LONDON (Reuters) - The Church of England is considering adopting a "men-only branch" as one way of defusing a row over women bishops in congregations already deeply divided over gay priests.
But church leaders who spent three years sounding out Anglicans on the vexed issue stressed that a branch served only by male clergy was just one of the options being pondered.
The General Synod of the Church of England is to review the report next February -- but it could be at least four years before a decision is made on women bishops.
They are currently permitted in the United States, Canada and New Zealand. Australia discussed allowing them at a national synod last month but rejected the idea.
...
The Old Testament saints were saved like anyone else faith in God. Christ brought us the New Covenant that set us free from Law. Under the present Dispensation we are saved only through the belief in Christ. I think the difference between Israel and the church is more than adequately explained in those two booklets. I also assumed that the sermon that is on the front page of:
In the Galatian series dealing with the Law of Moses and Faithfulness would have something to do with how the Christian interacts with Old Testament Law. You can read back into the Old Testament except what Christ and the apostles pointed out that could be read back into the Old Testament. The Church has been shown not to exist until the time of Pentecost.
However, the above is one of the items in which Reformed Church theologians differ with Dispensationalist theologians.
How was Abel, Enoch, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, David, etc. saved?
Is there only one name under heaven by which men(gender neutral) must be saved?
Did they not receive in the Old Testament through sacrifices, types and promises as to come?
Did not Abraham(as Christ says) rejoice to see Christ's day and was glad?
Did not David(by inspiration of the Holy Spirit) say the LORD said to my Lord sit down at my right hand ...?
Don't get me wrong I believe in dispensations(or economies) as it relates to the outward forms(as all that believe covenant theology do) yet we see the unity of the grace as to substance not the outward forms which differed according to how God desired to progress His people(whether Jew or Gentile) throughout time.
We believe God still has a plan for Israel as a moral person as Paul teaches in Romans 11. We believe this is to graft them back into the vine. This is the very nature of Paul's argument. Is it not easier for God in some sense Paul is saying for God to bring those which were a part of the vine naturally then to bring those wild branches that he has grafted like He at that time had shown among the Gentiles? Because this relates to the only way of salvation for anyone who has ever lived it is important.
One thing that looks good for the Anglicans is they're at least not taking this thing lying down like some other denominations (like PCUSA whose core leadership itself is hardcore pro-gay and apostate). It looks like from this article and others that the leadership is really sincerely trying to figure out ways to cut this thing out of the church however they have to. Hopefully God will choose to move his Spirit in this denomination to give it new life and freedom, and purge it of ungodly leaders, or if not I trust God will lead the faithful out or something. At any rate, boy do the faithful in that church need prayer for strength and discernment and guidance.
I cannot agree with you entirely, Tony. The Church was not seen in the Old Testament. Now it is the only way to salvation. This is true for Jews and Gentiles. However, God has always had a plan for his Chosen People, and His promises will always remain true to them.
The Church will not be here for the Tribulation. There will be Jews -- and perhaps some Gentiles -- who will believe that Christ is their Messiah. These people are the ones who will be left at the end of the Tribulation. God has a plan for Israel and Christians.
This is explained in the two booklets, the one on eschatology should be called a booklet, though it is probably one of the best relatively short articles on the subject. So just pointing those two printed, and FREE PDF articles out, again:
Response to what was mentioned to Walt about the church and Israel being different.
If you mean the church of Jesus Christ contains Jews and Gentiles and on some level or another always has then I readily concede. Israel as a moral person was the natural branch from whence the church came. They were broken off as a nation and the Gentiles came into the self-same vine that they were in. They then later on in times future will be grafted back to this self-same vine that they were once a part of.
There is many senses in which we can say by association that Gentiles are a part of the Israel of God(Gal 6:16) as it references the Gentiles now being in the church. Yet there is another ethnic and particular sense in which Israel denotes a moral person.
You may want to consult Herman Witsius's Econonomy of the Covenants 2nd volume talking about such. In fact you may want to consult both volumes as both are good on understanding properly how the various dispensations work together.
While India Hills has that interpretation of the Person who crushes the Serpent's head, and we realize that many verses of the Old Testament refer to Christ, we do realize that The Church did not start until Pentecost.
The church and Israel are different, which just have to be a title of a Gil Rugh booklet, ;-) which can also be found that:
Would you say that this may be a fair explanation of your churches form of biblical interpretation?
I'm very interested in the pre-mill, pre-trib, dispensational, calvinistic view. We also look for the "literal sense" but would be historical post-mill, with the rapture coming at the end of the millennium.
