Is there a Christian denom that believes this?

[Carol in Cal.]

Well then you have a lot of correcting to do. Perhaps about 22 thousand denominations worth (there are 35k in total, so I'm giving some the benefit of the doubt).

 

Look. I am asking you to be scholarly and respectful. I think that that is a reasonable request. I treat Catholicism in that manner, although I have deep and heartfelt disagreements with it. It would be easy for me to take potshots at your Faith, and I don't choose to do so. Please extend me the same courtesy.

[lorrainejmc]

I scored 100% Orthodox Quaker. :confused: I resonated with some of the Quaker beliefs listed, but I'm not so sure it's for me. It's worth adding to the list of groups to explore further, though.

 

 

Me too, 100%:D

 

Funny I had been looking at the Quakers. Like a few others I was going to suggest Anglican to you which is what I was born into, well specifically Church of Ireland which is Anglican.

[Spy Car]

Spycar and others, presented in their own words, without endorsement, here is some ACNA background:

 

From the website of St. James Anglican Church, San Jose, CA

 

 

Since the relevant portion was accidentally omitted I went to the St James Church website to read the claim of being part of the Anglican Communion. I see no where where the Anglican Communion list the ACNA being part of the Anglican Communion. It is conspicuously absent from the official Anglican Communion list of churches in the Communion in North America.

 

The rest of the quotes article makes it clear that the ACNA is "traditional" and not one that endorses "religious liberalism" like the Roman Catholics.

 

The actual case is the ACNA is extremely conservative and was formed largely in reaction to the ordination of women and gay Priests and Bishops by the Episcopal Church.

 

Bill

[simka2]

More or less, Simka. We hold to the Lutheran Confessions as a true and accurate exposition of God's Word--and some of them postdate Luther. One of the most quintessential books by a confessional Lutheran that really gives a flavor for the church teach is Walther's "Law and Gospel". Probably the best English book to summarize all the teachings would be Kohler's "Summary of Christian Doctrine."

 

Predestination--we don't believe in that in the way that the Reformed do. I have to think about this for a while to explain it properly as it is pretty paradoxical. Let me get back to you on it--I don't have time to do it justice today.

Not a problem :D Please know that I understand it is difficult to "go to bat" so to speak for one's specific belief system. I really appreciate what you are sharing though.

 

I am very curious about the CL understanding of Sola Scriptura. Honestly, I am still a bit confused on the difference and wish there was a really concise "CL defines it this way, which is different from later reformed denominations because of this, that, and these." ;)

[Carol in Cal.]

Carol, I am sorry if my understanding of it offends you. I have said over and over that I get that it doesn't apply to you. But Lutheranism doesn't own the word or the theology. If we all get to keep what we define, then you may want to rethink your usage of Trinity, the Eucharist, tradition, and so on.

 

You have chosen to take offense. You have chosen to read my posts in a way that I am not intending them. I can only tell you so many times that I get that you don't agree and I am sorry you have taken offense.

 

I am honestly not sure what else to call it when that is the term they use. What would you suggest that would be less offensive? How can we talk about it in a way that you know we are not referring to your definition of it? I am open to corrections here.

 

Your understanding is inaccurate, and it is your lumping every Christian who is not EO or Catholic into that misunderstanding that offends me. I suggested the term Solo Scriptura in the alternative, several times.

[Myeightkiddies]

I rated 100% orthodox Quaker, 92% Islam, and 92%orthodox Judaism. So, I don't hold much faith in that test. :lol:

 

Wow! That certainly is quite a mixture. I agree. I don't think the test is accurate, but it was entertaining.

[8circles]

Sorry your head hurts. Feel better soon. :grouphug:

 

Thanks. I've had to go cold-turkey no coffee & my body is protesting greatly.

[FaithManor]

It is not a caricature of those newer churches, but it is not the original meaning of Sola Scriptura by any means. It's ahistorical, and to hear it asserted as accurate and applying to everyone who is not Catholic or Orthodox over and over really feels quite oppressive after a while to those of us who do hold to the historic meaning of the term--and there are a LOT of us here, throughout the country, and world wide--it's not a little fringe element in some tiny hamlet in Antarctica or something equally obscure, LOL.

 

 

I understand what you are saying Carol. Dh and I currently attend a non-denominational church that those who are "on the outside looking in" would paint with that brush for lack of knowing any better. The fact is, the creeds are adhered to/catechized. My children lead a children's group in the Apostle's Creed last year. Ancient and Medieval history is taught, the Bible is read and studied, but filtered through the known history, the writings of the founding fathers of Christiandom, the testimony of "so great a cloud of witnesses". Yes, there are some who worship within our church family who will always adhere to "my personal interpretation is the right one". As long as non-perfect people walk the earth, there will be those who seek to impose their "authoritative view" on others. But, that is no different from any other faith group. I meet people all the time from MANY faith walks who choose not to adhere to this, that, and the other thing from their faith tradition and they say they were lead to that conclusion from reading the same Bible I read. Man's folly has always been, well, EGO. However, while some rather broad statements might have applied, in general, to many protestant groups in the distant past, I think one is VERY hard pressed to make the case for those sweeping generalizations now. Not in 2011...not with so many people seeking, so many people studying, so many people who have embraced "come let us reason together". There is much more diversity than one might expect if one is no longer in the "protestant" tradition than there once was.

