Zwingli was also a murderer

[Nazaroo]

...you've made yourself to be the authoritative judge

in essence what you are saying is really
"...if you disagree with MY interpretation then you are in opposition to the bible."

How quickly you distort and omit key points:

What Nazaroo really said: "I have no "doctrine" fixed on tablets of stone."

you can be your own Pope and only people who agree with your peculiar interpretation of Scripture can join.

These may be your fears, fears of fundies,
but nothing I've said corresponds to either of your knee-jerk reactions:

"Certainly this is not Anglican "

Probably not, if Anglicans can't get their heads around the attitude of the Bereans:

"These were more fairminded than the rest,
searching the scriptures daily,
to see if the things Paul said were so."

So yeah.
If Anglicans can't take guys like me showing up to church,
I guess they're out to dry.

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Indeed. Nazaroo, you really shouldn't be an Anglican if you don't for example, agree with this, as appears to be the case. If you want to be a 'Me, Jesus and My Bible'-type, then Anglicanism really isn't for you and you'd be better off starting your own little independent fundamentalist congregation, where you can be your own Pope and only people who agree with your peculiar interpretation of Scripture can join.

Good point.

 

[Nazaroo]

you've made yourself to be the authoritative judge as to certain specific meanings of scripture

Not at all, unless you mean
I must be guided by conscience and reason,
just as the Bereans were:

"These were more fairminded than the rest,
searching the scriptures daily,
to see if the things Paul said were so."
​

I'm prepared to listen and learn,
but you guys aren't really offering any scriptural arguments
to improve, correct, or refute my basic position.

Paul would have, if something glaring needed correcting.

[sound of crickets...]

 

[Matt Black]

Why, then, are you Anglican?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Not at all, unless you mean
I must be guided by conscience and reason,
just as the Bereans were:

"These were more fairminded than the rest,
searching the scriptures daily,
to see if the things Paul said were so."
​

I'm prepared to listen and learn,
but you guys aren't really offering any scriptural arguments
to improve, correct, or refute my basic position.

Paul would have, if something glaring needed correcting.

[sound of crickets...]

BTW what is your basic position again?

 

[Matt Black]

...and how does it differ from the soteriology outlined in the section of the 39 Articles I linked to?

 

[Rippon]

Naz,don't you come from a Nazarene background?

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

As an FYI.....just read this as a book review for a book about John Rice.......

"God raises up imperfect people to serve imperfect people and that even through our weaknesses, God shines a spotlight on His magnificent grace."

 

[Matt Black]

Naz,don't you come from a Nazarene background?

What's that when it's at home? We don't have such types this side of the Pond.

 

[Nazaroo]

...and how does it differ from the soteriology outlined in the section of the 39 Articles I linked to?

See this is the funniest thing, if only it were a laughing matter.

I don't really know the 39 Articles as well as the hundreds of theologians who have disagreed about their meaning do.

But last time I read them, they seemed sensible to me.

(1) Trouble is, the Anglican leaders took the PrayerBook out of the pews, and replaced it with some gay thing called the "Alternative Services" book.

(2) Then, they took the KJV Bibles out from the pews, and replaced it with "the message".

(3) Then they ordained women, brought unclean pets and farm animals into the church for a blessing.

(4) Then, they started blessing gay homosexual relationships.


(5) Finally, they started ordaining openly homosexual men living in sexual union with other men, as 'priests'.

So the thing is, I really didn't change my beliefs at all that much from when I was a young Christian teenager. But somehow, the Anglican church got taken over by fags, while I was out looking for work.

From my perspective, its the Anglicans who aren't Anglicans.
I haven't really moved from the position that Bloomfield, Wordsworth, Canon Cook and Dean Burgon held in the 1800s.

Who's the real Anglican?

Why, then, are you Anglican?

Because its the homos who should leave, not me.

