Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Other Christian Denominations' started by Salty, Jun 9, 2011.
and you wont believe where they are going
“It feels fantastic,” Delaney said. “It’s like correcting 500 years of history.”
Umm...no. It's more like leaving an apostate jurisdication for a jurisdiction that has added as dogmas, beliefs required for salvation, teachings that cannot be found in Scripture or the earliest centuries of the undivided Church.
How about jumping out of the frying pan into the fire?
And I would also say that Anglicans ( in the USA aka as Episcopalians [more liberal] ) are just kissing cousins of the RCC
Just remember there are other Anglicans in the USA than those in the Episcopagan...er...Episcopalian church. (I'm one :smilewinkgrin: )
Me too. There's more than just swimming the Tiber as an alternative to liberal apostasy within the Anglican Communion. My Episcopalian parish, for example.
The immoral basis upon which the origin of the episcopalian church was errected should be an eye opener to anyone who selects a denomination to join. Henry the VIII was its first head. The Queen of England is its now official head. Both Rome and Anglican's have human heads but the churches of Christ have only Christ as their head.
I am curious regarding the nuance of difference between liberal apostasy and regular apostasy. Does this imply there may be a conservative apostasy?
Follow-up questions: How many reformations of apostasy does it take to make a church orthodox?
Henry, the eighth one, was excommunicated from Rome, having snubbed papal authority. What authority did he use to in effect make himself pope, and start anew: The Church of England? And how did he arrive at said authority?
Even so, come Lord Jesus.
Re your first question: it's something of a tautology
Re your second: ask Josiah
Great questions. The retort "ask Josiah" is an empty retort. Josiah restored Israel back to the original. Henry the VIII was a worse apostasy than the former apostasy - Rome. Anglicism is a far cry from New Testament Christianity. Just look at the clerical order in Anglicism and it is readily more compatiable with Rome than with New Testament Christianity (Acts 20:13,28).
Actually, going from Episcopal to RC is a step up. RC is more conservative. We often forget that on the apostasy scale RC is somewhere in the middle compared to liberal protestants. The RC has NEVER said that the Bible is not the Word of God - just that it must be interpreted by "The Church" (them).
(Not intended to insult the few remaining conservative Episcopals.)
Umm...the Church in England started long before King Henry VIII. :smilewinkgrin:
But if one did want to examine Anglicanism, as it emerged from the Reformation onwards, one would be better served looking at the Book of Common Prayer, the Thirty Nine Articles, the Homilies and theologians like Cranmer, Hooker, Andrewes, etc--and not at the King's marital misadventures.
And I would of course beg to differ with 'Dr Walter'--I think classical Anglicanism lines up quite well with the New Testament and the historical Church of the first few centuries.
I wasn't thinking of Henry VIII but rather his son, Edward VI, who was hailed - with some justification - as the new Josiah: the boy-king, intent on a root-and-branch reform.
So, not so empty after all
Reforming man-made religion
One more kibbitz, Matthew: regardless of the details of lineage of those who think they rule by divine fiat, whatever they may have reformed is still: man-made-- not to exclude the Mary called Bloody, etal.
The reformed root still goes back to Rome. The Holy See is either apostate or not. If not, who has authority to split? Rome has given no such authority. If the root is apostate, so are the branches. Reformed apostasy is still apostasy reformed. Now what?
There is still an authority problem: Jesus gave authority and preservation to His Bride. She is without spot or blemish and in no need of reformation. Jesus said He would keep Her past the gates of hell--He has kept His promise.
What is in your wallet?
Have a blessed day.
All Christian denominations have an element of human error in them so in one sense, all are 'man-made' or at least 'man-tainted', so unless you're claiming some kind of weird papal infallability for your particular Baptist congregation (and, if so, consider what that says about the other Baptist congregations represented here!), your place is no better or worse than mine.
Man, I am staying away from this "debate?". I will say that I came to know Christ as Saviour in the Church of England. I also served as an Anglican chaplain in the Canadian Army. The Church of England was the prime evangelical church in England at one time. Many of the great theological books were written by Anglicans and read by all (1800's-1900's).
I only became a baptist because I was convinced that it was the closest to New Testament teaching, but I would never abandon my Church of England faithful vicars, no matter what terminology they may employ in their ecclesiology.
Unless you are a "trail of blood" type, what Christian denominations do not come from Rome? Didn't Baptists come from the Anabaptists/Separatist movements --- which broke away from the Church of England?
There were many groups of believers that were never part of the Romish church. Their doctrines were many and some very strange, but still never part of Rome.
The original baptists came out of Wales. The Welsh methodists, which were never part of either the Church of England or the Romish church. The first two baptist churches in England were planted by the Welsh church.
Let me guess... Roman Catholic...... that would make perfect sense. Now I will look at the post.
Exactly. Even the Anabaptists were originally Zwinglians who broke away from Zwingli on the issue of infant baptism, Zwingli himself being originally an ordained Catholic priest.
More revisionist history... Right!