Hi to my Forum Friends,
Neal Hughes tell us, "We (Episcopalians) are not biblical literalists, we believe in the inspiration of the holy scriptures, not their dictation, faith, and tradition along with logic to guide us. We are not legalistic, nor are we exclusivists. We claim to have no monopoly on faith, truth, or anything else in the world. We are free to believe whatever dogma we personally wish, so long as we follow the Book of Common Prayer and subscribe to the Creeds. The Church teaches that the Bible contains all that is necessary for salvation, but not that it is divine in and of itself, or that it is the literal reading is the sine non qua for 'True Belief.'"
It seems you tend to cling more closely to the Anglican Church (Church of England) than to the Episcopalian Church of America; you tend to honor the Archbishop, as Catholics honor the Pope. You say your Anglican Church is not exclusivist -- meaning it is an ecumenical church -- meaning that you will welcome anyone, worshipping any god. Right? Oh, but, my mistake. They must follow your Book of Common Prayer. Forget the Bible -- as long as they follow your Book of Common Prayer. To you, the Bible is an afterthought. Just curious, Neal, when you go to church -- do you take a Bible with you?
Then, you say, "The Anglican Communion is not a fundamentalist church. We are the reformed branch of ancient Roman Catholicism, officially rejecting the powers of the Bishop of Rome in being the single arbiter of doctrine, of novel dogma and doctrine (such as advanced Mariology, the doctrine of Papal Infallability, etc.) and in former times, the monopoly of the Latin language in official church proceedings. We reject a definition of transubstantiation or constanstubiation, instead, relying upon the Holy Spirit to do whatever it is He or She does in the transmutation of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ."
Actually, Neal, the Church of England (Anglican) came into being when King Henry VIII wanted to divorce his wife, Catherine of Aragon, because she could not produce a male heir to the throne. He petitioned the pope and was refused the right to divorce. Good old King Henry had a solution. He took England out of the Roman Catholic Church, formed the Church of England, and made himself the "Supreme Head of the Church." In other words, King Henry was now the Pope of the Church of England.
However, because Henry liked the Roman Catholic ways -- he did not change any of the church rituals nor the worship -- except to place himself as the head and to make membership mandatory for all the English people. In every other way, the Church of England under King Henry VIII was exactly like the Roman Catholic Church -- except it answered to King Henry in England and not to the pope in Rome.
King Henry sent Catherine of Aragon into exile, then into prison, and married Anne Boleyn -- later having Catherine beheaded.
Catherine had given Henry a daughter, Mary Tudor. As it turned out, the only child Anne Boleyn could give Henry was Elizabeth; so, she, too, was put aside and later beheaded. Henry married Jane Seymour who finally gave him a son, Edward.
When Henry died; Edward became king, but was too young to rule -- so, a committee ruled for him. He finally became full king; but, died at an early age. Mary, Henry's oldest daughter, then became Queen -- and took England back into the Roman Catholic Church.
After Mary, Elizabeth became Queen and once more took England back to the Protestant Church of England. So, when you say, "We are the reformed branch of ancient Roman Catholicism" -- you really mean that the Anglican Church
(Church of England) is the ping-pong result of King Henry's marriage-go-round -- and fluctuated with the religious desires of whoever was on the throne following Henry.
Next, you tell us, "If you have been baptized with water in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, then you are welcome in any Episcopal or Anglican Church in the world to attend divine services, to confess your sins in public, to seek God's forgiveness and be assured that it is granted in the eating of Our Lord's blessed Body and the drinking of His Blessed Blood."
First, let me say, no one is saved through baptism. If so, that would mean that one could be saved through works; for that would constitute "works" -- doing something to earn salvation. No amount of works we can do will make us righteous enough to get into heaven.
Ephesians 2:8-9 tells us, "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast."
Baptism is an outward manifestation of your inner commitment to follow Jesus Christ. It is your way of telling the world, "Look, I belong to Jesus Christ! I am a Christ Follower, a Christian!"
If this were not true, the thief on the cross could not have been saved -- for he was not baptized.
Jesus left us two ordinances: Baptism, as a symbol of our commitment to Him. And, Communion, the Lord's Supper, which we do in remembrance of Him. Neither can or will save us; they are just our way of following Him and honoring His sacrifice for us.
