Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Ecclesiology' started by Ryan&Amber2013, Aug 29, 2017.
We all will on that Day.
A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; (KJV)
A Bishop therefore must be unreproveable, the husband of one wife, watching, temperate, modest, harborous, apt to teach, (Geneva)
Now a bishop must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, sensible, dignified, hospitable, an apt teacher, (RSV)
A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach; (NKJV)
To pick just one verse. It was the commonly used term before modern translations started appealing more to the evangelicals. So did the language change, or the market?
Don't forget George Whitefield, John Newton, and Thomas Scott!
In Acts 1:20 we have both the office of bishop referred to, and apostolic succession taught. "For it is written in the Psalms, "Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell there in: and his bishoprick let another man take." The standard Presbyterian argument, as I understand it, is that bishop refers to the office, presbyter refers to the man filling the office.
Mr. Yeutter, could you please demonstrate to us why you believe the Anglican definitions of bishop and bishoprick to be the scriptural definitions?
Thank you. So do we as Presbyterians see bishop and elder as being completely synonymous? I wonder why the Bible uses different terms.
Note Paul's treatment of the terms as synonyms (Titus 1:5-7):
Why did he intentionally use two different words?
Won't we all.
Greetings Wyatt; I am not sure I can make a compelling argument from the Bible for either a Presbyterian two office view, or a Presbyterian three office view, or an Episcopal three office view of the question.
The one thing I will say in defense of the episcopal three office position is that was the near universally held position of the Church for a large part of its history.
I heard a sermon on Titus 1 in an evangelical Anglican church recently (not my own, but one in another part of Belfast) where the preacher said that bishop and elder were synonymous terms.
I don't mean to contradict Thomas (he knows Anglicanism better than I do), but I'm almost sure I remember having read that, traditionally, Anglicans have not taught that Episcopalianism is taught in Scripture. That is to say, they teach that the Bible only gives broad directives for polity, and that Episcopalianism is an appropriate application of those principles.
In the CofI, that generally seems to be the case. Some Irish Anglicans that I know of are actually Presbyterians, but do not believe that an error in church government is a reason for separation.
I listened to a church history lecture from a CoE presbyter (or priest as they translate it) recently where he not only admitted that Paul seemed to use bishop and elder synonymously, but others in the earliest centuries of the church did as well. He seemed to imply the Bible only gave basic principles for church government and then we have to develop on top of that, guided by practice in church history. This is very different from how most Presbyterians (and certainly classical Presbyterians) look at church government.
This will be my last response to this thread. I appreciate the indulgence of the moderators; but this is after all Puritan Board. What we are discussing here is a little far afield from the purpose of this forum. Send me a personal missive if you have further questions of me about Anglicanism.
I only speak for a small segment of Anglicanism. that continues Anglicanism as established. The Anglican Church of Nigeria is the largest Anglican national Church in the world. She is reformed. The Anglican Archdiocese of Sydney is conservative. She is generally reformed and has her own fine theological school that is generally reformed. www.moore.edu.au
Tyler is correct. Many Anglicans would say the Episcopal polity as we have it grew out of the Churches experience. The Bible tells us that their are bishops, presbyters, and deacons. The Bible does not tell us in detail how they are to relate to each other as they serve the Church body. Anglicans would generally hold that Church history provides us with a template, but not detailed blueprints, telling us how the Church is to be structured.
Anglicanism, as a whole, is very divided. As previously mentioned the Archbishop of Canterbury, and the Archbishop of York are apostate as evidenced by their attitude toward homosexuals and their appointments of liberals to key positions in the administrative hierarchy. The Church of England, the Anglican Church of Canada, and the Episcopal Church are apostate and dominated by liberals. In Ulster the Church of Ireland is largely orthodox; but in the Republic of Ireland the reformed element are a minority. Of course orthodox remnants remain in these bodies; but they are increasingly marginalized.
