Anglican Church doesn't follow Scripture

[John81]

Is the Anglican Church male-dominated?

It's trying not to be. The Diocese of Dunedin was the first in the world to appoint a female Bishop, and there are now many female priests in the Anglican Church in New Zealand. Most services and modern hymns use inclusive language. Some traditional hymns and forms of service do unfortunately contain male-specific language which can't be removed without damage to their poetic quality. We still often (but not always) refer to God as ‘He’ and ‘Father’, because sadly the English language has no suitable neutral terms other than the horribly impersonal ‘it’. We are working on improvements in this area.


Totally unbiblical. This belief even has the gall to proclaim by insinuation that God didn't know what He was talking about, or how to describe Himself, when He used male terms to refer to Himself rather than some neutral term as the Anglican church believes should be used.

Female bishops and priests are completely against the clear teaching of Scripture as to who is to hold these positions.

Scripture is equally clear that no follower of Christ should be a part of such an unbiblical church.

[John81]

There are two ceremonies relevant to becoming a fully functional Anglican. The first is Baptism, and the second is Confirmation.

Baptism is a ceremony representative of spiritual cleansing, ‘renewing’ a person upon entry into the Church. Originally the recipient was fully immersed in water; a modern baptism in the Anglican Church involves a ceremonial sprinkling of water on the head, and special prayers.

Some people are baptised as babies. This is an indication that the parents have decided to bring up their child as a Christian. In this case, people can be Confirmed when they are old enough to make their own decision to be part of the Church.



Unbiblical "baptism" and no requirement for one to be born again in Christ to join the Anglican church. This is man's way, not God's way.

[John81]

Article 17 - Predestination and Election

Predestination to life is the everlasting purpose of God, whereby, before the foundations of the world were laid, He has constantly decreed by His counsel secret to us, to deliver from curse and damnation those whom He has chosen in Christ out of mankind, and to bring them by Christ to everlasting salvation as vessels made to honour. Wherefore they which are endued with so excellent a benefit of God are called according to God's purpose by His Spirit working in due season; they through grace OBey the calling; they are justified freely; they are made sons of God by adoption; they are made like the image of His only-begotten Son Jesus Christ; they walk religiously in good works; and at length by God's mercy they attain to everlasting felicity.

As the godly consideration of Predestination and our Election in Christ is full of sweet, pleasant, and unspeakable comfort to godly persons and such as feel in themselves the working of the Spirit of Christ, mortifying the works of the flesh and their earthly members and drawing up their mind to high and heavenly things, as well because it greatly establishes and confirms their faith of eternal salvation to be enjoyed through Christ, as because it fervently kindles their love towards God: so for curious and carnal persons, lacking the Spirit of Christ, to have continually before their eyes the sentence of God's Predestination is a most dangerous downfall, whereby the devil thrusts them either into desperation or into wretchedness of most unclean living no less perilous than desperation.

Furthermore, we must receive God's promises just as they are generally set forth in Holy Scripture; and in our doings that will of God is to be followed which we have had expressly declared unto us in the word of God.

[DennisD]

It's almost laughable, if it wasn't so damning to millions, how close Protestants are to Catholics. Why go through the whole "protesting" of the RCC if you are going to keep so many of the doctrines?

THE ANGLICAN CHURCH

The Church of England was formed in 1534 when King Henry VIII (1509-1547) rebelled against the Roman Catholic pope and proclaimed himself the head of a national church in England.
1. The break was not over religion; it was over lust. Henry wanted to divorce his first wife, Catherine, and marry a lovely young lady in the court named Anne Boleyn.
2. The pope refused to grant the divorce, so Henry, never one to be told no, formed his own state church.
3. In spite of the break with the pope, Henry remained a Catholic in doctrine all his life. In fact, he hated Protestantism. Historian S.M. Houghton tells us that he “remained a bitter enemy of the reformed faith ... whatever else he did, he had no love for Protestant doctrine and Protestant worship” (Sketches from Church History, p. 112). Only 13 years before he broke with the pope, Henry had written a treatise titled “Defense of the Seven Sacraments against Martin Luther” and dedicated it to Pope Paul III. The Pope had shown his appreciation by awarding Henry the title Fidei Defensor (“Defender of the Faith”). (This title is still held by British monarchs, with “F.D.” still on all British coins.)

