Sacraments or ordinances?

[Thomas Helwys]

Good question! As to providing scriptural evidence as to why a person needs to be a priest in order to preside at the Lord's Supper, I don't have it. I will investigate and see what I can find out. I know you are commenting specifically now on Eucharistic theology but if a validly ordained priest (presbyter) is necessary for the celebration of the Eucharist then the Church teaches that validity comes through Apostolic Succession. The following scriptures give biblical support (I believe) for that succession.

Numbers 16:40 - shows God's intention of unbroken succession within His kingdom on earth. Unless a priest was ordained by Aaron and his descendants, he had no authority.
Acts 13:3 - apostolic authority is transferred through the laying on of hands (ordination).
(hands are layed on Deacon's as well)
Acts 9:17-19 - even Paul, who was directly chosen by Christ, only becomes a minister after the laying on of hands by a bishop. This is a powerful proof-text for the necessity of sacramental ordination in order to be a legitimate successor of the apostles.
2 Cor. 1:21-22 - Paul writes that God has commissioned certain men and sealed them with the Holy Spirit as a guarantee.
2 Tim. 2:2 - this verse shows God's intention is to transfer authority to successors (here, Paul to Timothy to 3rd to 4th generation). It goes beyond the death of the apostles.
Exodus 40:15 - the physical anointing shows that God intended a perpetual priesthood with an identifiable unbroken succession.
Acts 6:6 - apostolic authority is transferred through the laying on of hands (ordination). This authority has transferred beyond the original twelve apostles as the Church has grown.
Acts 14:23 - the apostles and newly-ordained men appointed elders to have authority throughout the Church.
Acts 1:20 - a successor of Judas is chosen. The authority of his office (his "bishopric") is respected notwithstanding his egregious sin. The necessity to have apostolic succession in order for the Church to survive was understood by all. God never said, "I'll give you leaders with authority for about 400 years, but after the Bible is compiled, you are all on your own."

And certainly these very early writings, although not scripture, what is written here was not disputed and seem to indicate that Apostolic Succession was understood by the Early Church as a necessity:

"And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first-fruits [of their labours], having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe. Nor was this any new thing, since indeed many ages before it was written concerning bishops and deacons. For thus saith the Scripture a certain place, 'I will appoint their bishops s in righteousness, and their deacons in faith.'... Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry...For our sin will not be small, if we eject from the episcopate those who have blamelessly and holily fulfilled its duties." Pope Clement, Epistle to Corinthians, 42, 44 (A.D. 98).

"For what is the bishop but one who beyond all others possesses all power and authority, so far as it is possible for a man to possess it, who according to his ability has been made an imitator of the Christ off God? And what is the presbytery but a sacred assembly, the counselors and assessors of the bishop? And what are the deacons but imitators of the angelic powers, fulfilling a pure and blameless ministry unto him, as…Anencletus and Clement to Peter?" Ignatius, To the Trallians, 7 (A.D. 110).

Hopefully one of the other board members will have an answer for your specific question but I will also be looking myself.

Problem is for the Catholic view is that monarchial bishops cannot be traced back to the New Testament, as there were only two orders of ministry there, deacons and elders, the word 'bishop' in the NT being synonymous with elder and pastor.

 

[Bro. James]

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

Bro. James

 

[Thomas Helwys]

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.

It wasn't transferred. It was recognized. Read the context. "The Holy Spirit said separate unto me Saul and Barnabas..."
They recognized the call of God upon their lives and therefore laid hands upon them. There was no succession. It was a symbolic gesture that God had called them, and they were sending them forth from that church, the church at Antioch.

No it isn't. Even Paul denies this himself. Paul says that he was an apostle as "one born out of due time." He never refers to this incident as his "ordination." Rather he gives his testimony several times in the Book of Acts, and each time he definitively says that God appeared to him, and God called him to be a minister (servant) to the Gentiles. There was no laying on of the hands. God called him directly. When God called him, what did he do. He prayed, saying, "Lord what would you have me to do?" He answered his calling right there and then.
After this he was told to go and meet Ananias. Ananias was reluctant at first. But the Lord reassured him, telling hm,

Acts 9:15 But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel:
16 For I will shew him how great things he must suffer for my name's sake.
--He was ordained of God, not of men.

He does no such thing.
2 Corinthians 1:21 Now he which stablisheth us with you in Christ, and hath anointed us, is God;
22 Who hath also sealed us, and given the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts.
--God has established us in Christ. How? By giving us the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. That indwelling; anointing; sealing of the Spirit is the earnest of our inheritance. There is much more to come. This has nothing to do with succession.

Again you are way out of line. It has to do with the principle of "spiritual reproduction," or simply carrying out the Great Commission (Mat.28:19,20). What was Paul saying here.
Timothy, take those things that I have taught you, and gather faithful men around you and teach those faithful men. Teach them well so that they in turn may also teach other faithful men. Then the result will be other faithful men teaching other faithful men. This is what discipleship is all about. This is what missions is all about. It says nothing about any transfer of authority--absolutely nothing!!

Which tribe of Israel are you from?
We are not under Levitical law!

No it isn't. These were 7 men chosen to serve tables. Do you lay hands on those whom you choose to be janitors in your church? :laugh:
I don't think that is a requirement, but that is what they were to do. Read your Bible! Then look at the requirements that the church at Jerusalem set forth. Even those servants were to have high expectations for the church.

The word "ordained" means "chose." They chose, according to God's leading, men fit to be leaders in every church they went to, or every church they established. That is what Paul did. He established churches. He was a missionary. He went on three missionary journeys and established about 100 independent churches. It was impossible for them to have any succession whatsoever.

