Episcopalians refuse affirmation of Christ

Virtue Online ^ | June 20, 2006 | Hans Zeiger

[MountainMenace]

COLUMBUS, OHIO (6/20/06)-The House of Deputies of the 75th General Convention of the Episcopal Church today overwhelmingly refused to even consider a resolution that affirmed Jesus Christ as the "only name by which any person may be saved."

[IndyPatriot]

--So far my own parish is staying true to Scripture but who knows what lies ahead.

One question, Where does your tithing go and what does it support?

I'm a former Episcopalian who now is happily a member of the LCMS. I grew up Episcopalian, used the 28 BCP, loved the liturgy, loved the hymns, but slowly over time, I began to wonder if staying wasn't subliminally compromising on the more fundamental truths, sort of guilty by association.

Now 9 years into my Lutheran fellowship, I feel refreshed and at peace, no longer bothered by those nagging doubts.When and if the LCMS ever deviates from "Sola Scriptura" I'll look around again.

[Veeram]

"Can you provide a Scripture verse that tells us that we may only believe dogma that is given explicit treatment in Scripture?"


2 Timothy 3:16

16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,

[meandog]

"Feelings" are the hallmark of liberal "thought". It does not seem "fair" that a believer in a supreme being, who has never heard of Jesus Christ but who tries to live up to the highest ethical standards, should be eternally condemned. And was God's covenant with the Jews canceled by Jesus's new covenant with all who believe in Him? And then, of course, there is Islam, in which lying and killing for the advancement of the "faith" is a good thing. Would they get the same pass as a righteous Hindu?

My "mixed feelings" are base largely on the fact that (with exception of Paul's letters) orginal Scripture was 1. First (Gospel of Matthew) written approximately 70 years after the death resurrection of Christ (therefore, not from original source but from the disciples of Matthew, John, and Mark...2. that Scripture was translated from Aramaic, to Greek, to Latin and, finally, into English and that some thought was lost in translation...3. For instance, in John 3:16 "all who believe in Him" is argued in some quarter that it should read "all who act on Him" or "all who try to be like Him" (believe in his good works)...4. In both the Apostles and Nicene Creeds, recitation goes "He decended into hell" meaning that he went to the dead to save souls of those who did could not have known him.

[SoothingDave]

"Can you provide a Scripture verse that tells us that we may only believe dogma that is given explicit treatment in Scripture?"

2 Timothy 3:16 16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,

Perhaps you didn't understand the question? Is there anything I can do to help? Do you know what "explicit" means? Do you know what "useful" means? Do you know that "all" is a different word than "only"?

No one is denying that Scripture is inspired by God and "useful." I asked if you had any Scripture backing up your apparent assertion that only things found explicitly (stated in clear language without any reasoning or thought being necessary to develop a principle from the Scriptural material) in Scripture are to believed.

Do you believe in the Trinity? The Rapture?

SD

[NYer]

Catholic Ping - Please freepmail me if you want on/off this list

[NYer]

Ping!

[DaveTesla]

1 Corinthians 11:24
And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take,
eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in
remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the
cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new
testament in my blood this do ye, as oft as ye drink it,
in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this
bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord’s death
till he come. Wherefore whosoever shall eat this
bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall
be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a
man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and
drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh
unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not
discerning the Lord’s body. For this cause many are weak
and sickly among you, and many sleep. For if we would
judge ourselves, we should not be judged. But when we are
judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not
be condemned with the world. Wherefore, my brethren, when
ye come together to eat, tarry one for another. And if any
man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together
unto condemnation. And the rest will I set in order when I
come.

This is my body.” This is my blood.” “Unless you eat the
flesh of the son of man and drink his blood, you do not
have life in you.” “My flesh is real food, my blood is
real drink.”

[Blessed]

>The Reformed and Lutheran churches will welcome our new members from fleeing Episcopalians...<

That would be jumping from the frying pan into the fire.The Lutherans are about 10 years behind the Episcopalians on the liberal scale.

[wayoverthehill]

I know we have a very active outreach program, not only for local charities, but for needs in HOnduras and Africa. Our parish supports a homeless shelter and provides assistance for AIDS sufferers, and many in the congregation work with Habitat for Humanity. Our parish is quite wealthy and is definitely a "high" church. Our Rector was at the Convention in Ohio and I'm very interested in what he will have to say about it this Sunday.
I will also be paying more attention to where my money is going. I'm starting to have some of those "nagging doubts" you mentioned.

[chuckles]

Notice how, no matter what the religious subject, we always get accused of Catholic bashing. I hate to even enter posting on evolution and religion. Bill O'Rielly said plain as day on his show that he believed people were saved that were "good" no matter what their belief. I made the statement that he was wrong and was told that the pope had said the same thing. I believe there are Catholics that may go to heaven as well as hell, and Baptist that may go to heaven as well as hell. But if the pope is teaching you don't need Christ, he is teaching blasphemy.

[SoothingDave]

I made the statement that he was wrong and was told that the pope had said the same thing. I believe there are Catholics that may go to heaven as well as hell, and Baptist that may go to heaven as well as hell. But if the pope is teaching you don't need Christ, he is teaching blasphemy.

