Presbyterianise the CofE!

[Iosias]

I am coming to the clear conviction that holding the regulative principle necessitates us to change our church structure to a presbyterian form of government. That is the pattern of Acts and the Pastoral epistles not episcopalianism. :)

[Iosias]

This view was also held by Thomas Cartwright.

[higgs2]

I am coming to the clear conviction that holding the regulative principle necessitates us to change our church structure to a presbyterian form of government. That is the pattern of Acts and the Pastoral epistles not episcopalianism. :)

^_^ You are so cute! ^_^

[higgs2]

This view was also held by Thomas Cartwright.
Well, Hoss and little Joe liked it the way it is. :D

[Iosias]

^_^ You are so cute! ^_^

Is that a compliment? :scratch:

[Iosias]

Well, Hoss and little Joe liked it the way it is. :D

Fine, but how does it square with Scripture? Where can we find the office of Archbishop or Archdeacon in the Bible?

[higgs2]

Fine, but how does it square with Scripture? Where can we find the office of Archbishop or Archdeacon in the Bible?
I'm sorry, AV1611. I am being silly and you have an issue you really want to discuss. I will bow out of this thread now, please forgive me.

[karen freeinchristman]

Well, Hoss and little Joe liked it the way it is. :D:D


I am coming to the clear conviction that holding the regulative principle necessitates us to change our church structure to a presbyterian form of government. That is the pattern of Acts and the Pastoral epistles not episcopalianism. :)

by any chance, AV1611, have you yet read the thread called "Where is the ANGLICAN forum???" :confused:

[Iosias]

by any chance, AV1611, have you yet read the thread called "Where is the ANGLICAN forum???" :confused:

Nope Karen I aint.

[ContraMundum]

It's been tried already in the CofE. Didn't work. They even commited regiscide to make it work, but it still didn't work. It won't work in the future.

Sorry.

[Iosias]

It's been tried already in the CofE. Didn't work. They even commited regiscide to make it work, but it still didn't work. It won't work in the future.

Sorry.

Check your history my friend. Cromwell was an Independent and hated Presbyterians :) And FYI I am a staunch monarchist :)

[Tetzel]

I don't think that is going to be a popular idea

[Mysterium_Fidei]

I won't comment here. For obvious reasons. But I look forward to reading this thread.

[ContraMundum]

"With the loss of the Civil War and the execution of Laud, Charles was left as a prisoner of the parliamentarian and puritan cause. It is now widely recognised that he was offered his throne if he would renounce episcopacy and the Prayer Book and embrace Presbyterianism."

http://www.skcm.org/SCharles/History/history_Charles.html

[TomUK]

Check your history my friend. Cromwell was an Independent and hated Presbyterians And FYI I am a staunch monarchist

The most interesting thing about King Charles I is that he was 5'6'' tall at the start of his reign, but only 4'8'' tall at the end of it because of..

Oliver Cromwell, Lord Protector of England
Puritan
Born in 1599 and died in 1658
September
Was at first
Only
MP for Huntington
But then
He left the Ironside Cavalry at Marston Moor in 1644 and won
Then he founded the new model army
And praise be, beat the Cavaliers at Naisby
And the King fled up North, like a bat to the Scots.

But under the terms of John Pimm's solomn league and covenant, the Scots handed King Charles I over to..

Oliver Cromwell, Lord Protector of England
And his warts
Born in 1599 and died in 1658
September
But alas
Oy vey!
Disagreement then broke out
Between
The Presbyterian Parliament and the Military who meant
To have an independent bent.
And so..

The second Civil War broke out
And the Roundhead ranks
Faced the Cavaliers at
Preston banks
And the King lost again, silly thing
Stupid git

And Cromwell sent Colonel Pride
to purge the House of Commons of
the Presbyterian Royalists, leaving
behind only the rump Parliament..

Which appointed a High Court at
Westminster Hall
To indict Charles I for.. tyranny
OOOHHH!
Charles was sentenced to death
Even though he refused to accept
That the court had.. jurisdiction
Say goodbye to his head.

Poor King Charles laid his head on the block
January 1649
Down came the axe, and..

In the silence that followed, the only sound that could be heard was a solitary giggle, from..

Oliver Cromwell, Lord Protector of England
Olé
Born in 1599 and died in 1658
September
Then he smashed
Ireland
Set up the Commonwealth
And more
He crushed the Scots at Worcester
And beat the Dutch at sea
In 1653 and then
He dissolved the rump Parliament
And with Lambert's consent
Wrote the instrument of
Government
Under which Oliver was Protector
at last
The end.

[PaladinValer]

The Reformed forum is the other way.

Sorry, but Anglicanism is strictly episcopalian because that's the historic structure of God's Holy Church.

[higgs2]

The most interesting thing about King Charles I is that he was 5'6'' tall at the start of his reign, but only 4'8'' tall at the end of it because of..

Oliver Cromwell, Lord Protector of England
Puritan
Born in 1599 and died in 1658
September
Was at first
Only
MP for Huntington
But then
He left the Ironside Cavalry at Marston Moor in 1644 and won
Then he founded the new model army
And praise be, beat the Cavaliers at Naisby
And the King fled up North, like a bat to the Scots.

But under the terms of John Pimm's solomn league and covenant, the Scots handed King Charles I over to..

Oliver Cromwell, Lord Protector of England
And his warts
Born in 1599 and died in 1658
September
But alas
Oy vey!
Disagreement then broke out
Between
The Presbyterian Parliament and the Military who meant
To have an independent bent.
And so..

The second Civil War broke out
And the Roundhead ranks
Faced the Cavaliers at
Preston banks
And the King lost again, silly thing
Stupid git

And Cromwell sent Colonel Pride
to purge the House of Commons of
the Presbyterian Royalists, leaving
behind only the rump Parliament..

Which appointed a High Court at
Westminster Hall
To indict Charles I for.. tyranny
OOOHHH!
Charles was sentenced to death
Even though he refused to accept
That the court had.. jurisdiction
Say goodbye to his head.

Poor King Charles laid his head on the block
January 1649
Down came the axe, and..

In the silence that followed, the only sound that could be heard was a solitary giggle, from..

Oliver Cromwell, Lord Protector of England
Olé
Born in 1599 and died in 1658
September
Then he smashed
Ireland
Set up the Commonwealth
And more
He crushed the Scots at Worcester
And beat the Dutch at sea
In 1653 and then
He dissolved the rump Parliament
And with Lambert's consent
Wrote the instrument of
Government
Under which Oliver was Protector
at last
The end.
What is this from?

Monty Python?

[TomUK]

Spot on

It's priceless when you hear it!

[reaganjn]

why do people that is of another religion always come to our forum and basically say that we are wrong in our religion. i dont understand. who are they to say that??:confused:

[TomUK]

Actually i think that AV1611 is Anglican.

[Bonifatius]

We've had this discussion a few hundred years ago. Click the archive button! :wave: Or read a bit of Hooker ...

[PaladinValer]

However, one standard bit of Anglican doctrine is the episcopacy. Get rid of that, and you simply do not have Anglicanism anymore.

