Anglican origins, claims, theology.

[MennoSota]

Read the Article again.

Article XXVII: Of Baptism

Baptism is not only a sign of profession, and mark of difference, whereby Christian men are discerned from others that be not christened, but is also a sign of Regeneration or new Birth, whereby, as by an instrument, they that receive Baptism rightly are grafted into the Church; the promises of the forgiveness of sin, and of our adoption to be the sons of God by the Holy Ghost, are visibly signed and sealed; Faith is confirmed, and Grace increased by virtue of prayer unto God. The Baptism of young Children is in any wise to be retained in the Church, as most agreeable with the institution of Christ.


Now point to the word quickening.

Read this and tell me I am wrong.

Article XXV: Of the Sacraments

Sacraments ordained of Christ be not only badges or tokens of Christian men's profession, but rather they be certain sure witnesses, and effectual signs of grace, and God's good will towards us, by the which he doth work invisibly in us,
and doth not only quicken,
but also strengthen and confirm our Faith in him.

Baptism is considered a sacrament, is it not?

You really need to read all the articles so you can see the glaring contradictions within them.

 

[Albion]

Like I said. It takes a certain kind of crazy to believe that some church in England predates the church in Rome.

I really don't care what you think about the facts of history. They are what they are. Maybe insisting upon a fantasy instead of accepting history is what is actually 'crazy' or 'insane?? '

Just go back to calling Americans USAns or referring to the president by his first name if trolling is your aim...and leave this thread alone.

 

[Albion]

Read this and tell me I am wrong.

Very well. You are wrong.

 

[MennoSota]

Very well. You are wrong.

Of course the articles prove me correct...so there is that...

 

[Albion]

Would someone else please ask a serious question about Anglicanism, since we have this thread (not that I created it)? The cheap shots were not what we got when the topic was Lutheranism or Orthodoxy, so why now??

 

[MoreCoffee]

I really don't care what you think about the facts of history.

So what do you think of saint Paul's letter to the Romans? Is it a fake or a fact? Was it written before there as a church anywhere in "England"?

 

[Albion]

If the church in Britain (there was no England at the time, so you probably should cease using that term for the British church) was founded c. AD 37, it may be that it pre-dates Paul's letter to the Romans. However, if it was the other way around, so what?

 

[MoreCoffee]

If the church in Britain (there was no England at the time, so you probably should cease using that term for the British church) was founded c. AD 37, it may be that it pre-dates Paul's letter to the Romans. However, if it was the other way around, so what?

So who "founded" this church in Britain in 37AD and where's the documentation for its alleged founding by that date?

The Venerable Bede reports in his History of the English Church and People that in 156 AD, during the reign of Roman emperor Marcus Antoninus, a British king named Lucius wrote Pope Eleutherus in Rome requesting instruction in the Christian faith. (Historians contest this date, pointing out Eleutherus did not become pope until 171 at the earliest.) Bede writes: "This pious request was quickly granted, and the Britons received the Faith and held it peacefully in all its purity and fullness until the time of the Emperor Diocletian."

 

[Albion]

So who "founded" this church in Britain in 37AD and where's the documentation for its alleged founding by that date?

There are innumerable historians of the ancient period whom you could consult about this. As for the specifics, there are a number of possibilities. Any Roman soldier who had been converted elsewhere could have been transferred to Roman Britain and brought the faith with him. By tradition, one or more of the Apostles and perhaps also Joseph of Arimathea travelled there after the Ascension, by way of Gaul. Joseph is thought to have worked in the tin trade and had travelled to that area as part of his profession. The year 37 is mentioned only because it is one possibility--the earliest that I have seen claimed. However, it may have been later in the first century that the church was established in western Britain or even early in the second. Any of these possibilities would agree with the statement made earlier that the church was of ancient origin and was NOT new at the time of the Reformation, meaning that neither Henry VIII nor anyone else of his era founded the (Anglican) church.

 

[Josiah]

Like I said. It takes a certain kind of crazy to believe that some church in England predates the church in Rome.

Romans 1:1-7 Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God [SUP]2[/SUP] which he promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy scriptures, [SUP]3[/SUP] the gospel concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh [SUP]4[/SUP] and designated Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord, [SUP]5[/SUP] through whom we have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith for the sake of his name among all the nations, [SUP]6[/SUP] including yourselves who are called to belong to Jesus Christ; [SUP]7[/SUP] To all God's beloved in Rome, who are called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

So where's the letter to the church in Canterbury or London?

Where is the letter from one of the 13 Apostles to the church in Australia? If you have none, does that mean there are no Christians in Australia?

Yes, Albion, it really does take a certain kind of crazy to believe that there was a church in England before there was a church in Rome.

He never remotely said that, of course, He said there were Christians in Britan before there was the Catholic denomination. And I think that's pretty solid. Of course, there were Christians in Jerusalem and Antioch before there were Christians living within the city walls of Rome, too. What does that prove?


And of course, Paul never so much as mentions Peter... or your denomination... not once in that letter to Christians living in the city of Rome. He writes to CHRISTIANS, in no way differently than when he writes to Christian people living in Ephesus or Collossi or Thessalonica or Corinth.

