Jump to content

The Protestant Community

Welcome to Christforums the Protestant Community. You'll need to register in order to post your comments on your favorite topics and subjects. You'll also enjoy sharing media across multiple platforms. We hope you enjoy your fellowship here! God bless, Christforums' Staff
Register now

Christforums

Christforums is a Protestant Christian forum, open to Bible- believing Christians such as Presbyterians, Lutherans, Reformed, Baptists, Church of Christ members, Pentecostals, Anglicans. Methodists, Charismatics, or any other conservative, Nicene- derived Christian Church. We do not solicit cultists of any kind, including Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Eastern Lightning, Falun Gong, Unification Church, Aum Shinrikyo, Christian Scientists or any other non- Nicene, non- Biblical heresy. God bless, Christforums' Staff
Register now
Sign in to follow this  
ConfessionalLutheran

Anglican Catholic Church

Recommended Posts

Anglican and Catholic

The Anglican Catholic Church is worldwide body of Christians with churches in the United States, Canada, Great Britain, Australia, Africa, India, and South America. We are Anglican because our tradition of prayer and worship is rooted in the Church of England and its Book of Common Prayer. We are Catholic because we believe and practice the universal or catholic faith of the church.

 

The word "Catholic" is often understood in opposition to the word "Protestant." However, this is both a recent and uniquely western perspective. In the ancient church, catholicism was understood to be the opposite of heresy, or false belief, and even today there are millions of Christians in Greece, Russia, and other parts of the world who consider themselves neither "Catholic" nor "Protestant," but "Orthodox."

 

During the sixteenth century, the Church of England sought to modify certain beliefs and practices that had developed over the centuries and appeared extraneous, unwise, or divergant from apostolic faith and practice. In doing so, the church did not abandon its catholicism; rather it engaged in a process of reform. As Bishop John Bramhall wrote in the seventeenth century, "our religion is the same it was, our Church the same it was...differing only from what they were formerly, as a garden weeded from a garden unweeded."

 

chambers.gif?1318366134

 

The Right Reverend Albert Chambers

First Bishop of the ACC

Anglicanism, then, is best understood as a reformed catholic faith. Likewise, we believe that the church is in need of continual renewal and reformation. It must oppose the errors of every age in order to "contend earnestly for the faith which was once delivered to the saints" (Jude 1:3). [h=4]A Faithful Tradition[/h]

In recent years, a number of Anglican jurisdictions have moved away from this historic and apostolic faith. This is why in 1977 an international congress of nearly 2,000 Anglican bishops, clergy and lay people met in St. Louis, Missouri, to take the actions necessary to establish an orthodox jurisdiction in which traditional Anglicanism would be maintained.

 

Acting according to the principles determined by the seven great Ecumenical Councils of the ancient Church and adopting initially the name "Anglican Church of North America," they placed themselves under the jurisdiction of the retired Episcopal bishop of Springfield, Illinois, the Right Reverend Albert Chambers. Bishop Chambers expanded that jurisdiction and devolved it upon others, by taking order for the consecration of four more bishops, and the Anglican Catholic Church was born.

 

In this section you will find more about our history and our beliefs. For further information, visit the Resources section of our website, or contact the parish near you.

It seems that this church is very " High Church," in that it focuses on the sacramental and Liturgical aspects of Anglican life. Here's an article about the High and Low Church emphases.

 

Question: "What is meant by High Church and Low Church?"

 

Answer: Any study of denominationalism or church history is sure to lead, sooner or later, to the terms High Church and Low Church. Originally, these terms defined movements within the Anglican Church, but the meanings have broadened to apply to non-Anglican churches, as well.

 

The terms have to do with worship procedures, specifically, the use of ritual, liturgy, and accoutrements in worship. Leaders of a High Church congregation place a “high” emphasis on ceremony, vestments, and sacraments. Leaders of a Low Church congregation place a “low” emphasis on such things and follow a freer worship style.

 

Anglican, Episcopal, Catholic, Orthodox, most Methodist and Lutheran, and some Presbyterian churches are considered High Church. Their worship services are characterized by liturgical readings and rituals, their clergy wear special clothing, and they follow a calendar of annual religious observances.

 

Baptist, Independent, Pentecostal, Quaker, Amish, some Methodist and Lutheran, and many Presbyterian churches are considered Low Church. Their worship services are characterized by congregational involvement, a relatively unstructured program, and an evangelical approach.

