Featured Sacraments or ordinances?

So there is something faulty about baptisms outside the RCC. Are we saying no real communion without RCC baptism? Interesting.

Bro. James

 

"Read and study the Book of Hebrews. We are no longer under the Levitical priesthood. Christ is our Great High Priest coming from Melchizedek. The Levitical priesthood has been done away with. Every believer is a priest before God and need not to be appointed. He is directly called of God."

Then there is this: 1 Peter 2:9 (NKJV)
9 But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people, that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light;


The priesthood of the believer is a blessed Baptist distinctive that should speak to all hearts about the privileges and responsibilities we have in Christ. Luther correctly challenged the RCC on this point.

 

Actually, what I've been reading says that the office of bishop and presbyter were the same for some time until the growth of the Church made that impratical. BTW, Anglicans (and of course Orthodox)and some Lutherans believe in apostolic succession. The Swedish Lutheran Church claims to have Apostolic Succession. Not sure saying that only Catholics believe in this form of succession is accurate but maybe that is not what you were referring to. I'd be very interested in what you have studied or your sources if you have time to post or even PM me. Appreciate what you have to share.

 

In just this one church, "The First Baptist Church of Jerusalem" on its first day, the Day of Pentecost, 3,000 were saved. Just a couple days later another 5,000 were saved.
Acts 4:4 Howbeit many of them which heard the word believed; and the number of the men was about five thousand.

And every day many were being saved:
Acts 2:47 Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.

By the time we get to chapter six, where there was a need for help it is likely that the church had exceeded the 100,000 mark.
In chapter 13, we are introduced to the First Baptist Church of Antioch. This was also a very large church, comparable to the church at Jerusalem.
The church at Ephesus was a large church having a plurality of elders. Timothy was the pastor there.

To say that "growth" for "practical reasons" caused a differentiation between bishop and presbyter is nonsense. The churches were never so big as they were in the first century. Churches die when they become corrupt. That is what happened when the RCC heresies of the RCC were introduced.

Consider the terms for "pastor" as used in the Bible.

Acts 20:17 And from Miletus he sent to Ephesus, and called the elders of the church.
Here Paul calls the elders from the First Baptist Church of Ephesus.
He then addresses these elders, encourages them, and testifies to them of how he has served them. Then we come to verse 28:

Acts 20:28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.
--Speaking to these elders he says:
1. God has made you overseers. (Greek word is επισκοπος), the same word used in 1Tim.3:1, which is translated "bishop."
Episkopos, bishop, overseer: they are all from the same word. Their meaning is the same. The meaning is overseer, and that is a basic duty of the pastor.
2. Feed the church of God; "all the flock" Remember what Christ said to Peter? "Feed my sheep; feed my lambs." That is the work of a pastor. He is the shepherd of the flock. That imagery is contained here in this verse as well. These elders are pastors or shepherds as well.

1 Timothy 4:14 Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery.
--This is the only time this word "presbytery" is found.
It is more of a transliteration than a translation.
The same Greek word is found in Acts 20:17, the same word translated "elders."
Thus you have all of these words describing different functions of the same office for the same person--the office of the pastor. They are all there in Acts 20:17,28, describing the same people.

 

While the jargon for the mechanism seems a bit muddled, the Orthodox and many Protestant groups say they believe in real presence. Apparently the syntax of the magical words are known to only a closely knit brotherhood--kind of like the F&AM.

The RCC is correct about keys and authority and closed communion. They have keys for the wrong lock and usurped authority which is no authority at all.

If the RCC has the authority vested by in Mt. 16, then all others are usurpers. It cannot be: all of the above.

See Mt. 7:21-23.

Even so, come Lord Jesus.

Bro. James

 

The Anglicans on this board will certainly have more knowledge of this than I do, but from what I've read, I'd say your view is very accurate. In looking at the 39 Articles it would appear there is a definate Calvinistic leaning. The Anglican Missal seems to be used by many Anglo-Catholic parishes where the Book of Common Prayer is commonly used by the rest of the Anglican Church, although I have attended an ACNA (Anglican Church of North America) which used a liturgy that used elements of the BCP only. I recently attended a 'nose-bleed' high church in Los Angeles (St. Mary of the Angels Anglican Church). It was like being at a 'Pontifical High Mass' (without the Pontif, of course!) In my town, I've heard it said that the only place lower church than St. Paul's Anglican Church is an AA meeting!

 

"More Catholic than the Pope". By contrast, I've attended Masses in someone's front room which were snakebelly-low! Go figure....

 

That is a common perception, but not accurate IMHO. The Articles preceded in time both the Articles of Remonstrance and the Synod of Dort. I would categorize them as 'reformed Semi-Augustinian', as they have a lot in common with the thought expressed in the Council of Orange (AD 529) especially in affirming the absolute necessity of prevenient grace before anyone can turn to God in faith, and in NOT affirming a double predestination, irresitible grace, limited atonement, or inevitable perserverance. They posit a single predestination to glory/life (ART XVII), without affirming whether election is conditional or unconditional, only that it is located in Christ. Like Orange, the Articles imply that one must cooperate with grace, as this implied in ART XVI which states: "After we have received the Holy Ghost, we may depart from grace given, and fall into sin, and by the grace of God we may arise again, and amend our lives" (Notice it says "may arise again and amend our lives" rather than "must" or "inevitably shall").

If anything, therefore, the Articles would seem to lean slightly in a more classical 'Arminian' direction--but again, this designation would be anachronistic. Historically, it is interesting to note that the more Calvinistic party tried to push for the addition of the Lambeth Articles in 1595 (and only after the tone of the original draft was softened), which would have definitely made the XXXIX more Calvinistic, but this was rebuffed by Queen Elizabeth. OTOH, it was King Charles I and Archbishop Laud (so-called 'Arminians') who insisted the Articles be taught only in accordance with their plain meaning (particularly in regard to predestination).

Definitely a lot of variety. I prefer the BCP myself.

Again, a wide variety. It seems we need more central churchmen/parishes (not too high, not too low) as a glue to help keep the various factions from pulling things in different directions.

 

Yes, that's the acute culprit--the apostasy of those jurisdictions led by EpiscoPAGANS.

 

The Anglican Church of Canada is in lock-step with TEC. Interestingly, the vast majority of the Anglican Communion lives outside the United Kingdom, U.S. and Canada. Most Anglican provinces have either broken communion with TEC and ACC or are in impaired-communion, are they not?

The Global South primates have been very good at exposing the non-biblical practices of TEC & ACC. I found the following quote from Peter Jensen (the Anglican Archbishop of Sydney and Metropolitan of the Province of New South Wales in the Anglican Church of Australia) “With the majority of Anglicans now from theologically conservative churches of the Global South, the role of the Archbishop of Canterbury in the future will demand a deepening appreciation of their place in the Communion.” Hopefully Justin Welby (an evangelical I understand) will have the back-bone to deal with the heresy within the Anglican Communion.

 

Yeah, pretty much. And I fear the Church of England itself is not far behind them.

And they've also been gracious in providing alternative episcopal oversight to conservatives fleeing TEC until/while the new ACNA jurisdiction was being formed.

Indeed it better, or else the AoC may find himself guiding a much smaller Communion.

Hopefully, but I have my doubts.