Episcopal Church: Christian?

[HappyChristian]

While I would agree there is much to disagree with in the Episcopal church today, to state that they never held the truth is an untruth in itself. George Washington was an Episcopalian - and he was a Christian. Episcopals back then did not hold with transubstantiation at all, because it was unscriptural (and, indeed, in some places it was against the law for anyone who believed in transubstantiation to hold public office).

My grandmother was raised Episcopalian, in the days before they began heading back into the embrace of the RCC. They taught the truth at one time. Some still do - at least the truth of salvation. I work with a woman who is a member of the one in town. The former pastor did teach salvation. I don't know about the current one.

As a denomination, they have turned away from the teachings of scripture in many areas, and that is sad. But, individual churches have not all. Would I join an Episcopalian church? No.

I agree that Christians should come out from them. I know John R Rice wanted to stay in the SBC to try and influence them to stay with scripture. But they came to a point where he had to say enough, and he left. A former pastor of mine was the same way. There are times when we have to say no more. That happens even in IFB churches. That's the reason that we all need to know scripture, and the men of the home need to really know God and lead their families accordingly.

[JerryNumbers]

I too do not like the word sacrament, for that does not truly define what the Lord's Supper and baptizing is about, its a word I do not use, unless pointing out the false ways of those who use it.


Added thought, Episcopal came out of the RCC, and they brought much of its baggage with them and have kept to it throughout the years, just as Luther did in coming out of the RCC and forming the Lutheran Church.

[John81]

There may have been a point in the past where some of these churches could have been brought in line with the Word. However, that time has clearly come and long gone. For the past several decades many churches, including the Episcopal, has gone from bad to worse to yet even worse. It's obvious the Episcopal church has determined it will go it's own way regardless of the Word. Any "good" Episcopal church and any "good" member of an Episcopal church would immediately separate themselves and follow Christ rather than a denomination.

[no name joe]

There may have been a point in the past where some of these churches could have been brought in line with the Word. However, that time has clearly come and long gone.

The same could be said for us if it were not for the death burial and ressurection of Christ. It is a good thing God did not write us off.

Nothing is impossible with God. God used Luther to bring about massive reformation in Christendom. He has used others as well throughout the ages.

God looked at the earth in the time of Noah, and found no men who loved him but for Noah and his family. He saved the world and brought rebirth to the world through Noah. I believe he works the same way in churches. Through earnestly seeking after him, God can and will bring reformation where needed. It happened before, and it will happen again. God did not walk away from humanity, and I don't believe people should lightly walk away from their church when their church is spiritually responsible for the spiritual lives of millions of people.

[John81]

The same could be said for us if it were not for the death burial and ressurection of Christ. It is a good thing God did not write us off.

Nothing is impossible with God. God used Luther to bring about massive reformation in Christendom. He has used others as well throughout the ages.

God looked at the earth in the time of Noah, and found no men who loved him but for Noah and his family. He saved the world and brought rebirth to the world through Noah. I believe he works the same way in churches. Through earnestly seeking after him, God can and will bring reformation where needed. It happened before, and it will happen again. God did not walk away from humanity, and I don't believe people should lightly walk away from their church when their church is spiritually responsible for the spiritual lives of millions of people.

What you are I believe doesn't matter, it's what God says that matters. God's Word is very clear with what His church is and isn't. God's Word is very clear with regards to how those who profess Christ are to separate themselves from churches such as the Episcopal which practice ungodliness and teach false doctrines. The Word makes it clear there are no exceptions and our stance in such areas shows whether our devotion is truly to Him or someone or something else.

According to the Word of God, it's not a light thing to walk away from a church that's as far gone as the Episcopal, it's the right thing. God calls for our obedience, not our attempts to circuMVent His Word.

[mattd]

Actually, if one truly loves Christ they will obey His Word and His Word is clear that in such situations as there is with the Episcopal church, the answer is separation.

According to Scripture, putting ones loyalty to a church institution above obeying the Word of God, is denying God as Supreme and placing that church above Christ.

I have yet to see a single person who has been biblically born again in Christ remain in any of the apostate or false churches.

It should be obvious to all the Episcopal church is no longer a biblical, Christ-honouring or Christ-serving church. Such was evident many years ago, even decades. There is absolutely no biblical authority for anyone claiming to be a follower of Christ to be a part of the Episcopal church.

Just read a few of the post under this thread and it appears that kindofblue has done exactly what you are suggesting. He says that his church is now under the authority of an African Bishop, so it can't be episcopal (as I understand it, the episcopals are the Anglicans in America, so you couldn't be an episcopal and be under the head of an African Bishop -- maybe I am confused). In any event, this suggestion seems kind of harsh. If we split up every time a disagreement comes along, then what are we heading towards?

[John81]

Just read a few of the post under this thread and it appears that kindofblue has done exactly what you are suggesting. He says that his church is now under the authority of an African Bishop, so it can't be episcopal (as I understand it, the episcopals are the Anglicans in America, so you couldn't be an episcopal and be under the head of an African Bishop -- maybe I am confused). In any event, this suggestion seems kind of harsh. If we split up every time a disagreement comes along, then what are we heading towards?

