>Quite the contrary. If this marriage between Anglo Catholics and
Evangelical Calvinists is to work (which many of us have always had for
good reason our doubts) this means that we have to make it clear where we
stand ,what we can abide and what we cannot allow. I would suggest the
following three points that cause the greatest concern and from in a real
sense all of the subsequent difficulties arise:

                 1. The problem of individual intepretation of the sacred
texts.

                 2. Sola Scriptura. Not without reason did some of the
earlier reformers jettison some of the man made
traditions of medieval Rome, but instead of making the
vital distinction between man made/human tradition and
Apostolic Tradition they eventually rejected all
tradition as having any validity. They failed to abide by
trhe NT teaching itself that we must hold fast in an
authentic way to both recorded and unrecorded tradition.

                    I was recently shown an interesting translation of the
Bible (The New International Version-of which I knew
nothing remaining with the AV, the Rheims Douay and
the original New Jerusalem translations). This NIV
(sans Apocrypha of course). When the translators like
a tradition they translate the word tradition as
teachjings. When they do not they remain with the word
traditions. A classic example you would agree of
twisting the text for ones own agenda.

                  3. Sola Gratia. The Church teaches us that wer are saved
by Divine Grace but WITH the co-operation of the human
will (free agency if you will). Indeed the Epistle of St
James says that we are NOT saved (or being saved would
be better) by 'faith alone'.

                  The Emperor Charles V said of Luther (and by intimation
others) the following:

                         "" One monk, led astray by private judgment has  
                                                 
                                                 
                          himself against the
Faith held by all Christians for 1000 yrs and
more 1000 and impudently concludes that all
Christians up                       untill now
have erred. ""


                            Blessings. GDVW+
(As for the St Louis Affirmation-that is not dogmatical or binding anyone.
Why they found it necessary to create it has never been made clear. Its a
bit like the utterings of GAFCON. Lex Orendi Lex Credendi and the Lambeth
Quadrilateral are enought to start with.)




 I have tried personally, on several occasions to stress commonality, as
> have others.
>
>   Every time we do sot we get a blast of bombastic denunciations in the
> most uncharitable, mean spirited and condescending terms aimed at anyone
> who is not a full blown Anglo-Catholic.
>
>   And when we respond to the demeaning name calling and even the rejection
> by some of St. Paul's teaching and that of St. Augustine, a "Doctor of
> the Western Church", WE are told by certain individuals that WE are
> getting personal. So forgive us if we can't figure out what you guys
> really want except to beat up on Evangelicals.
>
>
>    Jim Payne+
>
> JADAGENCY@... wrote:
>       We must also be aware of the Apostolic Lines through Bp. Laud and
> all.  Driving one of to Rome is no answer.
>
>   The articles are not the church.  .
>
>
>    No Articles, no Anglican Church. This happens to be nonfactual.
>
>
>   As I state...what articles?  Pre or post reformation?  These arguments
> are like a dog chasing their tail.
>   Maybe Anglicans can discuss what they do have in common.   That would be
> a start.
>
>   JAD+
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
>   Get the scoop on last night's hottest shows and the live music scene in
> your area - Check out TourTracker.com!
>
>
> --  To unsubscribe, send ANY message to:
> faithandlife-unsubscribe@...
>
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, send ANY message to:
> faithandlife-unsubscribe@...
>