 

For that matter, "Protestant" is a term that doesn't even apply to dh and I. Sola Scriptura doesn't apply, but then nothing EO or RC exactly applies either. I guess, Jesus Seeker, might be the best term! :D

 

For what it is worth, I do think the OP, if she lives in a region located a reasonable distance from an EO church, would find herself welcomed with open arms there.

 

Faith

[FaithManor]

Thanks. I've had to go cold-turkey no coffee & my body is protesting greatly.

 

 

BRUTAL! :grouphug:

 

Faith

[Avila]

Your understanding is inaccurate, and it is your lumping every Christian who is not EO or Catholic into that misunderstanding that offends me. I suggested the term Solo Scriptura in the alternative, several times.

 

If you did on this thread, I missed the o in place of the a. Had to read that three times to get it here too. Although that might work otherwise.

 

Please don't assume I am talking about all non-Catholics. I thought it was clear that momoflaw and I were discussing a very specific subset earlier, and I apologize if that was not clear. Message boards don't help that kind of misunderstanding.

 

I do understand that what I said, while accurate of the denominations I grew up in, is NOT accurate for yours. I never meant to imply otherwise.

 

Again, I am sorry to have offended you.

[Parker Martin]

My experience of the ECUSA was not that it was a "big tent." It was headed in a certain direction, and people were expected to get on board or get out of the way. This based on state conferences, working for an ECUSA church, and conversations with priests on both sides. People in the pews weren't really aware of it though.

 

If the direction it's heading is appealing to a person, it could be a good fit, but I would not characterize it, at least at the higher levels, as being particularly welcoming to differing (read: more theologically conservative) points of view.

[Avila]

Thanks. I've had to go cold-turkey no coffee & my body is protesting greatly.

 

That is painful. I hope you are feeling better.

[8circles]

The concept is that the Bible contains everything you need. All matters of faith are contained in it, and anything not explicitly contained in it is suspect. Well, how will you be accessing that? By reading the Bible. And when you read it, you will be de-coding or interpreting it (because that is what reading entails, the process of applying meaning to written words). So you read it, try to understand it, so you can then apply it. What part of that am I missing then?

 

SS rejects everything not in the Bible. The problem is that just by reading the Bible, you are adding to it. You have words. You interpret their meaning. Somebody has to have the authority to decide that meaning. Whether you are that authority, your church is that authority, your pastor is that authority, I can assure you that there is one. There is a final place you go to when you don't understand what a verse means. And whatever that is, that is your authority. Not the Bible. And we go round and round.

 

Whatever we read goes through filters to be understood. You access your own personal dictionary to apply meaning to the words. This is complicated further still with the Bible because we are reading the translation of a translation in many cases by the time we even get a crack at it. All I am saying is that this is a VERY complicated thing we do, reading an ancient text and applying meaning to it for modern times.

 

I am sorry you have a headache. Eat you dinner and feel better. :grouphug:

 

This is absolutely false. Its the same conversation over again, though.

[Parker Martin]

Thanks. I've had to go cold-turkey no coffee & my body is protesting greatly.

 

Ouch! Hope you feel better soon. That's killer.

[Carol in Cal.]

Since the relevant portion was accidentally omitted I went to the St James Church website to read the claim of being part of the Anglican Communion. I see no where where the Anglican Communion list the ACNA being part of the Anglican Communion. It is conspicuously absent from the official Anglican Communion list of churches in the Communion in North America.

 

The rest of the quotes article makes it clear that the ACNA is "traditional" and not one that endorses "religious liberalism" like the Roman Catholics.

 

The actual case is the ACNA is extremely conservative and was formed largely in reaction to the ordination of women and gay Priests and Bishops by the Episcopal Church.

 

Bill

 

Maybe you're right about the Anglican Communion--I took the first paragraph that I pulled off that website to imply that the ACNA is part of it, as that seems to be the plain meaning of the text, but I guess I might be wrong. However, specifically, the ACNA is more conservative than the Episcopal church but does not object to the ordination of women, although I believe that the ordination of priests and bishops in committed gay relationships and the belief that those are equivalent to marriage was either the trigger or one of the triggers for the formation of that group. Additionally, they reject something that I find hard to define, but tend to call 'churchly non-belief' that you sometimes see among some but definitely not all Episcopalian writers. But really, I'm not Episcopal nor am I Anglican, so this is all I feel comfortable saying on the subject. It would be better for someone who is Anglican and knows about this from the inside to comment.

 

I stand by my view, though, that the ACNA might be a good fit for the OP. It is far less conservative than any fundamentalist church I have ever run across, which is why I question the term 'extremely conservative.'

[Avila]

This is absolutely false. Its the same conversation over again, though.

 

When you are feeling better, how about linking me to your definition somewhere? Please.

 

And let me say, again, when you brought up the other poster, I was assuming you were asking and we were discussing her terminology with her lack of formal church and such, not yours.

[Carol in Cal.]

Yes, yes! That was what I meant :D

"Adam and Eve were the first to fall, and the first raised." This is such a beautiful image to me. I am not totally sure why, but I just love it!

 

Yes, that's a good one!

[milovany]

And let me say, again, when you brought up the other poster, I was assuming you were asking and we were discussing her terminology with her lack of formal church and such, not yours.

 

That was what I thought, too, since the context was a conversation about home-churching (a realm that would use the term "sola scriptura" much as Shelly describes). It got confusing there when all of a sudden it switched to Lutheranism and/or Anglicanism.

Edited November 21, 2011 by milovaný

[Carol in Cal.]

