http://www.albertmohler.com/2009/12/07/newsnote-when-gracious-restraint-fails-the-real-anglican-tragedy/
8 Dec 2009--The election of a second openly-homosexual bishop in the Episcopal Church hardly came as a surprise. Given the actions of the church in its General Convention this past summer, the question was clearly not if there would be more openly-gay bishops, but when. The Episcopal Diocese of Los Angeles answered that question on Saturday, electing the Reverend Mary D. Glasspool of Baltimore as an assistant bishop. She is expected to be consecrated as bishop on May 15 in Los Angeles.
Ms. Glasspool was elected on the seventh ballot, winning 153 clergy votes and 203 lay votes. Her election followed the election of another woman as a fellow assistant bishop for the diocese. More significantly, her election followed the seismic events of 2003, when the Reverend V. Gene Robinson was elected bishop of New Hampshire -- the first openly-homosexual bishop in the entire Anglican world.
Bishop Robinson's election set off a cataclysm in the Anglican Communion. That worldwide body of Anglicans appealed to its American church, the Episcopal Church, to respect the concerns of other churches and to establish a moratorium on the election of openly homosexual persons as bishops and the blessing of same-sex unions.
Anglican churches in the so-called "Global South" responded to the election of Bishop Robinson with outrage and conservatives in the Episcopal Church withdrew, forming the new Anglican Church in North America [ACNA]. Over the past two years, a significant number of churches and dioceses have withdrawn from the Episcopal Church to join the new ACNA or another conservative Anglican body.
36 comments:
Hey, nice photo. When did he start actually trimming his eyebrows?
It is no real surprise that The Episcopal Church is "in the face" of the global south and other theological and moral conservatives. This is the plan of the liberals. Their agenda is to use propaganda and having the world on their side to wear down and oppress true Christians who uphold biblical authority and biblical theology.
While "orthodox" Anglo-Catholics disagree with the "liberal" Anglo-Catholics on the issue of homosexuality and other "moral" issues, essentially all Anglo-Catholics are revisionists and liberal to one extent or another. To cave in to "orthodox" Anglo-Catholics is to open the door to a future compromise of morality. And worse, to cave in to "orthodox" Anglo-Catholicism is to become apostate and to endorse justification by works or pelagianism. Compromise with either conservative or liberal Anglo-Catholicism is not an option for any true believer who upholds Scripture as the final authority in doctrinal matters.
Charlie
Nor with others who would add their own man-made accretions to the Anglican formularies...
Charlie, you rail against your own untenable contradictions.
Dom, it truly is a sign of ignorance when you do not recognize the difference between the doctrines of grace versus the doctrines of "works righteousness" and "pelagianism". The ACNA is apostate because it is "pelagian."
Denominations are full of contradictions, compromises, and heresies. I am not impressed with efforts to amalgamation so much as I am impressed by efforts to purify and reform the local church and to rightly preach the Scriptures and the Gospel and to rightly administer the sacraments.
As for "man-made" doctrines, Dom, you seem to forget that ALL denominations interpret Scripture and ALL interpretations of Scripture are "man-made" and therefore fallible. Only Scripture is inerrant and infallible. But then, if you were a Christian, you would acknowledge this.
The real question is whose interpretation is orthodox/right? It certainly is NOT the Anglo-Catholic heresies you are endorsing. Such heresies are not Christian but pelagian.
Nice try at ad hominem, Dom. But again, you're simply putting on display your ignorance of the real issues at hand.
Charlie
Charlie, when are you going to found your own Church of Charlie? You can have as your first doctrine, Self-Justification by Intellectual Pride. Your second doctrine can be, Self-Justification by Calling Everyone Else "Apostate".
Pharisee, redux.
You continue to mis-understand either the topic or your debater. Instead of ascribing a lack of understanding about doctrine, try to look at what's actually being said.
So, how's that TEC church doing? You seem to ignore that question.
There goes Dom again...Dom's predictable, dull, but clearly heard bumping and banging of his head against the wall.
Still waiting for the head-thumper to tell us what the ACNA stands for.
Thump! Thump! Thump!
So, Philip, with what church do you have your membership? I'm wondering if any of the Anglo-Magpies in here actually belong to a local church, or just like to mess up other people's nests.
The ACNA docs are there for all to read. Why do you need them spoon-fed to you?
It's those who slander who need to provide evidence. Surely, you're familiar with basic logic concepts?
Dom, when you think of something other than personal attacks to say, let me know.