Edward VI (1547-1553)

The Church of England took a more Protestant turn when Henry died and his young son, Edward, took the throne. Edward was Henry’s only legitimate son.
1. When the boy king ascended to the throne at age nine (as Edward VI), it is said that he ordered a Bible to be carried before him in the royal procession, and his short reign brought a large measure of peace and liberty to the British kingdom.
2. In the days under Henry VIII, Bibles were largely forbidden and countless copies were burned, as were many of their owners. In contrast, under Edward’s reign there were 48 printings of the New Testament and the complete Bible.
3. Progress was also made to conform the Church of England to a Protestant pattern in doctrine and practice. Some (though by no means all) of the Catholic dogmas were rejected. Mass was abolished. Church services were conducted in English rather than Latin. A Protestant confession of faith was written by Archbishop Thomas Cranmer that eventually became the Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England. Many immigrants who had fled to Europe because of the persecutions under Henry returned.
4. It must be noted that Cranmer’s statement of faith contained many doctrinal heresies. He taught that baptism is necessary for salvation, that baptism is for infants, and that when infants are baptized, their sins are remitted. Cranmer condemned Anabaptist doctrine as “detestable heresies.”
5. The Reformation in the Church of England under Edward was short lived. Edward had reigned only six and a half years, from 1547 to 1553, when he died at the tender age of 16.

Queen Mary (1553-1558)

Upon the death of Edward, Henry’s elder daughter Mary ascended to the throne. During the reign of Mary, Bible-believers were tormented bitterly throughout the land.
1. Mary was a staunch Romanist, and Rome wasted no time in using her ascension to the throne to reclaim its power over England. On November 1554, the pope’s handpicked man, Cardinal Reginald Pole, arrived from Italy “with a commission to reconcile England to the papacy and to absolve it from the sin of schism” (Elton, Reform & Reformation, pp. 378,379).
2. The British Parliament then in session submitted to the pope’s legate and “revived the old heresy laws.” There followed four years of torment for Protestants and Baptists alike.
3. Under Mary, some 250 Protestants and Baptists were burnt at the stake. Nearly 100 more perished under torture and in prisons. Hundreds of Bible believers were forced to flee to Europe.
4. The rage of English Catholic authorities against the Bible during Mary’s reign was such that even the Scripture texts painted on church walls were required to be removed (John Lewis, History of the English Translations of the Bible, pp. 198, 201).
5. [sad to admit] many of the Protestants who were burned by the Catholic Queen Mary, had themselves supported the burning and persecution of Baptists.
6. Thomas Cranmer, who was burned by Mary on March 21, 1556, convicted and supported the burning of Anabaptists both during the reign of Henry VIII and during that of Edward VI. Under Henry, Cranmer was appointed to hunt out Anabaptists, to burn their books, and to turn the Anabaptists over to the secular arm of government to be executed if they refused to repent. Some were burned as a result.
7. Hugh Latimer is another example. He was burned by Mary on OctOBer 17, 1555. Latimer was the chaplain to Henry VIII. [Latimer was no friend of the Anabaptists.] In one of his sermons preached before King Edward, Latimer called the Anabaptists “poisoned heretics” (Cranmer’s Sermons, Parker Society, vol. v). This was only a few years before he was burned, in his own turn, by Mary.
8. And there is John Rogers; the translator of the “Matthew’s Bible”. He supported the burning of Anabaptist Joan Boucher. The historian John Foxe, who, to his credit, was opposed to the burning and who tried to save the woman from this trial, begged his friend Rogers to help him. Rogers refused, saying that she ought to be burned and spoke of death by burning as a light thing. Foxe seized the hand of Rogers and replied, “Well, it may so happen that you yourself will have your hands full of this mild burning” (Thomas Armitage, A History of the Baptists, 1890). We wonder if Rogers thought about that statement, when, a few years later, he was led out to a pile of faggots and burned before his wife and 11 children under the Catholic Queen Mary.
9. Mary’s last days were spent in torment. She was abandoned by her Spanish husband, Philip, who shamed her with his public affection for other women. She was tormented with mental depressions and fears. She thought that she was pregnant, but this bright hope turned out to be the figment of her own imagination. “… [though she did have a physical disease that was causing her abdomen to enlarge]. Throughout May [1555] she remained in her apartments waiting—waiting—in passionate restlessness. With stomach swollen, and features shrunk and haggard, she would sit upon the floor, with her knees drawn up to her face, in an agony of doubt; and in mockery of her wretchedness…” (Froude, v, pp. 520, 21). 10. Thinking that God was displeased with her because she had not destroyed all of the Protestants, she wrote a letter to hasten the persecutions. “Under the fresh impulse of this letter, fifty persons were put to death at the stake in the three ensuing months…” (Froude, v, p. 523).
11. Mary died on November 15, 1558, at age 43, childless, in the sixth year of her evil reign.