If you did on this thread, I missed the o in place of the a. Had to read that three times to get it here too. Although that might work otherwise.

 

Please don't assume I am talking about all non-Catholics. I thought it was clear that momoflaw and I were discussing a very specific subset earlier, and I apologize if that was not clear. Message boards don't help that kind of misunderstanding.

 

I do understand that what I said, while accurate of the denominations I grew up in, is NOT accurate for yours. I never meant to imply otherwise.

 

Again, I am sorry to have offended you.

 

I can't remember whether I used that term in this thread or not. I know that I have used it a lot in discussions of this type, but perhaps not in this one. It's a good one, though easy to miss, certainly!

 

Thank you for your note...I am sorry that we have talked past each other sometimes. :grouphug:

[Avila]

I can't remember whether I used that term in this thread or not. I know that I have used it a lot in discussions of this type, but perhaps not in this one. It's a good one, though easy to miss, certainly!

 

Thank you for your note...I am sorry that we have talked past each other sometimes. :grouphug:

 

I apologized to her too.

 

I really don't mean to speak for your faith, and I admit to not understanding confessional Lutheranism very well, in light of that. It is very different than what I grew up with.

[Carol in Cal.]

That was what I thought, too, since the context was a conversation about home-churching (a realm that would use the term "sola scriptura" much as Shelly describes). It got confusing there when all of a sudden it switched to Lutheranism.

 

Ha, this is funny...I only joined this thread to talk about Anglicanism.

 

But hearing Sola Scriptura described like that, is kind of like if someone who did not believe in the Real Presence started talking about cannibalism. It just bites. I understand that that is not intentional. I bring a lot of intentional respect to conversations of this type, and I know that others mostly do as well. We can all get along, I am sure.

[milovany]

Ha, this is funny...I only joined this thread to talk about Anglicanism.

 

But hearing Sola Scriptura described like that, is kind of like if someone who did not believe in the Real Presence started talking about cannibalism. It just bites. I understand that that is not intentional. I bring a lot of intentional respect to conversations of this type, and I know that others mostly do as well. We can all get along, I am sure.

 

I had added "and Anglicanism" to my last sentence -- and then took it out because of the confusion. :lol:

[Carol in Cal.]

For that matter, "Protestant" is a term that doesn't even apply to dh and I. Sola Scriptura doesn't apply, but then nothing EO or RC exactly applies either. I guess, Jesus Seeker, might be the best term! :D

 

 

Yes, Protestant is just so completely non-descriptive that it's almost useless as a term! We are WTMers; we are waaaaaaaaaay to precise for that one.

[zaichiki]

Problem for me is that DH likes the flashy band and casual nature of the modern evangelical church, so not sure I could convince him to go to a more liturgical congregation.

 

We go to a Catholic church that has a flashy praise band (the 9:30 Sunday Masses) and a casual nature! Isn't that funny?!

[Carol in Cal.]

For several who have pm'ed me...

 

There is a book that presents the Confessional Lutheran POV compared with the Roman Catholic one and also with the more conservative sort of old-fashioned what-we-used-to-call protestant ones put out by Northwestern Publishing House. It's called "Lutheran, Catholic, Protestant". Obviously, it has a distinctly Lutheran POV and it is fairly short so it compromises a bit in the descriptions of all three, but as an introduction if you want to understand the CL POV, it's good.

[Upward Journey]

I'm one of those that attend the Anglican Church in North America. Coming from a conservative evangelical background, I do not find it to be overly conservative. It's more liberal than any church I've ever attended in my life. As far as I know, it meets every point listed that the original poster listed. Last week I attended an Anglican service in Edmonton, AB (normally I'm in the SE USA)and there weren't any real differences, except that we only sang hymns (no praise songs), and the homily was a bit more concerned with social justice than I'm used to. They definetly were not part of the ACNA, as there are only 3 ACNA parishes in all of Alberta.

 

Anyway if the OP is coming out of a conservative evangelical church the ACNA may be a very good fit for her, as it does not major on the minors, is liturgical and seems to fit what she's looking for doctrinally.

[JenniferB]

Bill, I think that on the surface you are absolutely correct about that. However, in practice, it can seem very different. I've experienced tremendous MORE grace, mercy, encouragement, and uplifting from EO priests and members on this journey...they just aren't upset, phased, etc....do not seem to have a dog in the fight that I MUST accept this or that on such and such timetable, than I have from any other faith tradition within Christiandom. I think it's that humble love and their ability to let go and allow the person to draw their own conclusions and either get there when they get there, or not, that I think the OP would benefit from...so, so many faith traditions have no room for those that struggle, seek to understand, etc. Many seem more interested in "blind" faith which in practice, is a lot more authoritarian feeling than the hierachy of the EO or at least, as I've experienced it. Pressure, there is just so much pressure within many churches.

 

I guess what I'm trying to say is that I've never, ever felt the hierachy of the EO church, in the same way I've felt it in any other church and that says a lot given that we currently attend a non-denominational church with Methodist leanings and no major hierarchy at all. It seems the evangelical tradition, in attempting to shed itself of that hierarchy, has a tendency to place into being it's own authoritarian system of guilt, brimstone, judgmentality, etc. in an attempt to force conformity.

 

Again, that is just how I've experienced. Yes, traditionally, there is a LOT more hierarchy of authority within the EO. I just don't believe that it expresses itself with any of the heavy-handedness that has been prevalent within other groups.