Dom: Hint: true Anglicanism is "a congregation", not a "denomination." Article 19.
Also, I'm not the only one criticizing those who compromise the Gospel for the sake of cobelligerency:
Why R.C. Sproul Did Not Sign the Manhattan Declaration.
Pot, meet Kettle, Charlie. For someone who can't take the heat, you certainly like to spray the flames around.
Now, how about answering:
(1) Have you repented for the personal sin in your life?
(2) How's that TEC church you attend?
Hah, Charlie, so you're claiming to be a "true Anglican" without actually ever belonging to an Anglican congregation?
Castles in the sand, lad. You've invented your own "pure" religion and in order to sustain the illusion, you have to cast aspersions on others.
Hardly Biblical...
Charlie, let me get this right. You were raised Pentecostal and were trained in an AG seminary. You've never actually been a member in an Anglican Church, and you quote hyper-Calvinist non-Anglicans left and right in an attempt to defend your anti-Anglican views.
There's a clue for you in there.
Dom, shifting the burden of proof won't salvage your weak attempt to defend the indefensible. The ACNA is predominately Anglo-Catholic by their own admission. This alone means it is predominately preaching a false gospel. Whether you like it or not the ACNA is just another TEC. BOTH are apostate.
Which denomination a congregation is a member of is irrelevant since BOTH are ruled by antichristian forces.
Your attempt to distract from the main issue here is simply pathetic.
Charlie
Dom, you're guessing wrong on all points. But since you're not my pastor nor do you serve on the board of my church, it is really none of your business:)
But your personal attacks do not make your position valid. I'm still waiting for you to tell us how Anglo-Catholics are "christian"?
Charlie
So, you attend an apostate church, is that what you're saying?
One funny thing about Anglo-Magpies, they're like Anglo-Catholics in many ways, one of which is the compulsion to play Pope and anathematize others who don't measure up to their make-believe religion.
Charlie, so correct me?
(1) What were you raised?
(2) Where did you train?
(3) Have you ever been a member of an Anglican church?
(4) Where do you attend now?
Dom, since you claim to be a Christian, how about explaing to us what you believe constitutes the true Gospel of Jesus Christ and what are the essential doctrines of the Christian faith?
I would love to hear what you think is "orthodox" doctrine?
Charlie
What's the matter, Charlie? Afraid to face your own contradictions?
Answer the simple questions.
The Gospel is very simple. Even a child should be able to summarize it in simple terms.
Dom, read my profile at the blog. :D
You're avoiding the questions, Charlie.
Lose the intellectual pride in which you've been floundering.
Answer the simple questions...
Charlie, you're afraid to face your contradictions. Answer the four simple questions.
Dom, I have no "pride." I'm saved by grace alone and anything I know intellectually is given by the grace of God alone, not by my own efforts. God gave me my faith and all that I believe.
The proud ones take the credit rather than giving ALL the glory to God and God alone. Without God I would still be lost and on the way to hell.
Any "efforts" I make are initiated by God first (Philippians 2:11-13). The problem, Dom, is that you have gone over to the pelagians.
Charlie
Don't be a coward, Charlie. Answer the questions. Why are you afraid to face your contradictions?
"I have no pride"?
Nice one. I commend to you 1 John.
Ok, gotta go be productive. Charlie, I'll check back later to see if you had the courage to answer the four simple questions.
Here they are again, to make it easier for you:
(1) What were you raised?
(2) Where did you train?
(3) Have you ever been a member of an Anglican church?
(4) Where do you attend now?
Dom,
You avitar shows a cowboy shooting his own shadow, what are you saying. Where do you place yourself in the Anglican perspective? You seem to think much of the 1662 BCP. This is definitely not a favorite of the anglo-catholics. Are you simple defensive of the hope that you place in the ACNA or what? I'm a bit confused. I'm not much interested in personal name calling but do believe that heresy and apostasy should be called out. I certainly have my misgivings about the ANCA just looking at the extreme differences in that conglomeration. It seems that Iker does not trust Duncan at all. That is a real set up for a blow up just in itself. And certainly the Low Churchmen would have a rough going in that body. I do not believe they would survive any better there than in the tec. Just give me a little feed back so I know where you are. Do you consider your self Evangelical? Protestant? Reformed? Anglican (in the sense of the Reformers, Cramner, Ridley, Latimer, etc.)? Christian? It has gotten bad that many words are needed to describe one in the modern day and I am beginning to believe a whole book. To be Anglican the 39 Articles of Religion should be settled doctrine, not because the Anglican Church formulated them in the 16th century but because they are doctrines of Holy Writ. Do you hold them to be orthodox? I'm asking just to get a sense.