[karen freeinchristman]

However, one standard bit of Anglican doctrine is the episcopacy. Get rid of that, and you simply do not have Anglicanism anymore.

Hence my request for the OP poster to read that other thread entitled, "Where is the Anglican Forum???"

[PaladinValer]

I know that :)

Just adding a bit more to emphasize everyone else :)

[RedneckAnglican]

Actually i think that AV1611 is Anglican.

with a twist...

[TomUK]

with a twist...

I'm pretty sure that all of us here are Anglicans with a twist (except for the Lutherans and OCs!)

[Inside Edge]

Why not Anglicize the Presbyterian Church?

[higgs2]

Why not Anglicize the Presbyterian Church?
Good idea. I'll get to work on it right now! :)

[higgs2]

I'm pretty sure that all of us here are Anglicans with a twist (except for the Lutherans and OCs!)
Actually, I am an orthodox, mainstream Anglican, a model of glijbe gjkjklds bloop skjkj mojadiddy jflw. aljtlj. Splurrrrt.,jgkl

[PaladinValer]

We tried to Anglicized the Calvinists.

And we got ourselves Saint Charles the Martyr.

One day, his dream will come true.

[pmcleanj]

with a twist...and shout

[CSMR]

However, one standard bit of Anglican doctrine is the episcopacy. Get rid of that, and you simply do not have Anglicanism anymore.
Yes and no. The 39 articles say that there is nothing wrong with bishops and deacons (article 36) but also that churches have the authority to change those traditions that are not required by scritpture (article 34).

[PaladinValer]

Then it isn't Anglicanism anymore.

Chicago-Lambeth is rule.

[Colabomb]

The Episcopacy as we have it today, is not an accurate model of the Earliest Church.

However, it is a non-issue to me. I do not believe in Church government of Divine Rite, so I say keep the Episcopacy simply because it works.

[PaladinValer]

The episcopacy is exactly how it was.

[Yahweh Nissi]

The CofE (I do not know about the rest) is presbyterian - the deaneries are effectively presbyteries. We are just episcopal as well!

Also, whilst we should of course follow all the precepts given for how a church should be in the NT, to also look at what we are told the church happens to be like and try and follow that as well is more tricky, because circumstances are quite different now. No specific form of church government is mandated.

But, as you mention the pastorals, it is very interesting to note Titus: the apostle Paul ordains Titus to have authority over the church in a geographical area (Crete) and to ordain ministers there. Sound like a bishop?

Plus, (specifically to AV1611) do not expect presbyterianism to be a solution to the problems (as you, and indeed I, percieve them) of the C of E - the presbyterian Church of Scotland is in a pretty similar state, and the PCUSA is no better, maybe even more liberal.

Love YN.

[Bonifatius]

The Episcopacy as we have it today, is not an accurate model of the Earliest Church.


Well, I would argue that it is.

[higgs2]

Why not Anglicize the Presbyterian Church?
Okay, I tried and they will not cooperate! :mad:

[Colabomb]

The episcopacy is exactly how it was.
I thought you were a history major?

[PaladinValer]

I am, and I am correct.

The Apostles were the first bishops. Episcopacy isn't dependent on there being priests; it is dependent on there being bishops.

[ContraMundum]

I think Cola has a point.

[Colabomb]

I am, and I am correct.

The Apostles were the first bishops. Episcopacy isn't dependent on there being priests; it is dependent on there being bishops.
However, Bishops were leaders of Churches, not diocese. Bishops served a function more similar to Modern Priests than they did Bishops.

Now, this debate has been going on for years. We each have our interpretations of Scripture and tidbits of Tradition to support our view.

Before this gets ugly, could we simply understand we both like the Modern Episcopacy and let it go?

I made my post in pride, I am somewhat ashamed of it. Even though I disagree with you, I responded inappropriately.

[PaladinValer]

Colabomb, the diocean bishops are the leaders of the Church and the leaders of the Church are the diocean bishops.

The Apostles went their own ways: Peter to Rome and so on and so fourth. Where they went were their dioceses. Just because they were HUGE at first doesn't make them not dioceses!

[ContraMundum]

However, Bishops were leaders of Churches, not diocese. Bishops served a function more similar to Modern Priests than they did Bishops.

Now, this debate has been going on for years. We each have our interpretations of Scripture and tidbits of Tradition to support our view.


You are quite correct, and that is pretty much the "textbook" position these days.

Anyway- here's one sampler of tradtion from which the position is drawn: http://biblestudy.churches.net/CCEL/FATHERS/NPNF206/LETTERS/LETTE146.HTM

There's plenty more as well.

[PaladinValer]

No Apostolic Succession, then no defense against the Gnostics.

And again, the origin of priests isn't the point. The origin of bishops is. God handpicked the first bishops. The bishops were the earthly authority of the Church. They administered to the Church wherever they went. They handpicked their own successors. So on and so forth.

Anglicanism is based on Apostolic Succession. Remove that, and you no longer have Anglicanism but you have Protestantism. Protestants reject the importance of Apostolic Succession, Anglicans do not.

[ContraMundum]

No Apostolic Succession, then no defense against the Gnostics.

Our defense against the Gnostics is the scriptures, not the Apostolic Succession.

How do you think these debates in history actually worked?

Do you think some Gnostic walked up to some Christian on the street and was refuted by the simple claim "oh, but we have bishops who are the right pedigree" and the Gnostic just hung his or her head in shame, walking off, knowing they were defeated and should convert? I think not.

No Bishop who is a true Bishop can do anything without God's revelation to us- His Word.

The Church which had Apostolic Succesion used the Word of God to refute its opponents, and the matter of the Apostolic Succession was always part of the debate from scripture (at best!).

Anyway, as for the rest of your post, sounds like you have an argument with St Jerome over what the scriptures say.

[PaladinValer]

The Gnostics use the same Bible we do.

Heck, the Gospel according to St. John was beloved by Gnostics...perhaps most Christians' favorite book in the entire Bible.

Apostolic Succession was the historical answer to Gnosticism. That's fact, not fiction.

[ContraMundum]

The Gnostics use the same Bible we do.

Heck, the Gospel according to St. John was beloved by Gnostics...perhaps most Christians' favorite book in the entire Bible.

Apostolic Succession was the historical answer to Gnosticism. That's fact, not fiction.

Please substantiate this entire post.

[EvAnglican]

The CofE (I do not know about the rest) is presbyterian - the deaneries are effectively presbyteries. We are just episcopal as well!



I think you are spot on with this statement. Plus, individual CofE churches are run by their PCCs, who decide how closely they will follow the letter of canon law. The wardens are the bishops' representatives in each church, so have a lot of power to decide how things are run.

It's madness to actually believe the bishop runs his diocese. He goes to tea parties and tries to keep everyone happy. His more profound duties are often to do with the relationships between the church, other faiths, and the secular world. The archdeacons and other diocesan staff are the ones who provide the greatest support to the parishes. The bishop and his staff exist to support ordinary parishioners, rather than the parishioners being the ones who hang onto their bishop's every word.