In many places in the world Anglican churches have fallen into sacerdotal teaching and practice. In many other places in the world, like the Diocese of Singapore, Pentecostalism has so infected Anglicanism; that worship according to the Book of Common Prayer has been largely supplanted.
In the United States:
1. The Reformed Episcopal Church broke with the Episcopal Church over Tractarianism in the late 1800s. In recent years the Reformed Episcopal Church has moved in the direction of neo-tractarianism.
2. In the 1960s the Anglican Orthodox Church, and the Southern Episcopal Church broke with the Episcopal Church over liberalism, racial integration, ecumenicalism, and the Episcopal Churches failure to discipline Bishop James Albert Pike. Schisms have occurred in these bodies.
3. In the 1977 a significant schism occurred in the Episcopal Church over the adoption of a new Book of Common Prayer and the ordination of women. One element of this group eventually apostatized to Rome. The remaining groups formed three groups, the Anglican Catholic Church, the Anglican Province of Christ the King, and the United Episcopal Church. Many schisms have occurred in these groups since then. The United Episcopal Church is in general a body that still subscribes to the Thirty-nine Articles.
4. In 2009 a significant schism occurred in the Episcopal Church over the consecration of a homosexual bishop. The new group, the Anglican Church of North America [ACNA], is the largest continuing Anglican body in North America. She is recognized by, and in full fellowship with, the conservative national Anglican Churches like the Anglican Church of Nigeria, the Anglican Church of Southeast Asia, and the Archdiocese of Sydney; but not the Archdiocese of Canterbury or of York.
Some, a minority, of ACNA dioceses are generally in line with the Thirty-nine Articles and practice Anglicanism as established. Most ACNA diocese are open to Pentecostalism and or Anglo-Catholicism. Some, a minority, of ACNA dioceses ordain women.
Anglicanism as set forth in the Thirty-nine Articles is a minority position even among those in the continuing Anglican Churches in the United States.
Bancroft was still a minority and raised a furor by suggesting Episcopacy by divine right in the I think early 1590s; it wasn't until James that the imperious high church types began unabashedly arguing divine right episcopacy, with a sermon by Downame being one of the first in 1608. Interestingly Downame was an ex Presbyterian; so I guess he decided to bring the strength of a jus divinum argument with him. It certainly served the designs of the monarchy.
I think that the biblical definition of overseer/bishop/elder/pastor are all pretty much speaking to the same office, as there does not appear to be any organized hierarchy with bishops over pastors, as that came later on in church history.
The offices of the Bishop/Elder/Overseer in the Bible were pretty much all the same at that time, and the organized differences were not instituted until later on in church history.
One of my best friends is currently studying at Moore. Also, the college's principal, Dr Mark Thompson, gave the below lecture at my church back in March.
It seems that the majority of the Anglican church has bought into liberalism viewpoints as to what the scriptures teach concerning God, Mankind, sexual lifestyles, but there are still faithful remnant groups within its church.
Yes, that is basically correct. In the CofI, the good guys are really good but the bad ones are really bad.
If the definition of Anglican church includes Africa, then I don't think the majority has bought into it. Quite the opposite. If you are talking about America and the British Isles, then probably.
The office of episkopos isn't necessarily problematic if you see it as an overseer or superintendent. In fact, no matter your polity, superintendcy is often inevitable.
Episkopos is problematic when you have a transmission of grace.
Yes, as in the so called Apostolic Succession of the church of Rome.
Good point, as I should have put down was think mainly of their church here in America.
I think the very opposite. There were many episcopalian Puritans and the history of all Puritanism is inextricably bound up in the Church of England.
So, overall, in it's hayday it was a biblical and solid denomination, but in latter times it has faded from its glory?
It was always a mixed bag, really. Consider that they had Richard Sibbes and William Laud serving at the same time.
mixed bag or the term always used since puritan times, "half reformed." Nowadays when much of modern conservative 'Presbyterianism' isn't even half reformed, the distinction sort of loses all meaning.