Apostolic Anglican

If a council of the world’s bishops from different provinces doesn’t have authority to bind their communion to a decision, then there was no authority in the early church or the ecumenical councils. This “loose communion” point is makes no sense, especially from a Presbyterian.

GAFCON is the real Anglicans.

I know he tries to contend with it in his video, but it comes off as ignorance. I have spent much time studying the English reformers and I think they would disagree with Zoomer as to the nature of the Anglican Communion.

“As has been the case from the very beginning, we have not left the Anglican Communion; we are the Anglican Communion.” This is the claim that @redeemed_zoomer does not understand. It is the core of what we are doing, and it is an outflowing from classical Anglican ecclesiology.

@Young_Anglican I really like the 2019, especially the traditional language version. I think there are some positives about the 1979, and the 2019 keeps those while purging most of the negatives. It is a solid prayer book.

So many insist on a guilt by association on the 2019 BCP, but I have yet to see specific, pointed criticisms. Where is the cringe specifically?

@NiceanRick Can you clarify how this fits with your original reply? I think I pretty much agree with what you’re saying here.

@AngloApostolic The text is saying that if he divorces her at all (except for her unfaithfulness) he makes her commit adultery. Obvious. I argue that she does it twice because the text, IMO, can’t mean she ceases to be an adulteress if she is divorced for unfaithfulness and then remarried

Re-marriage.

@NiceanRick If anyone “divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, he makes her commit adultery.” So if you believe she commits adultery twice if she remarries, but once if she doesn’t, then you do believe re-marriage is adultery?

@AngloApostolic If the wife is faithful and you divorce her, and she remarried, you are the cause of her adultery in the new marriage. If she commits adultery and you divorce her, and she remarried, she commits it twice.

@NiceanRick Why do you think she is committing adultery if you divorce your wife, if not due to her own re-marriage? Can any husband make his faithful wife an adulteress simply by divorcing her? In what way is she committing this sin?

@AngloApostolic It says that if you divorce your wife “except on grounds of adultery…” then you make her commit adultery (and you as well). The implication being that if it is on grounds of adultery, YOU may remarry

@NiceanRick I will say that the original post should have been clearer about the exception I do believe in!

@AngloApostolic The context is clearly that of adultery.

@NiceanRick 1) Yes, the original statement has rare exceptions, but is generally true. 2) Our Lord says that if you DIVORCE your wife, you make HER commit adultery because SHE has to remarry. Read the verse I posted again, it’s in Matthew 5.

@AngloApostolic 1) then it isn’t a blanket “this is sin” like you stated 2) if a spouse commits adultery, that’s grounds for divorce. And the OTHER spouse is free to remarry. Just not the guilty spouse.

@NiceanRick I agree with the point on the death of a spouse. However, Christ’s teaching is clear. If you divorce a women and force her to re-marry (she would have to in ancient times), you force HER to commit adultery, UNLESS she already has committed it. Either way it’s adultery.

@AngloApostolic Jesus made one provision wherein it shouldn’t be considered sin. And then by nature there is at least one other (the death of your spouse) in which case remarriage isn’t a sin

The traditional language 2019 is actually my favorite.

I legitimately know people who became Papalists just by reading the Bible cover to cover. I think this is because their Evangelical Dispensationalist backgrounds were so UN-Biblical that Papalism seemed to vindicate lots of passages in Scripture, which is fair.

@rmmcheyne1972 @AnneOfTheBooks Westminster was a product of English Puritans. Some Episcopalians (Anglicans) were invited but they were quickly dismissed. It was not made or accepted by Anglicans.

@AnneOfTheBooks @AngloApostolic It was. The Anglican Church met together with the Presbyterians and the Congregationalists in 1643 to reformulate the 39 articles. They realized that they needed to start afresh, whereby we got the 33 chapters of the Westminster Confession of Faith.

Anglicans should subscribe to the 39 articles.

@SeraphimOfTexas Scripture, the creeds, and the 1662 BCP.

@AngloApostolic Anglicans should find something that they unreservedly subscribe to… even just the scriptures and ecumenical councils would be an amazing start. No need to be too fancy at this point.

@HarpazoDynamo Lexicons are extremely helpful! I heavily relied on them when I studied Baptism.

@AngloApostolic I'm not claiming it does. Koine Greek Lexicons can assist any student of Scripture of any background understand first century word usage.

Sprinkling has far more Biblical evidence in its favor. And yes, Paedobaptism is the clear teaching of Scripture. Even the inductive case for Credobaptism is poor.

@HarpazoDynamo I will also say that being fluent in Greek and familiar with the ancient texts doesn't consistently correlate to being a Baptist. My Latin professor has a doctorate in Grecko-Roman studies and is fluent in Greek, and also a convinced Lutheran. Language is not so clear cut.

@HarpazoDynamo I agree with the first point. This is why it is important to know that baptismos often refers to washing without full submersion in classical Greek literature, and that baptisma is used to describe something similar in the context of the NT.

@based_white_boy Unfortunately there are many such cases. I think they would say Anglicans are creedal and not confessional, so anyone who subscribes to the creeds and submits to the Episcopate within our communion is Anglican. That may be a straw man though.

@AngloApostolic I wasn’t aware it was possible to not. What is an Anglican if submission to the 39 articles isn’t required?