Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:

quote:

---

Originally posted by pete173:
Those of us who stand in the tradition of Cranmer, Hooker and Jewell can point you to the reasons why we believe in an Anglicanism that is founded on sola scriptura, but is also sacramental, believes the presbyteral ministry of women to be scriptural, and is not obsessed with propositionalism as the hermeneutical key to scripture.

---

Sorry, I really am ignorant of Anglican church history here. It was my understanding that the Puritans left the C of E, which was their big disagreement with Cranmer et al, who stayed to reform it from within. Which is what I have heard conservative evangelicals say they are wanting to do.
And what I meant by my backahnded comment, Pete, is that its pretty hard to say you stand in Cranmer's shoes, when I've heard you wax lyrical over high church worship on these boards, as it was objection to this that got Cranmer burnt at the stake, was it not? I'm also astounded to find out that Cranmer and Hooker were pro the ordination of women.

quote:

---

It's now the preserve of anticharismatics (try being a charismatic there; it's murder)

---

Oh dear, poor ickle charismatics. Pity there's no charismatic training colleges in the C of E for them to go to.

quote:

---

We need a good college in London to which we can send our ordinands. Oak Hill ain't it.

---

Gosh, what an excellent appreciation of broadness you have. One reformed college in the C of E in the whole country, and a rather small one at that, and your knickers are all in a twist? That doesn't really seem very appreciative of diversity to me.
I don't know about now, but I have known several women who have trained there for ministry in the C of E. Not church leadership, but then, I'm sure we'd all agree that there is far more to ministry than that.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by pete173:
The foibles of the Mystery Worship Board are peripheral to the central faith of the CofE.

---

And I was getting to like you, Father.

Apart from that, spot on.

--------------------
insert amusing sig. here

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by pete173:


1. Yes, you are ignorant of Anglican history. Read some Hooker and then come back.

---

quote:

---

2. Catholic Anglicans (some of whom of course are in league with the ultraevangelical Luddites to oppose the presbyteral ministry of women, so clearly some of your bedfellows are happy to be associated with them, at least in theory) are part of a Reformed Catholic Church of England. That's what Cranmer was martyred for. The foibles of the Mystery Worship Board are peripheral to the central faith of the CofE.

---

quote:

---

3. I'll work with anyone who is credally orthodox, whether they be catholic, evangelical, charismatic, or ultraconservative. That's why I'm in the CofE and you're not. But the Jensenites want only one monochrome version of Anglicanism, which isn't particularly Anglican. And it isn't actually true to its Puritan antecedents either.

---

quote:

---

4. Read my post again. I didn't say that the Reformers were pro the ordination of women. In Hell, you can insult me as much as you like, but don't misrepresent me.

---

quote:

---

5. If you knew anything at all about evangelical Anglican history, you'd know that Oak Hill was founded as a mainstream evangelical college, to educate those without a first degree. It always was in the same tradition as the other colleges until recently.

---

quote:

---

6. It matters that Oak Hill is a no-go area for charismatics and women because the CofE is regionalising its training, and we in London have to work with it. It's our local college.

---

quote:

---

8. And don't give me all that rubbish about women training in a vicar factory for non-ordained ministry. There are no woman training for Anglican ordained ministry at Oak Hill - and like it or not, that's no preparation for the CofE at large.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Divine Outlaw-Dwarf:
How you managed to read all that into Pete173s eighth point is beyond me Leprechaun. As I understand it his point was, whether or not one agrees with the ordination of women, a male candidate will find himself working alongside ordained women once he is ordained, and training which does not prepare candidates for this reality is not living in the Real World. How you derived clericalism from that I don't know. Sounds like good old fashioned common sense to me.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Coot (Such a nice boy):
Lep, you're a boring little fuckwit determined to see pete173's position in the worst possible light. Take a reading comprehension course. See if you can fit it in when you come up for air during a Jensenite rimming session.