 

The distinction between High Church and Low Church did not appear until after the Reformation, of course. Then, the question arose: as the Protestant Church rejected Roman Catholic doctrine, how much Catholicprocedure should be retained? Martin Luther and Ulrich Zwingli took opposing views. Luther considered that, as long as a rite was not specifically forbidden in the Bible, it was permissible for the church to practice. Zwingli’s view was that, if a rite was not specifically commanded in the New Testament, then it should not be practiced in the church.

 

Luther’s position led to what is now known as High Church practice. Zwingli’s view, which led to the Low Church movement, is expressed in the Westminster Confession: “The acceptable way of worshipping the true God is instituted by himself, and so limited by his own revealed will, that he may not be worshipped according to the imaginations and devices of men, or the suggestions of Satan, under any visible representation or any other way not prescribed in the holy Scripture” (21.1). In other words, unless a practice is explicitly prescribed in Scripture, then the church should avoid it.

 

John Wesley, an Anglican, was sometimes accused of being Low Church because of his open-air evangelism and his training of clergy outside of standard church channels. Wesley himself denied such charges, always emphasizing his commitment to the rituals of his church. To this day, the Wesleyan and Methodist traditions are an interesting mixture of High Church liturgy and Low Church evangelicalism.

 

Low Church members often accuse the High Church of being “too Catholic.” High Church members sometimes look down their noses at the Low Church for being “unsophisticated.” Both sides should guard against spiritual pride (James 4:6). In truth, neither being High Church nor Low Church guarantees the proper worship of God. “God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in the Spirit and in truth” (John 4:24).

 

Recommended Resource: The Master's Plan for the Church by John Macarthur http://www.gotquestions.org/high-church-low-church.html

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have only one correction to make to this. The Orthodox Churches of the East, such as Greece, Russia, Romania, and many other countries do not consider themselves to be other than Catholic. In fact the official definition of the church is the Holy Orthodox Catholic Church. And they of course insert their National designation. So for example the official name of the Russian Orthodox Church is the Russian Orthodox Catholic church. Or even better the Holy Orthodox Catholic Church of Russia. They use the Nicene Creed, and the Apostolic Creed, and they definitely identify themselves as Catholic.

Edited by Diego
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The terms have to do with worship procedures' date=' specifically, the use of ritual, liturgy, and accoutrements in worship."[/quote']

 

I don't buy this distinction between High Church and Low Church.

 

I think you have the wrong emphasis. High Church is pre-eminently associated with monarchial authority, either stemming from the Pope, or the Patriarch, or the Monarch as head of the church. I quote from "The relation of Christianity or the several forms of Christianity to the republican institutions of the United States." (1833).

 

"Churches organized on high church principles are monarchical in their influence. A singular acknowledgment of this is found in the writings and speeches of those English high Church-men who have defended the establishment, because it supports the throne, and is best suited to monarchical government. From this fact also is derived that “royal maxim’ of king James, ‘no bishop, no king.’"

 

High church derived from dependency on, or the authority of the monarch. Episcopacy is a separate issue. One can have low church episcopacy (Baptist, where the pastor functions as the bishop)) and high church episcopacy as in Anglicanism and Catholicism and Orthodoxy.

 

The question of vestments is not really the issue, except as ludicrously attempting to parody the ritual of the high church in the law of Moses, or more likely paganism, where the high church seeks to emulate the priest acting with State authority, even where there is no State authority, such as in the USA. Being in the USA is probably why you are mistaken over this matter. The vestments used in high churches in the USA are just traditional, a carry over from when those churches, when in other countries, really did carry State endorsement and authority.

 

I entirely agree with your sentiment that being either low church or high church is not a guarantee of orthodoxy or sincerity. That will depend on whether the spirit of Christ is present in the worshippers etc. I am in no doubt that high churches carry considerable dangers as they have no biblical authority, although they might be permissible in certain circumstances. For the church to be ruled by the secular power leaves the church powerless to resist abuse by the monarch, whether Pope, Patriarch or whoever is licensed to rule over the church. Thus in Nazi Germany, the Nazi party tried to replace all the clergy with those sympathetic to Nazism.. In England at present, the Anglican bishops are all being replaced with liberals by the monarch. High Church is a church open to endemic corruption, and throughout history so it has proved, whether Catholic or whatever else.