We read in 1 Corinthians 11:24-25, "And when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, 'This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me.' In the same way He took the cup also after supper, saying, 'This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.'"
Neal, you tell us that, "If you have been baptized with water in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, then you are welcome in any Episcopal or Anglican Church. . ."
Tell me, does your church have someone at the door of the church verifying that a person has been baptized BEFORE they are allowed to enter your church? How do we prove our baptism? When I was baptized -- at the age of fifty -- I was not given any Baptism ID card that I could use to prove my baptism. I guess that means I should never have been allowed to enter an Episcopalian church -- or that the Episcopalian churches I attended do not follow the rules of the Church of England.
And, Neal, you say we should, ". . .confess your sins in public. . ."
Yet, Jesus tells us, in Matthew 6:5-6, "When you pray, you are not to be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and on the street corners so that they may be seen by men. Truly I say to you, they have their reward in full. But you, when you pray, go into your inner room, close your door and pray to your Father who is in secret, and your Father who sees what is done in secret will reward you."
Who is right, Neal -- you, the Anglican church -- or Jesus?
Then, Neal, you tell us, "You can believe in Adam and Eve as literal or not, you can tribulate and rapturate all you want, but expect an (lifted) eyebrow or a smirk, and don't bring it up in coffee hour. You will not hear this stuff in a pulpit. We preach the Gospel! We read portions of the Old Testament, the Psalms, and the Epistles along with the Gospel every day, and especially on Sunday, as not all churches are open every day of the week."
Neal, in as few words as possible -- to you, what is the Gospel?
You say, "We have no eschatology, trusting in Our Lord's own words and not men's interpretation of apocolyptic literature."
In the book of Revelation 1:18-19, Jesus tells the apostle John, "Do not be afraid; I am the first and the last, and the living One; and I was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore, and I have the keys of death and of Hades. Therefore write the things which you have seen, and the things which are, and the things which will take place after these things."
What is Jesus speaking of when He says: "the things which you have seen"? He means the things John saw when he was walking with Jesus and His other apostles during His earthly ministry -- and the things he saw after the crucifixion -- up until the day Jesus appeared to John on the Island of Patmos.
How about: "the things which are"? Jesus was talking about the churches (Revelation 2 and 3), the church era, which we are in right now.
And, when Jesus said to John: "the things which will take place after these things"? He was speaking of the things which will occur after the church era, i.e., after the church is taken out of the world in the Rapture. "These thing which will take place" include the Tribulation, His Glorious Return, His Millennial Kingdom, His judgments, and His taking His people into eternity with Him.
That, my Friend, is called Eschatology. Eschatology is from the Greek word "eschatos" meaning "last." This is the doctrine of "last things," in relation to human death, resurrection, judgment, afterlife, and the end of the world. In other words, the End Times.
And, in Revelation 22:7, Jesus tells us, "And behold, I am coming quickly. Blessed is he who heeds the words of the prophecy of this book." By book, He is referring to the book of Revelation -- and the prophecy He is speaking of is the End Times prophecies, i.e., Eschatology.
Neal, you state, "We find it necessary to practice what we preach, however, and that includes turning the other cheek and feeding the hungry and outreach to the downtrodden."
If you combine that -- along with the full Gospel; with the teaching of heaven and hell; with the teaching of repentance, with the teaching of His free gift of salvation; with the teaching of His return for His church; with the teaching of His dealing with the apostasy of Israel, with the teaching of His Glorious Return to take full title deed of earth; with the teaching of His judgments; and the teachings of eternity with Him in heaven -- then, you have the evangelical conservative church's teachings. You have Evangelical Conservative Theology.
With what you have stated alone -- you have only a Social Theology; which is good as far as it goes. However, it does nothing to teach salvation, nor to assure eternal salvation for those being served -- nor eternal salvation for those doing the serving. In other words, you have a hollow theology.
You declare, "We do not teach the novel doctrine of "spontaneous salvation" that so many contemporary Protestants do. We do not for the simple reason that it is not part of the apostolic faith."
