Bible-believing Episcopalian penalized

OneNewsNow ^ | October 22, 2012 | Charlie Butts

[fwdude]

A communications manager doesn't think it was smart for the Episcopal Church to essentially strip its South Carolina bishop of his ministry credentials for taking a stand for biblical principles and values.

Officials with the national church have "inhibited" Bishop Mark Lawrence, taking away his clearance to perform ministry functions for 60 days -- the time allotted for him to respond to allegations having to do with the division between the liberal, dominate faction of the church and biblically based members like himself. In response, his diocese has severed its relationship with the Episcopal Church.

Walton, Jeff (IRD)Jeff Walton of The Institute on Religion & Democracy (IRD) tells OneNewsNow the move began as the Episcopal Church approved same-sex blessings and embraced transgenderism, among other things.

"The diocese separated itself from those actions and says, We don't recognize this and We're not going to participate in many of the different functions of the broader church that are proclaiming what Bishop Lawrence referred to as a 'false gospel of indiscriminate inclusivity,'" Walton reports.

[ArGee]

You are correct, but reading Scripture and believing that Scripture teaches us what we need to know about God or our relationship to Him are two different things.

You might even say that Episcopalians are Bible worshiping, since they give it such a prominent place in their service, but without really granting it authority.

[Mrs. Don-o]

You're quite right that Paul was very much a man of the Torah. Though he was a skilled Scripture scholar and, as you've noted, a student of Gamaliel, he also had other sources of religious truth: the spoken word of the other Apostles, like Peter, whom he sincerely consulted and learned from; and the direct encounter with Jesus Christ after His Resurrection and Ascension.

So he wasn't just "Sola Scriptura." he was Scripture-plus. In addition to the written Word, he was enriched by the oral Apostolic tradition (preaching and teaching of the Eleven and others who knew Jesus well), and direct mystical contact with Christ.

He also respected the authority of the Council of Jerusalem, which, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, resolved disputed questions concerning the Gentile question. That's why Paul told Timothy that the Church, the Church itself, is the Foundationa and Pillar of the Truth. (Epistle to Timothy).

[elpadre]

I would never try to presume what goes on in an individual’s heart.

I do know many people of different denominations, including Episcopalians,who are faithful in worship, Bible study and doing God-work in the community. I would not put any of them down because of what the liberal wing does. Many denominations have been infiltrated by the left.

[ArGee]

Paul did not give the Apostles any credence until he had met with the risen Christ (Galatians 1). The entirety of the New Testament is confirmed int he Old Testament. That is why Luke complimented the Bereans for examining the Scriptures to prove everything they taught (Acts 17).

Paul looked to the council in Jerusalem to help guard the truth, but not to establish it. The idea that the Church establishes truth is a misinterpretation of the Timothy passage.

[ArGee]

This is absolutely true. I have also met people who appear to know God, and people who appear not to know Him, in every denomination I've worked with.

That doesn't change the fact that the body itself has a faith and is subject to judgement. How else do you explain God judging Israel and Judah but saving a remnant of both?

[Cronos]

What is this guy still doing in the ECUSA?

[Mrs. Don-o]

I'm glad you're focusing on Paul here, because we'll agree on a great deal. It's true that Paul had to be given an extraordinary revelation of Christ before the gave the proper credibility to His Church. Saul was blinded to the divinely-established authority of the Church because of his longstanding prejudices.

There's a good insight to be gained here: the fact that Jesus said, "Saul, Saul! Why are you persecuting ME?" (Acts 9"4) ---when Saul was persecuting the Church --- shows the close identification Jesus Christ has with His Church, which is His body (Romans 10:9).

It is this identification, also, which makes the Church's teaching so reliable: we have Christ's own guarantee that "the gates of Hell would not prevail against it." (Matthew 16:18)

Te Bereans, who commendably examined the Scriptures (Acts 17), would have well understood the "keys of the Kingdon" bestowed upon Peter as a sign of his necessary role in the Church, because the Bible uses a key as a symbol of authority.

Look at (Isaiah 22:22): "And the key of the house of David will I lay upon his shoulder; so he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open."

We see Eliakim the priest receiving "the key of the house of David…on his shoulder."

And this persists, in the ongoing Petrine ministry of "strengthening the brethren", which is exercised in Jesus' name (Revelation 3:7): "And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write; These things saith he that is holy, he that is true, he that hath the key of David, he that openeth, and no man shutteth; and shutteth, and no man openeth."