Edited by outlawState

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, to a point you might be right. But, High Church does distinguish the difference between the more Catholic approach, if you will, and the more Protestant approach. There is certainly an understanding of course, that whenever the government controls anything there can be problems. But that is true and protestantism as well. Look at the low Church German lutherans. They were forced to join with the Calvinists in a union in the 1800's by Bismarck. The current day version of that church, the German Evangelical Church, is about as liberal as they can get and it is not particularly High Church. Any church is endemic corruption depending on how it goes in terms of who is leading it. And, in terms of whether or not High Church can be defended by Scripture, they would certainly disagree with you. And actually, the Monarch does very little in the selection of Bishops in the Church of England. Officially she does that. But unofficially, it's really the Prime Minister that accept all the nominations, and recommends the people in question to the Monarch, who then just accepts exactly the recommendations provided.

 

I fundamentally disagree that the difference between High Church and Low Church is not a matter of theology. It most certainly is. Now, some of that theology may involve the government involvement or lack thereof in the church, but nevertheless it is there. When one speaks of High Church, one is definitely speaking of more Catholic devotion theologically speaking and devotionally speaking. When one speaks of Low Church concepts one is thinking more along the lines of Calvinist thought and calvinist devotion.

 

unfortunately, I have to cut this post short. I have a class to go teach. If I have time, I will get back to this later.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Forgive me for some of the grammatical errors in the above post. I am using speech to text. Sometimes this results in some disasters, and I don't have time to correct it all.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, to a point you might be right. But, High Church does distinguish the difference between the more Catholic approach, if you will, and the more Protestant approach. There is certainly an understanding of course, that whenever the government controls anything there can be problems. But that is true and protestantism as well. Look at the low Church German lutherans. They were forced to join with the Calvinists in a union in the 1800's by Bismarck. The current day version of that church, the German Evangelical Church, is about as liberal as they can get and it is not particularly High Church. Any church is endemic corruption depending on how it goes in terms of who is leading it. And, in terms of whether or not High Church can be defended by Scripture, they would certainly disagree with you.

High church is defensible "if" the State is Christian. But it is a big "if". For a State to be Christian there is going to have to be a high degree of biblical conformity. One thinks back to the days of Charlemagne and the "Holy Roman Empire." Then Europe pretended to be Christian but was it ever really? Surely not with the papacy that was scarcely less than pagan itself. Same with Constantine. Same with Henry VIII, Edward VI, Mary and Elizabeth of England. Just one "High church" that ever kept on changing its doctrine with every new ruler. With Constantine et al. it was Arian <-> Orthodox. In England it was Catholic<-> Anglican. It illustrates that in high churches, there is usually a large emphasis on form, and some of it will always be offensive to some. So the creeds and the prayer books creep in, and they supplant the bible to a large extent, and then people disagree over the creeds and the prayer book, and over rubrics and positions for taking communion, and in what manner and form, and before you know it, religion has become angel-worship and consists of little more than following man made rules and regulations enforced by the State. All this is quite alien to scripture. So I guess High Church does not have much of a biblical basis, at least as it is observed in history.

 

And actually, the Monarch does very little in the selection of Bishops in the Church of England. Officially she does that. But unofficially, it's really the Prime Minister that accept all the nominations, and recommends the people in question to the Monarch, who then just accepts exactly the recommendations provided.

That is true, but it need not be. The monarch could object. Today our monarch is servile and only interested in towing the line is to her discredit, but what is a female monarch doing being head of the church anyway? It makes a mockery of the bible, which is why the Scots were prepared to lay down their lives to preserve presbyterianism in Scotland in the 17th century. However a clergyman can still do good work despite the perverse set up, in the high church of England, if he applies his mind.

 

I fundamentally disagree that the difference between High Church and Low Church is not a matter of theology. It most certainly is. Now, some of that theology may involve the government involvement or lack thereof in the church, but nevertheless it is there. When one speaks of High Church, one is definitely speaking of more Catholic devotion theologically speaking and devotionally speaking. When one speaks of Low Church concepts one is thinking more along the lines of Calvinist thought and calvinist devotion.