Elizabeth I (1558-1603), the daughter of Henry’s second wife, Anne Boleyn, ascended to the throne after Mary, and relative peace settled over England.

1. One of her first moves as queen was to support the establishment of an English Protestant church, of which she became the Supreme Governor. This Elizabethan Religious Settlement held firm throughout her reign and later evolved into today's Church of England.
2. The defeat of the Spanish Armada in 1588 associated her name forever with what is popularly viewed as one of the greatest victories in English history.
3. After the short reigns of Elizabeth's brother and sister, her 44 years on the throne provided welcome stability for the kingdom and helped forge a sense of national identity.
4. [it has been said that when a group of school children asked her what was her favorite letter of the alphabet that she responded ‘ “M”: for (1Co 1:26) the Bible says that ‘not many nOBle are called’…without ‘m’ then it would read ‘not any nOBle are called’.’]
5. When Elizabeth died, James I (1603-25) ascended the throne of England. He was the king who authorized the translation of that masterpiece of English Scripture, the King James Bible, which appeared in 1611.
6. The Church of England persecuted dissidents from the time of its formation under Henry VIII until the 17th century. These persecutions are described in the section on “The Anabaptists of the Reformation Era.”

[John81]

It's almost laughable, if it wasn't so damning to millions, how close Protestants are to Catholics. Why go through the whole "protesting" of the RCC if you are going to keep so many of the doctrines?

And I've noticed in many cases there is even much boasting as to how close they are to the RCC.

It's sad that even among Baptists there is a growing acceptance of wayward, unbiblical and even false churches. Those who yoke themselves with Anglican, Episcopal and other unscriptural churches are patted on the back, their choice of such a church accepted as just fine, and even a growing number will defend such.

Given that such attitudes has even crept into some IFB folks, it's little wonder there are so many different "camps" among IFBs and why IFB is becoming less of a sure description of where such stands.

When we turn from the Word of God as our standard, we find ourselves tossed by the waves of the sea.

[no name joe]

And I've noticed in many cases there is even much boasting as to how close they are to the RCC.

It's sad that even among Baptists there is a growing acceptance of wayward, unbiblical and even false churches. Those who yoke themselves with Anglican, Episcopal and other unscriptural churches are patted on the back, their choice of such a church accepted as just fine, and even a growing number will defend such.

Given that such attitudes has even crept into some IFB folks, it's little wonder there are so many different "camps" among IFBs and why IFB is becoming less of a sure description of where such stands.

When we turn from the Word of God as our standard, we find ourselves tossed by the waves of the sea.

