Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
The Baptists and the Anglicans (I know my vicar at least) don't accept that grace is received through the Eucharist. Grace is received when we received Jesus and appropriated that once-for-all sacrifice on the cross.
What is the Holy Eucharist?The Baptists and the Anglicans (I know my vicar at least) don't accept that grace is received through the Eucharist. Grace is received when we received Jesus and appropriated that once-for-all sacrifice on the cross. I think you are confused with the pro-Rome faction of the Anglican church. You see, unfortunately, my church has people with Newman syndrome but unlike Newman who was honourable enough to leave the church and join Rome, some people remain in my church and express their Roman views. Your confusion is understandable.
Are you aware how that is done in an Anglican church? The non-pro-Rome group that is. Ours isn't a requiem to shorten the years in purgatory. I think you mistake the CoE for the RC church.
I was not aware that grace could be received through the sacraments. I don't think that is scriptural. Are you saying that it can be received through the sacraments as opposed to actual faith in Christ? That would be contrary to the Bible.
The Baptists don't make it a point to say the Creed but that's purely ritual. They accept the meaning behind the Nicene Creed the way my church interprets it.
CS Lewis was Anglican and he believed in the Sacraments.. I've never before heard of Anglicans talking about "accepting Christ"..I've always thought their approach is a lot like the Catholic/Orthodox approaches, not like the Evangelicals.
I'm just looking for you to provide me with some Anglican theological documents that define this view.
Ah yes, I had forgotten that Anglicans view Scripture, tradition and reason as the cornerstones of the faith, not Scripture alone.The Thirty Nine Articles and the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral can be considered foundations of Anglican doctrine. This is also a good summation of the development of Anglican doctrine. Of course, it is always useful to go straight to the source.
Accept the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved.
I assert there is, but that entire discussion is too predictable for me to want to indulge at this point.If there was another rock other than Peter being talked about anywhere in the vicinity of the statement, then I think wed have to ask, exactly which rock is meant by this rock.
I can't imagine how depersonalizing the pronoun adds emphasis.But theres only one rock being discussed Peter himself. Perhaps the usage of This rock is more emphatic and that is the reason for Christs choice of words.
Now I think maybe you have constructed a false dichotomy between his role & his person. After all, what is it about the person of Peter that qualifies him to be named "rock"? In other words, it is the quality of the person that fulfills the requirements for the role, so the need to shift emphasis is a manufactured need. I think the reason for manufacturing that need is "seperation anxiety" over Jesus' departure, and perhaps some "intimacy issues" regarding the Holy Spirit. I don't say this in derrogation because I don't think I'm a better person than you, I just think I'm experiencing a fullness of truth RCs don't. My sense of security in Christ is greater than my sense of security in any congregation. The body can function without arms & legs, but not without its head.It places more emphasis on Peters role as the rock rather than the person Peter (which would be in the case if he had said you). It places the emphasis on the established office instead of the person consistent with how Catholics view the papacy.
I think it was more extremes of papal authority, not interpretations that motivated dissenting opinions.I do think this view from the Zondervan NIV Bible (not Catholic) is quite pertinent though, because it somewhat addresses the topic of emphasis you also brought up. The word Peter petros, meaning rock (Gk 4377), is masculine, and in Jesus follow-up statement he uses the feminine word petra (Gk 4376). On the basis of this change, many have attempted to avoid identifying Peter as the rock on which Jesus builds his church. Yet if it were not for Protestant reactions against extremes of Roman Catholic interpretations, it is doubtful whether many would have taken rock to be anything or anyone other than Peter.
I find it more natural to embrace that type of paradox as they are intrinsic to Christian concepts like self-sacrifice being necessary for eternal life.I think I posted this quote up above from an Evangelical Bible commentary, but did you consider this part? As Jesus identifies himself as the Builder, the rock on which he builds is most naturally understood as someone (or something) other than Jesus himself.
The model of the role after a king provides an incompleteIn terms of the analogy, no one is suggesting that Peter is a visible king. He is the visible palace administrator. Two completely different roles.
Yeah. Who did Christ marry & who is that couple's offspring? The Church is His body, the Church is our mother, we are the Church, the Church id His bride, etc.,... all these analogies are valid, but only in a limited sense. They only correlate to the issues they address. Taken all together, they are in contradiction to each other on many points.And really? You think the family correlates to the body of Christ in only a limited sense?
I don't have a problem with that superficialy, but in depth it begins to break down in the correlation of role fulfillments like in sanctifying, ordaining, infallibly pontificating, etc.We consider the family to be the domestic church.
1666 The Christian home is the place where children receive the first proclamation of the faith. For this reason the family home is rightly called "the domestic church," a community of grace and prayer, a school of human virtues and of Christian charity.
