Angelican churches????

[Koontzy]

Wasnt able to find much info on these churches? never really heard of them till I cam on here.... are they pentecostal or?????? whats it like inside one of the churches during a service?

Thanks

 

[Jesusong]

Angelican churches?? Is that anything like Pelican churches???

I'm sorry :o I'm just joking with ya (I couldn't resist).

Anglican churches are the British version of the Episcopal churches in the U.S.
In fact, the Episcopal church are descendants of the Anglican Church.

 

[Father Rick]

Wasnt able to find much info on these churches? never really heard of them till I cam on here.... are they pentecostal or?????? whats it like inside one of the churches during a service?

Thanks

The Anglican Communion is made of of different 'jurisdictions' with each country being its own juridiction/church. In America, the official branch of the Anglican communion is the Episcopal Church of the USA.

They are considered one of the historic churches, maintaining both the 7 sacraments of the church and valid apostolic succession. The official website of the worldwide Anglican Communion is here http://www.anglicancommunion.org/.

As to being Pentecostal/Charismatic-- some parishes (local churches) are and others are not. In churches that are not charismatic/pentecostal, you will often find individual parishioners who are Spirit-filled.

 

[Amongst the Flock]

The Anglican Communion is made of of different 'jurisdictions' with each country being its own juridiction/church. In America, the official branch of the Anglican communion is the Episcopal Church of the USA.

They are considered one of the historic churches, maintaining both the 7 sacraments of the church and valid apostolic succession. The official website of the worldwide Anglican Communion is here http://www.anglicancommunion.org/.

As to being Pentecostal/Charismatic-- some parishes (local churches) are and others are not. In churches that are not charismatic/pentecostal, you will often find individual parishioners who are Spirit-filled.

Do they speak in tounges?

 

[Father Rick]

[/b]


Do they speak in tounges?

As I said before-- some do, some don't...

There's not a lot of emphasis placed on tongues, since that is not the purpose of being Spirit-filled... the emphasis is on service to one's community and the belief that one will be empowered by God with whatever one needs to 'get the job done.'

 

[KleinerApfel]

In churches that are not charismatic/pentecostal, you will often find individual parishioners who are Spirit-filled.

Yup!

God bless, love Susana

 

[soldout]

God ever amazes me. Wow!

 

[Amongst the Flock]

As I said before-- some do, some don't...

There's not a lot of emphasis placed on tongues, since that is not the purpose of being Spirit-filled... the emphasis is on service to one's community and the belief that one will be empowered by God with whatever one needs to 'get the job done.'

Anyone who has been Baptised in the Spirit means they are Spirit Filled and have been immersed with the Spirit from enduement upon high.

I think you are confused between those who are Spirit led which is any good Christian or Pastor who is led by God vs. those who have been Baptised or " filled " with the Spirit.

There isn't anything better about either Baptised in the Spirit Christians or Non - Baptised in the Spirit Christians. Those who have been Baptised in the Spirit have the " Power " of the Spirit as do those who were Baptised with Tounges of Fire on the day of Pentecost.

Remember after they got Baptised Peter said " Repent and be Baptised ".

Thus repent and be born again and be Baptised in the Spirit.

Didn't Peter and the Disciples go on to heal the sick and cast out devils after being Baptised?

Then the Catholic church said they were descendents of Peter but yet they don't believe in the Baptism of the Holy Spirit and the gifts of the Spirit. But the so called founder of the Catholic church was Baptised in the Spirit but yet the Catholic church denies this divine gift.

Somehow the Catholics took that as sprinkling water on an infants head.

Peace.

 

[Father Rick]

Anyone who has been Baptised in the Spirit means they are Spirit Filled and have been immersed with the Spirit from enduement upon high.

I think you are confused between those who are Spirit led which is any good Christian or Pastor who is led by God vs. those who have been Baptised or " filled " with the Spirit.

There isn't anything better about either Baptised in the Spirit Christians or Non - Baptised in the Spirit Christians. Those who have been Baptised in the Spirit have the " Power " of the Spirit as do those who were Baptised with Tounges of Fire on the day of Pentecost.