[ContraMundum]

It's madness to actually believe the bishop runs his diocese. He goes to tea parties and tries to keep everyone happy.

:clap:

:amen:

[Colabomb]

No Apostolic Succession, then no defense against the Gnostics.

And again, the origin of priests isn't the point. The origin of bishops is. God handpicked the first bishops. The bishops were the earthly authority of the Church. They administered to the Church wherever they went. They handpicked their own successors. So on and so forth.

Anglicanism is based on Apostolic Succession. Remove that, and you no longer have Anglicanism but you have Protestantism. Protestants reject the importance of Apostolic Succession, Anglicans do not.
Paladin, as much as you like to differentiate between "Protestants" and "Anglicans.

I would like to point out that you are part of a denomination that used to call itself "The Protestant Episcopal Church of the United States of America"

[SirTimothy]

Just done a wee bit of googling, and it is technically either:

"The Protestant Episcopal Church of the United States of America"

or "The Episcopal Church"

[PaladinValer]

Paladin, as much as you like to differentiate between "Protestants" and "Anglicans.

I would like to point out that you are part of a denomination that used to call itself "The Protestant Episcopal Church of the United States of America"

Fallacy of Straw Man. Answer my posts, please. Those are my debating points.

Fallacy of Ad Hominem (of the tu quoque variety). Whether I "practice what I preach" (which I am anyway) is irregardless of what is true.

Fallacy of Equivocation. We've already discussed the difference between the definitions of Protestant.

[Naomi4Christ]

Fallacy of Straw Man. Answer my posts, please. Those are my debating points.

Fallacy of Ad Hominem (of the tu quoque variety). Whether I "practice what I preach" (which I am anyway) is irregardless of what is true.

Fallacy of Equivocation. We've already discussed the difference between the definitions of Protestant.

I'm am struggling to understand any of this. Is there any chance of communicating in plain English, devoid of any pithy phrases?

[gtsecc]

Just done a wee bit of googling, and it is technically either:

"The Protestant Episcopal Church of the United States of America"

or "The Episcopal Church"

They have formally dropped the word Protestant.
This was an active move to disassociate with the word Protestant.

[higgs2]

I'm am struggling to understand any of this. Is there any chance of communicating in plain English, devoid of any pithy phrases?

Yes, you need to go to your local Presbyterian church and attempt to "anglicize" them. The ones here would not cooperate, but maybe you'll have better luck. If it doesn't work out you might have to start taking communion in little tiny cups (if you don't already :D ). Make sense now?

[Naomi4Christ]

No

[higgs2]

No
You can't just say "no".

[No Swansong]

I'm am struggling to understand any of this. Is there any chance of communicating in plain English, devoid of any pithy phrases?

While I admit I enjoy PV's posts (I don't get as worked up as Cola does I am a bit older than PV and do not take his comments as personally as they seem to be intended) It is not likely your request would be honored long by him. He tends towards the 'pithy.' Oftentimes however I find gems in his posts. I rather enjoy the pithy comments , although at times they don't seem appropriate.

[Naomi4Christ]

You can't just say "no".

I like to be economical with words :)

[Naomi4Christ]

While I admit I enjoy PV's posts (I don't get as worked up as Cola does I am a bit older than PV and do not take his comments as personally as they seem to be intended) It is not likely your request would be honored long by him. He tends towards the 'pithy.' Oftentimes however I find gems in his posts. I rather enjoy the pithy comments , although at times they don't seem appropriate.

Bless you, jtbdad.

[PaladinValer]

Actually, I answered her and gave her what she wanted. She ignored it. Her choice.

And while I may be pithy, my bark is rarely with any venom. Cola's not a bad kid; I don't debate with people I think are stupid (that's a complement, Colabomb). We obviously disagree, but I hold no ill will to him (or to anyone else really).

[Colabomb]

Fallacy of Straw Man. Answer my posts, please. Those are my debating points.

Fallacy of Ad Hominem (of the tu quoque variety). Whether I "practice what I preach" (which I am anyway) is irregardless of what is true.

Fallacy of Equivocation. We've already discussed the difference between the definitions of Protestant.
I believe I answered a post.

YOu implied that Anglicans are not Protestants. You said Anglicans believe one thing, Protestants believe another.

I pointed out that often People are Both Anglican as well as protestant and to split them artificially on this subject is not appropriate.

[Colabomb]

Actually, I answered her and gave her what she wanted. She ignored it. Her choice.

And while I may be pithy, my bark is rarely with any venom. Cola's not a bad kid; I don't debate with people I think are stupid (that's a complement, Colabomb). We obviously disagree, but I hold no ill will to him (or to anyone else really).
Yes, I can take a complement.

[No Swansong]

Bless you, jtbdad.

Thank You!

(bowing my head and mumbling)
In the name of .........

[PaladinValer]

The problem is, classic Protestantism rejects the necessity of Apostolic Succession. Not having it; the necessity of it.

Anglicanism affirm this necessity.

[Bonifatius]

They have formally dropped the word Protestant.
This was an active move to disassociate with the word Protestant.


The Anglican Church in Japan is officially called the "Holy Catholic Church of Japan" :thumbsup:

[No Swansong]

The problem is, classic Protestantism rejects the necessity of Apostolic Succession. Not having it; the necessity of it.

Anglicanism affirm this necessity.

Expound please

[gtsecc]

Expound please
How could you study Church history and reject it and think you were obedient?

[No Swansong]

How could you study Church history and reject it and think you were obedient?

What have I rejected?

[Colabomb]

The problem is, classic Protestantism rejects the necessity of Apostolic Succession. Not having it; the necessity of it.

Anglicanism affirm this necessity.
Would you contend that the Thousands of Evangelical Anglicans then are not Anglican?

[PaladinValer]

I would say that they need to get in touch with the Anglican Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral.

I would also say that they should read "Pre-Schism" Anglican documents and learn of their practices.

I would finally say that they should read the Three Confessions of Faith, which were the earliest "Post-Schism" Anglican Articles.

[Colabomb]

The Anglican Church in Japan is officially called the "Holy Catholic Church of Japan" :thumbsup:
And the Protestants in Anglicanism do not contend that we are not Catholic. It is the Anglo-Catholics who can't accept that the church is both Protestant and Catholic.

The terms are not mutually exclusive in theological discussion. Only in simple language where "Catholic" means Rome, are the two opposed.

[Colabomb]

I would say that they need to get in touch with the Anglican Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral.

I would also say that they should read "Pre-Schism" Anglican documents and learn of their practices.

I would finally say that they should read the Three Confessions of Faith, which were the earliest "Post-Schism" Anglican Articles.
Paladin, I would say that we can point to the Articles which state that councils can and do err.

[PaladinValer]

Which means they themselves can err, Colabomb. Did you think of that possibility?

In addition, Bonifatius was simply showing another province within the Anglican Communion that doesn't call itself "Protestant."

Shall I say "When will Evangelicals understand that Anglo-Catholics don't oppose the title of Protestant in terms of protesting Roman abuses"?