The Pope doesn't teach that "you don't need Christ."

The point it, are we saved because of our knowledge of Christ? Is it strictly necessary for every person to enter Heaven that he have knowledge of Christ? Are we saved by knowledge?

SD

[Nihil Obstat]

>>>But if the pope is teaching you don't need Christ, he is teaching blasphemy.

Whoever told you that was misinformed. Please read this:

"DOMINUS IESUS"
on the Unitcity and Salvific Universality of Jesus Christ and the Church.

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000806_dominus-iesus_en.html

[IndyPatriot]

"Can you provide a Scripture verse that tells us that we may only believe dogma that is given explicit treatment in Scripture?"

I think, that unlike the Lutheran "Sola Scriptura", you imply that truth can be found outside the Bible as well. In this I agree.

However, I would say that any truth found outside the bible cannot contradict the Bible. So reason must be tested with Scripture to discern real truth. Therefore, if the Lord himself says, I am the narrow path, I cannot believe otherwise.

[BellStar]

Pray for a split!

[BellStar]

FROZEN CHOSEN what we always called ourselves!
I think it would be flaming rejected now!

[madprof98]

They probably believe that all they have to do to get to Heaven, is just be a good person.

That is exclusionary and mean-spirited and judgmental! What about all the bad persons???

[RonF]

The "three-legged stool" is one of the myths of the ECUSA. To say that reason, scripture and tradition are three legs of a stool is to state that all three are of equal importance. However, if you read Richard Hooker's original theological statement, you'll see this differently:

“What Scripture doth plainly deliver, to that first place both of credit and obedience is due; the next whereunto is whatsoever any man can necessarily conclude by force of reason; after these the voice of the Church succeedeth. That which the Church by her ecclesiastical authority shall probably think and define to be true or good, must in congruity of reason over-rule all other inferior judgments whatsoever” ( Laws, Book V, 8:2; Folger Edition 2:39,8-14).

It's not a 3-legged stool. It's a chain. The anchor link is Scripture. Hanging from that is Reason - and that would be Reason based on a reading of Scripture, not knowledge independent of Scripture. Finally, hanging from that is the Tradition or Authority of the Church, but that again must be based on the Church's use of Scripture and Reason. The 3-legged stool is a false metaphor that diminishes the role of Scripture and accord to reason and tradition a status that neither Hooker nor other theologians ever intended.

[SoothingDave]

I think, that unlike the Lutheran "Sola Scriptura", you imply that truth can be found outside the Bible as well. In this I agree. However, I would say that any truth found outside the bible cannot contradict the Bible. So reason must be tested with Scripture to discern real truth. Therefore, if the Lord himself says, I am the narrow path, I cannot believe otherwise.

I don't disagree with anything you said, but my point was more about ideas found explicitly in Scripture versus those that are more implicit. For instance, the Virgin Birth is flatly stated in Scripture. But the idea of the Trinity and that Jesus is God is implicit. (If you don't believe that, study the history of the Arian controversy: they were working from the same Scriptures and argued that Jesus was not God.)

SD

[Theoden]

I hate to break it to ya', but Bill O'Reilly is not the Catholic Church, nor does he represent it. I have serious doubts that the man has even gone to church in the last 20 years, or whether he really understands the tenets of Catholicism. He is a cultural Catholic, and nothing more. Hopefully, I may be proven wrong, but this is what I have to assume about him by what he says.

Of course the Pope teaches that Christ is the way to heaven, and no other. They have been teaching this throughout history, before any other Christian denomination came about. I too believe that Christians of all stripes may go to heaven or hell, but I believe the Catholic Church makes the path easier, as she has always been guided by the Holy Spirit, and always will be. The Church is perfect, but people are not. The Church was meant to save sinners, not the righteous.

Infallibility is probably the most misunderstood part of Catholicism. The Pope is only infallible in regards to a few points, such as church law/teaching, etc..., and is very rare. Pope John Paul II was against the Iraq war personally, but the Catholic Church itself is of no position. Popes act as shepards, leading us to Christ. There have been bad Popes in the past, and they serve as a lesson to us. The gates of hell shall not prevail against it. It's a matter of faith.

I'm not ragging on you, I'm just trying to clarify a couple of things.

Regards,

Theoden

[xzins]

COLUMBUS, OHIO (6/20/06)-The House of Deputies of the 75th General Convention of the Episcopal Church today overwhelmingly refused to even consider a resolution that affirmed Jesus Christ as the "only name by which any person may be saved."

"If we cannot affirm the unique salvific power of Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior, we are no longer a Christian church." Switching to a sarcastic tone, Howell declared, "We have no need for a Creed. Why do again what we did in the past?"

"This clearly shows that we are of a mind that does not affirm Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. And we should not be surprised that our church is dying spiritually," said Howell.

The final tally on the electronic vote was 70.5 percent for discharge (675 votes) and just 29.5 (242 votes) to consider the resolution affirming Jesus Christ as Lord.