Remember after they got Baptised Peter said " Repent and be Baptised ".

Thus repent and be born again and be Baptised in the Spirit.

Didn't Peter and the Disciples go on to heal the sick and cast out devils after being Baptised?

Then the Catholic church said they were descendents of Peter but yet they don't believe in the Baptism of the Holy Spirit and the gifts of the Spirit. But the so called founder of the Catholic church was Baptised in the Spirit but yet the Catholic church denies this divine gift.

Somehow the Catholics took that as sprinkling water on an infants head.

Peace.

It is quite obvious from this post that you don't know much about the Catholic Church...

First, there are more Catholics who speak in tongues than all the other Pentecostal/Charismatic groups put together.

Secondly, the Catholic church has never denied, or stopped actively practicing, the gifts of the Spirit. 'Unction' (anointing the sick with oil for healing) is one of the 7 sacraments of the Church. Exorcism is, and always has been, practiced. There is just not a lot of 'hype' made about these things-- they are considered a normal part of the Church so when they happen, they happen and you just go on serving God rather than selling 12 books on how you were healed.

Finally, the leadership of the Catholic Church (including +John Paul II) formally encouraged the Charismatic renewal amongst both Catholics and Protestants, including writing formal letters to that end to the Church at large.

You should really check your facts before speaking so negatively other groups of Christians.

 

[Diane_Windsor]

Wasnt able to find much info on these churches? never really heard of them till I cam on here.... are they pentecostal or?????? whats it like inside one of the churches during a service?

Anglicans Online is a good resource for learning about the Anglican Communion. Look through The Book of Common Prayer to see the order of their worship service.

The Charismatic Episcopal Church comes from the Anglican tradition, but is not in communion with Canterbury. I don't know about the order of worship for this denomination.

Diane

 

[Amongst the Flock]

It is quite obvious from this post that you don't know much about the Catholic Church...

First, there are more Catholics who speak in tongues than all the other Pentecostal/Charismatic groups put together.

Secondly, the Catholic church has never denied, or stopped actively practicing, the gifts of the Spirit. 'Unction' (anointing the sick with oil for healing) is one of the 7 sacraments of the Church. Exorcism is, and always has been, practiced. There is just not a lot of 'hype' made about these things-- they are considered a normal part of the Church so when they happen, they happen and you just go on serving God rather than selling 12 books on how you were healed.

Finally, the leadership of the Catholic Church (including +John Paul II) formally encouraged the Charismatic renewal amongst both Catholics and Protestants, including writing formal letters to that end to the Church at large.

You should really check your facts before speaking so negatively other groups of Christians.

There isn't any negativity. You said that you don't believe in water Baptism for the whole body after salvation.

How does the baby know what is going on?

It would be one thing to dedicate the baby or baptise it but to say that once baptised it never has to be done again when the baby is grown up and knows what is going on and has made the choice to live for Christ seems odd.

Salvation is personal but water baptism is a public confession. It talks about it in Romans 6 and John the Baptist baptised Jesus in water.

So if Jesus who was perfect got Baptised as a sign of him starting his ministry in the name of the Father who had sent him why wouldn't a new believer get Baptised when they are ready to start their new life in Christ?

Peace.

 

[Father Rick]

There isn't any negativity. You said that you don't believe in water Baptism for the whole body after salvation.

When did I say that? Since the first century, baptism by immersion and baptism by pouring water have both been practiced and both have been seen as equally valid-- we know this from the Didache (one of the first known writings of the apostles which contains a lot of practical 'how-to' info)

How does the baby know what is going on?

It would be one thing to dedicate the baby or baptise it but to say that once baptised it never has to be done again when the baby is grown up and knows what is going on and has made the choice to live for Christ seems odd.

hmmm... ever consider that since that Scripture says 'there is one Lord, one faith, ONE baptism' that baptizing a 2nd time may be the 'odd' thing-- especially since such a thing was completely unheard of for the first 1500 or so years of the Church.

Salvation is personal but water baptism is a public confession. It talks about it in Romans 6 and John the Baptist baptised Jesus in water.