[Colabomb]

Which means they themselves can err, Colabomb. Did you think of that possibility?

Of course.

Shall I say "When will Evangelicals understand that Anglo-Catholics don't oppose the title of Protestant in terms of protesting Roman abuses"?

Than why won't you call Anglicanism Protestant? It still protests Rome in different ways. Liberals especially should embrace the term protestant because Rome is very conservative concerning things such as Female Priests and the sinfulness of Homosexuality.

[higgs2]

Of course.



Than why won't you call Anglicanism Protestant? It still protests Rome in different ways. Liberals especially should embrace the term protestant because Rome is very conservative concerning things such as Female Priests and the sinfulness of Homosexuality.
The thing is, Catholic/Protestant does not parallel conservative/liberal.

[PaladinValer]

Actually Colabomb, I have many times said that, in the sense that Anglicans protested the abuses of Rome, it is protestant.

And I agree that we still do protest Rome...this time doctrinally too since we obviously don't agree with papal infallibility. As for the Immaculate Conception, I protest it because it was declared without a valid Ecumenical Council. I do honestly believe that all councils and synods after the Seventh are not binding to the whole of the Church; only to those areas where they have authority. As such, those councils that the Vatican recognized as Ecumenical after the Seventh? I protest that.

[Colabomb]

The thing is, Catholic/Protestant does not parallel conservative/liberal.
I know Higgs, and I believe Paladin understood my point.

We were discussing "Protest" and I simply used an example that I thought fit Paladin's particular position.

However, his example beat mine in potency.

[Iosias]

However, one standard bit of Anglican doctrine is the episcopacy. Get rid of that, and you simply do not have Anglicanism anymore.

Surely as Anglicans we should base our practice upon the word of God? We would hardly want to have something in our denomination that God did not want, would we?

[Iosias]

Why not Anglicize the Presbyterian Church?

How?

[Polycarp1]

Surely as Anglicans we should base our practice upon the word of God? We would hardly want to have something in our denomination that God did not want, would we?

The day Glen, Cola, PV, and Naomi find something that all agree on in here, I will celebrate with tears of joy. But I think's one principle that I think unites the lot of us, and that's the "three-legged stool" -- see the forum nickname?

Whatever may have been the case at the time of the Pastorals, the church early "shook out" to having the Chief Pastor of each metropolitan church and of the suburban churches affiliated with it be the one to whom authoritative teaching guidance, ordinations, etc., were confined, with the other Presbyters serving with and under his episkopé.

To play the "well, we don't want to violate the Bible, and here's what [I think] the Bible says" game is simply to turn us into another Protestant denomination, likely to split on points of doctrine, because we have not remained true to the Catholic faith as Reformed of medieval abuses.

IMO, we had this fight 350 years ago, have the Articles of Religion as a corrective to over-Catholicism, and otherwise reject your premise.

[gtsecc]

Surely as Anglicans we should base our practice upon the word of God? We would hardly want to have something in our denomination that God did not want, would we?
Is there any question that the Episcopacy is how God set up the Church?

[Colabomb]

The day Glen, Cola, PV, and Naomi find something that all agree on in here, I will celebrate with tears of joy.

Christ and Him Crucified.

But I think's one principle that I think unites the lot of us, and that's the "three-legged stool" -- see the forum nickname?

Ah but be careful. We all talk about the Three Legged stool, but realize that different Anglicans use the term differently.

I believe that Tradition and Reason are good for helping in the interpretation of the Scriputres but I would never claim that Tradition and Reason are equal with Scripture. Ever.

PV however would. The three legged stool in its own right does not mean a whole lot out of context.

[Colabomb]

Is there any question that the Episcopacy is how God set up the Church?
Yes. Once again you are alienating a LARGE portion of both Christianity and Anglicanism. We respect your right to have your opinion, but we also have the right to ours.

[gtsecc]

Yes. Once again you are alienating a LARGE portion of both Christianity and Anglicanism. We respect your right to have your opinion, but we also have the right to ours.
I can ground my opion in the writings of the church.
Can anyone deny the Episcopacy and do the same?

I hope you don't think I like or prefer or hope for the Episcopacy - "I" have nothing to do with it.
The Disciples set the Church up this way, and I don't think they did it out of mean spiritedness to some future denomination. I have a friend who is agnostic, and a Christian religion major in under grad. He will tell you he is not sure if Christianity is true or not, but he has no doubts about how it is set up, specifically the Episcopacy.

[Colabomb]

I can ground my opion in the writings of the church.
Can anyone deny the Episcopacy and do the same?

I hope you don't think I like or prefer or hope for the Episcopacy - "I" have nothing to do with it.
The Disciples set the Church up this way, and I don't think they did it out of mean spiritedness to some future denomination. I have a friend who is agnostic, and a Christian religion major in under grad. He will tell you he is not sure if Christianity is true or not, but he has no doubts about how it is set up, specifically the Episcopacy.
Yes, Bishops were the earliest form of ministry.

However I can argue that the Bishops of Scripture were Pastors of Churches. Also, I can tell you that nowhere in Scripture are the Sacraments bound to the Succession of Bishops.

[gtsecc]

Yes, Bishops were the earliest form of ministry.

However I can argue that the Bishops of Scripture were Pastors of Churches. Also, I can tell you that nowhere in Scripture are the Sacraments bound to the Succession of Bishops.

But the people who gave us the Scripture unquestioningly believe that, and did not expect or think to find that explicit in the bible.

So, is the problem that the rubrics are not in the Bible, or is the problem in those who expect the rubrics to be there.

[Colabomb]

But the people who gave us the Scripture unquestioningly believe that, and did not expect or think to find that explicit in the bible.

The Church did not give us the Scriptures. God gave us the Scriptures through the Church. The Church was merely a tool God used for His designs.

So, is the problem that the rubrics are not in the Bible, or is the problem in those who expect the rubrics to be there.

In the Scriptures, Presbyter and Episcopos were used often interchangebly. Was Scripture wrong? Or did man change the Government of the Church?

I believe man Changed the Government of the Church. However, as I see that as an issue of Adiaphora, I don't really care. The Modern Episcopacy works.

[gtsecc]

The Church did not give us the Scriptures. God gave us the Scriptures through the Church. The Church was merely a tool God used for His designs.
But, what does that mean?
All I am suggesting is that you can't believe God gave us the Scriptures through the Church, and that Church was unaffected or misunderstood them.

[AngCath]

But the people who gave us the Scripture unquestioningly believe that, and did not expect or think to find that explicit in the bible.

So, is the problem that the rubrics are not in the Bible, or is the problem in those who expect the rubrics to be there.

You're hinting at an interesting dilemna. Various epistles from the New Testament allude to standardized prayers, liturgies, rubrics, etc but since it was assumed that the recipient already was aware of them they weren't actually included in the epistle.

[gtsecc]

You're hinting at an interesting dilemna. Various epistles from the New Testament allude to standardized prayers, liturgies, rubrics, etc but since it was assumed that the recipient already was aware of them they weren't actually included in the epistle.
yes!

