennessee Synod would be seen as quite peculiar since they had no "president" as evidenced by a letter from the North Carolina Synod addressed to the "Head of the Tennessee Synod" in the 1820's. The letter was answered by Phillip Henkel with the words, "we have no head but Christ".

What do you mean when you say "confessional"?  

As used to describe a denomination, a policy of full and unreserved agreement with the entirety of the denomination's basic creeds/articles of faith/teaching.  In a confessional denomination, you can (are duty bound, even) insist that a fellow member be bound by them.

lupinus gave a good rendering, too.