Here's what it's all about: A trusted servant to the king wore the key to the king's house on a hook on his shoulder. Therefore, he had the authority to open or close the king's house.

When you ask whether the Church has the authority to "establish" the truth, you have to define closely whether you mean to "guard, maintain, unlock, explain" or whether you mean to "manufacture new truths." The answer must be the former: the Church has the authority to "establish" the truth in the sense of unlocking and unfolding the meaning of truths. The truth remains the same: our understanding becomes ever deeper, wider, and more appliable to our changing situations.

Public revelation came to an end with the death of the last Apostle, which would have been John's death in around 100 AD. Since then, the Church proceeds with confidence knowing that "the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you." (John 16:13).

After all, Christ has not left the Church an orphan for 2,000 years. In view of the enlightening work of the Holy Spirit within His Church, Christ says, (Matthew 28:20) "Lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age."

God bless you, ArGee!

[ArGee]

We do agree on a great deal. I think the only thing you wrote that I would disagree with in any large sense is the idea that Jesus or the Apostles were engaged in revelation. They were primarily engaged in acting out the truths that had already been revealed. Jesus and the Apostles taught about God from existing Scriptures, not a new revelation.

I assume you're referring to the book of Revelation which does reveal events to come, but does not reveal any new truths about God, His Kingdom, or His relationship to us.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Ah. Thanks for your quick response. I admit this is a new one to me: the idea that Jesus and the Apostles only taught from existing (O.T.) Scriptures, with no new revelations.

If that's true, then it's hard go see why the Eternal Word was incarnate in the flesh, was crucified for our sins, rose on the third day, and ascended into heaven. The O.T. was incomplete, and many of its commandments set aside, as it says in the Book of Hebrews:

Heb 7:18-19 "For, on the one hand, there is a setting aside of a former commandment because of its weakness and uselessness (for the Law made nothing perfect), and on the other hand there is a bringing in of a better hope, through which we draw near to God."

And he concludes,

"Jesus has become the guarantee of a better covenant."

And this is just what amazed peopel about Jesus:

Mark 1:27 "They were all amazed, so that they debated among themselves, saying, “What is this? A new teaching with authority! He commands even the unclean spirits, and they obey Him.”

So we must conclude that Jesus brought somehing new; in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit!

[ArGee]

You should take the journey. It surprised me as well. My biggest surprise when I first read the entire Bible cover-to-cover (at the tender young age of 26) was everything that I found in the Old Testament that was a teaching of Jesus. I kept saying, "I thought Jesus taught this to change Judaism." Jesus didn't change Judaism, he re-directed it to its stated purpose. He also opened it to the Gentiles, which was also prophesied in the Old Testament.

The new covenant: Jeremiah 31:31-33 (ESV) "Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, declares the Lord. For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

The new teaching: I'll leave it to you to find a teaching that is new. Even on divorce, Jesus pointed back to the Law of Moses, but quoted from Genesis to explain that the Law of Moses was a concession, not God's intention.

Jesus had to die to fulfill what had been promised beforehand, not to teach it as something new.

[Mad Dawg]

It's a terrible conflict for a serious person. At the intellectual level, what enabled me to renounce my orders was the understanding that TEC does not -- is probably not able to -- form an intention. That is, the only person who expected me to keep my ordination promises was me (okay, and the pious laity, but none of the clergy), and that no "clear and distinct" (thank you, Descartes) and that TEC has no substantial and common notion of what the esse of sacerdos is. So I concluded the act was invalid by any objective standard. THEN I considered myself morally able to"renounce". Add that to status, career, income, etc., and I end up with a lot of compassion for the guys who can't screw their courage to the sticking point. And the anti-Catholic prejudice in all its depth ought not to be underestimated. In the years I was considered chucking it all and becoming a Zennie, it never occurred to be to become one of, ick, THEM.

[Cronos]

why is this guy still in the ECUSA?

[Cronos]

question, if I may — is your parish ECUSA? Or one of the Traditional Anglicans?

[elpadre]

ECUSA - with old-timer priest in charge who openly states that the resolutions on sexuality will not be observed by him in this parish. All are welcome - but not their baggage.

[Cronos]

with old-timer priest in charge who openly states that the resolutions on sexuality will not be observed by him in this parish.

Wow!! More power to him. You should (and I'm sure you already do), praise God for this priest

But, how does he manage to disobey Bishop Gene and co and get away with it? Isn't there a mandate that he must follow the ECUSA's precepts?

May God bless you and this priest -- keep fighting!