Virginia Episcopal Bishop Sues Exiting Churches

Ctizenlink ^ | 2/10/07 | Pete Winn

[PAR35]

Pretty sad though when Christians start suing each other.

You may be making a rash assumption here. Based upon classical Christian theology (not just Anglican theology but the theology of all who follow the scriptures) the leaders of the ECUSA are heretics. The deny Christ's claims to be the unique path to salvation. They deny the divine origin of the scriptures.

[megatherium]

You will please make note that I asked for clarification concerning that story. And sionnsar was kind enough to supply me with some links. I was glad to see that Bishop Akinola is not quite the monster I was led to believe he was.

In your post 61, you accuse certain Episcopalians of being heretics because they "deny the divine origin of the scriptures." But do you believe the scriptures are word-for-word inerrant? As an Episcopalian, I believe in the authority of the scriptures but also of reason and tradition. Thus we must read the scriptures with our modern understanding of science and medicine. This is the orthodox teaching of the Church, as far as I know — not the evangelical doctrine of "plenary verbal inspiration". I hope you do not require belief in this doctrine to be Christian. That's a big stumbling block to put before the faithful.

[PAR35]

But do you believe the scriptures are word-for-word inerrant? As an Episcopalian, I believe in the authority of the scriptures but also of reason and tradition.

And Tradition teaches that the Scriptures are from God, not man.

I would refer you to the Elizabethan Homilies (1647), particularly "An information of them which take offence at certaine places of holy Scripture."

"Consider that the Scripture, in what strange form howsoever it is pronounced, is the word of the living GOD." So if you doubt that Scripture is God breathed, you have strikes against you from both Scripture itself, and the Tradition of the Anglican faith. If you are willing to thumb your nose at both Scripture and Tradition, I'd have to question your Reason as well.

Now Tradition does teach that Scripture was 'infallible' rather than 'inerrant', meaning that they were incapable of error, rather than merely being without error.

This is the orthodox teaching of the Church

I do not doubt you when you say that the orthodox teaching of the Episcopal Church is contrary to what was historically and traditionally taught. After all, they are now teaching a 'new thing'. And that was a point of my original post.

[megatherium]

I take it then, you believe in Genesis 1-3 as literal truth. That the Earth is only 6000 years old, based on Old Testament chronologies — as computed by the Anglican Archbishop James Usher in 1654. That's the traditional teaching of the Church. Now, through modern science, we know the Earth is thousands of millions of years old, and we know there was never a global Flood either.

Concerning the New Testament, why are expected to believe in its infallibility when we don't even know who wrote some of the books in the NT? For example, the letter to the Hebrews?

So I am afraid to say, reason is as important as tradition and the scriptures. By God's grace, our reason has blessed us with tremendous knowledge and insight into science and medicine, and to disregard that understanding while studying the scriptures is a great error.

For example, our generation has a much greater understanding of the worth and dignity of women, so we now allow women to take teaching and pastoral roles in the Church in spite of St. Paul's instruction in the first letter to Timothy that women do not teach in Church. (Likewise, in secular society we allow women to take leadership and teaching roles barred to them only decades ago. For example, I am a mathematician, and my specialty in mathematical research was transformed by the work of a woman in the late 1980s, which took a small topic and made it the area of active research by hundreds of people. I am referring to Princeton University professor Ingrid Daubechies.)

A better example as to how our understanding of the scriptures has been tempered by our reason: We now allow remarriage after divorce, even though Jesus gives a direct and pointed condemnation of this practice. We do so, unlike the Catholics, because we understand that the greater principle (in the scriptures) is compassion. Jesus prohibited divorce because in his day, divorce was cruel to women. We now believe that forcing some couples to remain in marriage is likewise cruel.

And now to consider the topic at hand: homosexuality. Jesus is silent on this topic in the Gospels. But now all the major medical and scientific organizations have determined that homosexuality is, in and of itself, not a mental illness. We can no longer base our opposition to homosexuality on medicine. We are left with tradition and the scriptures, but as we have seen, these are not completely reliable and there is ample precedent for major changes in our understanding of these. So, when we observe that there are many homosexuals who form permanent, monogamous, caring relationships; when we observe that many homosexuals make many outstanding contributions to both society and the Church — we can conclude that the compassionate thing to do is to allow homosexuals into the life of the Church. Openly, that is, since homosexuals have always been in the Church (clergy and laypeople).

By now, you are wondering on what possible basis I can consider myself to be a Christian, since you have likely concluded I believe in nothing sacred. But I should affirm my faith in the resurrection of Jesus. We can read the scriptures and see abundant reason to believe in the resurrection; and in this way, we see the authority of the scriptures. (For example, we can point to 1 Corinthians 15, where Paul gives a direct statement of the reality of the resurrection, written before 60 AD — demonstrating that belief in the resurrection was not a later theological or mythological invention, but was present at the very beginning of the Church.) And I do part company with the many modernists who deny these things. (I once saw Bishop Spong speak. I found him to be completely repellent; he denied the reality of the resurrection, and he was condescending and pompous.)