They call themselves Episcopal and they hold to Episcopal teaching. That's not separation.

[mattd]

They call themselves Episcopal and they hold to Episcopal teaching. That's not separation.

But John, that's like saying that IFBs that separate from a bad IFB church can no longer call themselves IFBs or hold to IFB teachings. As long as they are not holding to the heretical teachings, then what is the problem. I don't think something as simple as a name ever kept anyone from being in line with God's word. In fact, if we are going to be held to that standard, we might as well take "Christian" out of our name, as the good Lord knows there are multitudes of heretics that call themselves Christians. And, I checked out the link, they call themselves Angilcan Missions, not episcopal. If these folks are coming out of a bad church, they need our support and prayer. Urging them to change someing as trivial as a name seems like a waste of time.

[John81]

But John, that's like saying that IFBs that separate from a bad IFB church can no longer call themselves IFBs or hold to IFB teachings. As long as they are not holding to the heretical teachings, then what is the problem. I don't think something as simple as a name ever kept anyone from being in line with God's word. In fact, if we are going to be held to that standard, we might as well take "Christian" out of our name, as the good Lord knows there are multitudes of heretics that call themselves Christians. And, I checked out the link, they call themselves Angilcan Missions, not episcopal. If these folks are coming out of a bad church, they need our support and prayer. Urging them to change someing as trivial as a name seems like a waste of time.

IFB is not a denomination, Episcopal is. IFBs are, as the name states, "independent". Episcopals and other denominations are yoked together with the others in their denomination and with the heirarchy and the doctrinal positions of their denomination. One can't separate from a wayward denomination by going to another church in the same denomination.

[mattd]

IFB is not a denomination, Episcopal is. IFBs are, as the name states, "independent". Episcopals and other denominations are yoked together with the others in their denomination and with the heirarchy and the doctrinal positions of their denomination. One can't separate from a wayward denomination by going to another church in the same denomination.

Maybe I am misunderstanding. I thought he said he is now under another Bishop, so he isn't in the "same denomination." I admit I don't know anything about their heirarchy, but his new bishop is obviously different from his old one. Do they have a head? Like a pope? If not, then what is the heirarchy?

[Covenanter]

IFB is not a denomination, Episcopal is. IFBs are, as the name states, "independent". Episcopals and other denominations are yoked together with the others in their denomination and with the heirarchy and the doctrinal positions of their denomination. One can't separate from a wayward denomination by going to another church in the same denomination.

Episcopal is NOT a denomination, it is a system of church government, of bishops & priests/presbyters/elders lead the church.

1Ti 3:1 ¶ This [is] a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.

[John81]

Episcopal is NOT a denomination, it is a system of church government, of bishops & priests/presbyters/elders lead the church.

1Ti 3:1 ¶ This [is] a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.

Their system of churches, whether one chooses to use the term denomination or not, are yoked together under a heirarchy. This is clearly seen in many ways, one of the most public being when one Episcopal church decides to leave and the lawsuits come forth over who the church building and other properties actually belong to.

[no name joe]

[Maybe I am misunderstanding. I thought he said he is now under another Bishop, so he isn't in the "same denomination." I admit I don't know anything about their heirarchy, but his new bishop is obviously different from his old one. Do they have a head? Like a pope? If not, then what is the heirarchy?

The Episcopal church is the American branch of the Anglican Church (they changed the name to Episcopal during th Revolution because they didn't like the association with England).

How it is organized is that there are a number of provinces in the world.. Each province is governed by an Archbishop, then there are Bishops over various regions in teh provinces. The Archbishops job is to protect the theology in his province and he is to oversee all churches to see that they do not stray and that the people are growing spiritually. Bishops have authority over the local pastors and priests, and has more day to day job of visiting with the pastor in his area and assisting them where needed. The pastors and priests over see the local congregations. Local congregations typically are led by a Board of Elders, who will search for a pastor and guide the church through the process to find a new pastor when needed, and are responsible for theology in their individual churches. Deacons in the church help visit the sick, elderly, and carry out other service and ministry in the church.

Each province is autonomous. THe Archbiships meet periodically to discus things going on in the Anglican communion. It is kind of like a board of directors meeting. If there are disputes, they will be discussed. If there are issues to be considered, they will be discussed and decided upon. For example, the latest dispute is over homosexual clergy. The Episcopals (the American province) wants to ordain homosexuls to serve as priests and bishops. Many other provinces in the ANglican community do not want to, including Africa, Asia, etc. as they see that as contracry to Scripture. Many in the leadership of the Episcopal church (bishops) have other, deep theological problems such as denying the deity of Chist, etc. It is not completely widespread yet, and many local Episcopal congregations do not like the direction some bishops are taking. So there is a fight on two fronts...once is the local congregations, and the other is fight among the Archbishops.