 

Faith

 

:iagree: So True! You stated this beautifully. This perfectly describes my experience as well. There is more of an authoritarian heavy-hand in the non-denominational persuasion we came from, than in the EO which we are moving into.

[squirtymomma]

I strongly suggest that you look for a church in the Anglican Communion of North America. It is EXACTLY what you are talking about. Exactly. Closer than any previous suggestion.

 

(I am not ACNA, but am very familiar with them.)

 

I'm not reading through the whole thread, but I agree with this. ACNA or Anglican Mission in the Americas. We are a part of an Anglican church plant with an priest who comes from an Anglican Mission church. We're still deciding whether we will formally affiliate with AMiA or ACNA.

 

I grew up in a Bible church, and since the time I finished college, I've been pretty unsatisfied with the evangelical tradition. The Anglican church has been incredibly refreshing. I'd also recommend:

 

Evangelicals on the Canterbury Trail by Robert Webber

Ancient Future Faith by Robbert Webber

Surprised by Hope by NT Wright

[Upward Journey]

I grew up in a Bible church, and since the time I finished college, I've been pretty unsatisfied with the evangelical tradition. The Anglican church has been incredibly refreshing.

 

This has been my experience as well :)

[Carol in Cal.]

Maybe a better term for the attitude toward the Bible that you're describing, Asenik, would be Biblical literalist or Biblical fundamentalist. Those are more precise, and AFAIK, don't step on any toes. Thank you for asking. This is a further thought about the same question.

[Carol in Cal.]

Not a problem :D Please know that I understand it is difficult to "go to bat" so to speak for one's specific belief system. I really appreciate what you are sharing though.

 

I am very curious about the CL understanding of Sola Scriptura. Honestly, I am still a bit confused on the difference and wish there was a really concise "CL defines it this way, which is different from later reformed denominations because of this, that, and these." ;)

 

Simka, it's all so nuanced and paradoxical that it is hard to say it without falling down into one side or the other of the paradox. It's like Jesus being 100% God and 100% man. If you emphasize one side of that to the exclusion of the other, you fall into heresy. So. First of all, there are other Sola's that precede and are way cooler than Sola Scriptura.

 

Grace Alone--we are saved through God's grace alone, not our works or attempts or decision. He calls us and brings us to Him. He gives us faith. Which brings me to the next Sola--Faith Alone. It is our faith that marks our salvation, not anything that we do. Works of ours are, then, properly a faith-filled RESPONSE to His grace. He bestows this great gift on us, and we are free to love Him back by loving each other more and better. It's more like we are trees that got watered and grow fruit--it becomes that natural growth and response. We can avoid nurturing this, we can reject the Holy Spirit, we can even reject faith and even lose it. But God doesn't predestine us to do so. So, here is the big paradox of election. Jesus died for the sins/sinfulness of all--He made full atonement for all humanity. Furthermore, He did this out of love for us, willingly, fighting for us, His choice, not helplessly, like a sacrificial lamb and like a warrior at the same time. And, He calls us specifically and individually, elects us, if you will. And yet, He doesn't choose others to consign to ****ation, although as He is omniscient He does know who is going which way, but only because He sees all time together. That is the Biblical witness of the paradox of election, and beyond that we dare not go. No, we can't make perfect sense out of it, but it's what's in there, and really, it just makes us see better how awesome God is, like all of the great paradoxes of the Faith do.

 

Sola Scriptura means that as the Bible is the direct, inspired revelation of God's Word, it is the only rule and norm of faith and practice. That means that if something else contradicts it, the Bible trumps that other thing. However, that does not mean that we reject the ecumenical Creeds or Councils--by no means. We have continuity with church history. We accept many church practices out of a love of order, that are neither required nor mandated or even recommended in Scripture. We celebrate the church year. We are liturgical in our practices, but we don't regard the liturgy as ordained by God. We have traditions, but we don't equate them in importance or truth-bearing with the Bible. We believe that the Holy Spirit works faith through the Word of God, in all its forms, and the Means of Grace--namely, Baptism and the Lord's Supper.

 

There are arguments from a historical standpoint about viewing the Bible in this fashion, but they are easily refuted. Some say that the church gave the Bible to the world. That's really not the view of the early church fathers, though--it's read back into history largely in reaction to the Reformation. The Bible is comprised entirely of books commonly used AS SCRIPTURE in the Church for several hundred years before canonization. The choice of the books of the Bible was done largely by consensus. There were a few books that had a large but not complete consensus that ended up in the Bible--those include James and Revelation as well as some others. Their apostolic origin was never in question, but their use in churches was not as widespread as other books. Because of this, they are accepted as Scripture but not quite on par with the rest, and no doctrines of faith are drawn from them alone. The Apocrapha is viewed a little lower--useful, but not inspired. Until the last 100 years or so, Lutheran Bibles included the Apocrapha and Josephus' version of the fall of Jerusalem, not as Scripture, but as helpful additional historical information from primary sources, if you will. However, that was before my time.

 

The Lutheran Confessions include the 3 ecumenical creeds, as well as a lot of later writings--the Unaltered Augsberg Confession, Smalcald Articles, Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope, etc. We subscribe to them without condition AS a true and accurate exposition of the Word of God.

 

Hope this helps...it's a summary.

Edited November 23, 2011 by Carol in Cal.

[Carol in Cal.]

PS to the OP: Sorry for the massive thread hijack.

