Monarchy changes do ‘raise questions’ about C of E head
A proposal that would allow future heirs to the throne to marry Roman Catholics raises questions about the monarch’s position as the head of the Church of England, MPs have said.
MPs in a House of Commons Committee were looking into the implications of the change announced in October by David Cameron.
There are worries that the change could lead to pressure to disestablish the Church of England – something which critics are concerned would further marginalise Christians.
Neil wrote: This paleo-Presby bookstore page may give you an idea: Presby v. Independents Every now & then these folks show up here to reprove us. Consider the pathetic wreckage of modern Presbyterianism, with apostate major denominations on one hand, & numerous micro-denominations on the other, all claiming they're on the straight & narrow. Pretty hard to hawk those goods. Every church polity has been tried, and these days, they're all fails.
Thanks Neil for the link and words of enlightenment.
I see what you say, and am coming even deeper to the conclusion that the Presby religion (despite its good points) is really quite bizarre. But I can now also see why the Presbys regard themselves as the only valid expression of Christianity in the world.
I will have to bear all this in mind when debating with Presby.
Neil wrote: Every now & then these folks show up here to reprove us. Consider the pathetic wreckage of modern Presbyterianism, with apostate major denominations on one hand, & numerous micro-denominations on the other, all claiming they're on the straight & narrow. Pretty hard to hawk those goods. Every church polity has been tried, and these days, they're all fails.
Curious, Define the 'us' that you believe are the primary contributors, on this site? or are you referring to this News Forum in particular? "Pretty hard to hawk those goods" I am not sure I understand your meaning. Neither did I understand that which was implied by another poster's refrence to Princess Diana's Muslim chariot of fire. I found it a strange combination, like oil and water. Islam and Roman Catholicism not so much but the reference to Elijah's transport didn't fit. Is that poster one of the 'us' you are referring to?
that depends wrote: Curious, Define the 'us' that you believe are the primary contributors, on this site? ... I am not sure I understand your meaning.
Sorry; by "us" I meant Independents, like Baptists, who seem common on these forums. By "hawking goods" I meant their attempts to persuade people about their church polity. It never hurts when people practice successfully what they preach.
Neil wrote: Every now & then these folks show up here to reprove us. Consider the pathetic wreckage of modern Presbyterianism, with apostate major denominations on one hand, & numerous micro-denominations on the other, all claiming they're on the straight & narrow. Pretty hard to hawk those goods. Every church polity has been tried, and these days, they're all fails.
Curious, Define the 'us' that you believe are the primary contributors, on this site? or are you referring to this News Forum in particular? "Pretty hard to hawk those goods" I am not sure I understand your meaning. Neither did I understand that which was implied by another poster's refrence to Princess Diana's Muslim chariot of fire. I found it a strange combination, like oil and water. Islam and Roman Catholicism not so much but the reference to Elijah's transport didn't fit. Is that poster one of the 'us' you are referring to?
Thanks, but I was aware of that. The problem facing us today, in my opinion, is not so much finding the "right" church polity, but finding worthy men who are humble, not arrogant or venal, & congregations who are watchful, not servile. Until this changes, it matters not whether there are councils, synods, congregations, vestries, episcopates, or whatnot — they will all stumble on the rock of human depravity.
Neil wrote: Presbyterianism, with apostate major denominations on one hand, & numerous micro-denominations on the other, all claiming they're on the straight & narrow. Pretty hard to hawk those goods. Every church polity has been tried, and these days, they're all fails.
In distinction to congregational (e.g., Baptist) and episcopal (e.g., CofE) polity, Presbyterianism is one body governed by representatives of congregations who hold conciliar (Presbytery, Synod and General Assembly) decision-making meetings.
If you discover multiple independent Presbyterian denominations or an independent Presbyterian congregation you know that Presbyterian polity has failed to some degree. They've lost the spirit of John 17.
William R. Estap wrote: In 1608 some men of Puritan views who had left the Church of England fled from persecution to Holland. Some of them later were the Pilgrims of Plymouth. Others came under the influence of Mennonites and adopted their views. About 1611 some of these latter founded in London the first Anabaptist or Baptist church of England. Other early English Baptists were in association with Dutch Mennonites. From these first English Baptists have come the Baptist churches of the English-speaking world. The Mennonite name is still borne by churches in Germany and by churches of German origin in Russia and America.
Anything that would hurry the death of the Anglican Church would be a godsend!