It does not have to be a matter of theology. Catholicism is obviously always high church or rather despotic church and cannot be anything else, but outside of it, there is scope for a meeting of the two types of church in a unified theology provided one is prepared to compromise. Thus low church methodism/armenianism met with high church anglicanism/calvinism in the person of clargyman Legh Richmond at the beginning of the 19th century and produced a fruitful outcome in terms of evangelism. Richmond had himself been strongly influenced by methodism. He was the author of the best selling tract "Annals of the Poor" that coverted many, and he also personally converted many people, despite remaining always an Anglican. He was not alone. The methodist revival had had a good effect on many CofE clergymen.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

High church is defensible "if" the State is Christian. But it is a big "if". For a State to be Christian there is going to have to be a high degree of biblical conformity. One thinks back to the days of Charlemagne and the "Holy Roman Empire." Then Europe pretended to be Christian but was it ever really? Surely not with the papacy that was scarcely less than pagan itself. Same with Constantine. Same with Henry VIII, Edward VI, Mary and Elizabeth of England. Just one "High church" that ever kept on changing its doctrine with every new ruler. With Constantine et al. it was Arian <-> Orthodox. In England it was Catholic<-> Anglican. It illustrates that in high churches, there is usually a large emphasis on form, and some of it will always be offensive to some. So the creeds and the prayer books creep in, and they supplant the bible to a large extent, and then people disagree over the creeds and the prayer book, and over rubrics and positions for taking communion, and in what manner and form, and before you know it, religion has become angel-worship and consists of little more than following man made rules and regulations enforced by the State. All this is quite alien to scripture. So I guess High Church does not have much of a biblical basis, at least as it is observed in history.

 

You obviously know little or nothing about Catholicism. And one does not have to be High Church to be a slave to the State, or to any other thing. Witness the PCUSA, or the Quakers, both of whom are as liberal as it gets today.

 

Keep in mind that the Bible, at least the NT part of it, exists because of the Catholic Church (by this I refer to the entire undivided Church of the first Four Ecumenical Councils, although one could go as far as the First Seven). It was the Church Catholic that in the year 181 AD at the Council of Carthage, not an Ecumenical Council, but still significant, gave us a list of what books were considered authoritative. This was followed by the same list at Nicea in 325.

 

The Church existed before the Bible, and created it. The NT authors were all members of the Church. Even as early as St. Ireneaus he was saying that, "where there is a Bishop, there is the Catholic Church."

 

 

That is true, but it need not be. The monarch could object. Today our monarch is servile and only interested in towing the line is to her discredit, but what is a female monarch doing being head of the church anyway?

 

She is not the head of the Church. She is the Supreme Governor thereof, in matters not touching on purely spiritual issues. She could not ordain clergy, or celebrate Communion. She is a layperson, in whom supreme governorship has been vested over both the temporal and spiritual swords. If you do not know the difference between a Supreme Head (what Henry VIII called himself), and a Supreme Governor, perhaps your should review your English history.

 

It makes a mockery of the bible, which is why the Scots were prepared to lay down their lives to preserve presbyterianism in Scotland in the 17th century.

 

And the Presbyterian Church of Scotland, which is a State Church, just like the C of E is, is just as disgustingly liberal as the C of E. The Kirk is absolutely no better, and in some ways is worse.

 

However a clergyman can still do good work despite the perverse set up, in the high church of England, if he applies his mind.

 

The same could be said of the Kirk.

 

It does not have to be a matter of theology. Catholicism is obviously always high church or rather despotic church and cannot be anything else, but outside of it, there is scope for a meeting of the two types of church in a unified theology provided one is prepared to compromise. Thus low church methodism/armenianism met with high church anglicanism/calvinism in the person of clargyman Legh Richmond at the beginning of the 19th century and produced a fruitful outcome in terms of evangelism. Richmond had himself been strongly influenced by methodism. He was the author of the best selling tract "Annals of the Poor" that coverted many, and he also personally converted many people, despite remaining always an Anglican. He was not alone. The methodist revival had had a good effect on many CofE clergymen.

 

The Scottish Kirk was just as despotic for many years as Catholicism ever thought of being. The Dutch Reformed Church of South Africa was just as bad, and contributed in no small part to Afrikaner exceptionalism that was fertile ground for the justification of apartheid.

 

Apparently you have never read James Hogg, "The Private Memoirs and Confessions of a Justified Sinner". I suggest you do read it. The Kirk was none too happy when this book hit the shelves. In fact, it was published anonymously to keep Mr. Hogg from being charged with blasphemy and put in jail.