[PaladinValer]

Surely as Anglicans we should base our practice upon the word of God?

The Bible isn't the Word of God.

We would hardly want to have something in our denomination that God did not want, would we?

The Holy Spirit is the Author of Truth.
Truth has been taught in the Seven Ecumenical Councils.
Apostolic Succession is found in the earliest of Christian writings. It is prrof against the Gnostics, for surely their ideas would have been told to the Apostles and from the Apostles to their disciples?

This has nothing to do with Scripture...it has to do with logical deduction. Scripture simply isn't the only valid source of Authority.

Colabomb, all bishops are priests, but not all priests are bishops. History shows that the Apostles acted as bishops; they were the overseers, they were the authorities, and all deacons and laity were subject to them. If they excommunicated someone, it stuck.

No historian denies that, at first, all priests were bishops. That was because the Apostles were the only ordained: they were deacon, priest, and bishop. Deacons, I could argue, were an invention too...they weren't created until bishops ordained them as such...as their helpers. That itself is a "man-made" idea...what counts is whether that "man-made" idea was Inspired or not; that's the clincher.

However, went Titus and 1 Timothy were written in the 2nd century, The Holy Spirit had intervined: look closely at Titus 1:5-6;7. This implies bishops are a kind of priest. At that time, with dioceses stretched and bishops rare, the idea of a priest who could lay hands on others (this can mean anything, not just ordination) and administer certain bishopy function came from. Not the idea of a priest in and of itself, but a priest with that function.

[Colabomb]

The Bible isn't the Word of God.

Don't be silly Paladin, you know very well what he means.

I am sure you also know he sees Christ as the Divine Logos.



The Holy Spirit is the Author of Truth.
Truth has been taught in the Seven Ecumenical Councils.
Apostolic Succession is found in the earliest of Christian writings. It is prrof against the Gnostics, for surely their ideas would have been told to the Apostles and from the Apostles to their disciples?


This was at a different time. We were talking about 3 or 4 or 5 generations. (And they disagreed then too)

It could be said, I know Joe, who KNEW Peter to say this.

But can anyone say that now? Now it is an issue of "I know Joe, who knew Nathaniel, who knew Bishop Lawrence, who was ordained by Bishop Jackson who knew......"

We are two-thousand years separated from the Apostles. There is no personal knowledge of the men who knew Christ intimately.

Let me put it this way. Do we trust the "Apostolic Tradition" that comes from a line of Bishops who have come up with a various different doctrines and practices over 2000 years? Or the Apostolic Tradition Penned by the Apostles and their immediate disciples under Inspiration of the Holy Ghost?

This has nothing to do with Scripture...it has to do with logical deduction. Scripture simply isn't the only valid source of Authority.


Again, which line of Tradition do you suppose we follow? Is the Bishop of Rome the Universal Bishop or not? Can man be Saved outside of Submission to the Roman Pontiff or not? (See even within certain groups they can't make up their mind.)

Which Line of Tradition? The Line of Tradition that holds that Scripture is the Prime Authority? Or the one that Holds Scripture on an equal level? Or even the one that debases Scripture as corrupted?



No historian denies that, at first, all priests were bishops. That was because the Apostles were the only ordained: they were deacon, priest, and bishop. Deacons, I could argue, were an invention too...they weren't created until bishops ordained them as such...as their helpers. That itself is a "man-made" idea...what counts is whether that "man-made" idea was Inspired or not; that's the clincher.


Or he just left it up to us. I say that The Role of "Bishop" today, is not the same as it was in the earliest church. However, that does not mean I don't believe it is a good and valid system of Government.

Just because I said it was of man, does not mean I think it evil.


However, went Titus and 1 Timothy were written in the 2nd century, The Holy Spirit had intervined: look closely at Titus 1:5-6;7. This implies bishops are a kind of priest. At that time, with dioceses stretched and bishops rare, the idea of a priest who could lay hands on others (this can mean anything, not just ordination) and administer certain bishopy function came from. Not the idea of a priest in and of itself, but a priest with that function.

I don't see any distinction between Presbyter and Episcopos in this passage.

[Colabomb]

My Big problem with Apostolic Succession as currently taught really has nothing to do with Teaching Authority as with the concept that the Sacraments are bound to a Pedigree.

Is the Episcopacy Desirable? Yes indeed. Am I going to tell a Baptist or a Lutheran that they don't have "real" communion? No.

[Iosias]

Is the Episcopacy Desirable?

Only if it is scriptural, is it in scripture? Well I cannot find it!

[Iosias]

Most defend regional oversight using Timothy and Titus, however Timothy was an Evangelist which was a temporary office in the early church.

[gtsecc]

AV what do you make of the EPiscopacy - that the Church was in error from day 1? If so, how can we trust teh Bible?

[ContraMundum]

Only if it is scriptural, is it in scripture? Well I cannot find it!

Read Acts Ch 1 regarding Matthias- esp well translated in the AV 1611 I might add!

[higgs2]

How?
teach them english.

[PaladinValer]

Don't be silly Paladin, you know very well what he means.

That doesn't mean that it is still an appropriate title.

I am sure you also know he sees Christ as the Divine Logos.

Did you ask? ;)

This was at a different time. We were talking about 3 or 4 or 5 generations. (And they disagreed then too)

Proof? In addition, I'm talking about doctrine and dogma, not discipline and devotion.

It could be said, I know Joe, who KNEW Peter to say this.

But can anyone say that now? Now it is an issue of "I know Joe, who knew Nathaniel, who knew Bishop Lawrence, who was ordained by Bishop Jackson who knew......"

Which is why Patristics is so important.

We are two-thousand years separated from the Apostles. There is no personal knowledge of the men who knew Christ intimately.

No, we are in the same Age of the Apostles. Today's bishops are the Apostles of the day.

And while today's Apostles may not have known Jesus when He literally and bodily lived on Earth, that doesn't change the fact that we do have writings of second generation folk, writing in the 1st century. I will remind you that portions of the Canonized NT are older than these Patristical document.

Let me put it this way. Do we trust the "Apostolic Tradition" that comes from a line of Bishops who have come up with a various different doctrines and practices over 2000 years?

Again, we're talking doctrine and dogma, not discipline and devotion. The latter two can change, the former two cannot.

Or the Apostolic Tradition Penned by the Apostles and their immediate disciples under Inspiration of the Holy Ghost?

And that shows bishoprics as we understand them today.

Again, which line of Tradition do you suppose we follow? Is the Bishop of Rome the Universal Bishop or not?

Historically? He was first among equals; that's been a fact since Day One. Define "universality" please.

Can man be Saved outside of Submission to the Roman Pontiff or not? (See even within certain groups they can't make up their mind.)

They never changed that, Colabomb: yes, you can according to the Vatican Church.

Which Line of Tradition? The Line of Tradition that holds that Scripture is the Prime Authority?

Which is a younger tradition.

Or the one that Holds Scripture on an equal level?

Which, technically, is actually just as old.