2204 "The Christian family constitutes a specific revelation and realization of ecclesial communion, and for this reason it can and should be called a domestic church." It is a community of faith, hope, and charity; it assumes singular importance in the Church, as is evident in the New Testament.
I don't argue that he wasn't "pre-eminent". I argue that his pre-eminance has been misconstrued & that his place as one of the foundation stones is being confused with the chief apostle & the cornerstone - Christ.And consider this viewpoint regarding the weakness of Peter from W.F. Albright in the Anchor Bible commentary. To deny the pre-eminent position of Peter among the disciples or in the early Christian community is a denial of the evidence. The interest in Peter's failures and vacillations does not detract from this pre- eminence, rather it emphasizes it. Had Peter been a lesser figure, his behavior would have been of far less consequence. Precisely because Peter is pre-eminent and is the foundation stone of the Church that his mistakes are in a sense so important, but his mistakes never correspond to his teachings as the Prince of the Apostles."
That is a confusion of senses in my opinion. In the classical sense, we recieve our identity as family members by physicaly recieving the blood of our parents.I would say we are quite defined by a physical blood relationship united by the quite physical blood of Christ which covers us all.
If I remeber correctly, the keys are absent in all other discussions of the disciplinary affairs of the community.The same authority, with a noteworthy exception no keys. Another reference from Albright -- . "It is of considerable importance, that in other contexts, when the disciplinary affairs of the community are discussed, the symbol of the keys is absent, since the saying applies in these instances to a wider circle. The role of Peter as steward of the kingdom is further explained as being the exercise of administrative authority as was the case of the Old Testament chamberlain who held the keys."
I disagree. You have used kingship as the model for justifying the stewardship of a papacy & for the delegation of king powers to that steward.I am not presenting the papacy in terms of the OT kingship.
God provided The Holy Spirit & Jesus empowered at least 12 stewards, not one.The OT kings foreshadow the kingship of Christ. The correlation to the papacy and church authority in general is to how the king established the authority structure within his kingdom, especially in managing affairs in his absence. The papacy is presented in terms of the consistent reference to one man who is charged with running the palace -- a palace administrator.
We become peers salvificaly and we all recieve the infallible teacher in the person of The Holy Spirit.The sending of the Holy Spirit did not remove the apostolic teaching authority we see in the NT. Once a person receives the Holy Spirit, they did not become a peer to the apostles.
I think the lesson was rather any king is worse than God as king.The people of Israel rejected the authority God had placed over them, which God viewed as rejection of Himself. They basically had a case of everybody else has a king how can we not be important enough to have a king. God used the opportunity to teach them a very valuable lesson a bad king is much worse than no king.
I don't think God desired a kingship for Israel other than His own. It was Israel that desired a king other than God and I see a correlation between desiring that visible leader & having all the attendant problems with the church desiring a visible leader & having very similar problems.But with the death of Saul, we see God establishing the kingship He desired for Israel in David, with a promise to David that his house and kingdom would endure forever before Him. This is why Christ was to come from the house of David the continuity of the kingship beginning with David and fulfilled in Christ.
None of those kings dispersed the same steward's authority among a dozen others nor did any of those kings assign duties to anyone like The Holy Spirit.So yes, the foreshadowing of Christs kingdom we see beginning with David is important, especially when he makes clear references to it in terms of authority. The keys received by the one in charge of the palace in the Jewish kings are the foreshadowing of the kingdom of Christ, the church which manifests the kingdom, and the keys placed in the hands of Peter.
Okay Beamishboy, here's what your cathechism says from the Anglican Commuion Official Website:
http://www.anglicancommunion.org/resources/acis/docs/cat1.cfm
What is the Holy Eucharist?
The Holy Eucharist is the sacrament commanded by Christ for the continual remembrance of his life, death, and resurrection, until his coming again.
Why is the Eucharist called a sacrifice?
Because the Eucharist, the Church's sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, is the way by which the sacrifice of Christ is made present, and in which he unites us to his one offering of himself.
By what other names is this service known?
The Holy Eucharist is called the lord's Supper, and Holy Communion; it is also known as the Divine Liturgy, the Mass, and the Great Offering.
What is the outward and visible sign in the Eucharist?
The outward and visible sign in the Eucharist is bread and wine, given and received according to Christ's command.
What is the inward and spiritual grace given in the Eucharist?
The inward and spiritual grace given in the Holy Communion is the body and blood of Christ given to his people, and received by faith.
I would suggest you start a thread on the Eucharist with those points, especially those in 'red' and see how much agreement you get from other Protestants.