 

It does not, in any way, require being High Church or Catholic to be despotic. The Low Church does that job just as well. And though I have my disagreements with Rome, at the very least, they can trace their Christianity to a definable source. Luther never meant to rupture the Church. He wanted reform. Calvin, Zwingli, et al wanted to destroy the Church. Therein lies the madness, and the disaster that the Reformation became.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You obviously know little or nothing about Catholicism. And one does not have to be High Church to be a slave to the State, or to any other thing. Witness the PCUSA, or the Quakers, both of whom are as liberal as it gets today.

I know a lot about Catholicism & Roman Catholicism. I've been studying it for decades, on and off. I agree that you don't have to be high church to be a slave to the spirit of the age. Roman Catholicism in fact owes its very existence in the world today to Greek orthodoxy, who elevated the bishop of Rome from being an unimportant nonentity in a conquered backwater to be the Pope as we know him today, in the 6th century. I am not quite sure of the motive for it. Thus, but for Byzantium Orthodoxy, many places in Europe would never have become Roman Catholic at all. The world would be a completely different place. These elementary facts must modify the Pope's pretensions to be the Vicar of Christ on earth; and they are facts that Catholics seldom tell you about, presupposing that the path the global domination was somehow inevitable. It wasn't. Quite the reverse. Whatever the pretensions to supremacy of Roman Catholic "theology" today, it is all built upon political happenstances a very long time ago and long after the age of the apostles.

 

 

Keep in mind that the Bible, at least the NT part of it, exists because of the Catholic Church (by this I refer to the entire undivided Church of the first Four Ecumenical Councils, although one could go as far as the First Seven). It was the Church Catholic that in the year 181 AD at the Council of Carthage, not an Ecumenical Council, but still significant, gave us a list of what books were considered authoritative. This was followed by the same list at Nicea in 325.

 

The Church existed before the Bible, and created it. The NT authors were all members of the Church. Even as early as St. Ireneaus he was saying that, "where there is a Bishop, there is the Catholic Church."

I agree that there is a big difference between the Catholic church and the Roman Catholic church, which I have endeavoured to explain above. The latter did not properly start until the 6th century AD. The former was from the year dot, but I don't necessarily agree with you that the history of the non-Roman Catholic church is only to be found in the councils that bear the stamp of approval of a much later age. What many don't realize is that up until the three synods of Antioch convened between 264 and 269, the church was relatively free from politics. After that date the Councils started to become heavily politicized. The Nicean Council was heavily politicized, and as politics took the upper hand, so the value of their theology proportionately decreased. This is not just my own opinion. I've been told it by academics.

 

She is not the head of the Church. She is the Supreme Governor thereof, in matters not touching on purely spiritual issues. She could not ordain clergy, or celebrate Communion. She is a layperson, in whom supreme governorship has been vested over both the temporal and spiritual swords. If you do not know the difference between a Supreme Head (what Henry VIII called himself), and a Supreme Governor, perhaps your should review your English history.

I think you're splitting hairs but I accept the truth of what you say.

 

And the Presbyterian Church of Scotland, which is a State Church, just like the C of E is, is just as disgustingly liberal as the C of E. The Kirk is absolutely no better, and in some ways is worse.

 

The same could be said of the Kirk.

I agree, but I was talking about the 16th century when it was rather different from what it is today.

 

 

The Scottish Kirk was just as despotic for many years as Catholicism ever thought of being. The Dutch Reformed Church of South Africa was just as bad, and contributed in no small part to Afrikaner exceptionalism that was fertile ground for the justification of apartheid.

 

Apparently you have never read James Hogg, "The Private Memoirs and Confessions of a Justified Sinner". I suggest you do read it. The Kirk was none too happy when this book hit the shelves. In fact, it was published anonymously to keep Mr. Hogg from being charged with blasphemy and put in jail.

I'm not sure where you're coming from with James Hogg. I never read novels. A lot of semi-diabolical gibberish was written in the name of "novels" in the 18th and 19th centuries, including Wuthering Heights. They are not my cup of tea.

 

It does not, in any way, require being High Church or Catholic to be despotic. The Low Church does that job just as well. And though I have my disagreements with Rome, at the very least, they can trace their Christianity to a definable source. Luther never meant to rupture the Church. He wanted reform. Calvin, Zwingli, et al wanted to destroy the Church. Therein lies the madness, and the disaster that the Reformation became.