It might not be a part of your apostolic faith; but, it is from the Bible. So, my Friend, please explain, to all of us, the process of being saved in your Anglican church. What happens? How does one go about knowing he has attained eternal salvation? How does anyone, in your church, know he has eternal security in Jesus Christ? Can anyone in your church know for sure that he/she is saved and going to heaven? If someone were to ask you, "Neal, do you have salvation? Do you know, for sure, that you are going to heaven?" -- how would you answer?
A Christian believer should be able to answer that question, without hesitation, and say, "Yes, I am going to spend eternity in heaven with Jesus Christ!" Neal, can you sincerely make this affirmation?
Neal, you tell us, "You can take your prophecy interpretations and add them to the long, long, tired list of prior now gratefully forgotten (for the most part) predecessors. Just google 'Archbishop of Canterbury' and 'Lambeth Palace, London'."
Quite frankly, I would have trouble worshipping in a church where the senior pastor, or church leader, resides in a PALACE.
Once again, you tell us, "We are not biblical literalists, we believe in the inspiration of the holy scriptures, not their dictation, faith, and tradition along with logic to guide us."
Yet, 2 Timothy 3:16-17 tells us, "All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work."
And, 2 Peter 1:20-21, we read, "But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God."
In 2 Timothy, we are told that ALL SCRIPTURE is inspired by God. And, this second Scripture passage from 2 Peter tells us, first, that prophecy of Scripture is not a matter of any man's private interpretation -- that no one might use it for his own private gain. What does this mean? As with all the Bible; Scripture verifies Scripture. If we find a prophecy in one portion of the Bible; we should find an explanation or a fulfillment of that prophecy in another place in the Bible. If not, then it is not a prophecy from God. For no Scripture prophecy was ever made from the mind of man -- but was inspired by the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit spoke the prophecy into the mind of the prophets.
Since ALL SCRIPTURE is inspired by God, as you have affirmed -- which part of His Inspired Word do you want to ignore? If it is inspired by God, as you affirm, why would He inspire the writings to be metaphors, allegories, and myths? So, in Bible interpretation, a good rule of thumb is: "If a passage can be taken literally -- do so." What you will find is that in books such as Psalms and Proverbs; poetic books, we will find many metaphors and allegories -- yet, they will lead us to a meaning. In books such as the the books of history, beginning with Genesis and continuing through Malachi; along with the four Gospels and the epistles, we take literally. In Revelation, there is much symbolism -- but, when we sit the prophecies found in Revelation alongside Daniel, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and many other books containing prophecy -- we see the literal meaning coming forth.
No, Neal, we cannot write off any portion of the Bible. It is our sole, only, source of authority in the Christian world.
Therefore, Neal, if your church ignores prophecy -- you are ignoring a large portion of the Bible. How do you reconcile the Scripture passages in 2 Timothy and 2 Peter with what you have stated above about prophecy and prophetic interpretation?
And, you say, "We are not legalistic, nor are we exclusivists. We claim to have no monopoly on faith, truth, or anything else in the world."
In John 14:6, we read, "Jesus said to him, 'I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.'"
That sounds pretty exclusive to me. Now, is Jesus lying -- or are you wrong?
Finally, Neal, you say, "We are free to believe whatever dogma we personally wish, so long as we follow the Book of Common Prayer and subscribe to the Creeds."
In other words, Neal, you throw out the Bible -- and look only at the Book of Common Prayers and your Creeds for salvation. The Bible, I believe you told us, is not divine -- only a book to read to learn philosophically how to live. Yet, you imply that your salvation depends upon how well you adhere to your Book of Common Prayers. Is this true? Is this the Way to salvation in the Episcopalian church you attend?
Neal, you have replaced the Word of God, the Bible, with your own man-made book of prayer -- and you want to tell us this is not cultic?
To all my Forum Friends: I am sure that many of you are Episcopalian. Does the church you attend really teach what Neal is preaching on the Forum? The Episcopalian churches I attended, while more liturgical than I prefer -- were still God-fearing, Bible teaching churches. How about yours? Does it teach the "hate all other churches, hate all Christians" attitude that Neal advocates on the Forum? Or does your church teach the Bible?
God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,
Bill
Attachments
Original Post