PS to Simka: Re. the origins of the Lutheran Church--it was not originally at all the intention to separate; in fact, that would have been unthinkable. It started as some attempts for reforms that were widely considered to be necessary. Things went beyond that and I think that it's good that they did, but like all good Lutherans I pray for Christian unity, and I consider that there is one Christian Church on earth and in heaven that has members from many denominations of the Faith.

[simka2]

Simka, it's all so nuanced and paradoxical that it is hard to say it without falling down into one side or the other of the paradox. It's like Jesus being 100% God and 100% man. If you emphasize one side of that to the exclusion of the other, you fall into heresy. So. First of all, there are other Sola's that precede and are way cooler than Sola Scriptural.

 

Grace Alone--we are saved through God's grace alone, not our works or attempts or decision. He calls us and brings us to Him. He gives us faith. Which brings me to the next Sola--Faith Alone. It is our faith that marks our salvation, not anything that we do. Works of ours are, then, properly a faith-filled RESPONSE to His grace. He bestows this great gift on us, and we are free to love Him back by loving each other more and better. It's more like we are trees that got watered and grow fruit--it becomes that natural growth and response. We can avoid nurturing this, we can reject the Holy Spirit, we can even reject faith and even lose it. But God doesn't predestine us to do so. So, here is the big paradox of election. Jesus died for the sins/sinfulness of all--He made full atonement for all humanity. Furthermore, He did this out of love for us, willingly, fighting for us, His choice, not helplessly, like a sacrificial lamb and like a warrior at the same time. And, He calls us specifically and individually, elects us, if you will. And yet, He doesn't choose others to consign to ****ation, although as He is omniscient He does know who is going which way, but only because He sees all time together. That is the Biblical witness of the paradox of election, and beyond that we dare not go. No, we can't make perfect sense out of it, but it's what's in there, and really, it just makes us see better how awesome God is, like all of the great paradoxes of the Faith do.

 

Sola Scriptura means that as the Bible is the direct, inspired revelation of God's Word, it is the only rule and norm of faith and practice. That means that if something else contradicts it, the Bible trumps that other thing. However, that does not mean that we reject the ecumenical Creeds or Councils--by no means.

How does this work in practice? The Nicene-Constantinople Creed states that "The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father." A later creed adds, "and the Son." How do you chose which creed to follow?

 

We have continuity with church history. We accept many church practices out of a love of order, that are neither required nor mandated or even recommended in Scripture. We celebrate the church year. We are liturgical in our practices, but we don't regard the liturgy as ordained by God. We have traditions, but we don't equate them in importance or truth-bearing with the Bible. We believe that the Holy Spirit works faith through the Word of God, in all its forms, and the Means of Grace--namely, Baptism and the Lord's Supper.

 

There are arguments from a historical standpoint about viewing the Bible in this fashion, but they are easily refuted. Some say that the church gave the Bible to the world. That's really not the view of the early church fathers, though--it's read back into history largely in reaction to the Reformation. The Bible is comprised entirely of books commonly used AS SCRIPTURE in the Church for several hundred years before canonization. The choice of the books of the Bible was done largely by consensus. There were a few books that had a large but not complete consensus that ended up in the Bible--those include James and Revelation as well as some others. Their apostolic origin was never in question, but their use in churches was not as widespread as other books. Because of this, they are accepted as Scripture but not quite on par with the rest, and no doctrines of faith are drawn from them alone. The Apocrapha is viewed a little lower--useful, but not inspired. Until the last 100 years or so, Lutheran Bibles included the Apocrapha and Josephus' version of the fall of Jerusalem, not as Scripture, but as helpful additional historical information from primary sources, if you will. However, that was before my time.

 

The Lutheran Confessions include the 3 ecumenical creeds, as well as a lot of later writings--the Unaltered Augsberg Confession, Smalcald Articles, Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope, etc. We subscribe to them without condition AS a true and accurate exposition of the Word of God.

 

Hope this helps...it's a summary.

I appreciate it! I asked a question up above in blue ;)

[MamaSheep]

Correct. That is why said there was variation within the diocese. Some parishes are "known" as being Anglo Catholic, others are not.

 

My mistake. I had read it as "between diocese". Apologies for the mix-up.

 

We recently had a memorial mass for my late mother-in-law at the "Anglo-Catholic" Episcopal Church I have mentioned. The Roman Catholic friends in attendance knew "right where to come in" during the service, where some Evangelical cousins were lost when it came to participating in the liturgy.

 

Yes, another thing dh has said, mostly jokingly, but the kind of jocularity built around a nugget of reality, is that Episcopalianism is "Catholic Light--all the Catholic without the guilt and no Pope on the side". (He went through all the whatchamacallit classes for converting at a Catholic church with a former girlfriend before deciding he wasn't willing to commit to the RC faith, so he felt he could make an intelligent comparison. I don't think I have enough understanding of either to formulate an intelligent opinion on the subject, but having attended services at both types of churches I can definitely see where a Catholic would find that style of Episcopal service rather familiar, whereas an Episcopalian from a parish with a more modernized, relaxed approach might not.) In all seriousness, though, he has fond memories of growing up Episcopalian and still carries an appreciation for all the things he learned there and the ways in which he feels it prepared him for the next step along the path, and he certainly recognizes the broadness of the variations among Episcopal churches and understands that not all of them are all that close to Catholicism.

 

The Episcopal Church Can have a "big tent" feel to it. Not everyone approves, even some traditionalist/conservative Episcopalians (some of whom have left) but for the most part the church is very progressive on social issues and accepting of differences on many of the "minor points," which was one of the conditions listed by the OP.