Or even the one that debases Scripture as corrupted?

You mean Marcionism?

Or he just left it up to us.

Perhaps, but even so, the history shows bishoprics and dioceses.

I say that The Role of "Bishop" today, is not the same as it was in the earliest church.

It is the same role. The only thing that changed is that bishops today are more administrative because the priests' role was emphasized more. However, the administrative emphasis is just that; an emphasis. Nothing has been added; nothing subtracted.

However, that does not mean I don't believe it is a good and valid system of Government.

I understand that.

Just because I said it was of man, does not mean I think it evil.

Good.

My point is this:

You need to be careful not to equivocate doctrine and dogma with discipline and devotion. The former cannot be changed while the latter can.
The history shows dioceses; that is what we get out of Patristics. Why change what, as you have admitted, already works?I don't see any distinction between Presbyter and Episcopos in this passage.

Look carefully; the way the Greek is structured implies bishops are a type of priest. It talks about elders, then it says bishops.

In addition, no Apostolic Succession, there is simply no guard against the Gnostics. None.

[Colabomb]

We are moving, thus I don't have the time/energy to give you a well researched Response. I will only answer a few things.

That doesn't mean that it is still an appropriate title.


Yes it is. The Scriptures are God Breathed. Many of us believe that they are God Breathed to the point that what they say, God says. Therefore, it is the Word of God, as your posts are the Word of PV.


Did you ask? ;)


No, but as he is an orthodox Christian I assume he does.


Which is why Patristics is so important.

What do you do when the Fathers disagree?

No, we are in the same Age of the Apostles. Today's bishops are the Apostles of the day.

If that is true, and what that means if so, is debatable.

And while today's Apostles may not have known Jesus when He literally and bodily lived on Earth, that doesn't change the fact that we do have writings of second generation folk, writing in the 1st century.

And while I find myself agreeing with much of them, I understand them to be mere Men.

I will remind you that portions of the Canonized NT are older than these Patristical document.

I honestly don't understand why you pointed this out to me. Could you explain?



Again, we're talking doctrine and dogma, not discipline and devotion. The latter two can change, the former two cannot.

I fully understand the difference. I am Anglican after all, just because I interpret Tradition differently than you does not mean I do not study it.



And that shows bishoprics as we understand them today.

I disagree. I see pastors of Churches referred to as both Bishops and Priests interchangably. To force a distinction we have created on the Early Church is dishonest. They had a form of Government. It evolved into what we have today. What is wrong with that?



Historically? He was first among equals; that's been a fact since Day One. Define "universality" please.

As of day one all Bishops where in Jerusalem. ;)

I assume however that you are not meaning this literally. I will however point out that Peter was initially the Bishop of Antioch.



They never changed that, Colabomb: yes, you can according to the Vatican Church.

I know this to be the current doctrine, however it was not always so, thus my point.





Which is a younger tradition.

That could be argued.





Which, technically, is actually just as old.

Age has little weight with me. Remember, I view the Reformation as a Restoration.



You mean Marcionism?

I mean Spong and his ilk.




The history shows dioceses; that is what we get out of Patristics. Why change what, as you have admitted, already works?

1. Again, that could be argued, there are many scholars who hold my point of view.

2. I never said we should get rid of the Episcopacy, I just don't think people should get haughty and say "from the beginning, it was done the way we do it, therefore you don't have real Sacraments."

Look carefully; the way the Greek is structured implies bishops are a type of priest. It talks about elders, then it says bishops. Neither of us are Greek Scholars.

In addition, no Apostolic Succession, there is simply no guard against the Gnostics. None.

We have Atheist Bishops. We have Pagan Bishops. These obviously are not preserving Apostolic Doctrine

The concept of a Pedigree only works if youare two or three generations separated, any further and it is just hearsay.

[PaladinValer]

We are moving, thus I don't have the time/energy to give you a well researched Response. I will only answer a few things.

Good luck with your move :)

Yes it is. The Scriptures are God Breathed. Many of us believe that they are God Breathed to the point that what they say, God says. Therefore, it is the Word of God, as your posts are the Word of PV.

That, with all due respect, is simply not Scriptural. Inspired doesn't doesn't mean vocal. The Bible itself is mute; remember the story in the Acts of the Apostles when St. Philip had to teach the Eithiopian eunnuch how to interpret the scrolls of Isaiah?

No, but as he is an orthodox Christian I assume he does.

KJV1611 is the only valid translation is...orthodox?

What do you do when the Fathers disagree?

Give me an example. And again, doctrine/dogma > discipline/devotion.

If that is true, and what that means if so, is debatable.

It isn't debatable.

And while I find myself agreeing with much of them, I understand them to be mere Men.

So books can be inspired but not people? Just because something is written and something is spoken doesn't mean anything.

I honestly don't understand why you pointed this out to me. Could you explain?

Age doesn't make a difference, which you seemed to have argued here: "We are two-thousand years separated from the Apostles. There is no personal knowledge of the men who knew Christ intimately."

I fully understand the difference. I am Anglican after all, just because I interpret Tradition differently than you does not mean I do not study it.

You cannot treat them equally however. Can you suddenly get rid of, say, the Holy Trinity? Or perhaps the hypostatic union of Christ? Both are Holy Tradition; they are not explicitly found in Scripture.

I disagree. I see pastors of Churches referred to as both Bishops and Priests interchangably. To force a distinction we have created on the Early Church is dishonest.

However, the history shows otherwise.

They had a form of Government. It evolved into what we have today. What is wrong with that?

Nothing. But it is dishonest to deny what has always been.

As of day one all Bishops where in Jerusalem.

Yet one was seen to be a speaker, who the others looked to for guidance. That speaker had the same vote that wasn't superior than the others, but that speaker was given special recognition and was a figurehead of sorts. That's the concept of the First Among Equals. It has nothing to do with papacy.

I assume however that you are not meaning this literally.

But I do, Colabomb; I absolutely do. What you I believe are doing is equivocating the concepts of First Among Equals with Papacy.

I will however point out that Peter was initially the Bishop of Antioch.

That makes no difference to the concept of First Among Equals.

I know this to be the current doctrine, however it was not always so, thus my point.

No, you are wrong. It has never changed. I dare you to go to OBOB and ask whether changed their doctrine. More than likely, with all due respect, you have misunderstood what they mean when they say "there is no salvation outside the Church." I used to make the same error(s); I know recognize my mistake.

That could be argued.

I'm sorry, but it is not arguable. The fact that there was no concept of Canon until the very late 300's shows that, before then, there was a different form of authority.

Age has little weight with me. Remember, I view the Reformation as a Restoration.

Restoration in what sense, however? Getting rid of abuses? Sure. Ejecting historical doctrine? That's wrong.

I mean Spong and his ilk.

+Spong says that Scripture has been abused, nor corrupted. Marcion the heretic was the one who argued against the acceptance of the OT and many NT books (particularly the Gospel according to St. Matthew).

1. Again, that could be argued, there are many scholars who hold my point of view.

Including?

