Your thoughts on Augustus Toplady?

No, I have a point regardless. And I've tried to show courtesy to you and to other Evangelicals and Calvinists, though it doesn't seem to make much difference.

You don't really know us, and that is too bad. But you're always welcome to worship with us anyway.

Revisionism and hocus pocus? Not genuinely Anglican? Really? Come on, man. Cheap insults and name calling just turn people away from whatever point you're trying to make.

 

For all your denigration of Classical Anglicanism and even Bishops, you still have not answered the question asked previously, who interprets scripture if not the bishops? Is it Charles Ray?

 

You should take you own advice here At any rate, do I need to know a Mormon personally to know that Mormonism is another religion? Surely you're not going there? I have attended Anglo-Catholic services before. However, I will not take communion where idolatry is the norm and where a blatant violation of the black rubric and the 39 Articles is taking place. I would no more do that than I would take communion at a Roman Catholic mass or an Eastern Orthodox eucharist.

You are more than welcome to worship with Evangelicals and to hear the Gospel rightly preached.

OK, the term "hocus pocus" was a cheap shot. But the term conveys exactly what prayers of oblation pretend to do to the creatures of bread and wine. The Articles clearly say that the deciding factor is not oblationary prayers that purport to change the creatures or elements somehow. The deciding factor is that the consecrated element is simply a sign unless there is an inward grace of "lively faith" in the recipient. Cranmer said that. The Articles say that. The 1662 Book of Common Prayer says that and so does the 1662 Catechism. As I said, I'm on the side of the Anglican Formularies and you oppose them with every comment you make here. So why wouldn't I be offended by your dissimulation?

Pray tell?

Sincerely,

Charlie

 

Classical Anglicanism is defined by the English Reformation and the Anglican Formularies. What you are calling "classical" Anglicanism is essentially what existed prior to the English Reformation and only later in the departures of the Carolines, Laudians, and Tractarians. Who interprets the Scriptures? It's the church and the creeds and the formularies, of course. And the Thirty-Nine Articles, as the principle interpreter of both the 1662 Book of Common Prayer and the Ordinal, nowhere affirms that bishops are above Scripture. When a bishop violates the plain teaching of Scripture, (sola Scriptura), the four ecumenical creeds (including Chalcedon), and the Anglican Formularies, no one is obligated to listen. Even ACs apparently agree with that since many of them pulled out of TEC and joined with ACNA over the homosexuality thing. But then, why not follow your bishops into perversion if the bishops have all the authority?

God's Word alone has any authority that is infallible and absolutely binding. Confessions of faith are only valid as they are warranted from Scripture. And bishops, like everyone else, are bound to uphold the Scriptures and the Protestant nature of the Anglican Formularies. Those who do not are nothing more than dissimulators. Sorry if the truth divides but truth remains the truth. And ,as I quoted from Lee Gatiss' book earlier, ministers and even the queen vow to uphold the "Protestant" faith of the Church of England. Why aren't you doing that? Don't you know that taking a vow with your fingers crossed is lying? Thou shalt not bear false witness. (Exodus 20:16).

Charlie

 

I respect those forum participants who have squared off in this discussion. I like some of what I read in most posts. And there are a few posts that I like in entirety, just as there are a few posts I dislike in entirety.

But all this is mincing the onions. What is important is to find a local church with both scriptural authority and purity of liturgy.

For thus saith the Lord God, the Holy One of Israel; In returning and rest shall ye be saved; in quietness and in confidence shall be your strength: and ye would not. (Isaiah 30:15; KJV)​

​

​

​

​

 

Scripture interprets Scripture. But in a secondary sense the confessions and creeds interpret Scripture. Like church councils all interpretations of Scripture can and do often err. Scripture alone is infallible, inerrant, and the only rule of faith, doctrine and practice. Even the creeds are subject to Scripture. Article 8.

 

Unbelievable.

So you are saying three things:
1. Anglo-Catholic Anglicans are a different religion.
2. In our churches, idolatry is the norm.
3. "Hocus pocus" is your opinion of our Eucharistic theology.

Looks like there's not much more to say.

 

You paint with a broad brush. It would have been to your benefit if you had either studied more, experienced more of the services you narrowly describe, or both.

 

DK

This is an old ploy.

After Henry VIII died, the more advanced protestants attacked and made fun of the Eucharist in their sermons, lectures etc. It's a play on the Latin Words of Institution 'Hoc est corpus meum'. This was corrupted to 'hocus-pocus' meaning superstitious nonsense. Individuals found guilty at the time for such irreverence were punished.

 

I do not blieve in penal substitution or forensic justification. God is not some lawyer in the sky.

Further, it is Augustinianism and Calvinism that the false religions.

 

This thread alone is evidence of my assertion that Anglicanism is comprehensive -- and needs to be. Comprehensiveness is not a thing to be shunned but rather embraced. It makes divisions that are represented in other parts of the body of Christ unnecessary.

 

Comprehension,

Whatever way you and Mr Ray think, you are not Anglicans, neither of you believe in the faith once revealed , you are simply religious adventurers looking for a home. Anglicanism is Christ' Revelation, not the product of over excited minds.

 

Technically, if they have been baptized and confirmed in the Anglican faith, they are as Anglican as anyone here. That's what being a catholic church versus a confessional one is all about.

 

Sorry you are offended, how-and-ever, the Anglo Catholics in England were split in to two bodies, one, the papalists, copied Rome in everything. In the Church below where I live, they could have been summonsed for impersonation, because they were a mirror image of the local Roman Church! Using the Roman Rite. Bible and praying for the Pope, whilst they used the Roman Ordo, they cut off at one time, all but official connection with the C. of E.. In the 1930 to 50years they were known as the political party, they were so well organised. You shouldn't be so sensitive.

Personal references removed.
-admin

 

Don't try to lump me in with him. I'm more anti-Calvinist than you are. And I contend that I am more of an Anglican than you are. You are as narrow as Charlie is. And all you know how to do is toss out insults to demean those who disagree with you. I hate to think that someone like you is in the same church as I am, not because I would deny your right to be there, but because by your narrowness and exclusivity you deny my right to be there.

 

This is true and I'm aware of it. However, It is like being technically a Christian! We have beliefs,customs and traditions, they are not ours to abandon or to ignore. If we do not accept Christ's teaching, are we Christian? So if they do not believe what the Church has received from Christ and the Holy Ghost can they be valid Anglicans? Is it so easy?

 

I do believe that; what I don't believe is your opinion and interpretation of that.

 

I am aware of the history. I know that there is a fringe movement called Anglo-Papalism. It has little-to-no presence in America, and it has nothing to do with the Episcopal Church or with me. But I'm not being sensitive. In my unwelcome experience with American Anglican polemics, calling people "papists," or "Anglo-Popery," or any of this other nonsense, carries with it a connotation of arrogant smugness. It sounds like little kids on a playground: "I'm more Protestant than you, my Bible has fewer books than yours, my church is less ornate than yours, I acknowledge fewer Councils and BCPs than you, therefore I'm a real Anglican and you're not, and my father can beat up your father." It's pathetic.

 

I'm not Anglo-Catholic, but I agree with you. All this putting down others as "not as Anglican" as I am, or not Anglican at all, is disgusting.