 

Bill

Very true. Again, I didn't intend to say otherwise, I just misread what you'd written earlier and just wanted to mention that my (admittedly limited) experience with the Episcopal way of doing things was that it allows for a great deal of variation at a very local level, and not just between diocese. But I see now that this was exactly the point you were making and my comments were probably extraneous. Sorry. :)

Edited November 22, 2011 by MamaSheep

[8circles]

Simka, it's all so nuanced and paradoxical that it is hard to say it without falling down into one side or the other of the paradox. It's like Jesus being 100% God and 100% man. If you emphasize one side of that to the exclusion of the other, you fall into heresy. So. First of all, there are other Sola's that precede and are way cooler than Sola Scriptural.

 

Grace Alone--we are saved through God's grace alone, not our works or attempts or decision. He calls us and brings us to Him. He gives us faith. Which brings me to the next Sola--Faith Alone. It is our faith that marks our salvation, not anything that we do. Works of ours are, then, properly a faith-filled RESPONSE to His grace. He bestows this great gift on us, and we are free to love Him back by loving each other more and better. It's more like we are trees that got watered and grow fruit--it becomes that natural growth and response. We can avoid nurturing this, we can reject the Holy Spirit, we can even reject faith and even lose it. But God doesn't predestine us to do so. So, here is the big paradox of election. Jesus died for the sins/sinfulness of all--He made full atonement for all humanity. Furthermore, He did this out of love for us, willingly, fighting for us, His choice, not helplessly, like a sacrificial lamb and like a warrior at the same time. And, He calls us specifically and individually, elects us, if you will. And yet, He doesn't choose others to consign to ****ation, although as He is omniscient He does know who is going which way, but only because He sees all time together. That is the Biblical witness of the paradox of election, and beyond that we dare not go. No, we can't make perfect sense out of it, but it's what's in there, and really, it just makes us see better how awesome God is, like all of the great paradoxes of the Faith do.

 

Sola Scriptura means that as the Bible is the direct, inspired revelation of God's Word, it is the only rule and norm of faith and practice. That means that if something else contradicts it, the Bible trumps that other thing. However, that does not mean that we reject the ecumenical Creeds or Councils--by no means. We have continuity with church history. We accept many church practices out of a love of order, that are neither required nor mandated or even recommended in Scripture. We celebrate the church year. We are liturgical in our practices, but we don't regard the liturgy as ordained by God. We have traditions, but we don't equate them in importance or truth-bearing with the Bible. We believe that the Holy Spirit works faith through the Word of God, in all its forms, and the Means of Grace--namely, Baptism and the Lord's Supper.

 

There are arguments from a historical standpoint about viewing the Bible in this fashion, but they are easily refuted. Some say that the church gave the Bible to the world. That's really not the view of the early church fathers, though--it's read back into history largely in reaction to the Reformation. The Bible is comprised entirely of books commonly used AS SCRIPTURE in the Church for several hundred years before canonization. The choice of the books of the Bible was done largely by consensus. There were a few books that had a large but not complete consensus that ended up in the Bible--those include James and Revelation as well as some others. Their apostolic origin was never in question, but their use in churches was not as widespread as other books. Because of this, they are accepted as Scripture but not quite on par with the rest, and no doctrines of faith are drawn from them alone. The Apocrapha is viewed a little lower--useful, but not inspired. Until the last 100 years or so, Lutheran Bibles included the Apocrapha and Josephus' version of the fall of Jerusalem, not as Scripture, but as helpful additional historical information from primary sources, if you will. However, that was before my time.

 

The Lutheran Confessions include the 3 ecumenical creeds, as well as a lot of later writings--the Unaltered Augsberg Confession, Smalcald Articles, Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope, etc. We subscribe to them without condition AS a true and accurate exposition of the Word of God.

 

Hope this helps...it's a summary.

 

PS to the OP: Sorry for the massive thread hijack.

PS to Simka: Re. the origins of the Lutheran Church--it was not originally at all the intention to separate; in fact, that would have been unthinkable. It started as some attempts for reforms that were widely considered to be necessary. Things went beyond that and I think that it's good that they did, but like all good Lutherans I pray for Christian unity, and I consider that there is one Christian Church on earth and in heaven that has members from many denominations of the Faith.

 

Just getting back online & read this. Carol, you have described it all beautifully. I'm not Confessional Lutheran (my denom branched off the Swedish Lutheran church as a response to the state-controlled Lutheran church at that time) but it applies to me as well. And I'm sure many other denominations are much closer to this than is often portrayed. It is certainly not a minority or fringe view.

 

Thank you Carol. :)

[imagine.more]

When I read the list of requirements my first thought was "that sounds Catholic" too. I might be biased though ;)

 

My DH would say that the ELCA (Lutheran) would also fit those categories, though it might depend on your region how liturgical and traditional you would find your local ELCA church. If you're in West Virginia or Pennsylvania come check out my DH's current church or his new church in 2 months :) You'll see ELCA Lutheran, Catholic-style, lol!

 

PS to the OP: Sorry for the massive thread hijack.

PS to Simka: Re. the origins of the Lutheran Church--it was not originally at all the intention to separate; in fact, that would have been unthinkable. It started as some attempts for reforms that were widely considered to be necessary. Things went beyond that and I think that it's good that they did, but like all good Lutherans I pray for Christian unity, and I consider that there is one Christian Church on earth and in heaven that has members from many denominations of the Faith.