The Apostolic Age died out when the apostles died out, at the end of the first century. That is also when the Canon of Scripture was complete. No honest Christian believes that the RCC formulated the canon of Scripture. No honest and objective Christian believes that the Apostles, before they died, were stupid and naive enough not to know what books were Scripture and what were not, and that they did not pass this information off to the first century Christians. The RCC never was "the keeper of the Scriptures" nor did they "invent" the canon. That is ludicrous. By the end of the first century, when John finished the Book of Revelation, the canon was completed.

Fairy tales. RCC propaganda. Try reading real history.

Nothing about succession there. You have to read into it to get succession out of it.

Succeeding means to follow after. I followed after the pastor before me. That is not apostolic succession. The quote proves nothing. You are simply reading into it what you want to.

I agree with most of what you wrote, as it is factual and not some fable invented by a hierarchy to legitimize itself.

Catholic views of ministerial orders and succession are vain attempts to read back into scripture from later centuries something that is not in the scripture nor affirmed thereby. I have studied this extensively, and those are the facts. No one believes the Catholic views of ministry and succession but Catholics, and even some Catholic scholars dispute it. Now some will challenge me to source that, but I simply don't have the time or the inclination. But it's out there for any who will research it as I had to do.

 

[Thomas Helwys]

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

Bro. James

No, they don't allow non-RC's to receive communion because non-RC's don't believe in transsubstantiation; that is the basis for their policy of closed communion.

 

[Bronconagurski]

"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.

 

[Walter]

I agree with most of what you wrote, as it is factual and not some fable invented by a hierarchy to legitimize itself.

Catholic views of ministerial orders and succession are vain attempts to read back into scripture from later centuries something that is not in the scripture nor affirmed thereby. I have studied this extensively, and those are the facts. No one believes the Catholic views of ministry and succession but Catholics, and even some Catholic scholars dispute it. Now some will challenge me to source that, but I simply don't have the time or the inclination. But it's out there for any who will research it as I had to do.

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.

 

[DHK]

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.

 

[Thomas Helwys]

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.

Yes, Anglicans believe in apostolic succession, and I say the following with the caveat that Anglo-Catholics would not agree with it because they hold to the traditional Catholic (Western and Eastern) view. The Anglican view is that the historic episcopate was a historical development and therefore it is for the benefit of the church but not of the essence of the church, as the Catholics believe. This is a significant difference. So, while the Anglican Communion holds to apostolic succession and the historic episcopate, they do not define this in the exact same way as the Catholics do. This is just one of many reasons Anglicanism is often referred to as a "via media" or "bridge church" because it sits squarely in the middle between Catholicism and Protestantism. Some have said that the Articles of Religion are Reformed Protestant while the ministry, Prayer Book, and worship are more Catholic. This is only partially true because there is great variety in Anglicanism, in both doctrine and worship. Some Anglicans hate that variety, but most embrace it. Within 50 miles of where I live, there is a very high church, Anglo-Catholic parish where the priest wears a biretta, and a low church, evangelical charismatic parish with contemporary praise music!

 

[Thomas Helwys]

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.

Correct.... except I'm not sure about those "First Baptist Church" labels. Oh, wait a minute now, on second thought, you might be right. After all, it was John the Baptist who baptized Jesus.

 

[Bro. James]

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

 

[Walter]

Yes, Anglicans believe in apostolic succession, and I say the following with the caveat that Anglo-Catholics would not agree with it because they hold to the traditional Catholic (Western and Eastern) view. The Anglican view is that the historic episcopate was a historical development and therefore it is for the benefit of the church but not of the essence of the church, as the Catholics believe. This is a significant difference. So, while the Anglican Communion holds to apostolic succession and the historic episcopate, they do not define this in the exact same way as the Catholics do. This is just one of many reasons Anglicanism is often referred to as a "via media" or "bridge church" because it sits squarely in the middle between Catholicism and Protestantism. Some have said that the Articles of Religion are Reformed Protestant while the ministry, Prayer Book, and worship are more Catholic. This is only partially true because there is great variety in Anglicanism, in both doctrine and worship. Some Anglicans hate that variety, but most embrace it. Within 50 miles of where I live, there is a very high church, Anglo-Catholic parish where the priest wears a biretta, and a low church, evangelical charismatic parish with contemporary praise music!

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!

 

[Thomas Helwys]

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!

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

 

[Matt Black]

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

 

[Thomas Helwys]

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

:laugh:

You guys need to quit.

:laugh:

 

[Doubting Thomas]

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.

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).

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.

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

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!

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.

 

[Thomas Helwys]

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.

Very good analysis of the Articles.

And about your last statement, I believe those are the ones who have made it possible to hold the Anglican Communion together. But that is fracturing now with the "Anglo" provinces accepting homosexual unions and ordinations.

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Very good analysis of the Articles.

And about your last statement, I believe those are the ones who have made it possible to hold the Anglican Communion together. But that is fracturing now with the "Anglo" provinces accepting homosexual unions and ordinations.

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

 

[Walter]

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.

 

[Doubting Thomas]

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?

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

The Global South primates have been very good at exposing the non-biblical practices of TEC & ACC.

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

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.”

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

Hopefully Justin Welby (an evangelical I understand) will have the back-bone to deal with the heresy within the Anglican Communion.

Hopefully, but I have my doubts.

 

[Thomas Helwys]

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.

DT, are you in the Episcopal Church or one of the conservative defections?