Anglican ecclesiology

[Evangelical]

Do you hold that Bishops (as distinct from elders if this is the case) are an integral part of the Church?

[karen freeinchristman]

yes. :)

[Evangelical]

yes.

Why is that? :)

[Evangelical]

Timothy

1 Corinthians 4:17 For this cause have I sent unto you Timotheus, who is my beloved son, and faithful in the Lord, who shall bring you into remembrance of my ways which be in Christ, as I teach every where in every church.

2 Corinthians 1:19 For the Son of God, Jesus Christ, who was preached among you by us, even by me and Silvanus and Timotheus, was not yea and nay, but in him was yea.

Philippians 2:19 But I trust in the Lord Jesus to send Timotheus shortly unto you, that I also may be of good comfort, when I know your state.

1 Thessalonians 3:2 And sent Timotheus, our brother, and minister of God, and our fellowlabourer in the gospel of Christ, to establish you, and to comfort you concerning your faith:

1 Timothy 1:3, 18 3As I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus, when I went into Macedonia, that thou mightest charge some that they teach no other doctrine,…This charge I commit unto thee, son Timothy, according to the prophecies which went before on thee, that thou by them mightest war a good warfare;

1 Timothy 4:13-14 Till I come, give attendance to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine. Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery.

2 Timothy 1:6, 13 Wherefore I put thee in remembrance that thou stir up the gift of God, which is in thee by the putting on of my hands. Hold fast the form of sound words, which thou hast heard of me, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus.

2 Timothy 2:2 And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.

2 Timothy 4:5 But watch thou in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, make full proof of thy ministry.

Jude 1:3 Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.

Subscription of the second epistle to Timothy: The second epistle unto Timotheus, ordained the first bishop of the church of the Ephesians, was written from Rome, when Paul was brought before Nero the second time.

Titus

Titus 1:5 For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee:

Subscription of the epistle to Titus: It was written to Titus, ordained the first bishop of the church of the Cretians, from Nicopolis of Macedonia.

[gitlance]

Do you hold that Bishops (as distinct from elders if this is the case) are an integral part of the Church?

Yes. Bishops in valid apostolic succession are ABSOLUTELY necessary for the life of the Church.

[Naomi4Christ]

I can't admit to getting very excited about bishops. I'm sure we would miss them if they weren't there though.

Who would sit in the House of Lords as Lords Spiritual if we didn't have bishops?

[Thomas2618]

Yes:thumbsup:
(This should have a poll attached)

[gtsecc]

????

Anglicans who don't believe Bishops are necessary are called Methodists.

[gtsecc]

There is really no reason to believe the Bible contains all the instructions for Church ecclesiology.

There is reason to believe folks who wrote about Chruch ecclesiology, such as Ignatius, and he said the Church does not exist outside the Bishops.

[Naomi4Christ]

Gotta give it to Ignatius, eh?

[Thomas2618]

Gotta give it to Ignatius, eh?

Yes you do.

[gtsecc]

Gotta give it to Ignatius, eh?
Is there a better source for what Christians originally thought about the subject of Bishops? There is a little information in the NT, but for a lot fo specifics, you have to go to Ignatius.

[Thomas2618]

????

Anglicans who don't believe Bishops are necessary are called Methodists.

That's right. Too bad that when they Wesley as a priest consecrated his own faux-bishops a lot of doctrine went out the window too...

[Naomi4Christ]

Do you know that John Wesley preached in my church building?

[gtsecc]

Do you know that John Wesley preached in my church building?
Fantastic. Do you all have a copy of his sermon?

[Naomi4Christ]

I don't think the tape recorder was working on those days

[gtsecc]

I don't think the tape recorder was working on those days

Do you think they have a paper copy?

[Naomi4Christ]

No idea - maybe there are archives in the cathedral.

[PaladinValer]

No bishops = not Anglican

[svdbygrace]

John and Charles' Feast Day is May 24 in the CoE... :) Do they have a feast day in the ECUSA?

[Fish and Bread]

John and Charles' Feast Day is May 24 in the CoE... :) Do they have a feast day in the ECUSA?

They do. :) I don't recall which day it is specifically, though.

John

[gitlance]

March 3.

[svdbygrace]

March 3.

Thanks. :)

[Evangelical]

No bishops = not Anglican

Agreed but are bishops a separate office from presbyter or simply a presbyter with a larger different function?

[Naomi4Christ]

Agreed but are bishops a separate office from presbyter or simply a presbyter with a larger different function?

There is no spiritual difference between a bishop and a presbyter

[gtsecc]

Actually, I believe a Presbyter is a Priest.
A Priest and Bishop are diffent.
The Priests sacramental authority derives from the Bishop.
Someone else may have a better explaination.