This is the kind of attitude that saddens me. There is room in the kingdom of God for people of all denominatinos. And there are strong, faithful, Spirit filled christians in all denominations. I seek a church where teh people are authenticly seeking to follow the call of Christ to go, make disciples, baptize, and spread the gospel, and take care of widows and orphans, and to love your neighbor as yourself. I was initially surprised to find this in an Anglican church, but God has a way of surprising us.

I have to strongly disagree that Anglicans as a whole are not a biblical Church. The Anglican church is spreading Christ in Africa and Asia at unprecedented rates. The kingdom of God is experiencing phenominal growth in those areas, while the Church in the West is in decline. The church I currently am a member of was sent from Africa, and is experiencing phenomenal growth, reaching people of all backgrounds for Chrst. God is at work here, no dOBut. Here is a quick overview:

http://www.theamia.org/action/

As for me, I go where God calls me. He has called me to this church in this stage of my life. Perhpas I no longer belong here on this board, so I may just back away.

One more note, there are so many local ANglican churches. The Anglicans are all about the local church, and local churches vary tremendously on worship style, how they do worship, and how they carry out the biblical commands of Christ, so you cannot make a blanket statemtn.

[1Timothy115]

Did the means justify the ends?

[Saved IFB]

This is the kind of attitude that saddens me. There is room in the kingdom of God for people of all denominatinos. And there are strong, faithful, Spirit filled christians in all denominations. I seek a church where teh people are authenticly seeking to follow the call of Christ to go, make disciples, baptize, and spread the gospel, and take care of widows and orphans, and to love your neighbor as yourself. I was initially surprised to find this in an Anglican church, but God has a way of surprising us.

I have to strongly disagree that Anglicans as a whole are not a biblical Church. The Anglican church is spreading Christ in Africa and Asia at unprecedented rates. The kingdom of God is experiencing phenominal growth in those areas, while the Church in the West is in decline. The church I currently am a member of was sent from Africa, and is experiencing phenomenal growth, reaching people of all backgrounds for Chrst. God is at work here, no dOBut. Here is a quick overview:

http://www.theamia.org/action/

As for me, I go where God calls me. He has called me to this church in this stage of my life. Perhpas I no longer belong here on this board, so I may just back away.

One more note, there are so many local ANglican churches. The Anglicans are all about the local church, and local churches vary tremendously on worship style, how they do worship, and how they carry out the biblical commands of Christ, so you cannot make a blanket statemtn.

Whoa!!! What happened here? No need to leave the forum.

[Saved IFB]

I have read many articles that state that IFB's are dogmatic. Is this what your getting from the post, kindofblue1977?

[no name joe]

I have read many articles that state that IFB's are dogmatic. Is this what your getting from the post, kindofblue1977?

I really try to remain positive. I debated whether even to put it out there that I switched from a Baptist to Anglican church, and decided that I don't need to hide anything. I got one post from someone in another thread that basically said the church I felt God leading me to attend is Satanic, and another saying it is unbliblical, when folks here have not visited my church, does not know the pastors there, and has no clue what the church I attend teaches.

I can assure everyone that it is a very solidly based church. It is built on three streams through which God speaks to us...the Bible, the Spirit, and through communion. It seeks to follow Christ, and the people there are authentic and truly seeking to follow Christ.

I just feel like now that I put it out there, perhaps I should not have done so because now people are being negative towards something that God has used in my life in a very positive and powerful way. I have no prOBlem with people asking legitimate questions and seeking information. I do have a prOBlem when people seem to attack and call a church satanic or unbiblical when they have not even set foot in and have no idea what the local church I attend believes or does. So perhaps I need to back out for awhile, so not to be dragged into the negativity that I am sensing.

[DennisD]

I really try to remain positive. I debated whether even to put it out there that I switched from a Baptist to Anglican church, and decided that I don't need to hide anything. I got one post from someone in another thread that basically said the church I felt God leading me to attend is Satanic, and another saying it is unbliblical, when folks here have not visited my church, does not know the pastors there, and has no clue what the church I attend teaches.