Why do we remember the dead in prayer?
We remember them, because we still hold them in our love and because we trust that in God's presence those who have chosen to serve him will grow in his love, until they see him as he is.
Not to sure what you think Purgatory is, but can't say you're really that far away. You are certain completely removed from other Protestant theology that says that there is no benefit for praying for the dead at all, and that is no 'growth' that will occur after death.
What are the sacraments?
The sacraments are outward and visible signs of inward and spiritual grace, given by Christ as sure and certain means by which we receive that grace.
By the way, Scripture says that grace is administered in many forms, we can bring grace to others through our prayers and our act of humbling ourself before God will bring us grace as well.
I'll have to dig for this, but I've been told by more than one baptist that the creeds contain heresy. It's not 'tradition' -- they reject some of the fundamentals of the creeds.
Ah yes, I had forgotten that Anglicans view Scripture, tradition and reason as the cornerstones of the faith, not Scripture alone.
[/size]That is not and never has been the issue of debate and dissonance within the Christian community -- whatever it is that non-Catholics have told you of Catholic doctrine. The idea that Christ is not central, and that faith is not absolutely necessary and pivotal, as a part of Catholic theology is a myth. It's an artificial division often created to caste the opposition as something other than Christian, and therefore not worthy of much consideration as far as doctrine is concerned.
To the best of my knowledge, the centrality of Christ is the farthest thing in the RC faith.
It wasn't too hard of a search since these are the beliefs expressed in the cathechism on the official Anglican communion web site. However, it does appear you believe your thoughts trump that.Ho Ho Ho!!! The beamishboy is so amused. hehe. You see, the Anglican church is highly fragmented. If you search hard enough, you will find (especially the Anglican church in America) something about gay marriages. But does that mean we believe in this rubbish? No!!!
It wasn't too hard of a search since these are the beliefs expressed in the cathechism on the official Anglican communion web site. However, it does appear you believe your thoughts trump that.
But regarding the red, I can quite see your point about the Anglican church leaning much more towards the evangelical way.
Then why are they considered Defective by the RCC
Based on the red you're making a difficult case here that you really believe the discrimination against the Catholics "was" (past-tense) wrong, as opposed to "is" still quite operative and okay.The Anglican church started out totally Protestant. England is the home of the Church of England and you probably know what we did to RCs in those days. Right up to the start of the last century, every monarch in England was required to insult the RC faith and to call it a superstition until 1910 when George V decided not to hurt his subjects who were RC. My school which is directly affiliated to King's College, Oxford did not admit RC students until the mid or late 19th century. The same applied to Oxford and Cambridge.
So we started out right - very Protestant. I meant the theology, not the discrimination against RCs which was wrong. But there are some in the Anglican church who want to be with Rome but they aren't honourable enough to leave the church and join Rome totally. So they stay in the church and agitate for more Romish things.
The same applies to some US Anglicans who are very pro-homosexuals. They want to have rubbish like gay marriages, etc.
So the pure Anglican church should be rid of its Roman and gay factions. That's the original Anglican church.
What someone said about the 39 Articles is not true. It's been debated before. The 39 Articles can never be changed. I don't know about outside England but they can't be changed in England which is all that matters because it's our State religion.
Even Tony Blair did not dare breathe a word about his defection to Rome until he had left office and was free to do as he pleased. And any monarch who turned RC or married an RC will be deposed. So, it's wrong to say that the CoE is very RC. It's the reverse.
Then why do not the RCs become Anglican or OrthodoxBased on the red you're making a difficult case here that you really believe the discrimination against the Catholics "was" (past-tense) wrong, as opposed to "is" still quite operative and okay.
And to be frank, your comments about reaching a "pure" church by eliminating from its ranks those who disagree with you cause a chill.
Be that as it may, I have many Anglican/Episcopal friends whose view of their church is quite different, and in my view presents a much more accurate reflection of the body of Christ.
Based on the red you're making a difficult case here that you really believe the discrimination against the Catholics "was" (past-tense) wrong, as opposed to "is" still quite operative and okay.
And to be frank, your comments about reaching a "pure" church by eliminating from its ranks those who disagree with you cause a chill.
Be that as it may, I have many Anglican/Episcopal friends whose view of their church is quite different, and in my view presents a much more accurate reflection of the body of Christ.
Sounds like the Kingdom of the RCs against the Kingdom of the Non-RCsYour Anglican friends may very well be pro-Rome and it is only natural that you would consider them more "Christian". I perfectly understand that since to me, anything more Protestant and less Romish does appear more "Christian". Like I said, both our religions are poles apart and the sooner our churches realise that a union is totally out of the question, the better it is for all of us.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?