2. I never said we should get rid of the Episcopacy, I just don't think people should get haughty and say "from the beginning, it was done the way we do it, therefore you don't have real Sacraments."

Whoa. Hold on one moment.

I said "The history shows dioceses; that is what we get out of Patristics. Why change what, as you have admitted, already works?" This implies very heavily that you didn't say that we should get rid of the papacy.
Your argument in quotes doesn't follow. It isn't even my argument.Neither of us are Greek Scholars.

Then, might I ask, why you are debating it too? If you admit you aren't a scholar of Greek, why argue as you are too?

However, again, you or I may not be scholars, but we may draw from the intellect of them. You seem to be struggling with what it means to violate the Fallacy of Appealing to Authority. It is only valid to accuse someone of it if they claim to speak as an authority when they aren't one, or when they cite someone who isn't truly a valid authority, or when they cite someone who is an authority, but was not speaking in a state of authority (ie: drunk, joking, etc).

We have Atheist Bishops. We have Pagan Bishops. These obviously are not preserving Apostolic Doctrine

Who? Where? Cite please. In any case, they don't have valid Orders, unless they apostated after they were ordained.

The concept of a Pedigree only works if youare two or three generations separated, any further and it is just hearsay.

Unless you have writings. And Colabomb, we have quite a bit of Patristical writings.

[Colabomb]

Not a full response, that will come later.

Thanks for the well wishing, we should be done by Next Sunday.

1. A.V.'s position on the KJV, even though I strongly disagree with him, would not make him heretical in my book, confused, but not heretical.

2. The comment about appealing to pedigree concerning the Sacraments was not a direct response to any post of yours on this thread, but more of a general attitude I did not mean to make it sound as if I was lunging at you.

[PaladinValer]

1. A.V.'s position on the KJV, even though I strongly disagree with him, would not make him heretical in my book, confused, but not heretical.

It wouldn't call it heretical either. It is definitely however I would say heterodox.

2. The comment about appealing to pedigree concerning the Sacraments was not a direct response to any post of yours on this thread, but more of a general attitude I did not mean to make it sound as if I was lunging at you.

I didn't take it as such :)

[Ahazmat]

Why not just join one of the Presbyterian groups if you are convinced they have a more correct structure? I like the Cof E leadership structure most of the time.

[Ahazmat]

Pallin V so "The bible is not the Word of God." ... and I thought I was radical.

[Ethan_Fetch]

Cola and Paladin,

(Ah, the freedom of being Lutheran!)

This is one of my favorite subjects.

The New Testament knows nothing of any distinction between Bishops and Presbyters. Titus 1 is particularly instructive here.

The distinction developed VERY early on though and, undoubtedly due to a simple process of necessity mothering invention.

The book of Acts shows us the Apostles prayerfully choosing Matthias to replace Judas and creating the office of Deacon.

It could be, and has been argued that these cases provide precedent for the church creating the distinction in office between Episkopos and Presbyteros.

On the other hand, the office of Deacon appears to be a creation de novo of a completely new office while the other seems to be a case of driving an official distinction between what the NT clearly sees as two names describing two aspects of the same office. The latter, some would say involves the creation of an order of lordship in the church by men over other men and is therefore incongruous with Christ's injunction against exactly that sort of thing.

The whole issue gets murkier after this.

But the debate seems to boil down to an argument between proponents of a sort of repristinating movement and those who would argue that the Church, as an historical entity has the competence to change her structures according to need. These are the polar positions anyway, the vast majority seem to live in the middle with a lot of shared assumptions.

So, the question I always come up against is this:

Why should the Church try to recreate NT models in anything other than the substance of her faith and message?

Or, correspondingly, why should the church adhere to structures which are undoubtedly very old but which do not necessarily have biblical subscription?

It's funny that the appeal is so strong to do this sort of thing that even proponents of later developments (episcopacy being a good example) often imply that their opinion is not only old, it's somehow apostolic...

Anyway, just some thoughts from an interested observer whose church has long since decided polity is an adiaphoron.

[ContraMundum]

The attack on the authority and sufficiency of scripture is a common sight here, Ahazmat.

It is assumed by those who do not esteem the Bible rightly as the final authority that the Bible cannot be understood without the teaching authority of the Church. They use various verses to support that, but in doing so they never ever ever refer to the verses that speak of the annointing of the believers to recognise the truth when they see it. Therefore, they are in fact asserting that we have nothing but the church to understand th scriptures. This of course is the same church that can have false teachers, so they in effect paint themselves into a corner where they cannot discern rightly for themselves. Imagine surrendering the God-given authority to discern to those who have abused our trust in the past?

There are two positions here- Sola Scriptura and Sola Ecclesia. The former often misunderstood and misapplied and the latter a doctrine without merit and based on lack of faith.

[ContraMundum]

Cola and Paladin,

(Ah, the freedom of being Lutheran!)

This is one of my favorite subjects.

The New Testament knows nothing of any distinction between Bishops and Presbyters. Titus 1 is particularly instructive here.

The distinction developed VERY early on though and, undoubtedly due to a simple process of necessity mothering invention.

The book of Acts shows us the Apostles prayerfully choosing Matthias to replace Judas and creating the office of Deacon.

It could be, and has been argued that these cases provide precedent for the church creating the distinction in office between Episkopos and Presbyteros.

On the other hand, the office of Deacon appears to be a creation de novo of a completely new office while the other seems to be a case of driving an official distinction between what the NT clearly sees as two names describing two aspects of the same office. The latter, some would say involves the creation of an order of lordship in the church by men over other men and is therefore incongruous with Christ's injunction against exactly that sort of thing.

The whole issue gets murkier after this.

But the debate seems to boil down to an argument between proponents of a sort of repristinating movement and those who would argue that the Church, as an historical entity has the competence to change her structures according to need. These are the polar positions anyway, the vast majority seem to live in the middle with a lot of shared assumptions.

So, the question I always come up against is this:

Why should the Church try to recreate NT models in anything other than the substance of her faith and message?

Or, correspondingly, why should the church adhere to structures which are undoubtedly very old but which do not necessarily have biblical subscription?

It's funny that the appeal is so strong to do this sort of thing that even proponents of later developments (episcopacy being a good example) often imply that their opinion is not only old, it's somehow apostolic...

Anyway, just some thoughts from an interested observer whose church has long since decided polity is an adiaphoron.

Brother, while I think that your post is agreeable with 90% of Anglicans, it is postulated that the current office of Bishop does not derive from the office of overseer in scripture but from the office of Apostle. The Apostolic office is said to have the same roles as presbyter/bishop as well as the additional role of an Apostle. That's the way many Anglicans see it.

The reasoning behind it is the continuation of the Apostolic ministry demonstrated in Acts Ch 1 by the election of Matthias. While the text says that Judas' vacant "episcopate" needed to be filled the fact that the Twelve perpetuated their office with a rightly qualified member means a kind of Apostolic Succesion of sorts. The fact that we no longer have people present with us with the same qualifications as Matthias (Acts 1:20-22) is where the controversy starts.