 

Yes, this would absolutely be a common view for Lutherans, my DH would 100% agree. However, I will say he's been upset lately at the lack of interest in Christian unity in the ELCA, most people (especially laypeople) just don't seem to care or want unity.

 

OP, I'd be happy to point you towards either Catholic or Lutheran resources if you're wanting to look into some, my DH has tons of resources on Lutheranism from his own seminary of course and has recently begun studying Catholicism more in depth as well so he knows of good places to get info.

[Mandy in TN]

I rated 100% orthodox Quaker, 92% Islam, and 92%orthodox Judaism. So, I don't hold much faith in that test. :lol:

That is quite entertaining!

Mandy

[TracyR]

The Catholic Church. :D

:iagree: Yup. You just described the Catholic church :>)

I also like that the Catholic church is a family. I think its the last community based religion left. I'm sure there are other religions that are like that. I belonged to many Protestant faiths growing up. Most were , you were on your own. But some were slightly family based ( if you had money and were well known ). But I like the Catholic faith because its all that you just described and more.

[Whereneverever]

Carol, I apologize if I have asked you this before. As my understanding develops on who is who, I realize I knew very little about Confessional Lutherans. I am gathering that this is basically, Lutheranism straight from Luther, but before additives and losses. Kinda like raw milk? ;) (No offense intended)

 

Do confessional Lutherans believe in Predestination/election? I am not exactly sure when predestination came on the scene, although I know it was soon after the split with the RC.

 

Confessional Lutherans believe in single predestination- God chooses people for faith. We do NOT believe in double predestination, that God chooses some for Hell.

[TracyR]

I'm thinking this might be a YMMV thing. I've been Catholic for 45 years and never seen it as authoritarian. It is interesting that others think it is.

 

:iagree:I'll admit. I was baptized Catholic, attended a few Catholic schools but was mostly raised Protestant growing up . It was only last year my family completed RCIA and was accepted into the church at the Easter Vigil ( one of the most beautiful services you could ever attend, next to Midnight Mass at Christmas). But I don't think its authoritarian at all. They would like for you to participate, help, or volunteer. But your no less Catholic if you don't either. I'm happy to know that no matter where we are in the world, we are all celebrating the same thing on Sundays .

 

I know when we went through RCIA we were presented with what the Catholic church believed. Do some people struggle with it? Sure. Lots do. Even our Deacon admitted that he has his moments were he struggles to understand. But no one is made to understand. No one is told, if you don't believe this then you can't be Catholic. We as adults are taught what the church believes but are ultimately left to make our own decisions about what it is we do believe. I know sometimes I struggle with some concepts. But in the same breath look at things from a different view too now. Its not my way or the high way.

As a Catholic many believe in Old Earth theory, evolution , etc. I still don't. Its my decision and I'm not any more less Catholic today than I was when I was first recieved into the church last year. I still struggle at times with the connection with aborotion and the death penelty. Again still doesn't make me any less Catholic and we're still recieved at our church with open arms. Doesn't mean I'm not open to what the church believes about it either though.

Becoming Catholic is a journey, and I'll admit I find that those who go through RCIA tend to understand the faith more than those who are born into it. Many don't go any farther than Confirmation and many don't bother continuning on with RCIA. So you have many poorly catechized Catholics out there that don't understand their own faith.

 

But as far as being authoritarian? No. I don't find this at all with the Catholic church so I"m not sure why some feel that it is.

Edited November 22, 2011 by TracyR

[MamaSheep]

:iagree: Yup. You just described the Catholic church :>)

I also like that the Catholic church is a family. I think its the last community based religion left. I'm sure there are other religions that are like that. I belonged to many Protestant faiths growing up. Most were , you were on your own. But some were slightly family based ( if you had money and were well known ). But I like the Catholic faith because its all that you just described and more.

 

The LDS church also has a very strong feeling of community. I'm sure there are others too. I agree with you, it's a wonderful thing. :)

[Carol in Cal.]

I appreciate it! I asked a question up above in blue ;)

 

Hi Simka,

We hold with the Roman Catholic view on that. Honestly, though, my opinion is that it's one thing that we just adopted from Catholicism without a lot of thought, like the numbering of the 10 commandments. There was relatively little interaction between the Western and Eastern churches in those days, I believe. There were a couple of sort of aborted attempts at discussion between the Lutherans and the Orthodox early on--Patty Joanna sent me some very interesting links at one point about those. So I would not say that this was a big, considered, thoughtful decision but rather more of an assumption. I have never studied the issue in detail, although I am aware of it. (I'm being candid to a fault here.:))

 

Since becoming aware of the details of Orthodox Christianity in college via a dear friend who is Coptic Orthodox, I have sort of developed the personal opinion that if Luther had been closer to the Orthodox, he probably would have become one. The Orthodox faith is very similar to a version of Catholicism that early attempts at reformation would have landed on. However, I can't honestly say that I view things the way that the Orthodox do, or else I would have switched. But if I were anything else, that's probably what I would be.

Regards, Carol in Cal.

[Carol in Cal.]

Confessional Lutherans believe in single predestination- God chooses people for faith. We do NOT believe in double predestination, that God chooses some for Hell.

 

Excellent summary. I totally agree.

[Carol in Cal.]