So if Jesus who was perfect got Baptised as a sign of him starting his ministry in the name of the Father who had sent him why wouldn't a new believer get Baptised when they are ready to start their new life in Christ?

Peace.

Actually, Jesus himself said He was baptized 'to fulfill all righteousness', not because He was starting His ministry. AND you are making the assumption that one can't begin their new life in Christ as an infant and grow up 'in the nurture and admonition of the Lord'. Now I fully agree that one who has never known Christ should be baptized whenever they first accept Him, but a why should a child who is schooled in the things of Christ from infancy-- who never knows anything except living a life for Christ-- be denied baptism or have their baptism seen as invalid (as you seem to imply)?

 

[Strong in Him]

How does the baby know what is going on

A baby boy didn't know what was going on when it was circumcised, nor did he consent to it. That did not prevent people from carrying out this act which was a sign of obedience, in response to the covenant that God made with Abraham. God said that every male should be circumcised when he was 8 days old. (Genesis 17v12) He said nothing about having to understand it first.

So doing something to a baby in response to a command, and which you believe brings that child into the fellowship of God's people, is not unbiblical.

 

[Hadron]

A baby boy didn't know what was going on when it was circumcised, nor did he consent to it. That did not prevent people from carrying out this act which was a sign of obedience, in response to the covenant that God made with Abraham. God said that every male should be circumcised when he was 8 days old. (Genesis 17v12) He said nothing about having to understand it first.

So doing something to a baby in response to a command, and which you believe brings that child into the fellowship of God's people, is not unbiblical.

That is a very good point.

 

[Amongst the Flock]

When did I say that? Since the first century, baptism by immersion and baptism by pouring water have both been practiced and both have been seen as equally valid-- we know this from the Didache (one of the first known writings of the apostles which contains a lot of practical 'how-to' info)

hmmm... ever consider that since that Scripture says 'there is one Lord, one faith, ONE baptism' that baptizing a 2nd time may be the 'odd' thing-- especially since such a thing was completely unheard of for the first 1500 or so years of the Church.

Actually, Jesus himself said He was baptized 'to fulfill all righteousness', not because He was starting His ministry. AND you are making the assumption that one can't begin their new life in Christ as an infant and grow up 'in the nurture and admonition of the Lord'. Now I fully agree that one who has never known Christ should be baptized whenever they first accept Him, but a why should a child who is schooled in the things of Christ from infancy-- who never knows anything except living a life for Christ-- be denied baptism or have their baptism seen as invalid (as you seem to imply)?

It wasn't about being baptized to the point that it didnt mean anything. the thing I wonder is the CAtholic chuch does confirmation right. Do the kids have a choice or do there parents make them do it. If they are made to do it wouldn't that be what the muslims do. I know the parents want to know there kids are right with God but you can't force them.

I got confirmed at a Ucc church and most there were there because they had to be there. So did they really accept salvation.

I am sure some kids are ready to confirm to the church that they are ready and praise God for that but what about those who are disgruntled about it.

You also mentioned that water baptism wasn't done in 1500 years. How many Catholics during this ere were literate. Not many so everyone was hearing the word and not reading and developing there own faith so they were riding the coatails of the priest until Luther saved the day.

peace.

 

[Kebisoni]

Anglican church has infant baptism and confirmation as the norm - same as the Catholics. I was baptised as an infant - and then confirmed of my own free will when I was 14. Baptism as an infant is seen as the beginning of the journey - a commitment by your parents and Godparents to bring you up in the faith until you can make your own decision. Confirmation is the point at which you claim the baptismal vows for yourself. There is the option within the Anglican church to have full water baptism at this point as well - as a renewal of the vows made for you as an infant.

I like it personally - it means that even the babies are part of the body of Christ.

But getting back to the OP.....

I'm a tongue talking, spirit filled and on fire for God Christian - who happens to have been brought up in the Anglican church.

Anglicans are all very different though....it is the strength and weakness of the church. And like marmite - you either love it or hate it!

