Thanks. I had always assumed Anglicans believed that but was not sure. How is it that Lutherans exercise this same definition but only accept 2 sacraments? Do Anglicans find that Christ instituted more, or do they, like Lutherans, reject the other five as instituted by Christ?
Chiefly because Lutheranism has a much different view of the clergy. They reject apostolic succession so tend to view the other 5 sacraments in a much different light. Far be it from me to speak for them, though. I wouldn’t say Lutherans exercise the same definition except for the word and sacrament part. They do not include a validly ordained bishop in their formula. It should be noted, too, that unlike Lutherans, we don’t have a visible/invisible church distinction.
Seven. I would say in general greater import is placed on Baptism and the Lord’s Supper commensurate with their place in the NT. They are sometimes called dominical sacraments or sacraments of the gospel.
Yes. Are you thinking more the intercession of the saints, though?
No, I just have always found the Reformation definitions of “Church” deficient because they jettison the communion of saints from it. If the Church is only the body of believers on earth, then those who have gone on before us in faith no longer are considered members of it.
Ah, gotcha. We would consider most evangelical definitions of the church lacking, for sure. Much more so among Anglo-Catholics, who wouldn’t consider them churches at all. There are Christians among them to be sure, but lacking in any kind of ecclesiastical authority.
Hi clem,
We both agree to inerrancy and theopneustos of Scripture. We just differ on interpretation, which is not same level of inerrancy and theopneustos as Scripture.
Not totally sure what you are getting at. The binding and loosing is past , present and future. What is wood, hay, and stubble (not bound/loosed) in heaven is also revealed past, present and future but not to all, but for sure to all with His final judgement.
Hi Abu,
Hi g,
Agree, that it is another problem. Both ways make the foundation of no effect on the given matter in question.
Maybe, but mostly they do not believe your understanding, but believe another understanding, that is "missed’’ by the CC.
No misunderstanding, no imagination, no lack of communication by CC or P’s on this forum. It is all out there for him that hath an eye to see.
It seems like you are mixing your metaphors or just creating an innovative understanding of the meaning of scripture (or maybe both).
It is true that men are always in need of reform, but the doctrines of Christ are not. What makes the Teachings infallible is that they come from Christ, who is the Head of the Church, and are preserved infallibly in the Church by the Holy Spirit. It is not the human part of the Church that makes her perfect, but the divine.
Such a fantasy that Christ’s very own Church is not infallible in teaching His Truths on faith and morals would mean that Christ, God the Son, is not infallible, and that fantasy is dispelled only by following Him precisely as He teaches through His personally chosen St Peter and Her Magisterium.
As a Reformer and student of Reformed theology: I have never come across any hint of the exclusion of past believers/saints from the Body of Christ; aka the ekklesia; aka the Church
Does that mean you accept the Communion of Saints?
Disagree slightly with the use of that passage, as the great cloud of witneses refers to those of the faith mentioned in the preceding chapter. “Since we have the example of those who came before and fought the good fight…” etc. Not evoking an image of people in a cloud looking down on us.
We are in agreement that it does refer to those heroes of faith mentioned in the preceding chapter. I am curious, what does an Anglican make of
In present tense it meant for the epistle writer’s audience that they could reflect back on the witness of those in the faith and that witness would spur their own efforts to “throw off everything that hinders and the sin that entangles.”
Yes.
We do agree on this.
And I think that is based on later developments, mainly from the 3rd and 4th centuries, that have little to do with apostolic teaching abd everything to do with Greco-Roman Platonism, hierarchalism and paganism. That being said, I do know Angli-Catholics who practice such things. They would be considered Anglican (probably to their chagrinYes.
But he describes the cloud of witnesses surrounding in the present tense.
We do agree on this.
Catholics believe they are with Christ, and comprise a great cloud of witnesses.
They can only see what God allows them to see.
)And I think that is based on later developments, mainly from the 3rd and 4th centuries, that have little to do with apostolic teaching abd everything to do with Greco-Roman Platonism, hierarchalism and paganism. That being said, I do know Angli-Catholics who practice such things. They would be considered Anglican (probably to their chagrin
The Letter to the Hebrews cannot have been written any later than 67 AD. Are you suggesting that someone tampered with it?And I think that is based on later developments, mainly from the 3rd and 4th centuries, that have little to do with apostolic teaching abd everything to do with Greco-Roman Platonism, hierarchalism and paganism. That being said, I do know Angli-Catholics who practice such things. They would be considered Anglican (probably to their chagrin
No, I’m suggesting that the passage in Hebrews 12 has nothing to do with praying to saints nor even the communion of the saints. Rather, as I stated above, it has to do with the immediate context of the lives of faith lived by the Old Testament saints being that which is to encourage the audience of the letter to press on towards salvation.