________________________________________
From: John T. Jeffery [mailto:johntjeff@...]
Sent: Wednesday, 21 February 2007 9:38 AM
To: soundofgrace@...
Subject: [soundofgrace] Re: Anglican Church - Jack to Jeff Scanlan
Jeff:
I wrote:
Let's understand something right off. Anglican is nothing more or less than
Anglo-Catholic.
You responded:
Well that is simply not true. Were you to say that in the Sydney Diocese you
would most certainly have an argument on your hands and an argument that you
would probably lose hands down.
Historically there is so much more to Anglicanism than a technical and
organizational break with Rome.
[Jack states]
I am sure there is, but not enough to keep them very far apart at this
historical juncture. They seem to be much closer than at any time since the
English Reformation, and moving closer all the time.
[Jeff replies]
I assure you that that is not the way it is here in Australia right now, the
news report in the Brisbane Courier-Mail notwithstanding. Hey..it aint gonna
happen!!
Once and for all the Episcopalian Church in the USA is not typical of
Anglicanism as far as I can see.
[Jack again]
And, oh, by the way, you haven't seen me in action in a theological debate
yet, so don't be too sure about the money being on the Sydneyites! :-)
[Jeff replies]
Well maybe but you will need something better than mere assertions that they
are close to Roman Catholicism. And the Jensens of Sydney are rather clever
guys.
I suggest you save your debating skills for the likes of Richard Dawkins,
Peter Akins, and the like.
[Jack again]
You then continued in your response:
Well that is all fine but it seems you are doing the very thing that you
purport not to do, viz. to tell Christians in the Anglican denomination what
to do. Without the Sydney Anglicans Christianity in this country would
probably be even more parlous than it is.
Jeff, correct me if I am wrong, but I believe it was you who asked me to
"indicate what the Anglican Church should do." Don't you think it is just a
little devious to do so, and then to point a finger at me when I respond to
the invitation?
[Jeff replies]
Yes well I thought it rather strange that you would say the one thing and
then go on and do the other. But never mind! I am not sure that we need to
pursue that.
[Jack again]
And I notice that you did not yet respond to the content in the main areas
of my post. I speak specifically concerning the Scriptures I presented, and
the questions I asked. My point is that I did not tell them what to do, God
did. I presented questions that I would want answers to if I were in their
place. Presenting folks with the Scriptures, and with questions based on
them hardly seems to warrant the characterization of telling them "what to
do". I would hope that you would see a difference between quoting
Scripture, and preaching God's Word to men, and someone merely telling them
"what to do."
[Jeff replies]
What are you trying to do, Jack? Dazzle me and everyone else with science?
(Theology used to be called the Queen of the Sciences!)
Apart from sitting there and going through all your quotes and references,
which is probably going to take me several hours, I am not sure what I could
do.
The real question here must sure be how we relate to those we disagree with
as well as those we are surely believe are apostate. I am not sure that I
can give you a clear-cut answer as to what to do on all occasions, which is
why I raised the question of Obadiah.
If you really want to press the issue of 'Come ye out and be ye separate'
where do I draw the line? I could easily become like an Exclusive Brethren
and refuse to eat lunch at the same staffroom as everyone else.
Right now I would really consider the Baptists in my state so far removed
from the truth that I feel often that I should move across to another
denomination. But then I would have to adopt CT which I have grave doubts
about.
[Jack again]
The final portion of your response was as follows:
And remember the OT also has Obadiah who served faithfully in Ahab’s court.
I hope that this is not news to you, but the Anglican "church" is not
Israel, and these folks within it are not Obadiah. Would you apply the same
reasoning to someone within the Romanist "church"?
[Jeff replies]
Yes. Maybe!
[Jack again]
Obadiah was born a Jew, born into the nation of Israel, and he would be
part of it whether he was part of Ahab's court or not. That is not true of
anyone within the Anglican "church". Nothing is stopping them from obeying
God's command to "come out from among them, and be ye separate", for
example, but their ecclesiology, and their failure to date to see how their
relationship with that denomination violates Scripture. They may be
Anglicans today, but they do not have to be tomorrow. That was not the case
with Obadiah's relationship to Israel.
[Jeff replies]
I don't think you have made your point at all. Obadiah could have gone and
bought a vineyard or something, as long as it was not too near to the king's
palace!! I doubt that he was conscripted into palace service. He honoured
the Lord where he was. He was at his post when the inspection came as C.S.
Lewis says... another Anglican!
[Jack finally]
At the end of the day, their response to the Scriptures I presented, and the
questions I asked are going to be the issue, and not a "defense" of
Anglicanism as they wish it was. These issues go back at least 30 years, and
have done nothing but worsen in the meantime. Some men had eyes to see it
back then, and others didn't. Some still don't.
[Jeff finally]
Hey these arguments go back beyond thirty years. They were talked about back
in the fifties and sixties in my memory and probably longer.
But, wow, Jack, you must really be sure of yourself. Are you ready to come
over here and tell the Sydneysiders to come out and be separate?
God bless,
Jeff
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.441 / Virus Database: 268.18.3/694 - Release Date: 20/02/2007
1:44 PM