 

[Matt Black]

I would kind of agree with you, although perhaps not in such an extreme way. For me, Anglicanism is about the Prayer Book, the 39 Arts and Cranmer's homilies, the Church Councils and other parts of Church Tradition. From this perspective, certain parts of the Anglican Communion (notably TEC) have left Anglicanism. But TEC is not the world, and the overwhelming majority of Anglicans don't ordain gay clergy, don't bless same-sex relationships, maintain the spirit at least of the Prayer Book and use a decent Bible translation.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

See this is the funniest thing, if only it were a laughing matter.

I don't really know the 39 Articles as well as the hundreds of theologians who have disagreed about their meaning do.

But last time I read them, they seemed sensible to me.

(1) Trouble is, the Anglican leaders took the PrayerBook out of the pews, and replaced it with some gay thing called the "Alternative Services" book.

(2) Then, they took the KJV Bibles out from the pews, and replaced it with "the message".

(3) Then they ordained women, brought unclean pets and farm animals into the church for a blessing.

(4) Then, they started blessing gay homosexual relationships.


(5) Finally, they started ordaining openly homosexual men living in sexual union with other men, as 'priests'.

So the thing is, I really didn't change my beliefs at all that much from when I was a young Christian teenager. But somehow, the Anglican church got taken over by fags, while I was out looking for work.

From my perspective, its the Anglicans who aren't Anglicans.
I haven't really moved from the position that Bloomfield, Wordsworth, Canon Cook and Dean Burgon held in the 1800s.

Who's the real Anglican?

The Anglican Church got taken over by burning pieces of wood and cigarettes? I never knew.

However, what about the African conservative group apsect of the Anglican Church I hear those guys stand in stark contrast to the errors you see occuring in your church. It seems they are of the same mind as you.


BTW what is your position again?

 

[Nazaroo]

The Anglican Church got taken over by burning pieces of wood and cigarettes? I never knew.

However, what about the African conservative group apsect of the Anglican Church I hear those guys stand in stark contrast to the errors you see occuring in your church. It seems they are of the same mind as you.

Except they're in Africa, and I'm in North America.

BTW what is your position again?

My position on the original topic was,
The Bible distinguishes between mortal sins and lesser sins.
The death penalty is only incurred by death-penalty sins.

My position on the 39 Articles is,
the British People took an oath before God,
and they are bound to it, with consequences.

 

[Matt Black]

The British People? Who they? I don't recall being asked about it!

You may like these people. They are in the UK but on your side of the Pond, you might like to try The American Anglican Council or the Anglican Communion Network or the Anglican Province of America.

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Naz,
There are conservative Anglican bodies outside the Episcopagan Church.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Except they're in Africa, and I'm in North America.

But you can commune with them right. I think there are several churches throughout North America that have put themselves under the authority of these African Bishops and have a joint communion with them under the Anglican Church. I may be wrong but that is my impression.

My position on the original topic was,
The Bible distinguishes between mortal sins and lesser sins.
The death penalty is only incurred by death-penalty sins.

I agree with you on that but I still question how do you distinguish the two?

My position on the 39 Articles is,
the British People took an oath before God,
and they are bound to it, with consequences

Certainly not all the British people I mean certainly that wouldn't include Sir Thomas Moore, or Guy Fawkes.

 

[Matt Black]

Indeed - see my post above. But your position on mortal and venial sins does not align with traditional Anglicanism so my original question remains.

 

[Nazaroo]

I agree with you on that but I still question how do you distinguish the two?

I don't have to: the Torah does that.

Certainly not all the British people I mean certainly that wouldn't include Sir Thomas Moore, or Guy Fawkes.

Guy Fawkes was a Spaniard Jesuit mercenary.

 

[Nazaroo]

Indeed - see my post above. But your position on mortal and venial sins does not align with traditional Anglicanism so my original question remains.

Could you clarify the "traditional Anglican" position on mortal sins, with some 19th cent. references, so I can see what the problem is?

 

[Rippon]

The British People? Who they? I don't recall being asked about it!

Naz is into British-Israelitism.