A LEADING Church of England bishop has declared that the Prince of Wales is required to apologise to Andrew Parker Bowles for breaking up his marriage to Camilla.
David Stancliffe, the Bishop of Salisbury, said church rules dictated that the prince should atone for committing adultery. The bishop‚Äôs intervention demonstrates the church‚Äôs determination to extract a price for its endorsement of the wedding.
Stancliffe, who is the church‚Äôs principal authority on the rules of worship, has made it clear that Prince Charles and his bride would have to do more than simply repeat the formulaic words of a confession during the church service.
‚ÄúThe Prince of Wales and Mrs Parker Bowles will be taking part in prayers of penitence at the service of prayer and dedication following their civil marriage,‚ÄĚ he said in a statement.
Romans 7:2 For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband.
Mark 10 :1-10 Then He arose from there and came to the region of Judea by the other side of the Jordan. And multitudes gathered to Him again, and as He was accustomed, He taught them again. The Pharisees came and asked Him, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?" testing Him. And He answered and said to them, "What did Moses command you?" They said, "Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce, and to dismiss her." And Jesus answered and said to them, "Because of the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept. But from the beginning of the creation, God "made them male and female.' "For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'; so then they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate." In the house His disciples also asked Him again about the same matter. So He said to them, "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her. And if a woman divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery."
I wonder what happen to the message I left you? What you state is not Christian, John. The Reformed church members here, would not agree that infants become Christians because of baptism -- they would probably say it would provide in insurance policy that they didn't go to hell until they reached the stage of life, where they could decide if they were elected or not.
Pastor Gill, is a four point Calvinist so, many of his ideas would be -- passable -- to Covenant church members.
Now, Gill did put out a booklet on what happen to babies when they die, and while I think he covered it quite adequately in the baptism booklet, you can look at this one:
However, very simply, as for his I'm concerned there is more latitude to what will happen to infants when they die, since they only have original and not acquired sin, as compared to a person who has died in his adult stage, where no prayers will do any good. It is what the individual believes that will effect his final outcome, not the desires of others.
Yes I went to www.ihcc.org and read that information. But I do not personally believe that Infant Baptism has anything to with salvation. I personally believe that Infant Baptism is just a dedication of infants to Jesus and an initiation ceremony into the church and that someone becomes a Christian at Infant Baptism but they do not become a Born Again Christian until they have received Jesus as their personal savior. Up until they have received Jesus as their personal savior they are just a Christian not a Born Again Christian. That is what I personally believe about Baptism.
The Anglican church, with the help of Thomas Kramer, made it half way to Protestantism. However, many of its members have an unhealthy attachment to the Catholic past. Yes, I noticed that not all Englishmen had the good sense of leaving the Catholic Church during the Reformation. So, John, I do realize there is a more virulent form of Romanism in England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and for people who should know better! even in Sweden! :-(
Anon. 33k, now I do find that interesting. I do not see where Charles upholds the Anglican church, even. I know the majority of Britons do not want to see Charles take the throne. He should have done like his great-uncle, and remove himself from consideration for the throne.
John, apparently you did not read:
a thorough, detailed account about the various baptisms.
I would think you would be aware that Baptists of almost any background, consider infant baptism meaningless. On this forum, which has many Reformed church members, they would consider anyone of the age of responsibility, who did not affirm his Christian beliefs -- is not a Christian. So, no matter what Protestant background, an adult is never a Christian from baptism or is he under some protection until he affirms he is a Christian. In any event, John, you will have to be baptized as an adult if you realize the complete error of your Catholic background, and making a break with it to declare your Christianity.
Everybody who was Baptized as an infant became a Christian including Charles. However nobody becomes a Born Again Christian until they receive Jesus as their personal savior. The Catholic Church in England is not the Anglican Church. The Catholic Church and the Anglican Church are two different churches.
John, it seems like Engineer ;-) did a fine job of answering your question to me. One is not supposed to benefit from their sins. As I said, I hope Queen Elizabeth goes on to reign for many more years. I think she will be better than Charles.
I will have to ask the British users of the forum to tell me if there is any oath that the British monarch takes to uphold the -- Reformed -- tradition. It is the English Catholic Church, which is the Anglican one that the British monarch is head of, in name only. It would be a great benefit if Prince Charles did become a Christian.
John, just like I hope Elizabeth stays on her throne for years to come, I hope Pope John Paul II stays on his four completely different reasons. His stubbornness and inability should give Catholics much reason to think about their loyalty to the apostate Catholic Church. The longer he is there, the more they will think about it. He is something of a Prince Charles who became King. ;-)
JOHN YURICH: "... there are biblical grounds for divorce like adultery, which Camilla was committing with Charles and so according to the Bible Charles and Camilla can get married to each other." The other ground for remarriage is death of a spouse. So if Charles kills Camilla's hubby, according to the Bible Charles and Camilla could get married to each other...kind of like David and Bathsheba, once ol' Uriah was taken care of. 2 Sam. 11 shows this is a `biblical' marriage.
HRH Queen Elizabeth II should indeed abdicate but only because she has long been in breach of her religious oath. HRH Prince Charles has already made it abundantly clear by his own words and actions that he is unable to take the Coronation Oath. There are no grounds for identifying any of the subsequent heirs as willing and able to uphold the Protestant Reformed Religion as established by law. The search is on for the believing Christian who is next in line for the throne .....
Queen Elizabeth II should abdicate to let Charles become King of England. And one other thing, there are biblical grounds for divorce like adultery, which Camilla was committing with Charles and so according to the Bible Charles and Camilla can get married to each other.
Charles' rough draft: "Let me express repentance and remorse for my planned adultery. 'Whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery...' Matthew 5:32 Also, so sorry for my previous divorces and adultery as well as the nature of our pagan fornicating extra-marital relationship up to this point. I regret stealing your wife and making her an adulteress. So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress...' Romans 7:3 I regret dishonoring a fellow officer in the military, and hope you will now trust my elevated status as your military commander. And,since as king, I plan to avoid implementation of any Old Testament morality which would require both of us to be stoned to death, the best I can do is to invite you to tea later, hoping to repair our relationship fractured & damaged by my misconduct."