---

No see you guys interpret everything Evangelicals or 'ultra-evangelicals' do in the worst possible light, and then get upset when the favour is returned on you. Pete173 slags of Oak Hill and Leprechaun and Sydney, and if anyone has the temerity to challenge that it means they need a reading comprehension course? The fact that Lep and others can see through pete173's old chestnut arguments means that he clearly is not in need of any course. Licz mentioned earlier how the Bible had informed his Liberal convictions. Bollocks! If everlasting love and forgiveness from the Father is an exclusively Liberal concept then that's news to me. Liberals tend to forget that we're asked to repent and change our ways aswell though. Doh! Doesn't that sound nasty? Lets forget that bit and concentrate on the love part, ahh that's better As someone rightly pointed out earlier, before liberal-evanglicals or anyone else claims they are the inheritors of Cranmer, ask yourselves whether he would agree with the direction the CofE and Anglican Communion is taking these days. I think the reason why Jensen may be so forthright and unbending is simply as a reaction (perhaps overeaction) to the increasingly liberal pervasiveness of the Anglican Church in the West. Pete173 appears concerned at the inflexibility of Oak Hill and 'ultra-eveangelicals', and yet how flexible is the Liberal wing of the church, who these days go out of their way to liberalise the Church and ignore interpretations of scripture regarding many issues that have been accepted for millenia?

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Royal Peculiar:
I don't really have a dog in this fight either as I've all but lost my faith altogether, but I do have a residual affection for the C of E. However I do wonder whether anyone can claim to stand in the shoes of Cramner in any meaningful sense. Which shoes? The sandals he wore as a Roman Catholic monk? The ones he wore when he was implementing Henry VIII's non -papal Roman Catholicism ( in which case he'd be very at home on the MW board telling us what we could and couldn't do and threatening us with the stake if we disagreed)? 1549? 1552? Recanting? Recanting his recanting?

I prefer to give Elizabeth I the credit for founding the C of E ( after Mary ahd abolished it) and not wishing to make windows into mens' souls. Protecting the great Catholic composer from Puritan carping and thereby helping to enrich the repertoire of church music immesuarably.

---

Some of us do stll have our faith though Royal Peculiar and that's why we're passionate about these things. For people with faith, God is the most important thing in our lives (or ought to be in my case) and the implications of what he's done for us are massive. So I guess we're all out of gratitude trying to help his Church the best way we can. Even Liberals are I think, in their own misguided way

I agree regarding Cranmer, having learnt a bit more about him on a previous post I think he's a little complicated to be claimed by any group in his entirety. Though as a believer I hope you'll forgive me in placing greater emphasis on how to best serve God than how to best imrpove chruch music

Btw, how did you all but lose your faith? If it's too big a tangent to go into, perhaps you could start a thread about it in purgatory? I'd be interested.

--------------------
Genesis 29:20
So Jacob served seven years to get Rachel, but they seemed like only a few days to him because of his love for her.

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Divine Outlaw-Dwarf:
And, likewise, Philo, you demonstrate the trend amongst some conservative evangelicals to polarise the Church into 'conservative evangelicals' and 'liberals'. Pete173 is not a liberal. Nor am I. Nor, I think, is Coot. Nor are many of the people who have disagreed with the Jensen/ Leprechaun orthodoxy on this thread. We just disagree with you. There is a difference.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by philo25:
And I'm tired of hearing all this 'tradition' and 'reason' bollocks from non-Evangelicals..find me the scripture in the Bible to support this please? 'Tradition' and 'Reason' are blatant excuses that non-Evangelicals have come up with to legitimise all the paraphanelia and sometimes unbiblical stuff they or society comes up with. Doesn't Paul warn us about the philosophies of this world? The reason and tradition and philosphoies of this world are attacking the Church and non-Christians alike as never before. Now of course that isn't to say non-Evangelicals aren't Christians, but I would say many non-Evangelcals are allowing themselves to be misguided by modern societies attitudes to life, a well-meaning attempt to appeal to non-Christians. But how far should this go, where does it stop? It's a slippery slope my friends....