Just getting back online & read this. Carol, you have described it all beautifully. I'm not Confessional Lutheran (my denom branched off the Swedish Lutheran church as a response to the state-controlled Lutheran church at that time) but it applies to me as well. And I'm sure many other denominations are much closer to this than is often portrayed. It is certainly not a minority or fringe view.

 

Thank you Carol. :)

 

Momoflaw, I have often noticed how similar we are. It's a pleasure to 'know' you. Thank you, Carol

[simka2]

Hi Simka,

We hold with the Roman Catholic view on that. Honestly, though, my opinion is that it's one thing that we just adopted from Catholicism without a lot of thought, like the numbering of the 10 commandments. There was relatively little interaction between the Western and Eastern churches in those days, I believe. There were a couple of sort of aborted attempts at discussion between the Lutherans and the Orthodox early on--Patty Joanna sent me some very interesting links at one point about those. So I would not say that this was a big, considered, thoughtful decision but rather more of an assumption. I have never studied the issue in detail, although I am aware of it. (I'm being candid to a fault here.:))

 

Since becoming aware of the details of Orthodox Christianity in college via a dear friend who is Coptic Orthodox, I have sort of developed the personal opinion that if Luther had been closer to the Orthodox, he probably would have become one. The Orthodox faith is very similar to a version of Catholicism that early attempts at reformation would have landed on. However, I can't honestly say that I view things the way that the Orthodox do, or else I would have switched. But if I were anything else, that's probably what I would be.

Regards, Carol in Cal.

Makes perfect sense and I share those thoughts about Luther. Sometimes it is like I am standing just outside the line of CL and Anglican/Episcopal beliefs, slightly more on the side of EO. In many ways we are very close and I appreciate knowing that I have a variety of "friends" out there. :D

[shinyhappypeople]

I'm sorry but I believe you are mistaken. The Anglican Church in North America is not part of the Anglican Communion, and is very (extremely) conservative.

 

They are in communion with churches in Uganda and Nigeria that hold very conservative positions.

 

Bill

 

I got this off the web site of the only Anglican church in town:

 

"We are a parish in the Diocese of ______ and a member of the Anglican Church in North America and a member of the worldwide Anglican Communion, which includes both Catholic and Protestant traditions."

 

I don't totally understand what the Anglican Communion is, but from reading this it sounds like it's possible to be part of both ACNA and the Anglican Communion. FWIW.

[Bluegoat]

Orthodox, Catholic, Episcopalians, some Lutherans. IOW, the "older" churches, tend to meet your requirements. :grouphug:

 

THis is what I was going to say. You'd have to be careful of the Episcopalians as they vary quite widely. I doubt any would be too hard-core, but some might be way too liberal, depending on the OPs preferences.

[Bluegoat]

I got this off the web site of the only Anglican church in town:

 

"We are a parish in the Diocese of ______ and a member of the Anglican Church in North America and a member of the worldwide Anglican Communion, which includes both Catholic and Protestant traditions."

 

I don't totally understand what the Anglican Communion is, but from reading this it sounds like it's possible to be part of both ACNA and the Anglican Communion. FWIW.

 

This is a confusing point for those who are not familiar with Anglican politics, but no, ACNA is not really part of the Communion at this time.

 

In Anglicanism, different areas are governed by bishops, and bishops in different regions are grouped together in national churches, which govern themselves. All these national churches recognize the holy orders of the others and recognize them as Anglican, and they also all recognize the Archbishop of Canterbury as the senior bishop of the Communion, and are recognized by him.

 

An important point though is that normally, you can only have one bishop in a given area. Another bishop cannot come and set up shop where there is already a bishop, because that would be a schism. We are meant to be one Church. (That's how we know we are in schism with the Catholics and Orthodox - they have their own bishops.)

 

In the US, this is what the ACNA has done - they have set up their own bishops because they no longer want to be in communion with the Episcopals. That is to say, at this time, the Episcopal Church in the US is in a state of schism that really hasn't been resolved, but the main body and governing structure still exists and has not been deposed.

 

This is confused though because worldwide, some of the other Anglican bishops are in impaired communion with the Episcopals, and do recognize ACNA instead. But, this isn't universal, and as well, the ACNA is not recognized by the Archbishop of Canterbury.

 

So, they are really being disingenuous in saying they are part of the Communion. They are in communion with some Anglican bodies, they are not part of the Anglican Communion. I say that having a lot of sympathy for their situation.

 

It is entirely possible that at some point the Episcopal Church will no longer be in communion with Canterbury or the rest of the Communion, and at that point it will become necessary for some other body to be the American representative of the Communion. I know many in ACNA hope that they will be able to fulfill that role.

[Avila]

Maybe a better term for the attitude toward the Bible that you're describing, Asenik, would be Biblical literalist or Biblical fundamentalist. Those are more precise, and AFAIK, don't step on any toes. Thank you for asking. This is a further thought about the same question.

 

Thanks for your further explanations. I always appreciate learning something new.

[Bluegoat]

How does this work in practice? The Nicene-Constantinople Creed states that "The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father." A later creed adds, "and the Son." How do you chose which creed to follow?

 

I know you didn't ask me this, but I thought I might be able to give a perspective. It isn't a matter of choosing one or the other. The correct teaching in either case is that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, through the Son - there is only one primary source of the procession. In Latin, "and the Son" does not imply procession from two origins as it tends to in some languages. At one time (6th century) is was used in a local situation and thought to be helpful in combating a particular local outbreak of the Arian heresy, though its later use was more of a political issue.