[Naomi4Christ]

Pallin V so "The bible is not the Word of God." ... and I thought I was radical.

:D

[PaladinValer]

The Bible isn't the Word of God.

Where in the Bible does it call itself the "Word of God?" It call itself inspired and God-breathed, but that's not the same thing.

Only one "thing" (for a lack of a more encompassing word) is called the Word of God in Scripture: Jesus.

I do not worship a dumb and difficult book. I worship a vocal (yet still difficult at times) Person.

[Ethan_Fetch]

The Church has always considered Holy Writ to be the true Verbum Dei. That it has done so takes nothing away from Christ's unique position as Logos.

Even the Catholics accept this...note that the V2 decree on Sacred Scripture is called "Verbum Dei".

Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

You are right to be suspicious of fundamentalists' effective tendency to bibliolatry, but it does not follow that Scripture properly understood is not, in a very real way, the Word of God for us.

[Naomi4Christ]

Has the English language deserted us here? It was good enough for Cranmer, why not us?

[Ethan_Fetch]

I like to pepper my posts with latin phrases.

It makes me look smarter than I actually am.;)

[Naomi4Christ]

precisely

[ContraMundum]

The Bible isn't the Word of God.

Where in the Bible does it call itself the "Word of God?" It call itself inspired and God-breathed, but that's not the same thing.

Only one "thing" (for a lack of a more encompassing word) is called the Word of God in Scripture: Jesus.

I do not worship a dumb and difficult book. I worship a vocal (yet still difficult at times) Person.

The Word of God is in the Bible- hence, we call the Bible the word of God. It's a title.

Jesus Christ is the Word of God, properly speaking. Why do we give Him that title?

Think about it.

By the way, calling the Bible a mere "dumb and difficult book" is tantamount to the highest insult to other Christians I can think of. The Bible records the words of Jesus, the Apostles and the Prophets. You are in effect calling their words "dumb and difficult".

[PaladinValer]

The Bible is silent ("dumb"); it doesn't by and of itself, speak. It is the Holy Spirit that speaks to us.

The Bible is also difficult, especially older translations that use old idioms and word definitions (or entire words at that rate).

I don't deny that Scripture is an Authority. Reading Scripture is a powerful sacramental often. I'm personally very, lets say "careful," when I ascribe to things other than Jesus which I believe which are His alone. I do believe Scripture is Revealed and Inspired in matters of faith, doctrine, and salvation.

I have no problem with the title "words of God" however, since the Bible, I believe, claims that title for itself.

[ContraMundum]

The Bible is silent ("dumb"); it doesn't by and of itself, speak. It is the Holy Spirit that speaks to us.

The Holy Spirit uses the written word to speak to us. Therefore, the written word is not silent at all!

Jer 36:6 Therefore go thou, and read in the roll, which thou hast written from my mouth, the words of the LORD in the ears of the people in the LORD's house upon the fasting day: and also thou shalt read them in the ears of all Judah that come out of their cities.

Exo 24:7 And he took the book of the covenant, and read in the audience of the people: and they said, All that the LORD hath said will we do, and be obedient.

Psa 119:1ff Blessed are the undefiled in the way, who walk in the law of the LORD. Blessed are they that keep his testimonies, and that seek him with the whole heart.
They also do no iniquity: they walk in his ways.
Thou hast commanded us to keep thy precepts diligently.
O that my ways were directed to keep thy statutes!
Then shall I not be ashamed, when I have respect unto all thy commandments.
I will praise thee with uprightness of heart, when I shall have learned thy righteous judgments.
I will keep thy statutes: O forsake me not utterly.
Wherewithal shall a young man cleanse his way? by taking heed thereto according to thy word.
With my whole heart have I sought thee: O let me not wander from thy commandments.

Isa 28:9 Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts.
10 For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:
11 For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people.
12 To whom he said, This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest; and this is the refreshing: yet they would not hear.
13 But the word of the LORD was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken.


Joh 12:48 He who rejects Me and does not receive My Words has one who judges him; the Word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.

The Bible is also difficult, especially older translations that use old idioms and word definitions (or entire words at that rate).

All it takes is diligent study.

I don't deny that Scripture is an Authority. Reading Scripture is a powerful sacramental often.

It's not a "sacramental". My goodness- are you equating the scriptures with sacramentals?

Remember this:

Isa 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

It is more than a sacramental.

[PaladinValer]

The Holy Spirit uses the written word to speak to us. Therefore, the written word is not silent at all!

Just because the Holy Spirit uses Scripture as a way to speak to us doesn't mean Scripture is silent. On the contrary, it implies that without the Holy Spirit, Scripture is mute, just as it was for the Ethiopian eunnuch.

All it takes is diligent study.

Yes it did. Scriptue itself, as I've shown above, says that it is silent without the aid of an external source.

It's not a "sacramental". My goodness- are you equating the scriptures with sacramentals?

A sacramental is what a mystery is in the East. It is a means and a way that we can receive Grace.

You don't think we might be Graced upon an inspired reading of Scripture? Don't ever accuse me of debasing the importance of Scripture again, sir.

[ContraMundum]

Just because the Holy Spirit uses Scripture as a way to speak to us doesn't mean Scripture is silent.

Typo?

On the contrary, it implies that without the Holy Spirit, Scripture is mute, just as it was for the Ethiopian eunnuch.

I think you've made a critical error here. You've just agreed with me and didn't know it. The Holy Spirit uses scripture. You agree. Good lad. You also state that without the Holy Spirit scripture is mute. Good. The position I would argue is simply this: that without the Holy Spirit the scriptures would be mute, but because He speaks through them and works through them, the scriptures are not mute!

The Ethiopian Eunich came to faith because of the scriptures. The Holy Spirit moved his heart to reptentance through them.

Act 8:35 Then Philip opened his mouth and began at the same Scripture and preached the gospel of Jesus to him. 36 And as they passed along the way, they came on some water. And the eunuch said, See, here is water, what hinders me from being baptized?

What a wonderful promise we have- the Spirit moves us through the written word! (John 17:17,20 etc)

You don't think we might be Graced upon an inspired reading of Scripture?

Of course, that's my point. The Spirit speaks to us through the scriptures.

Don't ever accuse me of debasing the importance of Scripture again, sir.

Do you think it is subject to men's interpretations?

[Naomi4Christ]

Without the Holy Spirit, the bible is a flat, dead book - but with the Holy Spirit, the bible becomes alive and
can then speak to us personally, in our specific situations, in our lives, here in the 21st century. With the Holy Spirit, the words suddenly have meaning.

As an analogy (in case you think I am being literal here), you could be going through life with bad eyesight, when you finally get glasses - everything becomes clear and rich and more colourful.

I think it is always a good idea to pray before reading the bible, asking God to speak to you through it.

ps: the bible doesn't really speak to us in a literal sense because it doesn't have a tongue and a mouth.

[Naomi4Christ]

pps: I am resolving now to only respond on these 'tennis match' threads if I can say something encouraging, edifying and uplifting.

Dunno how long this resolution will last, but I will try hard.