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by philo25:
The fact that Lep and others can see through pete173's old chestnut arguments means that he clearly is not in need of any course.

---

quote:

---

Licz mentioned earlier how the Bible had informed his Liberal convictions.

---

quote:

---

Pete173 appears concerned at the inflexibility of Oak Hill and 'ultra-eveangelicals', and yet how flexible is the Liberal wing of the church, who these days go out of their way to liberalise the Church and ignore interpretations of scripture regarding many issues that have been accepted for millenia?

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cranmer's baggage:
The Sydney approach represents one of several strands of evangelicalism in the Anglican tradition - notably, Puritanism.

---

quote:

---

Puritanism: "the haunting fear that somebody, somewhere, may be happy." H. L. Mencken

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amphibalus:
The fact that Linzc has carefully, thoughtfully and prayerfully engaged with the Bible is dismissed without a moment's hesitation simply because he has come up with The Wrong Answer™. The same applies to all thinking Christians of all thoughtful persuasions. Would someone please remember that scripture, reason and tradition have alway been the three legs upon which the Anglican communion has understood its theology and, God willing, always will be - scripture read with the wisdom which God gave us and in company with the whole church past and present.

...pete173 may also be concerned at eg the inflexibility of the ordinand I once had a breakfast conversation with at a conference who expressed the opinion that he was only going through the motions at college to get hold of the bit of paper which would allow him to work in an Anglican parish because he knew he had already been chosen and commissioned by God and no bishop or any other church person was going to tell him otherwise. I'll admit I've come across some liberal pillocks in my time - but nothing quite as mind-blowingly arrogant as that.

Oh, BTW, I'm pleased to see that you have actually used the words 'interpretation' and 'scripture' in close conjunction, and in the same sentence. It's a start, I suppose.

So how much longer do we have to put up with this ignorant 'I'm-not-listening-to-you-because-you're-not-saying-the-right-thing' twattery? If you want to debate, then debate - that's what God gave you a brain for (I assume) - but please try to listen to the other half of the debate, and make some attempt to understand it.

Incidentally, I picked Abp Jensen's book of the shelf in my local SPCK the other day, and noted that, according to the index, he dealt with the matter of the Holy Spirit in the course of a 17 page section of the book. In the course of those 17 pages he mentioned the word Spirit 8 times. I wonder why such people are so terrified and dismissive of the third person of the Holy Trinity. Are they actually afraid that the Spirit might indeed 'lead them into all truth'.

---

I have been debating, in my first post I was merely responding in kind to the kind of smug consensus opinions you guys were all expressing regarding Sydney and then all 'ultra-evangelicals'.

Ok lets start with your example of an 'ultra-evangelical' like the ordinand you met. That's a bit lame isn't it? We can all recount berks we've met that show their side in a bad light. At the Anglican society at my old uni, I met the chaplain, and he was recounting to us how he thought that they ought to put something in the water at his old parish to stop people breeding. I thought he was joking, but he wasn't. I never went back to AngSoc! I'm not saying all 'Liberals' etc are like this just because I met one idiot like that, so please don't embarass yourself again ( ) with any more old chestnuts like 'all evangelicals or ultra-evangelicals are like the chap I met.'

Btw using the (TM) symbol is also pretty lame, ditch that it's old! TM is becoming a TM in itself.