I can assure everyone that it is a very solidly based church. It is built on three streams through which God speaks to us...the Bible, the Spirit, and through communion. It seeks to follow Christ, and the people there are authentic and truly seeking to follow Christ.

I just feel like now that I put it out there, perhaps I should not have done so because now people are being negative towards something that God has used in my life in a very positive and powerful way. I have no prOBlem with people asking legitimate questions and seeking information. I do have a prOBlem when people seem to attack and call a church satanic or unbiblical when they have not even set foot in and have no idea what the local church I attend believes or does. So perhaps I need to back out for awhile, so not to be dragged into the negativity that I am sensing.

Sorry you feel that way. You will find that there are many posts of different faiths showing their error when put up against the Word of God. Perhaps God has led you to this Church so that you may see from this website the failings of the Anglican Church.

Whether your local Church is speaking the truth and is a bible preaching, bible believing church...I cannot say (unless you can post a website where it shows what they believe). But, to be part of the Anglican Church who accepts women pastors and homosexuals shows acceptance of those practices...whether your local church holds to those "standards", I do not know.

I don't understand your comment about 3 streams and then you mention communion. You do know communion (or Lord's supper) is a remembrance correct? It holds no special power in salvation or the like. Although, if you do partake of it unworthily...God might decide to make you sick or kill you.

We had this conversation awhile back but quick recap, if I attended a biblically based Catholic church that didn't believe in infant baptism, works salvation, Transubstantiation, purgatory but was still UNDER the Catholic church name...I shouldn't be attending that church because it would show acceptance of those unbiblical doctrines of the Catholic church.

Hope that makes sense. I can't tell you whether God led you to this Anglican church or not but we must always test these "feelings" we get against the Word of God. If it goes against His Word...then He is not the one telling us to go somewhere/do something/etc.

Just food for though.

[Saved IFB]

I really try to remain positive. I debated whether even to put it out there that I switched from a Baptist to Anglican church, and decided that I don't need to hide anything. I got one post from someone in another thread that basically said the church I felt God leading me to attend is Satanic, and another saying it is unbliblical, when folks here have not visited my church, does not know the pastors there, and has no clue what the church I attend teaches.

I can assure everyone that it is a very solidly based church. It is built on three streams through which God speaks to us...the Bible, the Spirit, and through communion. It seeks to follow Christ, and the people there are authentic and truly seeking to follow Christ.

I just feel like now that I put it out there, perhaps I should not have done so because now people are being negative towards something that God has used in my life in a very positive and powerful way. I have no prOBlem with people asking legitimate questions and seeking information. I do have a prOBlem when people seem to attack and call a church satanic or unbiblical when they have not even set foot in and have no idea what the local church I attend believes or does. So perhaps I need to back out for awhile, so not to be dragged into the negativity that I am sensing.

Your good. No need to take back your statements. If you know 100 percent sure that the Church you belong to holds true, let it be so. Baptist, Anglican, Methodist, etc are only titles. And as such should be looked upon as such. Your faith and your relationship with our Lord is the only thing that matters.

[DennisD]

You surely don't have to belong to a local, Independent Baptist Church to be biblical correct that's for sure.

[Covenanter]

I really try to remain positive. ......
So perhaps I need to back out for awhile, so not to be dragged into the negativity that I am sensing.

Good point, KOB. We can stand on Scripture & befriend people who don't believe exactly as we do. The British FIEC unites Bible-believing Christians & churches with a doctrinal basis that allows for some disagreement. Local churches & individual Christians can freely worship together.

Is IFB truly Independent?

[DennisD]

Good point, KOB. We can stand on Scripture & befriend people who don't believe exactly as we do. The British FIEC unites Bible-believing Christians & churches with a doctrinal basis that allows for some disagreement. Local churches & individual Christians can freely worship together.

Is IFB truly Independent?

Yes.