In short, we look for the "literal sense" of the Scripture. This literal sense is not defined as that which appears at face value, but rather the literal sense is that sense which the author (God) intends.
That "intended meaning" which is taken from the words themselves, whether the words are to be taken strictly or figuratively. The literal sense is that which the words are intended to mean as opposed to simply what they "appear" to mean.
E.g. The seed of the woman shall crush the serpents head. This "appears to mean" one thing at face value but obviously is intended to mean that Christ (the seed) shall destroy Satan (the serpent), and crush his power.
A good explanation of the literal sense in relation to allegory and other figures is found in William Whitaker's book entitled "A Disputation on Holy Scripture" pp. 403-410.
Walt, End Times interpretation is very important. Indian Hills is a Premillennal, pre-Tribulational, Dispensational, Calvinistic church, because we take the Bible literally. We despise allegorical interpretations. They can only be false.
Sola Scritura, is what drives the theology of Indian Hills Community Church. I wish the article on how to study the Bible was still up on the website, and then you would get a more detailed and official idea on how Indian Hills interprets the Bible. You will find the Statement of Faith for Indian Hills rather lengthy, though many fundamentalist churches don't have short statements, and it can be found easily on the website:
http://www.ihcc.org
Without any hunting around, you can say that about mainline churches!
I found the site by Gil Rugh interesting. Usually, I go straight to the written terms of communion or in this case, the Statement Of Faith. Pastor Rugh writes:
"We believe the Scriptures--both the Old and New Testaments--to be the verbally inspired Word of God, written by men in God's control, inerrant and infallible in the original manuscripts and the final authority in faith and life. We accept the grammatical-historical system of interpretation(1) of the Scriptures, and accept the historical record of the Bible as accurate and adequate. (2)(2 Tim. 3:15-17; 2 Pet 1:20,21; Ps. 19:7-9).
[Art.1] Interpretation: This is the foundation for a pretribulational (Rev. 3:10) return of Christ for the church and a premillennial return of Christ to earth to set up His earthly kingdom (I Cor. 15:23-26; Rev. 11:15; 12:10). There is, therefore, a distinction between Israel (Gal. 3:15-18; Rom. 11:25-26;29) and the Church (Acts 2; II Cor. 11:2; Eph. 5:23; I Cor. 12:13; Gal. 3:26-29) regarding God's promises and purpose."
Do you know if Pastor Rugh uses eschatalogy as a foundational basis to interpret Scripture?
I believe this 100%, but have never seen a minister publically admit that eschatalogy drives his interpretations.
G. G., God HATES false worship. In a message to a later article I pointed out what the apostle Paul said about false teachers. Now an example from The Old Testament, about two men who were appointed priests.
(AKJV) Leviticus 10 1. And Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, took either of them his censer, and put fire therein, and put incense thereon, and offered strange fire before the LORD, which he commanded them not. 2 And there went out fire from the LORD, and devoured them, and they died before the LORD.
David, I know how you feel. I was a Methodist for years, and I could see that it was a losing battle to even try get my local church to take more conservative stands. My presence and other more conservative people with just a justification for liberal leaders that the Methodist Church was just a Big Tent that everyone could be in. A Christian just can't do that.
JIM: I think if you ask the Anglicans that are contemplating this split, they would say that they "Believe the Bible". Just not in your PARTICULAR way. God loves diversity in creation, why not in worship too.
There are still a few of us left in the Anglican Church who believe in the authority of the Bible and the continued need for Reformation in our church. Unfortunately we are in the minority and derided as "fundamentalists" etc -- just as the Anglican Puritans were in days gone by.
Sadly, many so-called "evangelicals" have a tendency to bend whichever way the wind blows. So we now have women ordained as presbyters (priests) who claim to be "evangelical" and under the authority of the Bible. There are still a few largely evangelical dioceses (such as my home diocese of Sydney, Australia) which refuse to ordain women as pastors on the belief that to do so would be contrary to God's word.
How did we even get to the point where some people in the church even considered ordaining women as bishops let alone as presbyters?
I think that they are just trying to stop a split of the world body of the Anglican church. I would think this is an action to separate Christians from the rest. If this happens then the split will actually have taken place. Anglicans should try out Bible believing churches and then the members wouldn't have to go through all these ecclesiastical gymnastics.
It sounds like Anglicans may be attempting to revive their Reformation and Biblical stance. Good for them...when you obey God's word, you will be blessed.
1
There are a total of 16 user comments displayed | add new comment |
COMMENTS | 