OK I don't know whether Lincz has asked for the Holy Spirit or not when he reads scripture, and I didn't mean to dismiss him in that way if that's how it came across. But at the same time, I have to say I find it interesting how people can claim that certain things in the Bible are no longer relevant as many Chritians these days are wont. Yep, ok so wearing mixed cottons isn't much of an issue now(!), but issues like marriage, same sex marriage, indeed anything to do with 'morality' are clearly issues that the Bible intended to speak to us about until the New Creation and perhaps beyond. And to my mind I don't feel these bits regarding morality (and it's these bits that tend to form the greatest part of the problems between the various wings of the CofE and Christianity) are open to interpretation. With regards Tradition, I think I agree with Bede's American Successor, and the scripture itself is Tradition. I don't think that how we conduct services, whether they be evensong or ultra-evangelical etc is important so long as the Gospel is getting through somehow and God is being praised. I do though feel that if things like 'evensong' are no 'longer bringing in the kids' then why not modernise the services a bit? And lets stop presuming that everyone knows the Gospel and the Bible like perhaps people did in the past, we're living in a post-Christian society now and perhaps a little less evensong and a little more Gospel preaching wouldn't go amiss to redress that.

Regarding the Holy Spirit you might have a point. I'm not saying I agree with everything Jensen does. I'm 12,000 miles away from Sydney so all I know about him is what I read on these posts and the net mostly. But I feel someone ought to stand up for him given the imho OTT remarks made on this and other threads. Even if that does involve playing devils advocate sometimes. In any case, the Holy Spirit clearly is not as 'tangable' an element of the Trinity as the Father or the Son. That doesn't mean he's less worthy, but merely that he's harder to write about, and perhaps that's why Jensen could only manage 17 pages and 8 quotes about him. Alister McGrath and many other writers find the Holy Spirit hard to conceptualise, so lets cut Jensen some slack here. I'd have the booklet it before making any more comments on it.

No-one's afraid of the Holy Spirit, and if your opinion is that the Holy Spirit might lead Jensen and others into the truth then that's quite an arrogant statement for you to make. I rather think you guys are all 'mystery-traditon-holy spirit' in order to reduce the role scripture better. Scripture is how we know God, and what he wants for is. The Bible is reason and tradition. Cranmer was attamepting to bring the CofE back to biblical guidelines when organising the BCP etc. To cut a very long post short all I'm really saying is that if you're really so interested in traditon and the Holy Spirit then the best place to look would be the Bible. The Holy Spirit helps us to understand scripture, he isn't there to help us ignore it or as its replacement.

--------------------
Genesis 29:20
So Jacob served seven years to get Rachel, but they seemed like only a few days to him because of his love for her.

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by philo25:
Ok lets start with your example of an 'ultra-evangelical' like the ordinand you met.

---

quote:

---

Btw using the (TM) symbol is also pretty lame, ditch that it's old! TM is becoming a TM in itself.

---

Sorry, I'll try to be more inventively witty next time.

quote:

---

OK I don't know whether Lincz has asked for the Holy Spirit or not when he reads scripture, and I didn't mean to dismiss him in that way if that's how it came across. But at the same time, I have to say I find it interesting how people can claim that certain things in the Bible are no longer relevant as many Chritians these days are wont.

---

quote:

---

...(and it's these bits that tend to form the greatest part of the problems between the various wings of the CofE and Christianity)...

---

quote:

---

With regards Tradition, I think I agree with Bede's American Successor, and the scripture itself is Tradition.

---

quote:

---

And lets stop presuming that everyone knows the Gospel and the Bible like perhaps people did in the past, we're living in a post-Christian society now and perhaps a little less evensong and a little more Gospel preaching wouldn't go amiss to redress that.

---

quote:

---

Regarding the Holy Spirit you might have a point.

---

quote:

---

I rather think you guys are all 'mystery-traditon-holy spirit' in order to reduce the role scripture better.

---

quote:

---

The Holy Spirit helps us to understand scripture, he isn't there to help us ignore it or as its replacement.

---

quote:

---

Further posted by philo25:
...if we claim that the Holy Spirit is telling us that something in scripture is no longer important thhen we might be deluding ourselves.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

The saying of the Daily Office (Morning and Evening Prayer) is a duty laid on every ordained minister except under extreme circumstances.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by philo25:
With regards Tradition, I think I agree with Bede's American Successor, and the scripture itself is Tradition.