It takes talent to be that insane.

The "insanity" is to choose ONE city .... totally disregarding every other city or area where Christians lived and thus where congregations existed..... select one Apostle and totally disregard every other Apostle and Christian... then say that because you point out there were Christians in that one city, ERGO the specific Roman Catholic Denomination MUST have pre-existed it, MUST have founded it and MUST have operated and owned it....


What seems "crazy" or "insane" (to use YOUR chosen words) is how you again do your "I80" - (falsely) accusing Albion for doing EXACTLY what you are doing.... he's simply referring to Christians in the British Isles and you within the city walls of Rome. Your whole premise is that just because there are Christians in an area does not mean a specific denomination existed then. Valid point. Then you totally contradict yourself and claim that because there were Christians living within the city walls of Rome proves there was a specific denomination that existed then, you just doing the thing YOU call "crazy" and "insane." You condemn your whole apologetic and claim of your denomination every time you do; how you (again) shoot yourself in the foot. Funny how you AGAIN condemn your whole point and a foundational "claim" of your denomination. I don't call you or your denomination "crazy" or "insane" just egotistical, with zero biblical or historical support.


There were Christians in LOTS of places before there were any in the City of Rome. And there were perhaps over LOTS and LOTS Christians living, worshiping and ministering from China to Ethiopia to Ireland before Rome created your denomination for itself and before England created the Anglican denomination for itself. Your point that just because Christian people existed in an area does NOT mean any particular denomination did is true - even though you both condemn that as specifically "crazy" and "insane" while insisting it is absolutely, dogmatically and unavoidably true.


Now, none of this has anything to do with the validity or quality of either the Catholic or Anglican denominations... it just means there were Christians and Christian congregations before those denominations were established.




.

 

[Albion]

Like I said. It takes a certain kind of crazy to believe that some church in England predates the church in Rome.

.

Good for you, Josiah, for noticing that our agitated colleague cannot even follow the discussion. No one claimed that the church in Britain (or England!) predates the church in Rome.

 

[Josiah]

Incidentally, Josiah, you might notice that our agitated colleague cannot even follow the discussion. No one claimed that the church in Britain (or England!) predates the church in Rome.

I know.... I pointed out that his accusations is obviously FALSE.

But how ironic (will you agree with me) what he calls "crazy" and "insane" is HIS WHOLE POINT about his denomination. Self shooting self in foot.... while never even noticing it has nothing to do with what others are saying.

BTW, I also notice how he's avoiding saying ANYTHING about what the Anglican Church proclaims.



.

 

[MennoSota]

If the church in Britain (there was no England at the time, so you probably should cease using that term for the British church) was founded c. AD 37, it may be that it pre-dates Paul's letter to the Romans. However, if it was the other way around, so what?

One individual group of believers does not equate to the denomination known as the Anglican/Episcopalian church. To try draw the connection is to stretch reality to its thinnest thread. That's like equating a church group meeting in Rome to being the Roman catholic denomination of today. It's entirely fallacious.

 

[MoreCoffee]

There are innumerable historians ...

Go on, innumerate twelve of the innumerable historians.

 

[Albion]

One individual group of believers does not equate to the denomination known as the Anglican/Episcopalian church. To try draw the connection is to stretch reality to its thinnest thread. That's like equating a church group meeting in Rome to being the Roman catholic denomination of today. It's entirely fallacious.

Well, we were not talking about some random or disorganized group.

 

[MennoSota]

Well, we were not talking about some random or disorganized group.

Britain is a big island. The original church may have ceased centuries ago. It is silly to claim a continuous congregation from 37 CE to the present. Rome can't prove it, nor can Britain. Ultimately, it becomes an empty claim of opinion that results in pride and nothing more.

 

[Albion]

I know.... I pointed out that his accusations is obviously FALSE.

But how ironic (will you agree with me) what he calls "crazy" and "insane" is HIS WHOLE POINT about his denomination. Self shooting self in foot.... while never even noticing it has nothing to do with what others are saying.

BTW, I also notice how he's avoiding saying ANYTHING about what the Anglican Church proclaims.

Quite apparent, wasn't it? And he's not the only one.

 

[Resources]

There were churches in England. They had Elders. That doesn't make them the denomination called the Anglican Church. The Anglos didn't settle in Britain until the 5th Century.

Just what do you the the term Anglican means?


Sent from my LG-H872 using Tapatalk

 

[MoreCoffee]

This is a lovely thread.

So many story tellers reciting heroic legends of the founding of a mythic "church of England"

Before there was such as thing as "England"

And before there was such a thing as "Anglicans"

Since the angles had not yet invaded the island that is now called Great Brittain.

But the stories are fun to chuckle at.

And we're been assured that "innumerable historians" hold to the church of England starting some time around 37 AD.

It's a hoot!

 

[MennoSota]

Just what do you the the term Anglican means?


Sent from my LG-H872 using Tapatalk

I have no idea. I never studied the church of England's history. Anglicans sounds like another term for Anglo's as opposed to Saxons.
You tell me.
What is certain is that the denomination known as the Anglicans didn't start in 37 CE.