'...the State Church, which the great reformers had planted, and which some of them had watered with their blood, presented the spectacle which went far to justify the sarcasm of an eminent writer, that she possessed "A Popish Liturgy, a Calvinistic Creed, and an Arminian Clergy."' taken from The Down Grade
Neil wrote: The Act of Settlement of 1701 forbids monarchs from marrying Catholics.
Yes, but as that Jesuitical snake and claimed "constituitonal expert" Lord St John of Fawsley observed prior to the divorce of Diana, there was no law prohibiting the spouse of a monarch from converting to Roman Catholicism.
At the time Diana was seriously contemplating conversion and he was seeking to pave the way for her.
The Lord works in mysterious ways his wonders to perform, and sent a Muslim chariot of fire for her instead.
Every now & then these folks show up here to reprove us. Consider the pathetic wreckage of modern Presbyterianism, with apostate major denominations on one hand, & numerous micro-denominations on the other, all claiming they're on the straight & narrow. Pretty hard to hawk those goods. Every church polity has been tried, and these days, they're all fails.
Scots Presbys, despite the same persecution, attacked Independents for not agreeing with their church gov't.[/QUOTE]Can you clarify as to what you are here referring to? Interesting twist.
that depends wrote: Were Anabaptists, Independents, and various asundery sects dissenting from the CofE for the same reasons? What were their reasons as you understand it?
Were there English Anabaptists of the Swiss/German/Moravian type? I don't know. "Independent" is a term compassing General/Particular Baptists, Congregationalists, et al., already mentioned. Scots Presbys, despite the same persecution, attacked Independents for not agreeing with their church gov't.
The reasons for dissent were various: worship, ecclesiology, theology, or esp. the Anglican mode or subject of baptism,
Vexed wrote: "proposal that would allow future heirs to the throne to marry Roman Catholics raises questions about the monarch’s position as the head of the Church of England" Now that the CofE is no more Christian than Satan is. Now that the UK IS the United Kingdom of sodom and gomorrah. Then it probably doesn't make an ounce of difference who runs this rotten, morally corrupt dung pile anyway! After all the Holy Spirit is no longer a member of the national church, (CofE or CofS). And the wrath of God is evidenced as per Romans 1:18ff, against this godless, lawless, dead sinners at enmity with God. UK Today:-
Neil wrote: Dissenting from the Church of England, also called nonconformity. For years, they were denied political rights for refusing to conform to the CofE. This included Baptists, Presbys, Congregationalists, but also others like Quakers.
Were Anabaptists, Independents, and various asundery sects dissenting from the CofE for the same reasons? What were their reasons as you understand it?
Dissenting from the Church of England, also called nonconformity. For years, they were denied political rights for refusing to conform to (attend) the CofE. This included Baptists, Presbys, Congregationalists, but also odder fish like Quakers.
Neil wrote: The Act of Settlement of 1701 forbids monarchs from marrying Catholics. It is hard to imagine this being construed as freedom to marry a Muslim or other non-Protestant, but an attempt to try this tack wouldn't surprise me. The prospect does create a fascinating dilemma, doesn't it? "...there would be considerable pressure to disestablish the Church of England, leaving the nation without an established Church. The move would be warmly welcomed by secularists but it would further sideline Christians." It might upset Anglicans, but surely not Dissenting Protestants. Am I correct? From what I can tell, the CofE has been a political tool right from its very beginning.
on what you mean by Dissenting Protestant. What are they dissenting from and why?
"proposal that would allow future heirs to the throne to marry Roman Catholics raises questions about the monarch’s position as the head of the Church of England"
Now that the CofE is no more Christian than Satan is.
Now that the UK IS the United Kingdom of sodom and gomorrah.
Then it probably doesn't make an ounce of difference who runs this rotten, morally corrupt dung pile anyway!
After all the Holy Spirit is no longer a member of the national church, (CofE or CofS). And the wrath of God is evidenced as per Romans 1:18ff, against this godless, lawless, dead sinners at enmity with God.
UK Today:- 28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; 29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, 30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: 32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
The Act of Settlement of 1701 forbids monarchs from marrying Catholics. It is hard to imagine this being construed as freedom to marry a Muslim or other non-Protestant, but an attempt to try this tack wouldn't surprise me. The prospect does create a fascinating dilemma, doesn't it?
"...there would be considerable pressure to disestablish the Church of England, leaving the nation without an established Church. The move would be warmly welcomed by secularists but it would further sideline Christians."
It might upset Anglicans, but surely not Dissenting Protestants. Am I correct? From what I can tell, the CofE has been a political tool right from its very beginning, & the reason why America was a sanctuary for Dissenters & Catholics.
Dr. Alan Cairns | 8/3/2009
COMMENTS | 