---

quote:

---

Sir, I think you need to immerse yourself in something other the Evangelical Christianity for awhile. For example, the Eastern Orthodox believe that everything is Tradition. (Note use of the capital "T" versus lower-case "t.") That is, even the canon of Scripture is defined by Tradition. The Orthodox churches make a good case for that.

Have you ever asked what is meant when "Tradition" is referenced? It has nothing (directly) to do with how many swings of the thurible you make at the altar during the Sanctus.

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by philo25:


Btw, how did you all but lose your faith? If it's too big a tangent to go into, perhaps you could start a thread about it in purgatory? I'd be interested.

---

Now it's funny you should mention that. In January of last year I heard Pater Jensen speaking at St.Helen's Bishopsgate. Six weeks later I had become an atheist .

I don't think there was a connection. But who knows? Was God using the Anglican Archbishop of Sydney to lead me away from h/Him/h/Her /it/It?


[Only real idiots don't use Preview Post. Guess you're a real idiot.]

[ 06. June 2004, 13:01: Message edited by: Sarkycow ]

--------------------
Consistency is the last refuge of the unimaginative.

Oscar Wilde

Posted                       

I wouldn't be surprised, Royal P... Jensenism was so bad for me I almost committed suicide...

quote:

---

the saying of the Daily Office is required of everyone ordained in the Church of England. It is our duty and our joy...

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

People who claim 'sola' scriptura' are also amusingly prone to appeal to 'the early church' to back up their prejudices, Since 'the early church' had no canon to appeal to, such people would seem to place more reliance on tradition than the rest of us.

---

Gotta love the irony...

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nunc Dimittis:

quote:

---

the saying of the Daily Office is required of everyone ordained in the Church of England. It is our duty and our joy...

---

*whines* But Mattins is so tedious and long and boring!! I like Evening Prayer and I *love* Compline, but Mattins, esp when one is not a morning person is a real drag... (Do we HAVE to do Mattins?)

---

Nunc, that's why we like our nice shiny(ish) new(ish) APBA - daily offices are short, sharp & helpful. You should try them some time.

--------------------
Eschew obfuscation!

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nunc Dimittis:
I wouldn't be surprised, Royal P... Jensenism was so bad for me I almost committed suicide...

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cranmer's baggage:
Nunc, that's why we like our nice shiny(ish) new(ish) APBA - daily offices are short, sharp & helpful. You should try them some time.

---

Hear, hear! They're great.

[Another real idiot posting here ]

[ 06. June 2004, 13:43: Message edited by: Sarkycow ]

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amos:
Faithful Sheepdog--And if Nunc isn't being sarcastic or flippant, what then?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ham'n'Eggs:
And if this occurred about three years ago, and she did seek help, what then?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Magnum Mysterium:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cranmer's baggage:
Nunc, that's why we like our nice shiny(ish) new(ish) APBA - daily offices are short, sharp & helpful. You should try them some time.

---

Hear, hear! They're great.

[Another real idiot posting here ]

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Canon A5: Of the doctrine of the Church of England
The doctrine of the Church of England is grounded in the Holy Scriptures, and in such teachings of the ancient Fathers and Councils of the Church as are agreeable to the said Scriptures.

In particular such doctrine is to be found in the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, The Book of Common Prayer, and the Ordinal.

Canon B10: Of Morning and Evening Prayer in Cathedral Churches
In every cathedral church the Common Prayer shall be said or sung, distinctly, reverently, and in an audible voice, every morning and evening...

Canon B11: Of Morning and Evening Prayer in parish churches
1 Morning and Evening Prayer shall be said or sung in every parish church at least on all Sundays and other Principal Feast Days, and also on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday...

2 On all other days the minister of the parish... ...shall make such provision for Morning and Evening Prayer to be said or sung either in the parish church or, after consultation with the parochial church council, elsewhere as may best serve to sustain the corporate spiritual life of the parish... ...Public notice shall be given in the parish, by tolling the bell or other appropriate means...