[Albion Wilde]

For centuries, when a group of churchgoers had a radically different idea (e.g., God approves of homosexual conduct), they would leave the established church and found a new church or denomination. That involved real sacrifice for their beliefs. In this case, the radicals merely took over the church, and claimed its inheritance. They'll end up with lots of gorgeous buildings, and the hard-earned efforts of real Christians, but won't be able to support it with actual parishioners.

Amen to that. Instead of patiently making their case and waiting for the answer through prayer, they have used legal maneuvering and bullying. God will reward them with His justice in His time.

[Albion Wilde]

...a bill in Nigeria... would not only punish homosexuality by five years in prison,...public expressions of homosexuality by five years in prison... would also prohibit homosexuals meeting in public, as at a restaurant.... As an American and an Episcopalian, this concerns me -- I believe in the divinity of Christ, but I also cherish our constitutional rights to freedom of speech and freedom of association.

That's why you need to review your priorites. Who do you love more, God or America? Sometimes it comes down to that.

[PAR35]

So Paul is to be believed and followed when you agree with him, but ignored when you don't. But I see you take it one step further. Jesus is to be followed when he agrees with you, but to be ignored when he doesn't.

Jesus was not silent that marriage is to be between a man an a woman. See Matthew 19:4-6 and Mark 10:6-12.

Finally, I do not question your salvation. I do not have enough information to form an opinion one way or the other. I can, however, safely conclude that you have been the victim of poor teaching.

[megatherium]

We need to use our reason in considering what Paul said. Or more accurately, in considering what we have in the NT attributed to Paul (five of the twelve letters attributed to Paul, the "pastoral letters," were evidently written by later writers in his name). That is, my criteria for deciding what we should follow that Paul wrote is by no means arbitrary. Likewise, what Jesus said. (Again: Jesus prohibits divorce, but modern Protestants no longer obey this. All of us pick and choose, according to reason and tradition, our collective experience.)

I am glad that you do not question my salvation. In any event, I will trust God for my salvation, knowing that I cannot achieve it through my own works or knowledge—salvation is by the grace of God through the sacrifice of Jesus upon the cross.

Well, enough of this. I should stay away from this subject on this board.

[PAR35]

Again: Jesus prohibits divorce

No, he didn't. He specifically acknowledged it.

Read Matthew 5:32 (in a real Bible, not a politically correct 'translation') and Matthew 19:9, in both of which he recognized the permissibility of divorce for unfaithfulness.

The Protestant acceptance of divorce for abandonment comes from the Pauline letters, which you don't seem to accept as part of the divine canon of scripture.

I am glad that you do not question my salvation.

I will say that those who have taught you have brought judgment upon themselves.

[XR7]

I take it then, you believe in Genesis 1-3 as literal truth.

Jesus did.

[Non-Sequitur]

"(Bishop Lee) has taken the position that congregations cannot leave the Episcopal Church -- only individuals can," the Rev. Jeffrey Cerar told CitizenLink, "(but) our congregation, as a congregation, took a vote, and by a three-fourths majority, decided in a duly constituted meeting to sever our ties -- and we also voted to keep our property."

If the legal owner of the property is the Episcopal diocese then the congregation had better be ready to vote a fund raising drive to pay for it.

[Non-Sequitur]

Read Matthew 5:32 (in a real Bible, not a politically correct 'translation') and Matthew 19:9, in both of which he recognized the permissibility of divorce for unfaithfulness.

Read Mark 10: 5 thru 12:

And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept.
But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.
For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;
And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.
What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
And in the house his disciples asked him again of the same matter.
And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her.
And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.

Very straight forward. Not nonsense, no room for misunderstanding. Marriage is God's institution and is meant to be permenant. If you divorce and remarry then you are committing adultery against your former spouse.

The Protestant acceptance of divorce for abandonment comes from the Pauline letters, which you don't seem to accept as part of the divine canon of scripture.

I don't accept the word of Paul over the Word of God.

[sionnsar]

An article, "At Axis of Episcopal Split, an Anti-Gay Nigerian", in the December 25, 2006 NY Times, claims

LOLOL!!!! You believe the NY Times, the Grey Lady -- the well-established liar???>?

As it so happens, this article was debunked on the Anglican threads some months ago.

[XR7]

I don't accept the word of Paul over the Word of God.

Huh?

Therefore, beloved, since you are waiting for these, be diligent to be found by him without spot or blemish, and at peace. And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures. -- II Peter 3:14-16

St. Peter refers to the writings of the Apostle Paul as "Scriptures."
Was St. Peter mistaken?

Anyway, nowhere does St. Paul contradict Jesus' teaching on marriage or divorce.