Rome can trace its Christianity to a defineable source perhaps, but frequently that source is not the bible, but a practice that deviated from the bible. Low church can be despotic I concur, but at least you can always walk out if you don't like it. There's nothing to stop you, unlike High Church, which will either persecute you or continue to tax you as if you were still a member.

 

I think I see where you're coming from with Luther, but I have heard it said that whatever Luther wanted, he was himself responsible for the rupture by engaging in political intrigue. The "madness and the disaster" of the reformation is quite frankly ridiculous terminology. In England and Scotland at least it gave rise to the richest source of Christian literature the world has known, and it also led to the bible being translated into native tongues, which many seem to forget.

Edited by outlawState

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I shall respond to the above tomorrow, when there is time. Tonight, I have a rare evening with my wife, but suffice it to say that I was right; you do NOT know anything about Roman Catholicism, except for the incredibly biased view you have gotten from Low Church sources.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I shall respond to the above tomorrow, when there is time. Tonight, I have a rare evening with my wife, but suffice it to say that I was right; you do NOT know anything about Roman Catholicism, except for the incredibly biased view you have gotten from Low Church sources.

You talk endless rot. I haven't told you what I know of Roman Catholicism, so how can you know what I know? I would elaborate on my position just a little from adding that before the 6th century the bishop of Rome was regarded or rather demanded to be treated as primus inter pares, culminating eventually in the self-arrogated notion of sedes apostolica (apostolic see) by Pope Leo I (440–461),making out that every bishop of Rome was Peter's successor and his power established by God himself. One could have wished that the barbarians had deposed this arrrogant indivdual too, when it was in their power to do so. All sorts of false claims are made about him. Pope Leo I was never called "universal Bishop" although Gregory I, would later make this inaccurate claim. He made Christianity identical with the universal dominion of the Roman church, but his power never extended to Constantinople. In 533AD the same Leo was elevated after his death by Justinian to be the supreme bishop, but who was Justinian, a mere layman, to make such a pronouncement? Essentially the history of Rome is the history of self arrogation of authority of the papal see based on little else but the matter that Peter, who was but one of the apostles, once visited Rome and was put to death there. And in that process of self-arrogation, Byzantium played no small part, which was strange since Byzantium and Roman clerics were so often at loggerheads.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, the only reason the Popes ended up in the position they ccurrently are was due to the Lombard descent into Italy. The Pope of the time sought the help of the Eastern Roman Emperor, but got no reply, as they were busy with the Iconoclastic Heresy. So the Pope turned turned to Pippin the Short, Charlemagne's ancestor. This resulted in the Carolingians taking over what would later be known as the Holy Roman Empire. Justinian had very little to do with it, as he was a century and a half early.

 

I say you know nothing of Catholicism, or of anything else, because you give every evidence at present of being an intellectual lightweight. You are completely blinded by your own Calvinism. Incidentally, the Scottish Kirk taxed its people even when they withdrew from the Church until fairly recently, just like High Churches did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fact that you do not read novels, when in fact they often show the mood and opinion of the pople writing (and reading) them about the Establishment, further proves that you are a lightweight. And it should be pointed out that none of the Churches that are "official" tax their members or non-members any more, except the Greek Church and in Germany, the State Church Tax, which is voluntary for one, and the taxpayer designates whether it goes on to the Catholic Church, the Evangelical Church (which is markedly Low Church), or they can refuse to pay it, and put their money toward one of the Free Churches, or no Church at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And it is not ridiculous to refer to the Reformation after Luther as madness and disaster. As for the Bible being translated into native languages, Luther started that. The Church of England was always a rather sorrowful attempt to keep everyone in one Church, deliberately watering down doctrine as much as possible in order to do it. The Church of Scotland was a Calvinist Church, until, like most Calvinists, it opted for extreme liberalism (look at Holland and Massachusetts for more examples of this).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You are completely blinded by your own Calvinism.

 

I agree, Outlawstate is not a Calvinist, rather he is an opponent of Calvinism that demonstrates little knowledge of Calvinism. Like most people, they attack (strawman) Hyper-Calvinism while pointing at Calvinism.

 

The Church of Scotland was a Calvinist Church, until, like most Calvinists, it opted for extreme liberalism (look at Holland and Massachusetts for more examples of this).

 

Two questions brother.

 

Can you please define liberalism? And why do you think Lutherans (ECLA) too have opted for extreme liberalism? It appears to me that liberalism has infiltrated just about every denomination.