[karen freeinchristman]

Well, obviously all bishops were at one time priests/presbyters. Both priests and bishops are always to have the deacon (servant) nature to their calling. I can't imagine it being the case that someone would be called to be a bishop without being called to be a priest (I am of course referring here to God's calling, not to the church's calling); by this I mean that I don't think God would say to someone "you should be a bishop", without first saying to them "you should be a priest" - the call to be a bishop grows out of the calling to be a priest, and as it is with the priesthood, that call comes both from God and from the Church. It is a call to a different role within the servant role that belongs to all of us in 'the priesthood of all believers', but which must be confirmed by the wider church. Whether we call it a 'spiritual difference' depends on the extent we feel the 'spiritual' influences our normal everyday lives, actions, roles and behaviour. As the roles of priest and bishop are different, and as I believe all of life has a spiritual element to it, I feel there is a spiritual difference between a priest and a bishop.

[Naomi4Christ]

Bishops are set apart for ministering in a larger geographic area - other than that, there is no distinction between a bishop and a presbyter.

Scripture and early Christians use the terms presbyter and episcipos interchangeably.

[Polycarp1]

Bishops are set apart for ministering in a larger geographic area - other than that, there is no distinction between a bishop and a presbyter.

Scripture and early Christians use the terms presbyter and episcipos interchangeably.

Au contraire. It is one of the few marks of Anglican theology that is universal throughout the Communion that there is a threefold ministry, distinct orders of bishop, presbyter (AKA priest or elder), and deacon. There apparently was a period in the early church when one was ordained to both ranks, and Paul does use the terms more or less interchangeably, but they early on became separated, with the chief pastor of the metropolitan church and its affiliates becoming the bishop over the area.

What you teach here is Wesleyanism and/or Presbyterianism.

[Naomi4Christ]

What you teach here is Wesleyanism and/or Presbyterianism.

Or perhaps the faith of the original church.

Actually, the doctrine of the Church of England is that bishops are presbyters who have a wider ministry.

The Church of England retains the historic three-fold order of ministry namely Bishops, Priests and Deacons. The clear distinction of three orders is not found in Scripture though it arose very early in the life of the Church and the seeds for it are evident in Scripture. The curious wording in the introduction to the 1662 Ordinal recognises that the three-fold pattern is not straight-forward.
Moreover, recognising that Scripture does not draw a distinction between a Bishop (episcopos) and a Priest (presbuteros) Anglicans have seen Bishops as Priests with a particular and wider area of ministry. The very titles illustrates this point - Thomas Cranmer in the Second Prayer Book of Edward VI (1552) used the descriptions Ordering of Deacons and Ordering of Priests but the Consecrating of Bishops. In the 1662 BCP, which is substantially 1552, the latter title changed to 'Ordaining and Consecrating' which was retained in 1980 but is now replaced in the Common Worship service with simply 'Ordaining'. The sense of the BCP is that the primary act going on in relation to Bishops is that they are being set apart (consecrated) for a particular ministry. This is not entirely peculiar to Anglicans, it has been argued by Hans Küng no less that Vatican II did not draw a sharp distinction between Bishops and Priests and also that this was also acknowledged at the Council of Trent. David Phillips 2004


Bishops (http://www.churchsociety.org/issues/ministry/iss_ministry_bishops.htm)

[karen freeinchristman]

Naomi, from your post:
"Anglicans have seen Bishops as Priests with a particular and wider area of ministry. The very titles illustrates this point - Thomas Cranmer in the Second Prayer Book of Edward VI (1552) used the descriptions Ordering of Deacons and Ordering of Priests but the Consecrating of Bishops. In the 1662 BCP, which is substantially 1552, the latter title changed to 'Ordaining and Consecrating' which was retained in 1980 but is now replaced in the Common Worship service with simply 'Ordaining'. The sense of the BCP is that the primary act going on in relation to Bishops is that they are being set apart (consecrated) for a particular ministry."

This quote says to me: there is a difference between a priest and a bishop! It says to me, there is a ministerial difference between the two. To me, an ordination to a different ministry would also involve a spiritual difference. This doesn't say to me anything about a spiritual superiority, only a spiritual difference. To me, it is not about superiority - just like ordained ministry is not superior to lay ministry, it is just different.

[Naomi4Christ]

I think the 'set apart' means that they have a different task from a common-or-garden presbyter. I don't think it means they have the golden telephone in their studies.

[karen freeinchristman]

Naomi, I think I can agree with you in terms of the 'golden telephone' line of thought. However, given that you have agreed that bishops have a different task than presbyters, but that they are not superior, are you able to answer in the affirmative the question put forth by the O.P.?

Do you hold that Bishops (as distinct from elders if this is the case) are an integral part of the Church?

[Naomi4Christ]

I think I already answered that back in post 4 or 5 :D