 

[Strong in Him]

Anglicans are all very different though....it is the strength and weakness of the church. And like marmite - you either love it or hate it!

The anglican church is like Marmite???? Does Rowan Williams know this?

 

[Kebisoni]

Lol!

 

[Father Rick]

It wasn't about being baptized to the point that it didnt mean anything. the thing I wonder is the CAtholic chuch does confirmation right. Do the kids have a choice or do there parents make them do it. If they are made to do it wouldn't that be what the muslims do. I know the parents want to know there kids are right with God but you can't force them.

It is obvious you are coming to this with a pre-determined bias against the Catholic Church. You are starting with an ASSUMPTION that children are confirmed because they were 'made to' by their parents. I've never known of that being the case... in fact, personally I would prefer if more parents encouraged their children to be confirmed. Part of a parents job is to train their children in the things of God.

I got confirmed at a Ucc church and most there were there because they had to be there. So did they really accept salvation.

I am sure some kids are ready to confirm to the church that they are ready and praise God for that but what about those who are disgruntled about it.

What about them? Is that any different from the children 'forced' to go to Sunday School by their parents? Or 'forced' to go to church? I've seen this in both Protestant churches and in the historic churches. I would say that the parents are doing their job-- teaching their children the things of God. Once the child leaves home, then the child can do whatever he/she wants but the example/pattern engrained in his life by his parents will always have an impact on that person's life.

You also mentioned that water baptism wasn't done in 1500 years. How many Catholics during this ere were literate. Not many so everyone was hearing the word and not reading and developing there own faith so they were riding the coatails of the priest until Luther saved the day.

peace.

I NEVER said that water baptism wasn't done in 1500 years. I actually said that one was only baptized ONCE... and that ONE baptism was sufficient.

You say Luther 'saved the day'. Have you ever read his works? He was never intending to separate from the Roman Church (only change a few things he felt were excesses at the time). He was a bigot who railed against the Jews. He wanted to throw away several books of the Bible, 'cause they didn't fit his personal theology (I'm not just talking about the deuterocanonicals, either). In fact, most Lutherans today would cringe at half of his teachings.....

AND he never taught a 2nd water baptism for those who were already baptized. Lutherans today still baptize infants, as do Presbyterians, many Methodists, all Anglicans, Catholics, Orthodox, Copts, Old Catholics, etc.

 

[Amongst the Flock]

What about them? Is that any different from the children 'forced' to go to Sunday School by their parents? Or 'forced' to go to church? I've seen this in both Protestant churches and in the historic churches. I would say that the parents are doing their job-- teaching their children the things of God. Once the child leaves home, then the child can do whatever he/she wants but the example/pattern engrained in his life by his parents will always have an impact on that person's life.


I wasn't implying that Luther was so great but he gave us all free will to read the word ourselves and develop our own personal faith instead of just being listeners of the word. so many were illiterate in these times and most just listened and never read the word themselves so they were just riding the coatails of the priests.

The point is alot of kids in Protestant and CAtholic churches have to come to church and are forced to go as are husbands and wives. The point was you can't force a kid to come to salvation. IF the kid didn't want to get confirmed but was afraid to speak against his parenst and just went along with it then what does that mean. Yes some kids are already saved and they just want to confirm to the mass or church that they have accepted Christ but if they just do it to go along with the crowd then what does this say.

Suppose a kid from one of the higher ups in the CAtholic church didn't or wasn't ready to accept Jesus and his parents just made him do it and said you do it or your out or just verbally abuse him and intimidate him into doing it. would this be true salvation or would it be out of force.

I know alot of Catholics that love the Lord and are in deep relationship with him and I know plenty who just go through the motions. The same thing goes for the Protestant church so I am not saying that Prostestants are any better and that we are all better then the Catholics. There are good sanctified believers or both sides.

My point is just you can't force a kid to go through confirmation. Plus you don't know what goes on behind closed doors at home. Some kids might be kind and nice out of fear of punishment or abuse. It is sad to think but it happens in both Protestant and Catholic churches. So forcing a kid to go through cofirmation is just wrong.

peace.