 

Third question, if I may. There is an obviously a "weakness" which is prone to exploitation by liberalism. Have you been able to identify what that is? How does liberalism take hold of a body, and what are the symptoms of a body we look for as early warning signs?

 

God bless,

William

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It should also be noted that there really was no need to translate the Bible before Luther, since in the Middle Ages, anybody who could read (about 5% of the Christian population of Europe) almost always read Latin before their own vernacular. Only the Jews (and then only the men) of Europe were universally literate, and then largely in Hebrew, and the better educated among them in Latin as well. But the number of people who could read the vernacular, or even want to learn to do so, was vanishingly small.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I agree, but Outlawstate is not a Calvinist, rather he is an opponent of Calvinism that demonstrates little knowledge of Calvinism. Like most people, they attack (strawman) Hyper-Calvinism while pointing at Calvinism.

 

 

 

Two questions brother.

 

Can you please define liberalism? And why do you think Lutherans (ECLA) too have opted for extreme liberalism? It appears to me that liberalism has infiltrated just about every denomination.

 

God bless,

William

 

I agree that liberalism has entered every denomination. But it really started with the Unitarians of Massachussetts and Scotland, as well as Holland. After that, it spread like wildfire everywhere else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I agree that liberalism has entered every denomination. But it really started with the Unitarians of Massachussetts and Scotland, as well as Holland. After that, it spread like wildfire everywhere else.

 

Pretty good article on the subject: https://bible.org/article/liberalism

 

God bless,

William

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Third question, if I may. There is an obviously a "weakness" which is prone to exploitation by liberalism. Have you been able to identify what that is? How does liberalism take hold of a body, and what are the symptoms of a body we look for as early warning signs?

 

God bless,

William

 

That is hard to answer, as liberalism enters a body by different routes. It is rather like cancer, which can have effects on the body in all sorts of ways (bone cancer, lung cancer, pancreatic cancer, etc.). Any Church or government can be effected.

 

OutlawState, in my opinion, has very little knowledge of anything, but that is an entirely different affair.

 

What signs should we look for? When a Church begins to follow the "signs of the times" you can see the rot set in. Personally, I have found that it takes both State AND Church to hold back the Deluge.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right now, I must log off. But I shall return later, I am sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It should be noted that there were German translations of the Bible in the 15th Century, and Alfred the Great translated the Psalms as far back as the 800's. To say that there were no non-Latin texts of the Bible before the Reformation is sheer idiocy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually, the only reason the Popes ended up in the position they ccurrently are was due to the Lombard descent into Italy. The Pope of the time sought the help of the Eastern Roman Emperor, but got no reply, as they were busy with the Iconoclastic Heresy. So the Pope turned turned to Pippin the Short, Charlemagne's ancestor. This resulted in the Carolingians taking over what would later be known as the Holy Roman Empire. Justinian had very little to do with it, as he was a century and a half early.

 

I say you know nothing of Catholicism, or of anything else, because you give every evidence at present of being an intellectual lightweight. You are completely blinded by your own Calvinism. Incidentally, the Scottish Kirk taxed its people even when they withdrew from the Church until fairly recently, just like High Churches did.

Whatever political power the Papacy exercised over the Italian sub-states from the time of Pepin, it subsequently lost. So all that remains are its pretensions to ecclesiastical dominon. For that we have to return to Pope Leo's and Justinian's and Theodosius's and Valentinian's political elevation of the papacy from being a mere metropolitan bishop to being "rector of the whole Church. I note that Pope Gelasius I (492–496) said:

"The see of blessed Peter the Apostle has the right to unbind what has been bound by sentences of any pontiffs whatever, in that it has the right to judge the whole church. Neither is it lawful for anyone to judge its judgment, seeing that canons have willed that it might be appealed to from any part of the world, but that no one may be allowed to appeal from it"

 

 

 

 

 

So it is clear that the supreme political power in the church was asserted by Roman prelates from the 5th century and affirmed universally by the emperors of the Roman Empire (East and West) from the 6th century. Incidentally this also coincided with raising the status of the metropolitan of Constantinople above those of Antioch, Jerusalem, Alexandria. I read that in the 5th century non-Chalcedonian metropolitans of Alexandria and Antioch were in fact deemed illegitimate, as were any churches outside the Roman Empire such as the Church of the East in Sassanid Persia. So it was this period that was important as establishing the political supremacy of Rome in ecclesiastical matters, and from this date, the secular power was employed to cast as heretical any "non-Chalcedonian" church. Politics supplanted theology. The Roman churches became nominally vested with the authority of the State.