Canon C26: Of the manner and life of ministers
1 Every bishop, priest, and deacon is under obligation, not being let by sickness or some other urgent cause, to say daily the Morning and Evening Prayer, either privately or openly...

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cranmer's baggage:
Nunc, that's why we like our nice shiny(ish) new(ish) APBA - daily offices are short, sharp & helpful. You should try them some time.

---

Hear! Hear! from me too. My old Anglican parish had permission to use the evil APBA in Sydney...and it was a delight to say them each day and say them on our retreats.

Of course, the Orthodox have some pretty damn fine Matins liturgy as well...but it can't be said to be short!

Ian.

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Magnum Mysterium:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Magnum Mysterium:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cranmer's baggage:
Nunc, that's why we like our nice shiny(ish) new(ish) APBA - daily offices are short, sharp & helpful. You should try them some time.

---

Hear, hear! They're great.

[Another real idiot posting here ]

---

Fuck off, dimwit.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zwingli*:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:

---

Originally bullshitted by Zwingli*:
Of course "politically sound" is the opposite of "politically correct" so "sound doctrine" is the opposite of... ?

---

Since not calling Asians "Wogs" is Politically Correct, can we assume that you think that it is Politically Sound to do so?

Or is this this other version of PC, which means "any daft statement that I can't be argued to actually argue against so I will flippantly refer to as "politically correct" in order to avoid any real thought process being necessary"?

---

It was a joke you idiot, obviously I don't think that PC and PS are literal, exact opposites, or that any statement must fit into one or the other, in a "statement x is PC iff it is not PS." I was alluding to how some people use the terms. Had you had the slightest of clues you would have realised that I was inferring, as a joke, doctrinal incorrectness (or error) on the part of the Sydney diocese.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mousethief:
Oooooh, I want to see the fight! Magnum Fuckwit versus Sarkycow! Fight! Fight! Fight! Fight! Fight! Fight! Fight! Fight! Fight! Fight! Fight! Fight! Fight! Fight! Fight! Fight! Fight! Fight! Fight! Fight!

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by philo25:
Licz mentioned earlier how the Bible had informed his Liberal convictions. Bollocks! If everlasting love and forgiveness from the Father is an exclusively Liberal concept then that's news to me. Liberals tend to forget that we're asked to repent and change our ways aswell though. Doh! Doesn't that sound nasty? Lets forget that bit and concentrate on the love part, ahh that's better

---

quote:

---

Then the yapping one proclaimed:
OK I don't know whether Lincz has asked for the Holy Spirit or not when he reads scripture, and I didn't mean to dismiss him in that way if that's how it came across.

---

quote:

---

Yet more drivel...
But at the same time, I have to say I find it interesting how people can claim that certain things in the Bible are no longer relevant as many Chritians these days are wont. Yep, ok so wearing mixed cottons isn't much of an issue now(!), but issues like marriage, same sex marriage, indeed anything to do with 'morality' are clearly issues that the Bible intended to speak to us about until the New Creation and perhaps beyond. And to my mind I don't feel these bits regarding morality (and it's these bits that tend to form the greatest part of the problems between the various wings of the CofE and Christianity) are open to interpretation.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Double post but I don't care it's Hell.

Philo asked: "And I'm tired of hearing all this 'tradition' and 'reason' bollocks from non-Evangelicals..find me the scripture in the Bible to support this please?"

I'm sure it's probably in the same passage that advocates sola scriptura

---

Actually tradition and reason are in scripture; it's only sola scriptura that isn't.

St. Paul says "Hold fast to the traditions that have been handed down to you, whether in writing or by word of mouth" and God says to Isaiah, "Come let us reason together."

Sola scriptura, on the other hand, is a fantasy with no scriptural backing whatsoever.

And by the way, nice rant, Linzc.

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mousethief:
And by the way, nice rant, Linzc.

---