Joe
Dom, tell you what... When you can tell me when you stopped beating your mother, I'll answer your questions. :D
Thump! Thump! Thump! It's Dom's head-banging on the cave-wall again. Rather noisy for the rest of us in the back of the cave.
But we have Mr. Gunslinger as our tour guide out of the cave.
The onus of probandi rests with you, Dom.
You've asserted the safety of the ACNA harbour "repeatedly" for "several months" now. With repeated calls for "you," the ACNA-man, a fellow Caveman, to tell "us" what the doctrinal core is.
I'm in a cave looking out and see the shadows of light. But it's dark back here. Faint shadows flickering on the wall. You're closer to the entrance to the cave. You're the man! You've bid us come to "the light." Stop banging your head on the walls of the cave entrance. It has made some horrible echoes for the rest of us in the back of the cave. Speak with words of understanding and no more head-banging on the cave walls.
You can start, if you would, by explaining Jack of TX and Keith of Quincy. Help?
Spoonfeed me, Mr. Gunslinger. Don't shoot me. Lead me out of the ACNA cave to the light of day.
Mr. Gunslinger, what's an "Anglo-Magpie?" Not familiar with the metaphor.
I'll stick with the Caveman analogy for now.
Joe:
Dom has refused questions on identity, theology, affiliation and, repeatedly, calls for identification of the "theological core" of the ACNA.
The onus probandi rests with him who asserts the propositions.
Dom, haven't forgotten those "repeated calls" made to you.
I would think you would revel in an opportunity to explain your views of the ACNA doctrinal position. Fair enough and easy enough.
Joe, don't hold your breath. It's been at least 3-4 months now.
I asked the question about "beating your mother" to make the point that making endless accusations with presumptions assumed beforehand are a logical fallacy.
Charlie
Phil,
My questions for Dom are starting points for debate with him. Each of the terms used have different meaning for different people. Even, unfortunately, the term "Christian." The question that begs an answer ultimately is what is a "Christian." The other terms, in my opinion, should not even modify "Christian." But we do have a problem. There are those who in fact call themselves "Christian" who practice idolatry and all kinds of man made inventions. Many of their inventions contradict God's righteousness. Images are set up for veneration and other unholy acts. tec has rejected altogether the authority of Holy Writ and the ACNA has only turned the clock back 20 years. As you have called for already, Christ's Church needs a Reformation today, now, and in every part of it. But terms like "Anglican", "Reformed", and "Protestant", as well as "evangelical" all have been absconded at least in part by the devil himself. With each of these terms we need to get clear definitions. Two people may be using the same words but each meaning something different. "Anglican" is a good example; the low church, evangelical, reformed, protestant using the 1662 BCP has nothing in common with the anglo-catholic using the 1978 BCP, or any various misals. They are on different planets. The are divided by the "same language." So I want to know from Dom first of all what he considers himself then we can discuss his interpretation of each of the words he uses to describe himself. My sincerest hope is that he is a Christian in "spirit and in truth." That is not something that I can judge except by the fruits of the life that he lives and the doctrine that he espouses. I do not know whether he is dissimulating in his posts. There are those who portray themselves as an interested friend only to stir up controversy. Remember Ian of PEC/TPEC who was trying to find out if I had betrayed "the censorious tyrant" Charles while in the end he betrayed Charles while I was and remain critical of both but did nothing underhanded. Charles and Ian are now bishops of two separate churches in competition with each other and Ian was consecrated by the man who "plotted to overthrow Charles." And Ian was defending Charles against the consecrator. This stuff is rampant in the "continuing movements." The ACNA is already under threat of breaking apart. Whether Dom knows it or not the conglomeration of unlikes cannot not endure. It has feet of clay and iron. We need a Church under the authority of Christ made up of precious stones and gold whose eyes are fixed on God.
Joe:
I'll defer to your inquiry re: Dom. I doubt you'll get much by way of substance. He likes to call others out (e.g. Robin), but refuses cross-examination himself. Dom's not worth the effort, unless he decides to play the honest broker.
Yes, good summary on the Charles/Ian/"plotter" scenario. Pretty curious stuff. Glad am not involved with it.
Regards,
Phil
Post a Comment