 

Calvinists are by no means the principal or only enemies of the RCC. It fact apart from a few sects of Scottish and Irish Calvinists, Calvinists are fairly docile when it comes to tolerating the RCC. The antitpathy of yesteryear has largely disappeared as Calvinism has largely lost is "protestant" ethos as it itself struggles to survive in the face of liberalism.

 

 

Anglicanism is/was largely Calvinistic (low Calvinism). RCC also would have to agree with Calvin on many points where he championed the church fathers, such as Augustine. So let's not make "Calvin" the litimus test. He should not be regarded as any more important than anyone else in protestanism. He was just one pebble on a very large beach. He is not a protestant pope or if he is, he should not be made one. Before Calvin there was Wyclif and many many others.

 

As for languages, I don't agree with you that anyone who could read, read Latin. Latin was the exclusive preserve of the universities, the church and the schoolmen. It was for the ultra educated classes. They were a small minority. Wyclif had seen a need to translate the bible into English in the 14th century. It was clear there was a strong demand for vernacular bibles long before they became available.

Edited by outlawState

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree, Outlawstate is not a Calvinist, rather he is an opponent of Calvinism that demonstrates little knowledge of Calvinism. Like most people, they attack (strawman) Hyper-Calvinism while pointing at Calvinism.

Yes, but do you know the difference between Hype-Calvinism and Calvinism? I suspect that you're not too sure, actually. From what I have read, much of what you say could be deemed hyper-calvinism. You certainly are over to that direction.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whether you agree or not is entirely beside the point. The fact is anybody who could read, usually read Latin. You say Latin was the exclusive preserve of the universities. That's true. But then again, the only people who could read had generally gone to university. So to try to argue that people who could read did not read Latin necessarily, is to make an argument that simply makes no sense.

 

It is certainly true that the Roman Bishop had pretensions of dominance for years. However, until the Donation of Constantine, which was written in about the 8th century, he never really could claim it all out. Justinian simply gave him some power for jurisdictional purposes. I mean, when you take over the entire Western half of the Empire again, well, granted, not the entire half of it, but a lot of it, you need somebody to administer it. And the only people that could really do that were ecclesiastical officials.

 

If it had not been for the Lombard descent into Italy, the papal pretensions never would have gotten to light. In fact, originally, they didn't even try that. They actually did seek the help of the Eastern Roman Emperor. When that was not successful, they turned to Pepin the Short. It was after that that any concern the Eastern Roman Empire might have with the West was rendered useless.

 

As far as the Council of Nicaea in 325, you are correct that it was politically oriented in some ways. However, as a western Protestant, you generally have to accept the first four ecumenical councils. If you don't, you can't even really be qualified as a Christian let alone as a classical Protestant. So, even though we have to admit that the councils were in fact somewhat politically oriented, it doesn't matter. The Holy Spirit still guided them in their decisions.

 

Lutherans accept the seven councils just like the Orthodox Church. In some cases, some of your Lutheran Churches may only accept really 6. Although the Lutheran Confessions accept all seven, some of your radically Protestant type Lutheran Churches admittedly don't really do much with the Seventh.

 

The Anglicans were definitely Calvinist in the beginning. No one disputes that. The fact that they signed the Synod of Dort makes that clear. However, they are pretty much Arminian at this point. They really turned Arminian a bit before John and Charles Wesley came around.

 

Forgive me for stating this bluntly. I am absolutely astounded that someone who claims to be so knowledgeable, really has very little knowledge at all. You have not impressed me so far.

 

​​​​​​As always, if there are any grammatical or paragraph errors in this post, the reason is because I am using speech to text. I have tried to go through and correct things, but I don't have all day to do this.

 

Edited by Diego
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would also add that there is no such thing as hyper-Calvinism. Although I disagree most certainly with Calvin, and the Five Points of Calvin, and the TULIP, calling something hyper-Calvinist is simply a straw man that you set up to be able to bash true Calvinists.

 

I even have some arguments with Luther's "On the Bondage of the Will", and I thank God that it was never included in the Confessions. But that is another matter.

Edited by Diego
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×