The Archbishiop of Canterberry is the symbolic head of teh chruch. He is not like a "pope." He does not have authority over the others. He is like the President or Chairman of a Board, where his word carries a lot of weight, but it is not the final word. The final word is generally what the archbishops vote on. When the Episcopals wanted to ordain gay clergy, he opposed it, saying it will cause a deep rift int he Anglican community. He was right. The archbishops voted not to ordain homosexual clergy. THe Episcopals rejected his word and did so anyway. They are in rebellion against the Anglican community. That is why the African archbishop took many Episcopal churches under his authority. His view is that the Episcopal church is in rebellion, and these local congregations need a place where their spiritual needs will be met and that will hold fast to the gospel of Christ. So many local church joined the Anglican Mission in the Americas, missionary chruches sent from Africa.

So there is a separation between Episcopal and Anglican. They are still under the same umbrella, but the Episcopals have no authority over Anglican churches. The church I go to is under the spiritual leadership and authroity of the archbiship in Rwanda. His comment was that the West stood by and let his country commit genocide. Now he cannot stand by and allow the West to commit spiritual genocide.

Hope that clarrifies things. I know it is confusing to people not familiar with it.

Episcopals and Anglican are all under the Anglican umbrella, but they are really different umbrellas. The Episcopals are under authority of the Episcopal Archbiship. England is under the authority of the Archbishop of Canterberry. My chruch is under the authroity of the Archbiship of Rwanda. Local churches have a lot of autonomy, however.

[mattd]

The Episcopal church is the American branch of the Anglican Church (they changed the name to Episcopal during th Revolution because they didn't like the association with England).

How it is organized is that there are a number of provinces in the world.. Each province is governed by an Archbishop, then there are Bishops over various regions in teh provinces. The Archbishops job is to protect the theology in his province and he is to oversee all churches to see that they do not stray and that the people are growing spiritually. Bishops have authority over the local pastors and priests, and has more day to day job of visiting with the pastor in his area and assisting them where needed. The pastors and priests over see the local congregations. Local congregations typically are led by a Board of Elders, who will search for a pastor and guide the church through the process to find a new pastor when needed, and are responsible for theology in their individual churches. Deacons in the church help visit the sick, elderly, and carry out other service and ministry in the church.

Each province is autonomous. THe Archbiships meet periodically to discus things going on in the Anglican communion. It is kind of like a board of directors meeting. If there are disputes, they will be discussed. If there are issues to be considered, they will be discussed and decided upon. For example, the latest dispute is over homosexual clergy. The Episcopals (the American province) wants to ordain homosexuls to serve as priests and bishops. Many other provinces in the ANglican community do not want to, including Africa, Asia, etc. as they see that as contracry to Scripture. Many in the leadership of the Episcopal church (bishops) have other, deep theological problems such as denying the deity of Chist, etc. It is not completely widespread yet, and many local Episcopal congregations do not like the direction some bishops are taking. So there is a fight on two fronts...once is the local congregations, and the other is fight among the Archbishops.

The Archbishiop of Canterberry is the symbolic head of teh chruch. He is not like a "pope." He does not have authority over the others. He is like the President or Chairman of a Board, where his word carries a lot of weight, but it is not the final word. The final word is generally what the archbishops vote on. When the Episcopals wanted to ordain gay clergy, he opposed it, saying it will cause a deep rift int he Anglican community. He was right. The archbishops voted not to ordain homosexual clergy. THe Episcopals rejected his word and did so anyway. They are in rebellion against the Anglican community. That is why the African archbishop took many Episcopal churches under his authority. His view is that the Episcopal church is in rebellion, and these local congregations need a place where their spiritual needs will be met and that will hold fast to the gospel of Christ. So many local church joined the Anglican Mission in the Americas, missionary chruches sent from Africa.

So there is a separation between Episcopal and Anglican. They are still under the same umbrella, but the Episcopals have no authority over Anglican churches. The church I go to is under the spiritual leadership and authroity of the archbiship in Rwanda. His comment was that the West stood by and let his country commit genocide. Now he cannot stand by and allow the West to commit spiritual genocide.

Hope that clarrifies things. I know it is confusing to people not familiar with it.

Episcopals and Anglican are all under the Anglican umbrella, but they are really different umbrellas. The Episcopals are under authority of the Episcopal Archbiship. England is under the authority of the Archbishop of Canterberry. My chruch is under the authroity of the Archbiship of Rwanda. Local churches have a lot of autonomy, however.

John says you are unequally yoked to other episcopals. Please explain how you are not unequally yoked to them.

[JerryNumbers]

Only Christ is head of His church, so if a bishop be the head of a church, them its not of Christ.

Eph 5:23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the savior of the body.

Col 1:18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.

Eph 4:15 But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ:

Eph 1:22 And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church,

Kind of like the RCC, the pope is its head, not Christ, so its a church that is not of Christ, its a church lead and controlled by a mere man.

The true Baptist Churches of yesterday year and even true Baptist Churches of today did not and do not have a pastor as its head, the pastor was and is only the under-shepherd, and Christ was and is its head.

Christ has never turned the leadership of His churches over to anyone, God put Him over it, and Christ is still the head of His churches, setting on the right side of God.